I was in a band like that once.
Check. Good evening. I'd like to open the Tuesday August
11th City Council meeting. In a few minutes we'll hear
our National Anthropo formed by Isabella Jankowski, but first I'll
turn it to Councillor Asino for our land acknowledgement. Please,
Stan, if you're able. We acknowledge we have the privilege
to live and work on the traditional lands of the
Anishinabe peoples of Fort William First Nation Signatory to the
Robinson Superior Treaty of 1850. This land has been a
place of gathering, learning and sustenance for indigenous people since
time in Memorial. We recognise the enduring presence and deep
traditional knowledge of First Nations inuit and may tea peoples
and the ways that they have shaped and continue to
shape our community. We acknowledge the effects of colonization, including
displacement, loss of culture and intergenerational trauma. And we commit
ourselves to Reconciliation through respectful Relationships, Truth Telling, and shared
action for a better future. Let us pause and reflect.
Welcome, Isabel Jankowski to the front.
Thank you, and please be seated. Deputy Kirk Walters, what's
our next order of business? Speaker, before we proceed, I
just want to again want to apologise for the technical
issues that we've had this evening. We're going to do
our best to have presentations showing on the screen this
evening. But again, apologies to those watching at home, they
may not be able to see the presentations as they
normally would. They'd have to view them a bit more
in the background. So once again, apologies on my behalf.
The net sum on the agenda, are there any distorters
of interest. I'm seeing none. Next, please. Are there any
announcements. Again, we have none. Next question. We do actually
have one from Apton City Manager. Acting City Manager, Martian,
please, sorry. Thank you, Speaker. After nearly 16 years of
dedicated Public Service, today is our City Solicitor, Patty Robinette's
Final City Council Meeting. Solicitor Robinette joined the City in
late summer 2010 as the Deputy City Solicitor and went
on to become the City Solicitor in October 2017. Some
of her greatest accompliments accomplishments are things none of us
will ever fully know about because careers and municipal law
are not measured by headlines, but by integrity, sound judgment,
and steady leadership. As a trusted advisor to successive councils,
mayors solicitor Robinette protected the City's interest while respecting Democratic
decision - making, helped navigate legal risks before they became
legal problems and provided candid advice even when it wasn't
the easiest advice to hear. Her guidance has been woven
through many of the city's most significant moments, including significant
legislative changes, major development projects, and emergencies like the COVID
- 19 pandemic. As a highly respected colleague she mentored
staff, built strong relationships, both internally and externally, and has
some of her and has been someone her peers could
consistently rely on. Solicitor Robinette on behalf of Administration, thank
you for your service. We will miss you greatly. Your
influence will continue long after today. You've helped this organisation
become stronger. You've made the people who work here better
at what they do, and we wish you every success
in your career and hope that you look back on
your time with the City with as much pride. And
as we have gratitude for your service. Thank you.
Very good. Listen to Robin Eterstand. You have a few
words to add? I do, and I'll try to keep
it short. I know we have a long night ahead
of us. Mayor members of Council. Tonight, I'm not only
saying goodbye to the City, but to the practice of
law together, after almost 22 years of practicing law, it
is bittersweet in both respects. In the past 16 years,
as a city of solicitor for the City of Thunder
Bay, I have had the privilege to learn from and
work alongside some of the smartest. Most dedicated individuals who
work tirelessly for the Public Good in this organisation. Serving
in the Public Sector is a profound honour, and I
am deeply grateful for the opportunity to make a meaningful
difference alongside you, City Council. The Executive Leadership team, the
senior leadership team, and all of City Administration. My days
of trying to solve all our biggest problems may be
over, but I remain terribly proud of the work I've
been able to accomplish here alongside you. And most importantly,
the legacy I leave behind, my team at Legal Services,
who I often refer to affectionately as the Wolfpack. Each
embodies a strong commitment to ethics, the rule of law
and speaking truth to power. Even in the face of
misunderstanding, misinterpretation, perhaps even pressure. They hold strong to this
commitment. In today's world, this role has become increasingly challenging
for lawyers where people desire sometimes and overabundance of information,
but not necessarily the corresponding truth, facts, or signs behind
that information. I know that they will continue to uphold
these values in their daily practice, continuing to work hard
behind the scenes. For this organisation, the Public, and yes,
the Public Purse, as well as that greater, more nebulous
concept, we lawyers refer to as the administration of justice.
I hope to take these lessons with me as I
pursue the academy of law while teaching the upcoming Generation
of Lawyers in this next chapter of my life, my
career. And I thank you all. Thank you. Thank you,
and we also have a few comments from Mayor Boschkoff.
Mirror Boschkov, please. Thank you very much. The Council Not
Very often comes to unanimous decisions. But on this, there's
something that we all agree, that you were certainly one
of the best advisors and solicitors that we've come to
know over our time on Council. And for that, on
behalf of all the citizens and the administrative team, we
thank you so much and wish you all the best
in your future endeavours. Congratulations, and truly, uh, we're very
proud of what you've done for the City, and we're
all glad to know you. Thank you so much. Thank
you, Mayor Boschkoff. Deputy Kirk Walter is what's next on
our agenda? Peter Johnson, the next name is The Confirmation
of the Agenda. We need to move her in a
seconder. Seeing Councillor Ayello. Councillor Cotuga. I'd be called the
role. Mayor Bolschoff. Yes. In favor. Councillor Ello. In favor.
Councillor Bence. In favor. Councillor Trini. In favor? Councillor Folds.
In favor. Councillor Cortuga? Yes. Councillor Hamilton? In favor. Speaker
Johnson. In favor. Councillor Oliver. In favor. Councillor Pastorino. In
favor. Councillor Cecino. In favor. That is passed. And next,
please. Deputy Speeder, the United Statem on the Agenda is
the Public Median Procedures. This is a Public Meeting Tonight,
structured in accordance with the planner not to RSO -
1990 as amended, which requires a Public Mean to be
held prior to Council Passage of certain Planning members matters,
rather, such as official plans, zoning bylaws, or amendments to
them. If they specified person or public body does not
make oral submissions at a Public Median or written submissions
to the City of Thunder Bay before the bylaw is
passed, they are not entitled to appeal the decision to
the City of Thunder Bay to the Ontario and Tribunal
or OLT. They may not be added as a party
to the hearing of an appeal before the OLT, unless
the tribunal deems, are reasonable grounds. City Council functions under
Procedure Biola 217 - 2025, which includes procedures for electronic
meetings. This information is available from the Office of the
City Torque, and has posted on the City's website in
accordance with the Notice Bywlaw. With that, we will go
to the official Plan Amendments. Item 5. 2 on your
agenda this evening, the Zoning Bywall Amendment and Consent for
Privates and Easements on Rendall Street. There's a number of
items associated with this and the Entre Confidential Memorandum, from
Director Deputer. Report 324 - 2026 Growth Development Services, which
provides a recommendation relative to a site - specific official
plan and zoning Bylaw Amendment. There are a number of
deputations as well this evening, but we will start off
the evening with Open in Commons from Director Deputer. Director
Deputer, please. Thank you, Speaker. At tonight's Public Meeting Council
will consider two planning applications related to City - owned
properties identified for housing development through the call for Proposal
Process. At meetings open to the Public Council declared these
Land surplus and direct administration to enter into Purchase and
Sale Agreements. In considering these applications tonight, Council is acting
in its capacity as the Municipality Statutory Planning Authority and
must base its decision on sound planning principles and applicable
planning policies. The existence of agreements to purchase in sale
should not influence Council's decision on planning matters. Speaker of
the First Report recommends approval of a site - specific
official Plan Amendment Zoning By Law Amendment and consent application
to facilitate the development of two seven - story apartment
buildings containing a total of approximately 360 homes at 791
Arundel Street. Each building includes six stories of residential units,
uh, and one level of structure indoor parking at grade
with an additional underground level of parking. The applications have
proceeded through an expanded public consultation process and are supported
by servicing and transportation, environmental and other technical studies. Preliminary
studies conclude that the development can be accommodated by existing
municipal servicing and transportation infrastructure. Planning Services carefully review the
Public Comments received together with supporting technical information. Detailed site
design matters will continue to be addressed as the Site
Plan Control Process and Development Agreement Processure Council Prove this
Application. Planning Services is satisfied the proposal is consistent with
provincial policy planning policy and maintains the tent of the
City's official plan and zoning bylaw. The proposed development also
aligns with the SMART growth action Plan by increasing housing
housing supply and supporting sustainable growth on existing infrastructure. Subject
to the conditions outlined in the report approval of the
application is recommended, and I would now like to invite
Supervisor Lopes to provide an overview of the application through
presentation. Thank you, and we'll turn it to Supervisor Lopes.
Speaker on base. Yeah, thank you. I just want to
confirm on the technical side, given that this is an
item of Public Interest that we're going to at least
be able to have the cameras. We'll be able to
see the presentation. I just want to kind of confirm
that through you speaker. We're going to be doing our
best to show what's on the screen, but I can't
guarantee the level of equality that we would usually be
broadcasting in, but we're doing our best to get the
images there. And thank you for that. So Speaker, I
would just, you know, I'm looking for the best possible
quality of the presentation, given the Public interest. Best that
we can do if we can work with our technical
team to make sure that we have the best. Given
that we have some issues. Thank you, Cancerton. Uh, Planner
Lopes, please. Thank you. Thank you. Good
evening, Mayor Speaker, members of Council and the Public. This
presentation outlines a proposal plan and Zoning Biomelman Application and
Consent for Private Easements for the Property Municipally known as
791er Rendell Street. If approved, these amendments will allow for
the development of two new residential apartment buildings. I will
provide an overview of the proposal. Policy alignment, Community Consultation,
and staff recommendation. Next slide, please. The subject lands are
approximately 3. 2 hectares in area. And located east of
the Arundel and Toledo Street Intersection with a frontage of
approximately 155 metres on a Rundell Street. The Property is
undeveloped and partially cleared with some mixed tree types remaining
and contains a public trail system connected to the area's
broader system. In terms of surrounding land uses, to the
north or medium density residential building zoned urban med rise
to the west is the boulevard Lake Complex. Further east.
To correct to the east is the boulevard Lake Complex.
Further east, our natural woodlands and Public Trails also zoned
community zone. To the south, our provincially owned lands containing
a former hospital and a trail network under a special
policy area that is zoned future development. And to the
west, the Arius characterized by low density residential development within
the urban Lori Zone. Next slide, please. The subject lands
our designated community and the official plan and are located
within the urban sedimentary. The community designation contains land for
parks, recreation, cultural facilities, open spaces, and other community serving
uses while promoting accessibility public benefit and connection to surrounding
neighbourhoods. The Community Designation also supports trail networks walking in
cycling connections. Green Ways and Integrated Neighbourhood Design. The Proposed
Development Alliance with the General Objectives of the Residential Policies
by providing a broader range of housing options supports efficient
use of existing infrastructure and community services and directs residential
growth to an established residential area that serves to enhance
the amenities such as the Public Recreation Trails potentially increasing
usership. The change in designation to residential represents a natural
expansion of the current residential designation directly at JACE into
the North and to the West. Next slide, please. The
applicant is proposing to rezone the lands from Community to
UM Urban Mid - Rise Zone. The purpose of the
Mid - Rhizone is to encourage urban - scale housing
by permitting a variety of multiple unit residential forms, including
apartment buildings. The applicants seeks to amend the definition of
law to allow for each building to be located on
its own parcel and another mammoth to allow the first
building to be constructed at the rear portion first. This
facilitate the cross - sharing of the two parcels for
access and service same by private easements. Hence, the consent
application is being sought. The proposal meets all other requirements
of the UM Zone. Next slide, please. This rendering illustrates
how the requested amendments and consent would allow for the
construction of two new 7 - story apartment buildings with
a total of approximately 360 residential units contained within six
stories in each building. One above ground and one below
ground parking levels are contemplated for each building to reduce
the amount of surface parking and to allow for more
landscaping and amenity areas on the site. Connections to the
existing trail system will be a realigned for the continued
public access to the trail system within and outside the
property. The proposed development complies with the UM Zone requirements
and no further changes are proposed. Next slide, please. The
statutory Public Consultation Process included the circulation of the notice
of application on July 3rd and an updated notice hand
delivered on July 10th, which provided an updated preliminary site
sketch. A Public Information Session by the applicant was held
on July 20th, provided residents with opportunities to review and
comment on the proposal. That information session had approximately 140
attendees and a developer's consultants collected 48 written common forms
during that engagement process and share them with City staff.
The Public Media Notice also for the Public with additional
opportunity for review and submission of comments. As of July
24, Six Comets have been received from agencies and 44
comments received from the Public. All comments receive were provided
to the applicant and to members of Council on July
31st. 2026 in a Common Summary. Additional comments received a
date were also provided ahead of tonight's Public Meeting. Next
slide, please. Comments generally focused on key themes. Transportation and
parking. Neighbourhood compatibility, residential amenity impacts, environmental considerations. Loss at
Green Space, infrastructure capacity and safety. And lack of need
for the development. Public feedback helped inform the review of
the application and ongoing discussions between city staff and the
applicant. Aspects of the proposal were refined in response to
concerns raised by residents, which included the reduction of service
parking. Increased setbacks towards the east. Orientation of the buildings
and an 11 metre strip routine by the City between
the lands and the existing neighbourhood. Next slide, please. Initial
studies included stage 1 and stage 2 archaeological assessments and
a scoped environmental impact study, which included species at risk
and black - ash assessments. To support the applications, the
applicants submitted a traffic impact study and preliminary civil site
servants the assessment along with updated plans and supporting documentation.
Thesetudies were reviewed by relative city departments. Traffic was a
key concern raised by residents, and the traffic impact study
concluded that the proposed development can be accommodated within the
existing and planned transportation network without significant operational or safety
impacts. A final traffic impact study will be required through
the Site Plan Control Process once additional development details are
finalised. The site is also served by transit on Arundel
and has access to nearby MENADEs and TRL connections. Staff
evaluate the proposed on the course of the Criteria, including
provincial policy, the official plan, and the proposed UM Zone
Regulations. Particular consideration was given to transportation impacts, compatibility with
surrounding land uses, housing objectives, and proximity to transit and
active transportation infrastructure. Based on this review, staff concluded that
proposal represents an efficient form of development that supports the
cities intensification objectives while remaining compatible with the surrounding area.
Next slide, please. Administration supports a proposed amendments and recommends
approval for the falling reasons. The proposal is consistent with
the provincial planning statement. Conforms to the growth plan for
Northern Ontario, aligns with the official plan and meets a
general intent of purpose of the Zoning Bylaw. The proposal
represents a positive contribution to the City's growth and economic
Development Objectives by expanding the residential LAN supply and providing
enhanced residential opportunities for surrounding neighbourhoods and the broader community.
This concludes a presentation. Thank you. Thank you. And at
this time I'll invite the applicant to come forward. And
Mr. Brazuto, can you introduce yourself again. And I'm quite
sure you know how the mic works. You have 10
minutes. Yeah, and we just have a couple of people
online should be popping on. I'll start when you start.
There we go. Good evening, Council. My name is Tyler
Rizzuto and I'm the Project Manager with Stantech Consulting. Joining
me online this evening is Sharon. She is a urban
planner with Stantec. And Arash, who is the senior associate
and Transportation Planning Lead with Static. We're here on behalf
of the applicant Terlox General Contractors Development Limited to present
the proposed development at 791 Arundle. The purpose of tonight's
presentation is to provide an overview of the proposed development,
discuss the planning framework that supports the application. Summarize a
technical studies that have been completed and explain how the
proposal has evolved in response to Community and Stakeholder feedback.
Next slide. This proposal is for the Development of two
apartment buildings under 20 metres in height. Uh, each building
will contain 65 one - bedroom units, 100, two bedroom
units, and 15 three bedroom units for a total of
180 units, uh, per building. Uh, C. And this mixture
of housing and unit sizes will provide additional housing choice
for young professionals, young families, and older adults who may
be looking for opportunities to downsize. 164 internal parking spaces
will be provided for each building, which will be distributed
across one level of enclosed at grade parking and one
level of underground parking. 61 external parking spaces will also
be provided. Most of the parking spaces will be internal
to minimize surface parking, which allows for increased landscape area
on the subject lands. Next slide, please. There's an existing
multi - use trail on the subject lands, which is
proposed to be realigned and extended up toward, uh, a
rendel street, as shown in the figure to the right.
Uh, this will improve trail connectivity for residents north of
the subject lands and public access to this trail will
be maintained. The proposal includes 50 percent landscaped open space
with amenity spaces and a courtyard. The tree line between
the proposed developments and the Toledo residences to the west
will be maintained. Um, in addition to the extra 11
metre buffer, that will be retained by the City as
highlighted in yellow on this figure. Um, next slide please.
The proposal provides a greater range and mix of housing
options within an existing settlement area where growth is directed.
And it brings new housing options closer to the existing
recreation amenities east of the subject lands. For these reasons,
the proposal is consistent with the PPS and the growth
plan. Next slide, please. Residential and community uses are recognised
as compatible related land uses in the city's official plan.
So while an official plan amendment is being proposed to
support the development, uh, the proposal still aligns with the
broader official plan objectives by directing growth to be located
within the urban settlement area. As well as by proposing
new housing near existing community areas to form strong linkages
and connections between two compatible land uses. Next slide, please.
The smart growth action plan was approved by City Council
in December, 2025. The proposal aligns with the principles for
advancing smart growth through housing with compact built forms, um,
infill development and land optimization. Next slide, please. The subject
lands are proposed to be rezoned to the urban mid
- rhizone, as shown in the table, No Sites specific
amendments or provisions are required. Uh, for instance, the maximum
height of the proposed permitted within the proposed zone would
be 25 metres, uh, whereas the proposed development is less
than 20 metres. The lot coverage is also well below
the maximum sitting at approximately 20 percent would be permitted
Based on the law area, 489 units would be permitted,
um, whereas 360 units are being proposed. And under the
proposed UM zone, a three metre side gear setback from
the Toledo Properties would be required, uh, based on the
proposed height of the buildings, uh, whereas a setback of
more than 30 metres is provided in addition to the
extra 11 metre buffer from the Toledo properties. The UM
Zone only requires 20 percent of the property to be
landscaped area, but the proposed development provides 50 percent, which
is more than double the minimum requirement. Next slide, please.
A traffic impact study was completed to assess the site
access parking supply and potential effects of the proposal on
surrounding traffic operations. The study considered existing conditions and future
total conditions through 2034. It also reviewed weekday, um, morning
and afternoon peak hour traffic. A safety audit was completed
for the proposed site entrance and the multi - use
trail crossing. The study determined that off - site road
improvements are not required based on the scenarios assessed. It
also found that the proposed entrance location provides adequate site
distance for turning movements and that the entrance and trail
can function safely together and that the proposed parking supply
is sufficient. Next slide. Um, another, a number of supporting
studies have been completed as part of this application. The
Planning Justification Memo Urban Design Brief Shadow Study and a
Functional Servicing Memo collectively, these studies can conclude that the
proposal is consistent with provincial and municipal planning policy and
represents the appropriate form of residential intensification, minimizing shadow impacts
through building orientation and can be supported by existing water
and sanitary infrastructure. As the Project Advances, more detailed technical
review and design work would occur through the future approval
stages, including Site Plan Control. Next slide. Next slide, thank
you. Um, as part of the application, we also hosted
a Public Information session at this event we had over
140 participants signed in and received 48 comments. In summary,
feedback focused on trails. Traffic, privacy shadowing and supporting technical
studies. The proposal has been refined to address matters while
maintaining key connections and reducing potential impacts. While shadowing cannot
be completely eliminated in the urban environment, the building layout
was revised to reduce its effects. The technical studies completed
to date demonstrate that feasibility of development and available infrastructure
capacity. Final studies will be sealed by professional engineers and
reviewed by city engineering staff. Next slide. Since the City's
call for proposals, the Development Concept Plan has evolved to
incorporate the feedback that was received. Um, as the project
avances into the next stage of planning and design, our
objective was to continue incorporating that feedback while balancing the
technical and operational requirements, uh, for this residential development. One
change that is that the overall development footprint and developable
area have been reduced based on feedback received and 11
metre wide buffer along the western limit of the property
will be retained by the City. Another important change relates
to the overall density of the project. The original call
for Proposal Concept had 400 residential units, while the current
proposal has been reduced to 360 units. The most noticeable
change is the increase in buildings in the number of
building stories with the original concept proposing a five and
six story building, while the current proposal consists of two
seven story buildings. This change was primarily driven by the
desire to accommodate more parking internally within the buildings. In
doing so, surface parking has been significantly reduced, allowing for
additional landscape open space, larger buffers, improved amenity areas, and
a site design that responds to the feedback received from
Council and the Public. It's important to note that while
the number of stories has increased, the overall building height
remains consistent with what was presented through the call for
Proposals Process. The original concept anticipated a maximum height of
20 metres. And this maximum height is still being maintained
through this current design. Next slide, please. To conclude, the
proposed development is consistent with provincial planning framework and supports
the intent and objectives of the City of Thunder Bay
official plan. It introduces much - needed housing in a
location that can be supported by existing and planned infrastructure,
while remaining compatible with the surrounding residential community uses. I
want to acknowledge that something that many residents have expressed
through this process. There's no way around it. The transition
from largely undeveloped land to residential is a significant change.
However, this project represents an important first step toward achieving
the kind of balance middle density urban form that policy
encourages. The rezoning is meant to translate good policy into
real housing opportunities. One development proposal will not solve a
housing shortage that has been decades in the making, but
meaningful and lasting housing affordability requires a sustained increase in
housing supply across all neighbourhoods. When we talk about intensification,
housing choice, affordability, and more efficient use of existing infrastructure,
this is what it looks like in practice. 30 seconds,
please. For those reasons, we believe the proposed use scale,
form of development, and are appropriate for the subject lines
and represent good planning. Thank you. Well time. Thank you
for your presentation. Uh, I have Mayor Boschkoff on my
speaker's list. A reminder to the Council, we have one
round, three questions, five minutes to either the applicant or
administration. That's one round. Three questions, five minutes, uh, first
up, Mayor Boschkoff, please. Thank you for the applicant. It
seems that you're building with less in the maximum allowable.
So it's a two - part question in terms of
the amount of green space that that will actually make
available for the lieutenants or owners. Sorry, can you repeat
that? Well, basically the building, you're building less than what
you're could as a maximum. So that's allowing you either
both more parking or more green landscaping or open areas.
Yeah, correct. We significantly increase the landscape space, um, from
what's permitted in the zone. Um, and that was a
change of putting cars and parking inside the building. Uh,
we've freed up that land for landscaping soft space. Amenity
space, um, like patios and other pieces of furniture for,
uh, the residents. The connection of this property to other
parks and walking trails, how many such areas are actually
available to who would be the new occupants. Um, we're
putting the trail from a rundown to the existing trail
network. That's what we've planned so far. So you're going
to make that connection? We'll make that connection and I'll
be maintained as public access for the residents. For everyone.
Thank you. That's, that's good for me. Thank you, Mayor
Boschkoff. Any other. Questions from Councillor Folds, please. Thank you,
Deputy Speaker. Thanks for your presentation this evening. I am
looking at a couple of your technical reports. Um, so
I'm looking at, I think it's the one with water,
wastewater. Sure. The functional site servicing the functional site service.
So, I mean, I'm not an engineer, but reading through
that. I do need some clarification. Um, in terms of
water, it did stay in that report that no water
flows were actually done. It was just modelled. And then
it also talked about the wastewater. The only, excuse my
simplicity. The only pipe big enough is the one out
to Toledo. Um, and I do know that some of
the residents along Toledo struggle with backups. So, you know,
I guess given the modelling, can you help me through
that? Because I need you to know I'm a scientist.
I know what models are. Yeah. I know the value
in models. And I know how they're used, but I
also know their models, not necessarily reality on the ground.
Yep. That's fair. Um, so yeah, we know actual hydrant
flow tests were completed as this typically for the rezoning
application. It's determining capacity of available capacity and feasibility of
the site. Um, we know that there's water there. We
can model it and see that a loop system. Would,
would definitely be beneficial to the site to provide proper
fireflows. And domestic cold water to all the buildings will
not impact in surrounding neighbours. Um, you know, we, we
always advance these studies and that's kind of more the
detailed design piece. When we get into the full detailed
design of the building, we figure out the type of
building, whether it's combustible or not. And all those things
kind of go in. You need all that information before
you can really finalise it. That's why the studies start
as preliminary and go into Site Plan Control and are
sealed at that point. Um, but we are aware that
there's water and the connection can be made through the
to the lethal for both water and sanitary. So, I
mean, how would you, I mean, maybe this is a
difficult question at this point because you don't have those
detailed designs yet. But what kind of guarantees can you
provide as the engineer Stantech for neighbouring the neighbourhood that
both their water and sewer services won't be impacted? Well,
it would be, it'd be approved by the City. And
if we can never demonstrate that properly, we would never
get Site Plan Control Agreement and we would never get
a building permit. It would, without demonstrating it, the project
doesn't move on. So that's the assurances to the public
that we have to demonstrate it and prove it's going
to work before anything ever happens. Okay. So the City
Administration has to sign off that it works. Absolutely. My
next question is about a different report that you presented
and it's the traffic report. And again, I'm not a
traffic technologist, but as I read through that technical report,
what it tells me is the volume that this particular,
um, facility would add to that road. It can handle
it. What I'm really interested is the future development. You're
in your photograph here. You included 791. You included 755.
And of course the future development of the LPH grounds.
In your future predictions, you talk about a two percent
growth. And that in essence, even at two percent growth,
that road can handle it. But my question is, did
you take into account the future development of what I
can only interpret because you included 755 in the LPH
grounds? Is that included in the two percent. Or would
that be up and above the two percent? So the
2034 numbers. I'll start and then we'll pass it to
Rosh who's online. The traffic study was four 791. He
goes into more of what is done in his model
for surrounding properties in growth. So maybe I'll pass it
to a rush and speak to that. Thank you, Toilet.
Uh, can you hear me. Just to confirm? We can
hear you loud and clear. Thank you. Well that's great.
I appreciate the question. I will provide very quick general
discussion about what we did as toiler said. The study
is looking at this specific development. And it's looking at
the full builds out here and a five year horizon.
Uh, in the City of Thunder Bay through some other
studies that we did, usually the growth rate and all
grocery that we are considering is one person around one
person to look at the potential increase in the area
in the future. We are not taking a specific development,
but two percent is being considered as a conservative that's
looking at some of the impacts that coming from neo
developments and population growths and all of that. But one
thing I want to, um, I want you to pay
attention is the study issues that, uh, level of service,
which is showing how comfortable the traffic on the road
is and on the axis is showing there are spare
capacity available at the intersection and at the road. Most
of the movement and locations that we looked at. Again,
I'm briefly going through it. Level of service is going
through A to F. A is the most comfortable. F
is where drivers or pedestrine and traffic field, the movement
speed is reduced. There are, uh, other impacts on the
vehicle. Our study shows that we are on the good
side and there are multiple opportunities and a spell capacity
is available along the route. So I have to say
that the result shows that, uh, no impact is expected
along the road. Wanting I also want to add this
for any other developments. There will be separate the studies.
And the future developments that have data studies, these development
will be their background traffic and the accumulated impacts of
their trips and traffic will be assessed. So it's not
like we added and then, uh, I mean, the combined
impact of the trips will not be seen in the
future. Thank you Councillor, you have used up your, uh,
a lot of time. Um, next I have Councillor Attorney
and then Councillor Hamilton. Councillor Attorney, please. Thank you through
the speaker. Um. I'm hearing from the community, I think
I should speak to you. I'm hearing from the community
about a concern about the Canadian shield and the rock
that may be under this, uh, building and that the
potential concern for blasting that may be required in order
to put parking. Um, do we have any indication of
that at this time. Um, well, we're definitely aware of
Rock in that area for sure. I mean, no specific
tests have been completed as part of this development. You
know, pending up if the product gets approved. Yes, we
would go do a geotechnical investigation. And we would have
a better understanding of plastic. If blasting is required or
not, I would say that, you know, we don't know
that answer, but if there was blasting, it would be
a temporary. Requirement, but we're not committed to having to
blast or do anything at this time. Thank you. Thank
you for that. And then, um, I want to go
back to the landscaping and the green space piece. There
was a, um, part of the presentation indicated something about
50 percent of the property will be maintained landscaping will
be maintained. Could you collaborate a little bit more on
that please? Yeah. Um, so kind of two parts, what
we heard from the public, um, and, and to the
call for proposal was to maintain the existing, uh, tree
buffer that's there already. Yeah. Um, we fully intend to
maintain that buffer. And that's why we set everything off
to the east. Outs of that, we would be the
remainder of the site would be landscape to equal to
50 percent. So it's a combination of both hardscape and
softscape where there's amenity space. It's not just going to
be just grass and nothing. It's, you know, there's some
care is going to go into the design and provide
a real amenities for the residents. Thank you. Um, my
third question that space is actually smaller than the chart
well property across the street. It's about two thirds the
size. Um, I know there's a map floating around that's
showing that it's much bigger and there was lots of
talk about going all the way to lions boulevard. But
there is somewhere an indication that of straightening lion's boulevard
to potentially come up, uh, beside this. But that's not
being taken to account at this time. That's future development.
Is that correct? Um, yeah, I would say it's, it's
future development, um, we were aware of the transportation master
plan that shows a potential road there. Um, I think
that's, you know, truthfully, that's why we showed a feature
access is to ensure that the building, we left space
for an axis if it were to come. We're not
planning on. There's no intentions for that. But, um, it
would make, it would be a poor planning decision to
enclose that whole side of the western or eastern property
line and not provide access to this if it were
to come. Um, but no, not as part of this
application. Is there anything to do with anything outside of
the, this property. Thank you for that. And I appreciate
the future plans for Lyon Boulevard. I went to that
school. There were many accidents online boulevard because the twistiness.
And then once that tree was gone, then it became
even more of a safety issue. So thank you so
much for your responses. Thank you, Councillor Hamilton, please. Yeah.
Thank you, Speaker. And through you, uh, appreciate the presentation.
I got to say, I appreciate the sensitivity to the
concerns of the community. Um, at 360 units down from
400, I think initially 600. Are we finally at a
spot? Is this basically, um, the layout, um, like are
we, are we there yet? I know technical drawings. There
needs to be architectural work probably. But is this basically
what the project looks like? Um, I would say generally,
yes, it's, it's kind of at the point, uh, I
think, you know, small refinements to the building, um, still
maintaining the bylaw, but we're talking facade and kind of
architectural details are still in the works. And, you know,
hopefully they don't have impacts on reducing units. But we
don't, we don't know that until we finish the building
plans. Through you speaker, is there a
expiry date on that? Is that for a certain 15
years, like, I mean, I, I, I just want some
assurance that, uh, some of those principles will be adhered
to longer term. Yeah. I mean, I, I personally can't
speak to that, uh, the financing agreement on, on that.
But I'm, I'm, I'm told that it is a set
time for it. It's I don't have the exact date.
But there's an expiration on that. Maybe correct. And through
speaking, I just my final question kind of picking up
on Councillor Foles is, do you model when you do
traffics that he's like, um, different demographics scenarios where if
you had a, uh, you know, maybe working families or
potentially older adults might have different traffic patterns. Do we,
do we look at all the whole gamut of like
when you look at the traffic modelling, do you look
at a whole spectrum of use based on demographics? Yeah.
I'd probably pass that to a rush. I think it'd
be best suited for it. Sure. Uh, general answer is
yes again. We are at this stage that we are
looking at the high level impact of the development. But
when we are going to the side plan and when
we are going to look at the access, sidewalks, crosswalks
and all of that, we are looking at the demographics.
For example, if you have to expect, I mean, demographics
that are leaning toward the older age, or if there
is a school and we have, uh, school kids that
are travelling on the sidewalks and crossing the roots, we
are taking that in impact. But again, I'm saying vid
the traffic study that we have at this stage because
it's looking at the impact of the trips, vehicle or
trips that are coming out of the side and their
impact on the roads. I have to say that we
just looked at the general, I mean, general trend of
growth in traffic volumes. And I mean, anything that we're
looking for the specific demographic around the side, we'll be
on the side plan stage. And when we are looking
at the cell, more vulnerable users of the site. Well,
thank you, Speaker. And not a question just the reason
why I'm asking that is I want to make sure
we're looking at a high watermark scenario. Um, four vulnerable
users. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Eggo, please. Thank you
very much, Speaker. Um, I have a few questions. My
concern, I wasn't aware that you had not done a
geotechnical study yet. And I just found that outright. Now
my concern is blasting because we, we know when the
blasting happened up on Huron, that they'll friction lines hit
down quite, quite a distance and went into some basements
on royal and dawn in that area. There were some,
some damage to the foundations there. If blasting has to
happen here, it's not just for parking. I would assume
that you would do blasting for your foundational, for your
underground parking, for your servicing. So there will be substantial
clearing that's going to be needed. To get all that
done. How, um. With, with the amount of, um, Canadian
shield, which is like the hardest rock in the world,
friction is, is, um, is very, I believe very common.
And very concerning. Yeah. I think that's a fair concern.
I would, I would kind of just. Do you mean
the tablast today, there's more to it than blasting in
the past. I think, um, pre - development surveys would
happen. There's a program. And I'm sure it's governed by
the province and not just anyone with dynamite gets to
go blast these days. So it's, I would say it's
a regulated industry and professionals would be doing it. And
they would be taking all the precautions needed to ensure
that no damage or minimal damage is ever going to
happen. We would trust a professionals to come up with
the blast plan to get this done properly. Um, that's
pretty much all I can say to it now. I
think after the geotechnical investigation, we'd have a better understanding
of what's going to be involved in that. And, um,
you know, if, if it looks like it's too much,
then we have a maximum height and we wouldn't go,
we wouldn't go above it. And we'd probably have to
go lower. Well, the two ways to do it as
under my understanding through you speaker is one is to
raise the ground. And put, put your foundation above the
ground at or you chip it. Or you blast it.
Now the blasting that I just spoke of was done
last year, the year before. I don't know if standards,
as I'm not an engineer or blasting expert, I don't
know if the standards have changed in the last year
of requirements because that was in close proximity. It was
just up on the corner of Huron and Balsam that
that blasting had occurred. Um, so that concern of that
friction lines, because now we've got housing right to the
West and other housing that's to the north. With the
shield, we don't know exactly where the shield is going
without the geotechnical. Is that correct? Correct. And not a
blasting expert. So, um, I would imagine that the proper
permits would be in place. And the professionals would be
making that decision. On blasting requirements. Okay. If I may
throw the speaker, I can, I can add to the
response and note that, um, within once the geotechnical study
is completed and should blasting, uh, be required or, you
know, that would be elected to be a path forward.
That is covered under the Site Plan Control Agreement. So
the Athlens noted that your blasting is something that's highly
regulated does require qualified persons, a pre - blast survey
vibration, monitoring, and through the Sight Plan Control Agreement, the
city's ensuring that all of the necessary professionals and plans
are in place and is reviewing the program's capacity as
the City. I am not aware of foundation damage that
had occurred. As occurred. And the other example, uh, that's
not an item that's been brought forward to an administration.
Uh, thank you. And through you speaker, you have one
minute remaining. Okay. Um, my next one, have you done
the shadowing? Because shadowing is, um, one of the biggest
concerns for the wellbeing of people. Right? For the shadowing
studies. Now that the building's gone higher. The shadowing studies
would be more impactful for the morning sun. Which is
the most prevalent that we need to have safety for
the peoples. Correct. Yeah. Uh, shadowing, study was done. Um,
you know, the building didn't go, it was, it's still
20 metres. Um, we didn't increase the building height. It's
still 20. So that point aside, we did do the
shadowing study. We look at the summer and winter solstice
for the longest and shortest days of the year. Um,
you know, shadows, we can't stop shadows. There's every building
cast as a shadow. What we can do is mitigate
it. Um, we did do an urban design brief to
kind of find a way to mitigate it. And that's,
that's one of the reasons what we saw a Sight
Plan change from the buildings from the west to the
east is that minimize the impact of shadows on the
neighbouring properties. Um, the shadows do cast slightly into some
of the existing properties. Um, that's during the worst case
scenario, nine o'clock in the winter. 9 a. m. in
the winter. And it's typically dark at that time. Not
to minimize it, but we just don't have a way
to remove shadows. Okay. I think my time is up.
Thank you. Any other questions from Council. And as Council
knows, we do have an opportunity later in the meeting
to follow up, uh, if the need to do so,
uh, to our presenters, thank you. And we'll turn now
to the portion of the meeting where I'll ask for
calls for speakers from the public gallery. I'll have three
calls from the Public Gallery. And we have a list
generated already. Uh, on behalf of Council Administration, I am
asked, remind presenters that what is being debated tonight is
the rezoning. The rezoning of the land, not the sale
of the itself of the parkland. So when you do
speak or provide comments or concerns, please speak to the
planning issue. Uh, not the loss of green space. And
I will also ask to on behalf of Council Administration
that if you are providing commentary, you please provide new
information, concerns, uh, your thoughts rather than possibly reiterating what
has been already set. And I'll remind speakers as that
as we go forward. So for my first call from
the gallery, um, I understand we have Stephanie Patron. Apologies
patrony. Please make your way to the speaker stable. The
Mike there is on the base. Please introduce yourself and
you have 10 minutes. Thank you. Good evening Mayor Bosch
Goth and members of Council, thank you for the opportunity
to speak tonight. My name is Stephanie Patroni. I'm a
current river resident with a background in Community Economic and
Social Development. Much of my work involves examining evidence and
questioning how policy decisions affect communities. Over the past several
months, I've closely examined the proposed rezoning of 791 a
rundell. And what I've learned has left me deeply concerned
about both the proposal and the process that brought us
here. Tonight, I'd like to speak to those concerns before
you cast what may become one of the most significant
planning votes in the history of Thunder Bay. Provincial changes
to the planning act mean residents no longer have recourse
through the Ontario Land Tribunal Process. And Council's responsibility has
never been greater. The decision you make tonight could permanently
remove Community's own Parkland from Public Ownership and establish a
planning precedent future council's well - inherit. If you vote
to rezone a rundell tonight and wake up tomorrow morning
regretting that vote, the province can't step in and undo
it. You've sealed the fate of not only this Parkland.
But made it much easier to develop the next Parkland
or Greenspace that looks good to a developer. That responsibility
demands more than simply accepting the recommendation before you. I've
heard several members of Council acknowledge that they aren't knowledgeable
on matters such as planning and therefore trust the experts.
I find that very alarming. Given recent responses from councillors
and what has publicly demonstrated what has been publicly demonstrated
about Council's understanding of this file, I am reasonably concerned
that council is about to vote on a matter it
does not fully understand. Mayor and Council, this isn't a
Conversation about Parks versus housing. This is about good planning
due diligence, a degree of common sense and the evidence.
After months of attending meetings, read and reports filing FOIs
and examining the city's planning documents we have reached one
conclusion. Thunder Bay does not need to build housing on
community's own parkland and the City supports that finding. The
City's housing in land needs strategy identify capacity for nearly
20, 000 units while projecting a need for fewer than
9, 000 by 2045 under the highest population growth scenario.
Neither 791 nor 755 Arundel was required to achieve that
capacity in that report. Those findings should have fundamentally changed
this discussion. Communities own Parkland was not and is not
needed to meet Thunder Bay's housing needs. Since then, the
City has moved forward with the 100 - acre Central
Avenue Development targeted for more than 1, 200 homes with
the City owning more than 60 acres of that project.
Other opportunity sites remain available and the provincially owned former
LPH Land's represents another significant and eventually redevelopment opportunity. Thunder
Bay is not running out of places to build housing.
We should not even be here tonight. Planning staff will
likely tell you Council has already declared this property surplus,
declaring land surplus does not answer the planning question before
you. Council must still decide whether this Parkland is the
right place for housing and intensification and whether removing Communities
Owned Parkland serves the broader interest. You'll also hear that
this proposal is supported by the official plan. It isn't,
which is why you're being asked to amend the official
plan tonight. 791 Arundel is designated community and you're being
asked to change that designation to residential to accommodate a
developer that wants to build on green space. On public
green space. Staff point to the official plans housing intensification
and infrastructure policies to justify that change. But those aren't
the only policies in the official plan, environmental stewardship, healthy
communities, public green space, and natural areas are in there
too. Good planning doesn't mean pulling out the policies that
support the development and ignoring the ones that don't. Council
has to consider the plan as a whole. Another argument
you'll likely hear is that traffic servicing drainage and infrastructure
can be addressed later through site plan control. But Sight
Plan Control follows rezoning. Questions have already been raised about
water pressure, traffic, sidewalks, and surrounding infrastructure. If upgrades are
necessary, Council should understand what they are and what they
could cost taxpayers before the Zoning Changes, not after. Environmental
Impacts have also been described as something that can be
mitigated mitigation reduces impact, but it does not recreate mature
parkland, restore decades of ecological growth or reconnect habitat once
fragmented. Environmental losses are permanent and Council must decide whether
those losses are justified. Some members of Council in City
staff have called those who oppose developing Parkland Nimbees. A
little unprofessional, but more importantly, it suggests these individuals do
not want to debate the issue or even willing to
know what they do not know. Public Parkland, Environmental Impacts,
Infrastructure, Planning Policy, and Housing Alternatives are legitimate planning questions
that have not sufficiently been answered. One issue has followed
this proposal from the beginning and deserves far more attention,
public trust. Confidence in this process has steadily eroded because
too much of what residents needed to know came to
light only after key decisions were already set in motion.
Communities - owned Parkland was identified for possible surplus before
most residents knew 791 Arundel was under consideration. Council accepted
the survey results involving only 142 participants across the opportunity
sites initiative with just 52 comments relating specifically to a
rundown. Without seriously questioning whether those numbers represented meaningful engagement
in a city of more than 100, 000 people. Of
those 52, only eight supported increasing housing development on the
Arundel Parkland. These flimsy findings were used in part by
the City to justify the recommendation to Council to surplus
791 a rundel. FOI requests revealed information residents had never
been shown. Information many Council members haven't even seen or
asked for. The Proposal changed four times. New reports continue
to appear and instead of providing clarity, they raised even
more questions. Public trust wasn't lost because people opposed housing.
Public trust was lost because this process has been misleading
and disorganized. Why, for example, is there a potential access
road pointed through 755 a rundell, the Park land between
791 and Boulevard Lake Trails. And what about the surprise
announcement in May of a large development at the smaller
multiple sclerosis park within Juno Park. Planning staff may tell
you tonight that your decision concerns only 791 a rundell,
respectfully there isn't anyone in this room who believes that.
Council is deciding whether community's own Parkland can be resoned
for private residential development. Future applications involving communities, zone, Parkland
will inevitably be viewed through the lens of this decision.
Tonight will be precedent setting. Finally, I'd ask Council to
think beyond tonight's vote. This decision will outlive every report
you've read. Every presentation you've heard. The ecology of Boulevard
Lake Greenspace will be disrupted forever. The character of Current
River will be permanently altered. And Public Trust once lost
is remarkably difficult to rebuild. Is this the legacy that
Council wants to leave behind. When the City's own housing
land needs strategy, identified capacity for nearly 20, 000 homes
against a projected need of fewer than 9, 000 up
to 2045, when Central Avenue, when the Central Avenue Development
Lands, other opportunity sites, and major redevelopment properties such as
the former LPH lands provide still thousands more of opportunities
for housing. Why are we even considering sacrificing communities -
owned Parkland? You have one minute remaining. What housing need.
Does the Arundel Parkland solve that Thunder Bay cannot otherwise
meet. After months of reading and researching and asking questions,
I have never heard a convincing answer. For that reason,
I respectfully ask you to reject the proposed amendment to
the official plan. To reject the proposed rezoning of 791
rundell and to leave this community zone Parkland Protected. Thank
you. Thank you, order please. Order, please. Ask you to
keep your seat. There might be some questions from Council.
Fulds, please. Thank you, Speaker. Just two questions. Uh, you
had mentioned in the opening of your presentation about the
ability to appeal tonight's decision and how that has changed.
In the past two tonight. What is your understanding of
Oatizen's ability to appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal? It's
almost impossible. It's the developer and municipalities that primarily have
the ability to pursue recourse through OLT. Tonight, this is
it. You guys are our last opportunity. So this means
your decision is important. If you don't understand the proposal,
if you don't have all the details, if you haven't
looked into the nuances, if the outstanding, any questions that
haven't been answered, you cannot rezone this land. If you
don't know what questions to answer, that means you don't
know enough about this proposal. And you should not be
voting on this. Okay, thank you. And then you had
made reference to the housing land needs strategy. And the
20, 000. So it's your understanding that a rundown wasn't
part of the 20, 000 for some clarity there. Yes.
Neither 791 a rundell, nor 755, because we're pretty sure
that's going to be next. Especially with the potential future
road access. And the precedent that could be set tonight
if you vote to rezone Community Parkland that, what was
the question? Is it about the 20, 000 and was
there a render was 200, 000? The 20, 000 units
of housing identified in the housing land needs study was
a number that was did not include 791 or 755.
Thank you, Speaker. Thank you Councillor Foles. Councillor Agua, please.
Sorry, Councillor Agua, before I turn to you, I just
remind the gallery to withhold their applause, maybe to the
end of the meeting. Um, or not at all. Um,
we're trying to get a few questions answered. Um, administration,
the applicant. So please withhold your applause. Thank you. Thank
you very much, Speaker. And through you, um, can you're
pretty proficient in urban planning and your studies that you've
been done here. Can you please, um, enlighten us on
what the community zone allows today. So today as it's
known, what are we allowed to use in that area.
You can use parks, uh, cemeteries, uh, any park cemeteries.
You could probably put a nursery school in there. I
mean, it's community zone. So it means it's for the
public. So in a broad case, it would be public
school, private school, or whatever it might be. But for
use for massive people to use for recreation green space
and what have you. That's what we're zoned today. Yes.
Um, how many times have you seen in your, with
your urban planning designations, how many times have you seen
this community zone or anything of similar being converted for
housing? Well, I'm not an urban planner. Oh, okay. I'm
a health policy analyst. Oh, sorry. I thought you said
you had a. My background is in Community Economic and
Social Development. Okay. Yeah. Sorry. I thought there was urban.
That's okay. Okay. Okay. So in your research, let's let
me rephrase speaker. In your research, have you, did you
research anything to see if there was any precedent set
anywhere with communities zones being converted into residential? I haven't
looked into specific case studies, but I'm sure they're out
there. Okay. Thank you. That's all I have. Thank you.
Thank you. Any other questions from council. Very good. I'm
seeing none. Thank you for your deputation. You can retire
to the gallery place. Thank you. Next on the list,
I have Robert Moore. Calling for a Robert Moore.
Last time for Robert Moore. Next up then is Michelle
Laporte. Michelle Laporte. Again, to our deputants, I ask that
you please try not to repeat information that was already
presented. Uh, and possibly if you can provide new information.
So could you please press the mic on the base,
introduce yourself? I believe it's the one. Okay. And you
have 10 minutes. Okay. Uh, Mayor Boschkoff and members of
Council, my name is Michelle Laporte and I am a
resident of Toledo Street. I'm here today as a concerned
citizen. Neighbour and resident of Thunder Bay. I chose to
live in this area because of its natural beauty. It's
quite character and it's close connection to nature. Like many
residents in this neighbourhood, I valued the green spaces, trails,
and natural areas that make this part of Thunder Basel
Special. The Property at 791 Arundel Street is not just
an unused land. It is a valuable community asset. It's
trail network is used by seniors from nearby residences, dog
walkers, cyclists, mountain bikers, hikers, joggers, families, and many other
who simply just want to enjoy the outdoors. As part
of the broader boulevard Lake Trail Experience, this green space
contributes greatly to the Quality of Life of Residence across
Thunder Bay. These trails are not new. They were established
many years ago by local boy scouts who have, okay,
local book and have been enjoyed by generations of residents.
The fact that these trails still exist today is evidence
that they continue to be actively used and valued by
the community. If they were not being used, nature would
have reclaimed them long ago. And they would have overgrown
and been difficult to access. Instead, they remain well -
travelled pathways that connect people to the outdoors and to
one another. I understand that housing is an important issue,
however. I strongly question the decision to consider building two
large residential buildings on an existing public green space and
Parkland, especially in an area where infrastructure is already a
concern. If the infrastructure issues exist today, why would council
consider adding more strain to the neighbourhood through increased density
and development. Thunder Bay has other opportunities to address housing
needs without sacrificing established green spaces that residents already use
in cherish. Development should be directed to areas where infrastructure
services transportation and amenities are already planned or better suited
to support growth. Council is already moving forward with development
in the central core and central avenue corridor, where significant
government funding has been provided to support infrastructure, housing, growth,
and broader development. The City has received funding for road
trail water, wastewater, stormwater improvements in that area. With the
goal of opening up new development opportunities and creating better
access to amenities, services, and connected neighbourhoods. To me, it
makes far more sense to focus on development where infrastructure
investment is already planned and funded rather than to place
additional density in an established neighbourhood where existing infrastructure may
need to be ripped up. Replaced or rebuilt at a
greater cost. If Public Money is already being directed, prepared
land for growth and development, then why are we also
being asked to give up, Public Green Space and Parkland.
At 791 a runde. While Thunder Bay is very different
from New York City, Boulevard Lake Park serves as a
similar purpose to the community in many ways. Thunder Bay.
Is what Central Park is to New York. A cherished
Public Green Space where people gather exercise connect with nature
and enjoy the outdoors. It reflects the spirit of our
city's motto, Superior by nature. That model should mean something.
Beyond Recreation, this green space provides environmental benefits that are
often overlooked. Mature trees help improve the air quality. Reduce
urban heat. Absorb stormwater and provide habitat for birds and
wildlife as cities. As Ciddies across
Canada were to increase urban tree cover and protect natural
areas. It seems contradictory to remove an existing green space
that already provides these benefits to our community. The meadows
at 791, a rundell Street are also important part of
our local ecosystem. They provide habitat and feeding grounds for
deer and other wildlife that are frequently seen in the
area. These open natural spaces together with mature trees and
vegetation support of biodiversity and contribute to the ecological health
of the neighbourhood. The meadows are not a vacant land
waiting for development. They are part of a functioning ecosystem
that supports wildlife, pollinators, and natural processes that benefit our
community. Once this habitat is lost, it cannot simply be
recreated anywhere else. Protecting the space is not only about
preserving trails and recreation opportunities. It's also about safeguarding the
natural habitat and ecological functions that have existed here for
generations. I am also concerned about the president that this
decision will set. If a well - used green space
connected to Boulevard Lake can be declared surplus today, what
assurance do residents have that other parks and natural acres
would not face similar pressures tomorrow. Public Parkland should be
viewed as long - term community investment. Not simply a
vacant land waiting for development. The Conversation should not be
about choosing between house and green space. Thunder bait can
support responsible housing growth while also protecting the natural assets
that contribute to our quality of life. These goals are
not mutually exclusive. Good planning means finding solutions that achieve
both. Since July 24th, we invested our efforts. No, we
intensified our efforts to collect signatures because we knew this
was bigger than current river. This issue affects all of
Thunder Bay. The response was overwhelming. In just two and
a half weeks, we gathered 1, 666 additional signatures, bringing
our petition total to 2, 624. What is particularly significant
is that the vast majority of those signatures were collected
during a short period. Two and a half weeks. Those
numbers speak for themselves. They show that people across the
city care deeply about this issue and want their voices
hurt. The speed and scale of support demonstrate that this
issue resonates far beyond the immediate neighbourhood. We firmly believe
that given more time and greater public awareness of this
proposal, thousand more residents, thousands. Would have signed their names.
I would also ask Council to carefully consider the Public
Consultation process that was used to support declaring this property
surplus. The City's survey considered four separate properties and received
only 142. Responses from across the Sith Thunderbig. Of those
responses approximately 84 people supported the broad question about infil
housing. However, that question did not specifically ask residents whether
they supported the development on public parks, Green Space Trail
Networks or Natural Areas. A response of that size to
question frame so broadly cannot reasonably be viewed as a
strong evidence of public support on developing. You have one
minute remaining. Okay. I only got one minute. Okay. So
I will. Okay. The residents gathered outside today. At the
rally. Our further evidence that concern. The represent the people
who are tired of feeling that their collective voices are
not being heard. They are not here because they oppose
a responsible development. They are here because they believe parks
and green spaces should be protected. And that residents deserve
meaningful consultation before decisions affecting community assets are made. During
the petition campaign, I personally spoke with hundreds of residents
across Thunder Bay. The overwhelming majority of feedback was positive
again and again. I heard people say leave our parks
for our children. On our, please. Okay. Well, anyways, I
still have more to say on this. But I can
honestly say that 791 Arundel Street should not be rezoned.
When I was out there, there was a lot of
people that, um, told me that it was something we
needed to protect. And I think you for listening. Thank
you. And I'll ask that you hold your seat. We'll
maybe have some questions from Council. Couga. Thank you,
Mr. Speaker. Thank you for all the work. I know
that the work putting in, uh, with the petition, um,
but I talked to quite a few people who have
told me that when they were explained about this petition,
that it was involved Lake and LPH properties. Just. And
can you just comment on that. Um, I don't think
I commented when people ask me about the LPH properties.
I said that was provincial. I was very honest with
my. Okay. And Boulevard Lake, I mean, Boulevard Lake, that
is part of the network. Okay. All right. Thank you.
I mean Boy Scott put in those drills. Thank you.
Any other questions from Council. Deputy Kirk Walters. Speer, I
just wanted to add, uh, we did receive the petition
that was being mentioned. I sent a memorandum on this
matter on August the 7th. Uh, we did receive the
petition. It contains approximately 2, 600 signatures relative to this
report. Uh, I just also want to mention that we
did receive two written deputations on this matter that are
included in your agenda package, uh, for your information. There's
also memorandums from senior planner Lopes relative correspondence received on
this report. Uh, it's information that was distributed separately to
Council only on Friday August, the 7th as well as
additional, uh, information that was sent, uh, yesterday as well.
Thank you. I'll ask, thank you for your deputational. Lassie
retired to the gallery. Next up on the list we
have is Lori Holden. Lori Holden.
One last time for Lori Holden. Very good. I moved
down the list. Apologies if I mispronounce this. Ivan Bach.
Okay. Yeah. I might need them. Thank you. I just
stick them on my head, eh? You do. Okay. I
think I can hear. Yeah. Is there a volume test
or something. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Buck. Um, hopefully
you heard my instructions of earlier about not repeating information
that's already been presented. Um, would you please introduce yourself
and you have 10 minutes when you start. Yes. Very
good. Please do start. Okay. Ready. As you can see,
I'm hearing impaired. So it's a bit of an issue
here. Thank you. My name is Ivan Buck. I'm a
retired secondary school teacher principal and I retired in 1999.
After I retired, my wife and I started to look
for a home that we would call our dream home.
And we found it at 408 Polito Street. We purchased
our home in 2007. Our house is only one house
away from the pathway going down into the 491 Arundel
area. Over the years, I've seen incredible variety of people
from all over the city. Utilising and enjoying this environment
that's waiting for them. It's hard for me to believe
that after going around the sun 84 times, I am
here asking my city council to not declare 791 a
rundo as surplus. As that would create an apartment complex
eventually that would destroy the green space that we enjoy
so much in our backyard. This decision will decrease significantly
the value of our home, which is our only investment.
There's no question that if any of you were facing
this dramatic scenario, you too would be sitting here sitting
here sincerely asking the powers that be to not destroy
your investment. Mayor Baschkov and councillors of Thunder Bay, please
lead the 791 Ronald Parkland as community. So that we
citizens can continue to enjoy all the amenities it has
to offer. A colleague of mine stated that 791 Parkland
is to the citizens of Thunder Bay, what central park
is to the citizens of New York City. On how
true that is. The greater Toronto home pros published a
study that ranked the top 29 cities in Canada for
greenery. Thunder Bay ranked 10th. Ranking 10 in Canada is
something to be proud of. Our city can hold its
head high every April of 22nd when the world celebrates
Earth Day. Because we rank so high, though, does not
justify eradicating the parklands we have to create apartment buildings.
Furthermore, the City's house land needs study identified sufficient land,
availability for development and Thunder B. 791 Arundel was not
included nor recommended in the study to satisfy housing needs.
The City Zone study concluded. That of the 19, 803
potential housing units available on potential development land. Only 8,
82 new units will be needed by 2045. There is
more than enough of city - owned land for the
next decade without destroying any of our parklands. The city
holds a lot of committee of the whole sessions. And
that is why sometimes it's so difficult for the taxpayer
to get any de - dealed information that I believe
entitled to. Singh's at tax dollars being spent eliminate our
parklands. For example, I made an inquiry with several councillors
regarding the process used to determine Terralox as a chosen
one to destroy our parkland. I never even got a
response acknowledged of my inquiry. There was no public competition.
On April the 7th, 2026, our City Council approved the
direct land sale of three parties to Terlox General Contractors
for 5. 2 million dollars. And I'm sure I just
a question I have. Why did Terroluck get such special
treatment. Councillors. Do you have any idea how significant is
a number of citizens who are strongly opposed to the
possible selling of the park lands for urban apartment buildings.
Especially among the ones who know there are so much
land available according to your own house land needs study
that does not include a rundown nor any other Park
land for consideration. You have been presented with the petition
that shows 2, 624 signatures that have stated clearly to
leave the 491 Rundell Parkland as community, not as surplus.
The signatures represent we the people all over Thunder Bay.
They are dog walkers and joggers and cyclists skiers, families.
Many experienced disabilities that confine them to electronic seating devices.
There is one individual whose disability is blindness. This incredible
walker uses a white cane and listens to the countless
bird species in the trees. And the rustling of the
tree leaves and appreciates a sense that the greenery gives
to her. All of these citizens will enjoy our Parkland
in winter. With a snow and the summer with the
rain. They have all signed the petitions that you have
received. For their future enjoyment and that of our sons
and daughters and your sons and daughters, all of our
grandchildren and our great - grandchildren please leave 791 -
Rundell Parkland for them and not the developers. And thank
you for your time. Thank you for your deputation. I
ask that you hold your seat, please. There might be
some questions from members of Council. Chatty, please. Thank you
through the speaker. The deputant asked a question about why
Terelyx was awarded properties. Is this the appropriate time for
me to ask administration to, um, answer that question. Yeah,
I think we're asked to ask follow - up questions
with a deputy then. We can ask that, um, later
rounds to administration. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Any other
questions from Council. No, no, thank you. Very good. Thank
you for your deputation. I ask that you retire to
the gallery. Mr. Bach, thank you for your deputation.
Really. You're done now. You're done. Now. Oh, I'm done?
Yeah. Nobody's got any questions all of this. Thank you
again for your time. Thank you. I'll make a call
to the gallery for Catherine Cortin.
Thank you. I'll ask that you introduce yourself a reminder
that, um, ask, maybe you've heard my comments a few
times about not repeating previous, uh, material or concerns. Um,
please again, introduce yourself and you have 10 minutes. I'm
Councilman Cortine. I'm part of the Tibet Green Space Preservation
Group. Thank you, Speaker and Mayor Boschkoff and members of
Council. I'll try not to repeat information, but, um, I
have to say that some of the information. Are real
concerns of mind. So I will repeat very briefly some
parts of them. Thank you for listening to us. Uh,
so the concerns that I have starts with the consultation
process, which has been already addressed, but I want to
add that T - Bay Green Space Preservation is very
lucky to have in its mised experts who have spent
confess hours researching city documents, infrastructure issues and environmental impacts
and also communicating with city stuff and councillors. So they
haven't been considered in your previous decisions such as selling
the land or declaring it surplus. So I just want
to say that I hope that research will be considered
this time today. Another concern I have is that after
working so hard on the earth care committee in the
past, I'm now faced with the possible loss of a
space that we present exactly what Earthcare was all about.
Such assisting ability, physical, mental health. Well - being, climate,
rate read readiness, preservation of ecosystems. So it's very disappointing
for me to be here again after we went through
so much time discussing how Thunder Bay can be a
sustainable planet. City, sorry.
I also want to say that Thunder Bay, I mean
794 Aroundo provides habitat and a home to species of
special concern among the myriad of wildlife. We have the
Grey Fox, a species that is classified as threatened under
both provincial and federal legislation. The Canadian Warbler and a
variety of bees. So these species will be disrupted by
the process of building. You can offer and promise all
kinds of accommodations after building, such as maintaining green space
or trails. You can make all these promises, but the
disruption that will happen during the building is not something
that cannot, can be avoided.
There is also a repair in forest that offers flood
present, not only because of its trees, but also because
of a sandy structure. People have even seen painted turtles
cross around the street. To the meadow. So what the
applicant calls partially cleared land, I call it a very
important part of an ecosystem. Because turtles, they eggs and
sand. So it's not only Cindy, but it's also a
meadow. And it's not partially cleared. It's part of an
ecosystem. I believe that safeguarding wildlife and ecosystem. That we
all rely on should include our own local community's, like
the Parkland that mayor and council are targeting for destruction.
At 791 around the Street. I'm also concerned about important
city documents that have been produced. Which all mentioned the
importance of protecting environmental environment and ecosystems. The official plan
is one of them. The housing land needs study. Is
one of them. The urban forestry management plan is one
of them climate adaptations. Strategy is one of them. Green
space, it identifies green space as a critical infrastructure for
climate resilience. And I think we all need that. Especially
after the fires that we've experienced. Anyways, all these documents
have been produced by the City. With our money. And
now they're being contradicted because of developer, a developer, prefers
to build on green space rather than building where the
community needs building. Which would be for the good of
all, right? To build where we need it. We're in
some neighbourhoods that do need building. I'm concerned also that
if this rezoning is allowed, other parks and green spaces
may follow suit. The land near Boulevard League should be
considered sacred sacred and untouchable. Preserve for future generations. I'm
also very concerned about the well - being of our
elderly who live in Chartwell and rely on 791 for
an accessible green space. They may not only lose the
space, but they also be faced with a huge increase
in traffic that will endanger their lives and quality of
life. I'm also concerned with the cost, which will be
incurred by the Mini, which is us, the taxpayers. To
accommodate the wish and interests of one. Terralox. I'm concerned
that with one decision such as the one you'll make
today, so many consequences may happen that may not be
reversed in the future. I'm asking you to consider this
very carefully. The decision you make today. Will have irreversible
consequences. And may create a precedent for the future. So
I'm asking you, will your decision help preserve what the
community values? And you know what the community values. You
have done many, many surveys and studies. Will it help
to preserve green spaces and community spaces. For the future?
Or will it set a precedent for more losses. Will
your decision today show the many voters that you actually
consider their concerns. Or will it show that one developer
interest are more, have more weight. I heard many comments
saying, don't bother their mind was already made up a
long time ago. But I chose to believe in the
democratic process anyway. One more time. So your vote today
will reveal where your allegiance stands. I hope it stands
with the many with the community. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any questions of the deputy. Sing
none, ask you, retire to the gallery, please. Thank you.
Next up on the list is Joe DeBolt.
Joel. Sorry. Apologies for the Bispernution of your name. Hopefully
you've heard my comments to other deputates to please not
reiterate. Said information. Or concerns. And please introduce yourself. You
have 10 minutes when you begin.
Thanks. My name is Joel Debolt. Gravisee. I'm okay to
stand. Or do you want me to do it? I
can set. Sure. Nice to see you guys here. How
many? 13. Beautiful souls. Thank you. I appreciate it. Um,
I live in Thunder Bay up on Lady Avenue. I
spent some time in this area we're talking about the
Lions Boulevard East Trail, Arundel. And I spend time there
with my friend Cooper quite a bit. And, um, I
love playing in that area. Specifically that area, The Lion's
area. And I love playing there with Cooper and he.
Loves playing there as well. And when we were playing,
you know, going back and forth and running to and
fro and chasing. And yelling and laughing and all that
good stuff you do when you're playing. Ado is amazed
at the tapestry of right in front of me. The
tapestry. The picture, the view called nature. Nature is living
art. It's alive. Breathing and speaking. So I'm not here
to change your opinions or your beliefs or your viewpoints.
My intent here is to bring her nature. Her living
art to this council right here, right now for this
moment that we're in together. That would get to share.
As a team, a community. And because she's art and
her art, nature's art and spoken word has the ability
empowered to remove layers. So that President of Motions may
come forth at our exists within us. Nature is this.
We are nature. This is us. So just before I
read these words, I want your permission to share them
with you, the Council. Because words have power. Yes, okay.
Thank you. Um, so this is my spoken poetry. Nature's
Art. Energy and words from nature, from experience. Golden Caribou.
The dye is cast. Blue and orange. Worlding through space.
Time pauses to reflect. Trajectory. Peaking at Apex. Liminal and
pondering. Signing before dissent. Oxygen tugging on the surface. Spinning
clockwise. The space between blue and orange. Dissolves. He knows.
He pauses that side. Honch is twitching. Whipped phone on
his mouth. Fourth in saliva. His muscles charging his pulse.
He quivers on the mound. He scrits. He strains. A
growled stay. His ignition and suspends his rocket a desire.
He coils down. Inevitability in his wine. Pausing. Pausing. Pausing.
Fetch ruptures the field. A blur of weight draws in
gold. Green slivers, wail and protest as claws grunt on
earth. Forward and faster he drives. The spinning orb. Glowers
and sunlit energy. Framing its vortex. Down into the unknown.
The orb consenting to gravity. Nesting into caribou lichen. That's
for my friend Willow. The blue collared white tooth friend
close on the coloured Comet. Follows, nose down tail up.
He worbles on instinct. His umbridled heart. Wagging his dance.
In play of many. Knowing the teaching began with the
intent. So my friend Cooper.
Who was always in plague, he's always led with his
heart and followed his heart. Want me to show that
message today. So when we make big decisions and vote
on important things when we leave with the heart right
here and not here because this leads this. And when
you vote from here and you think from here like
Cooper does and he's curious and he plays. We can
make decisions from in here. And he asked me to
show that today. So thank you council. My appreciation to
Cooper. The friend Dross and Gold. And to myself and
the people behind me and my appreciation to the birds
who always speak the truth. Thank you. Is there any
questions? Thank you. I was about to ask. Is there
any questions from Council. None asked, they retired to the
gallery. Next on the list I have Lori Santing.
Thank you. And again, I reiterate the plea to not
repeat information that's been already provided or concerns. Could you
please introduce yourself and you'll have 10 minutes when you're
ready.
Good evening. Mayor Boschkoff and members of Council. My name
is Lori Santink. My husband Nick and Iona home on
Toledo that backs onto the Parkland at 791 a rundell.
My background in the legal system. And as a policy
analyst, as well as being a member of a Planning
and Development Committee for the Community Association while I lived
in Calgary provides me with the necessary skills and experience
to review and comprehend the City's own planning and Development
documents, provincial legislation. And the various reports and studies that
have been prepared for this development. As you've already heard,
there have been changes to the Planning Act. And it's
incumbent upon you, I say, as the final arbiters to
ensure that you have done the necessary due diligence, which
includes reading all the reports and studies and being well
- versed in the city's own planning documents. In order
to make an informed decision this evening. Unfortunately, based on
many engagements I have had over social media as well
as in person with members of Council, it's an apparent
that many of you may not have done that due
diligence. I therefore question whether you are in a position
to make an informed decision about the application before you
this evening. My comments will be directed to why this
development and the decision by Council to Surplus and Sell
this Parkland contravenes the purpose and principles of the City's
own planning documents. The housing strategy has already been mentioned,
but I like to point out a few dates. The
Study and Strategy was likely commissioned in 2022 because the
first stakeholder sessions were conducted in January of 23. I
have read this report in its entirety and its very
comprehensive. Council decided in March 23 to start looking at
City Owned Lands, including Parkland for Development. I submit that
there was no necessity for Council to act at that
time prior to receiving the extensive and detailed analysis HTFC
was commissioned to provide. Even in June of 2024, irrespective
of the housing strategy that counseled by then had received,
you continued to push your own plan instead of utilising
the well - researched strategy incorporating significant stakeholder feedback and
which provided a detailed analysis of Thunder Bay's Land and
Housing needs. The same cannot be said of your plan.
The City's official plan includes purposes and principles, many of
which are echoed in the smart growth and transportation master
plan. And as such, my comments will refer to all
three documents. For example, the official plan is designed to
meet the needs of the community by creating an attractive,
accessible walkable city, guiding principles include a complete and connected
urban design, being accessible and active, providing a variety of
transportation choices with priority given to walking cycling and transit.
It states new developments shell provide for adequate and appropriate
pedestrian access. This development and this location does not comply
with any of these purposes and principles. It does not
provide year - round walking or cycling choices. The Parkland
is in a car dependent neighbourhood which lasts basic urban
infrastructure such as sidewalks along Arundel and Hudson. And even
continuous and connected sidewalks on Toledo, the existing neighbourhood is
neither complete nor connected. The act of living corridor is
not year - round infrastructure and as such cannot provide
functional and safe passage or act as a significant mode
of transportation to pedestrians and cyclists outside of the summer
months. As for Public Transit, this development is not well
served. The lone bus runs every 30 to 45 minutes
at a bus stop without a shelter and does not
travel east along a runde to the closest shop at
a rundel and hotter. As a result, few, if any
of the new residents would ever consider public transit as
their primary mode of transportation. The plan states the City
will market residential lands to assist in the supply of
development lands. 791 Arundels designated community, not residential. It never
should have been marketed for development. The Planned State's Densor
Housing Forms will be encouraged in all newly developing areas
and in areas where major employment, commercial and institutional activities
exist. Further, affordable housing will be encouraged to locate in
close proximity to shopping, community facilities, and existing or potential
public transit and active transportation routes. This development doesn't meet
either of these two principles. The planned state's residential intensification
includes the development of vacant or underutilized laws. 791, a
rundell is not a vacant or underutilized lot or infil.
It is Parkland, literally the very western tip of Boulevard
Lake Park. The official plan states compatibility with existing built
form with the existing and planned character of an area
should be sensitive to the height - scale massing and
architectural character of buildings in the surrounding neighbourhood. In fact,
the official plan even states high - rise housing includes
apartment - dwellings or mixed - use buildings that have
a height of five stories or more. At seven stories
and 360 units, this development is not only high density,
but according to the official plan, it's also high -
rise. For those reasons alone, this development is in no
way, shape or form compatible with the existing neighbourhood. I
submit that a development which is the largest apartment complex
in the history of our city and which appears to
allow for further encroachment into the adjacent park land to
the east with a potential of a new collector requires
a secondary plan be prepared. The fact that city administration
is recommending a site - specific provision be applied to
the rezoning indicates that a more detailed direction for land
- used urban designer similar issues are required. As such,
on this point alone, rezoning should not be approved until
such time as a secondary plan is prepared and the
proper public and fulsome public consultation has been undertaken. The
province's growth plan for Northern Ontario states that our city,
as an economic and service hub, should encourage a significant
portion of future residential unemployment Development to locate an existing
downtown areas, intensification corridors, Brownfield sites and strategic core areas.
Council has chosen location for this massive development is not
what is envisioned by the growth plan. And like many
other Planning documents, it also states the City should provide
a range of transportation options, something that's development in this
location cannot provide. The need to respond to and mitigate
climate change is oppressing issue the City's Net Zero strategy
sets out a number of targets which included intensification area
near the central city, planting 100, 000 trees within the
Municipal Boundary by 2050. The development at a rundale is
not near the central city, and will require the denuding
of almost the entire parcel. Why are we removing mature
stands of trees, destroying existing metals in biodiversity, especially in
this age of severe climate change? In an effort to
reduce gas emissions, 65 of trip, 65 percent of trips
within the City will be done by transit, walking and
cycling by 2030, less than four years from now. Why
then is the City considering allowing the largest development in
the history of our city to be built in a
car dependent community where the majority of trips require the
use of a personal vehicle. I have other concerns. Terra
Lux is completely different versions of the development, the incomplete,
and somewhat misleading information and StanTechs reports, the Environmental Impact
Study that doesn't reference any mammals, including our resident Grey
Fox, who appeared on my deck. But unfortunately my time
is limited. Many of you were on Council in January,
2020 when the Climate Emergency was declared. Some of you
served on the Earth Care Advisory Committee, Mayor Boschkoff, you
yourself are an ambassador for the Wilder Institute whose purpose
is to safeguard wildlife and the ecosystems we all depend
on. The destruction of Parkland and Wildlife Habitat for a
massive development in a car dependent neighbourhood goes against everything,
every one of you alleged to support. Was this just
greenwashing for political points? I ask you to carefully consider
my comments. Chair, I asked for personal slurs, not necessary
at this time. Thank you, Mayor Bosch Kavasti. Keep your
comments and articulation parliamentary, please. Understood. Thank you. I asked
you to carefully consider my comments and those of my
fellow residents here tonight, including those who have sent you
emails or made phone calls. I ask you to consider
the 2600 plus residents who signed the petition against this
development and the likely 100 people who showed up tonight
at the rally. Thousands of residents have spoken. We do
not want this Parkland used for residential development. It sets
a terrible precedent as others have said. It opens the
door to more encroachment into Boulevard Lake Park, one that
will have a lasting negative impact on current and future
generations. Is this really the legacy you wish to leave?
Thank you. Thank you. I asked that you remained in
your seat. There might be some questions from Council. Foles,
please. Thank you, Speaker. You thank you for your presentation.
You went through a lot of information there. Towards the
end, you had mentioned a couple of things that I
wanted to dig into a little bit. You said you
had some concerns about changing of the development over time.
Just wondering, I think you said concerns. I'm just wondering
if you could expand on that place. Yes, four different
versions of this development were prepared and presented. The first
was an extremely poor quality concept proposal of three massive
buildings, 600 units. And that was presented in the fall
of 2025. It did not conform with the urban mid
- right zoning, the City required, completely ignored other zoning
by - law and official plan requirements for this type
of build. In this particular setting. Um, but it was
still presented to the public as if it was something
that was possible. The second version in January 26th was
at least professionally done. It appeared to be prepared by
Brooks McElroy, a firm that the City is used on
a number of occasions. It also provided a lengthy memo
on the significant feedback. That was received for the Development,
and it included, this is the feedback received. This is
how we're mitigating the development. The conceptual drawing, though, in
January 2026, was misleading. It showed two smaller buildings set
to the east side of the property. Those two buildings
could not have helped hold 400 units. And it was
very, it was beautifully done. Lots of trees, lots of
green space. So it's very misleading. It looked like most
of the space at 791, and Rundrell was going to
be left untouched. So it's concerning to me because all
of these versions, you know, people are looking at them
and they're making, they're believing a certain concept as being
presented, and that's going to be the reality. And all
of us know that concept proposals are just that concept.
The third version was issued with the City's Nose of
Application. I believe it was July 3rd. It disregarded all
that previous feedback that was received. And placed the development
immediately behind the houses on Toledo. And to be honest
with you, it was like a big screw you. We
don't care what you said. We don't care about the
residents. And obviously it got everybody up in arms. So
that site sketch was sent out only to local, you
know, the nearby residents within 120 metres. So the reaction
was swift. Then not a week later. Version four shows
up. And this is a version that you have in
your city council report this evening. It included a notice
of application notice of Public Meeting and information about the
Public Information session. And what's also concerning about that fourth
version is the introduction of the new road on the
east side. This road was never discussed at any point
in time since the beginning of this whole process, which
I might add Council and Administration had a huge hand
in. You were a partner in this because it was
done through the opportunity Sites Process. So all of a
sudden we're looking at a road on the east, obviously
encroaching into further park LAN at some point in time.
Right? Possibility of lion boulevard getting realigned, which was never
discussed with anybody. But the transportation master plan does show
a road in that plan that was from 2019. So,
I mean, it just depends on who you ask. But
obviously it looks to be like there'd be more and
more development in current river. So I just question why
Terlox, you don't come to the table with a proposal
that's like so far out there, the initial proposal of
600 units. Didn't even comply with the mid - rise
zoning. And then you turn around, you have the fourth
version. Oh, we're going to add a road. And people
are just up in arms about it. And their concern,
what actually is happening. Okay. Thank you, Speaker. Have another
question here. Um, you did mention about some of Stantex
reports. And you made the suggestion. And I just briefly
please, you said that some of them were incomplete. And,
uh, we have an opportunity to ask the applicant Stan
Tech later. So briefly please, you know, how are they
incomplete? One of the things they mentioned is, for example,
the traffic study. The traffic study used data from July
31st of 2023. July 31st happens to be major vacation
period. The study area for that traffic study was only
the intersection of Toledo Arundel Hudson. There was no mention
of further down the line Hudson and Huron Balsamon and
Huron. That was completely left out. So it's very misleading
because obviously traffic just doesn't stop at that one intersection.
It doesn't mention anything about the need for sidewalks. It
only infers that there's a multi - use path, which
is what they're referring to was the act of living
corridor. And the active living corridor, as I've already stated,
is not year - round infrastructure. It cannot be considered
usable for pedestrians and cyclists outside of the summer months.
The flexi bollards that get put up along the, uh,
Arundolin Hudson were only installed June the 3rd of this
year. The rest of the time, you're walking at grade
level with traffic, travelling at 50K an hour or more,
because there's often speeding. And so it's just not, it,
the report, like I said, inferred that this was somehow
a multi - use trail that's available year round. It
is not. Um, there was concerns about the sewer, the
capacity, the main sewer capacity that I brought to the
attention of, uh, the City Planner. He did get back
to me. Uh, the sewer line at part of a
rundoll is much smaller than the 300 millimeter sewer pipe
that's required. We've had issues on the street. You've already
heard about that. And Stantec is now doing camera work
along to leado street, which if there isn't any issues,
according to Stantex report, there's no issues, enough capacity. The
sewer pipe is the right size. Why then is the
need to do camera work. Along Toledo at this point
in the game? All of this should have been done
ahead of time. And we need to make sure that
the infrastructure is in place. Because if we have to
build sidewalks, when I say we, the City, has to
build sidewalks. Have to replace that sewer. If there's any
issues, that's going to cost the taxpayer heck of a
lot of money. Thank you. Councillor China, please. Thank you
for your presentation tonight. I have said publicly, as we've
gone through this planning process for this particular property that
I really feel that it needs to be examined with
all the pieces that you've spoken about tonight, um, is
something that I'm going to be working with administration on.
And hopefully we can bring that, I'm looking at administration.
Hopefully we can bring that resolution forward at our next
Council meeting. Um, I mean, this is a great example
of how some communication pieces could definitely be improved. Um,
that's what I can see. And my question to you
would be, and I think it's important to have some
public input of people who have gone through this process.
I know I have in my own community, but my
own area of the city, but would you be interested
in, um, giving some input to administration and actually dissecting
the process so we can improve the process. Because I
think that's, that's necessary. Um, we, we, we did a
zoning about a month ago and had similar frustrations from
the community around that area. And I'm hearing the same
similar frustrations from, from the people in this area. So
people who know me know I'm processed and policy based.
And I'd really like to know if you'd be interested
in supporting that work. Oh, definitely. I'd always would be
willing to speak with the city and sit down and
provide some feedback. Thank you. And be part of that
process. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Oops.
Councillor Egger, well please. Thank you. Thank you through youth
speaker. Um. Ms. Stanteck? Is it? Santink. Dante, sir. Fan
pink. Okay, Santique, sorry. Can you, um, you mentioned you
did urban work in Calgary. Can you expand on your
professional designations in your history of what you have? Cause
your report was quite extensive and you had covered a
lot of different topics that were very prevalent to this,
um, this lot. Yes. And others. I don't hold myself
out to be an urban planner. However, in Calgary, they
have very large community associations with her funded by the
City. And on those community associations, they have a board
of directors. I was on the executive for the board,
well as the planning and development committee. And in that
capacity, we would actually receive a development applications. And we
would have an opportunity development applications for our community. And
we would have the opportunity to actually provide feedback. Look
at them. Reach out to residents and say, do you
have any concerns about them, right? So we looked at
everything from basement apartments, backyard suites to, I even dealt
with a large shopping mall complex that was being built.
So I also did a course with the City of
Calgary on urban planning and development. And I recognise that,
um, cities have different policies and the regulations provincially as
well. But I can apply what I learned there. To
what the city is doing here and the province as
well. Okay. Thank you so much. You're welcome. Thank you.
Any other questions. Or a good scene none. I ask
you to retire to the gallery. Thank you for your
deputation. Next on the list is Ben Date.
Very good. Thank you. Um, for your participation. Hopefully you've
heard my message of earlier to please not simply repeat
information or concerns already said. You have the microphone on
and you have, would you please introduce yourself? You have
10 minutes. Thank you. Good evening. Uh, my name is
Ben Date and I am a current river resident and
I would like to thank elected municipal representatives for the
opportunity for concerned citizens such as myself to voice our
perspectives regarding the proposed development for 791 Rundel Street. As
the City is likely now aware the proposed development has
been met with passionate resistance when with good reason. The
optic surrounding the project have been misleading and at times
downright untrue. I would like to address the rhetoric several
city representatives have been promoting round Thunder Bay's need for
affordable housing and its relevance to the proposed development at
791 Rundle. Affordable housing is needed within this community. There
are very few people who would dispute this fact. However,
the city is maintaining a narrative that is a classic
example of a red herring. The housing crisis and Thunder
Bay's need to increase housing supply have repeatedly been used
to justify opening public park lands such as 791 Rundle
to residential development. The problem is that these are two
separate questions, whether Thunder Bay needs more housing and whether
that need requires developing on this particular green space. This
is a misleading conflation of two very different issues. The
property of 791 Arundel covers a total of 7. 82
acres of land. This is by no means the only
location to build housing. The City's own housing land needs
study identified capacity for 19, 803 housing units on vacant
underutilized land already zoned for development. Even under the highest
growth projected, Thunder Bay only needs 8, 825 additional units
through 2045. That is a capacity for nearly 11, 000
more units than the City projected we will need. And
this is without developing on 791 a rundell. It is
important to note that 791 Rundle was not factored into
the study findings. Additionally, the City is currently investing in
infrastructure at the central avenue Development Lands intended to enable
approximately 1, 260 housing units. The central avenue Development Lands
offers a viable space to build and it is geocaries,
but I like to ask you to stay on topic.
We're dealing with the Arundel and zoning rezoning over Rundell.
Thank you. Sure. Uh, the narrative that Thunder Bay can
either preserve our green space or develop housing is simply
not true. The concentrated effort to surplus and build specifically
on 791 a rundell is particularly concerning when coupled with
the cities portrayal of Public Support. The opportunity site survey
received merely 142 responses. And of those respondents, 84 supported
residential development on vaguely defined infil sites with no indication
that infil could mean Parkland or Greenspace. The city turned
those 84 responses into a percentage to portray 59 percent
in support of developing on 791 rundown. However, those 142
respondents combined represent only 0. 13 percent of Thunderbase population.
Additionally there were merely 52 comments related specifically to a
Rundle and only 8 of those comments expressed support for
increased housing development at that location. Despite this, administration concluded
there was general public support for developing those sites for
housing. Eight supportive comments about developing on 791 a rundell
in a City of 108, 843 people is not general
public support and support for infill is not consent to
build on Parkland. This is particularly troubling given that City
Administration itself identified 791 a rundell as the most politically
and neighbourhood sensitive of the identified opportunity sites. The City
knew this parcel of land was contentious. That makes the
decision to characterize such limited consultation as general public support
even harder to justify. As a reminder, the proposed development
is not housing design for people experiencing homelessness or severe
housing insecurity. Yet the housing and affordability crisis continues to
be invoked in defence of developing this parkland. That is
a red herring. Thunder Bay needs all types of housing,
but that does not establish a need to rezone the
Arundel Parkland for predominantly market rent development. Virtually everyone I
have met who has become aware of this proposed development
is in opposition to it. The mayor and members of
City Council are elected to represent the people of Thunder
Bay and our entrusted to safeguard the interests of the
community they serve. 791 Arunde holds intrinsic value, both in
terms of natural biodiversity and is a place of natural
and therapeutic recreation. When I first moved to this city
several years ago, I was shocked to see the amount
of visible crime, addiction, homelessness, and dilapidation of infrastructure. The
silver lining of this community has been access to nature.
One of the fundamental pillars of the social determinants of
health, his neighbourhood and physical environment. This includes safe and
affordable housing, but it also includes access to recreational opportunities
and green spaces. Green spaces, parks, and walking trails fall
directly under the physical environment umbrella and are believed to
have a direct impact on the overall well - being
of community members. Boulevard Lake and the Connecting a Rundell
Green Space provides a particularly accessible form of recreation, maintain
trails and pathways in a natural setting that can be
used by children, seniors, families, walkers, runners, cyclists, and people
with varying levels of mobility. It allows people to experience
nature without requiring them to navigate difficult terrain and that
accessibility is part of the value it has in this
community. Access to natural environment also provides opportunities for physical
activity, social connection, stress reduction, and improve mental well -
being, all of which contribute to healthier individuals and subsequently
healthier communities. The 791 A Rundell Parkland is valued by
many residents of Thunder Bay. As mentioned, Walkers, runners, cyclists,
people of all ages and mobility abilities are all regulars
around Boulevard Lake and the connecting trails to the Arundel
Parkland, paving over this green space to build predominantly market
rate housing does not benefit anyone other than those seeking
to make a greater profit margin. In conclusion, the Arundel
Parkland is not an appropriate location to build. The consistent
use of Thunder - based housing and affordability crisis to
justify the development of this green space is not just
misleading. It is the Red Herring. The existence of a
housing crisis established the existence of a housing crisis establishes
the need for housing, but does not establish the necessity
of building these market rate apartments on the Arundel Greenspace.
Other locations that would have far less of an impact
on biodiversity and recreational opportunities have been identified by the
City and the need for housing remains a compatible goal
alongside protecting city parks and green spaces. I believe the
City New Public approval of such a development would be
incredibly low, hence the misleading public attitude survey. The Red
Herring being presented in tandem with the concentrated effort to
specifically build on the Arundel Parkland is alarming and has
shaken my confidence with elected representatives of the City. I
have yet to hear a single logical persuasive or reasonable
argument as for why this development ought to occur specifically
on the Arundel Parkland. I have only seen rhetoric of
the housing crisis being used to justify this particular development.
And there is a lot of concern about green in
this debate, but I'm not convinced green space is the
green everyone is thinking about. I would encourage elected representatives
to listen to what their voters are passionately expressing. My
vision is simple. Vote no to rezoning the Urandal Parkland
preserve Thunder Bay's green spaces and build the housing we
need with the substantial development capacity the City has already
identified. Everyone can win. Thank you for your time, consideration
and patience. I appreciate municipal efforts to better this community
which I call home. If you are still in favor
of developing 791 a rundell, I would strongly encourage you
to reconsider or at the very least provide a counter
argument grounded in facts, reason, and logic, not the misleading
suggestion that by acknowledging Thunder Bay's need for housing, somehow
answers the question as to why the Arundel Parkland must
be developed. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions. See none,
thank you for your deputation. I'll ask you retire to
the gallery. Next on the list, and I do apologise.
Um, it's a difficult handwriting. First name is Malcolm. Last
name, possibly might be ruggerson. Apologies. Rogerson. Thank you again.
And I, uh, remind Deputance to hopefully speak to new
information or concerns. Um, you have the Mike on. Please
introduce yourself and you have 10 minutes when you start.
My name is Malcolm Rogerson. Um, previously in a former
career, I sat on the Planning Board for the Municipality
of Tanchipa Terris Bay for 10 years. Um, I'm not
going to repeat any of the Planning stuff that's been
spoken of, but I will talk about trust. Because the
Administration, City Council, and the mayor have been entrusted. With
the management and protection and development of the City of
Thunder Bay. If you vote for rezoning this Parkland, you're
in breach of that trust. And I will hold you
accountable for that breach of that trust. In fact, what
I would do is, uh, I would bring on a
Bill of Rights and Charter Challenge legally against you. For
the following reasons, that breach of trust violates and deprives
the life, liberty, and security of the person, except in
accordance with fundamental justice. So thereby you breaching your trust
to your community, you are depriving your community of that
life, liberty, and use of that Parkland. So that would
be the first step. So I'm placing you on notice
that if you do vote for rezoning this, that, um,
the sovereign legal fund will partner with the Justice Centre
of Constitutional Freedoms. And we will present a charter challenge.
And that's my presentation. We're being very much speaker. Councillor
Trenny. Uh, we're being threatened. Well, given order. Yeah. Thank
you. Um, Mr. Rogerson, has finished his deputation. Um, I'll
leave it at that. Is there any questions that we
have. Thank you, Mr. Rogerson, for your deputation. I'll ask
you retire to the gallery. Working down my list, I
have Norman Sponsha. And again, to the
deputy, please consider bringing forward new information. Also ask that
you stay within order and have parliamentary conversations or dialogue,
please, and thank you. Please grab a seat. You have
the mic on and introduce yourself. You have 10 minutes.
Mayor Boschkoff. And esteemed councillors. I have great respect for
all of you here, and I will not disrespect any
of you. I believe your vote each one of you
your votes represent so many people. In Thunder Bay. And
for that, I respect you even more. You were voted
in to do the job of the people. Um, I
just want to say, uh. I just caught, I'm a
retired businessman at Thunder Bay and I'm a local artist.
I'm a singer - songwriter and a painter. I just
got back from the Red Rock Folk Festival. I don't
want to get off subject, but I would just like
to say we should be very proud of the artists
that played there this weekend. They stood up against all
the national and more professional players toe to toe. And
it was just so proud to see. I know Ken
that you, I mean, Mayor, you would appreciate what I'm
saying. Uh, very much. Um, now Haven said that one
of the things I do believe is that sometimes as
I've heard them, uh, the concerns being referred to as
NIMBY, not in my neighbourhood. Or backyard. But this space
is definitely a Thunder Bay space. I've lived there now
for 14 or 15 years. I've seen how much it's
been used by all this, uh, this community. And, um.
With that in mind, I believe that this particular place
with a largest development ever done. I believe that there
should have been a referendum to the people of Thunder
Bay to get their view of this historic place relevant
to this historic development. Um, I'm sorry that that hasn't
been done. I'm hoping perhaps in some way in the
future on the subject that it can be done and
let the people speak, um, it's kind of horrible to
throw away that kind of legacy. I'm not against
the development of housing. I have listened to some of
the councillors and I am 100 percent with you. These
developments need, we need housing. My question always is what
these people who have come before me have said so
eloquently, um, that development of community is in the health
of a community has. Parameters that are important. Getting rid
of things that bring health to a community like a
green space is a big thing to lose. And it's
a big thing to lose to this whole town. So
I'm, I'm not here to say that we shouldn't be
doing development. I think we should be doing as much
development that is needed. We should be using the grant
money that has been afforded through our tax dollars for
the City. And I think what we need is to
put development where it does the most good. Not where
it hurts. I see no reason to put it in
a green space. The second thing I would like to
say, um, Councillor, you thought that you were being threatened.
I was going to mention that, um, I've done some
research about, um, lawyer associations that are, that are specifically,
um, will do for free fight for, uh, ecosensitive spaces
that are being, uh, presented with development, um, and I
believe that, uh, that is the way to go. And,
uh, I would suggest to the, to use, do the
developer a favor and not tie them up with litigation.
Let them build their, their, the developments that we need.
Why put them in a place where there's a long
timeline holding up their developments. Um, that's not a threat.
I'm just saying that that's a, that's a thing that
I think, um, is inevitable. There's too much. When there's
2, 600 and some on people signing a petition in
less than two weeks, that hour means to me that
there's many, many, many more. This is an election issue.
This will be an election issue. We ask you to
consider that, that the people of, like I say, 2,
600 people signing in two and a half weeks, we
know that there's many, many more. Um, haven't said that.
The one of the things that I was wondering about
is. Schools. Has there been no conversation here so far
about what that will do, uh, for the schools in
the area. One of the things I do know about,
uh, the boards of education is one of the biggest
bills and the toughest things to deal with because they
have to pay for busing, um, and they have to
make very difficult decisions to eliminate, um, programs. But because
of the budget, uh, because of the expense of buzzing,
I'm concerned about what that will add, um, to that
budget of busing from this location to the high schools,
to the Public Schools, to the Catholic schools. So that's
a concern of mine, whether it's been looked at or
not. You know, these are things that are going to
cost us in our education system, perhaps. Um, I just
haven't heard anybody talk about it. I might, I might
be wrong about this, but I know that busing is
a really big budget issue for the boards of education.
So I'm concerned about that. Um, the other thing that
I ask you is you've all voted so wonderfully and
you've done such great work in developing the port Arthur
downtown. If you don't mind me saying that in the
South side of Fort William where I grew up, we
spent so much money in the reincarnation of our gun
spent so much money on the reincarnation of both those
downtowns, especially the south side. I'd ask that you remain
on topic with 791 a rundo, please. Thank you. Um,
it is. And what I'm saying is that instead of
on a rundoll, um, sir, thank you that we put
our, we've already put our money in other areas to
develop down cores millions of dollars. Let's now support those
with residential development that will support those downtown cores. Um,
I feel that that's a very important thing to do
when we've already spent so much money developing them. Um,
it will help, you know, very much. Look how much
it's helped. The Algoma Bay Street area with all the,
uh, the, the development residential, the Development there. It's a
perfect example. Uh, other than that.
I was all due respect my last thing that I
will say is this is a huge decision. We've all
indicated, and everyone's indicated how important that space is and
how big this development is, both of them historical. I
don't mean to call you lame. Council, but that's what
they call at this point of the game. And I
think this is just too big of an issue to
be. Voted on, actually, at this point of the game.
When some of you won't be here, um, and I
ask that it be. I just felt that it would
be better if we waited to make that decision. But
if we're not, I with all respect, ask you to
please consider from your heart, where it's coming from me
and with no disrespect, I ask you to think about
this again. Give it a chance in your heart and
your head what makes sense to you. Um, developing a
city is not just about building, developing a city is
about building a healthy city. And, uh, putting things in
the right place, supporting, uh, downtown cores like we have
developed. And I will end with that. And I thank
you so much for the opportunity to speak about this.
Thank you. Any questions. Councillor Trenny. Thank you through the
speaker. I thank you for your presentation today. And you
are right. We're putting a lot of money into our
downtown cores. One of the properties actually is in the
downtown core, but that's not the one we're discussing this
evening. Um, we, you were talking about schools. And I
think many of us are very familiar with where the
schools lying within our community, but when we talk about
the downtown cores, that's where we don't see the schools.
We don't see the high schools there. And so there'll
be a busing issue. Did you think about that when
you were talking about pushing this development into the course.
Um. That's a really good point. And I stand, let
me think about that, that makes sense. But may I
put back to you. One, they're both wrong then, aren't
they? So what can I say about that? I don't
want to debate. I went to Lakeview and I lived
at the top of Curt River. So I managed to
make it to Lakeview, no problem. And I think this
is probably close to this. Remember the days when we
used to walk. Yeah. Yes. And bus. But that's not
the, that's not the issue now because there are rules
and regulations about how far a student should be before
they get on a bus, as you know. Yes. Yes.
Yeah. But you brought up a good point. Or order,
please. Councillor Trede? Yeah. The other difficult part of the
downtown cores is that the developers will want, will need
to want to build there. So the process that was
done, um, if I can speak to the process a
little bit, 10 pieces of property were offered to the
developers. Um, to ask them where they would want to
build. So, you know, there has to be an interest.
There needs to be a size. There's a bunch of
other pieces that I'll ask. I think it was, uh,
Ivan who asked that question. I'll ask a little later
on when we get a chance to ask questions of
admin. But we need to recognise that. And so that
was, that's why the approach was changed. The lists were
thrown out. And administration did that and then came to
us with the Councillor Chinese. Do you have a question?
No. So my, my question is the difficulty of building
in the cores, we can only build with the developers
are interested in building. That. Well, that's a very, that's
a Councillor Chatty. Maybe you want to reiterate that question.
Yeah. I was just argued up to 791 a rundo,
please. Yeah. Yes. So the developer chose this piece of
property with all the developers at the table to make
the choices, which again, administration will get into later. But
that's part of the reason why this was chosen. The
downtown South Corps, there was no interest. It will accept
for one piece of property. So we can only, do
you understand that developers won't build where they don't want
to build. I think developers will build where the money
to be made. And Developers have to build. And I
think that I'll go 50 - 50. I think the
City and the people that you represent should be 50
percent of that decision. And the other part can be
the developers. But developers will, you know, why give them
all the cherry places, the concern I have, the police
cherry places. Is nobody want, everybody will want to live
in the cherry places, which will push up the prices
of those and what follows from that. Is those places
become very expensive and what follows is the rest of
the market. It's not going to do the opposite where
it's going to push prices down. What it will do
is getaways more areas. That's what we'll do in my
humble opinion. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you
for that. Thank you. See no other questions. Oscar retired
to the gallery, please. Next up on the list is
Dr. Willow. Kerthoy. I apologise if I have that mispronounced.
I see the mic is on. And again, I ask,
you bring forward new information or concerns, uh, please introduce
yourself and you have 10 minutes. Thank you, Speaker. And
thank you, honourable. Mayor Boschkoff and members. Of Council. For
this opportunity to speak. My name is Dr. Willow Kerthois.
I hold a PhD in land conservation with 28 years
experience as a researcher and faculty member at Lakehead University.
Previously, I worked for the Municipality of Lethbridge. But more
importantly, I'm a grandmother of three children and I speak
on their behalf this evening. I asked my nine -
year - old. Granddaughter Rose. What message to put on
the rally sign without any hesitation at all? She said
nature is our future. Nature is our future. Every single
land use decision. Shapes the kind of future our children
and grandchildren will inherit. Every land use decision, even for
a mere 3. 2 hectar parcel determines whether Thunder Bay
will achieve its stated vision for environmental stewardship and smart
growth. Or fails. Peace by peace by peace. Nietzsche is
either recognised as valuable. Or it's discarded. Growing up in
a large city. I lived the painful experience of witnessing
urban nature slowly disappear. The City became ever more noisy
and polluted place where people were increasingly angry. In my
experience. And it wasn't a place we wanted to raise
our children. So we left. And putting nature back is
expansive. In Europe cities are spending billions upon billions of
dollars trying to put nature back. Thunder Bay has a
chance to do it right from the beginning. We're in
a good position. Page four, the City of Thunder Bay's
official Plan explicitly commits this administration to maintain a healthy
ecological relationship between human activity and environmental resources. It states
that protecting and enhancing the Natural Environment through wise management
and efficient land use patterns will promote long - term
sustainability. Converting 791er Rundle into a residential zone, fundamentally goes
against this guiding principle. True smart growth requires us to
protect existing natural assets, not dismantle them. Taken away Community
Green Space and Natural Assets undermines the integrity of the
very framework. To guide our cities sustainable future. But isn't
791, just vacant land. To label this land as vacant
as vacant is inaccurate. Calling Land Vacant implies its empty
unused and devoid of value. Looking at aerial photos of
791 Arundel, especially the ones take you in the land
was dormant. I can see why someone might assume the
land empty. But if you take the time to explore
791 Arundel and get off the trails and really look
around, you find the exact opposite. Far from being empty,
the area contains a highly functional ecosystem of open meadows
with hundreds of plant and fungi species. Some of these
meadows are actively transitioning back to forest with at least
seven native species of robust young trees. They are deeply
rooted grasses. Many pollinators buzzing about wildlife species and numerous
medicine plants. And there is a mature wooded areas which
offer home to different plants and animals, thereby contributing to
the overall biodiversity and wildlife viewing opportunities. Winding through all
of this natural richness is a public trail system which
receives year - round use on a daily basis. That's
what you'll see if you take the time to look,
but the more going on that is invisible. Invisible work
that is contributing thousands of dollars annually to the city's
economic vitality. This unseen work is called ecological services. Free
services providing life supporting benefits to all people and saves
the city money. For example, the four. Water regulation and
flood control. It's estimated financial contribution is 2, 500 dollars
absorb heavy rainfall, lower the urban stormwater infrastructure load and
prevent downstream property damage costs. Number two, carbons, sequestration, estimated
value of 700 dollars per hector of meadow per year.
Meadows capture atmospheric carbon into deep roots, providing climate change,
resiliency. Number three, pollination in habitat support, economic value approximately
1, 200 dollars. Sustained local B and insect populations protecting
urban biodiversity and supporting food security. Number four, air quality
and ambient cooling estimated values filter urban particulate matter and
mitigate the local heat island fact caused by paved services
and buildings. So the total estimated annual, economic asset value
for meadows is approximately 5, 300 per hectare. You multiply
that by 2. 6, just approximate area of the Open
Meadows at 791 Arundel. And you get an estimated 14,
000 dollars in free municipal services every year. And that
adds up. That's a good investment. If you bring in
the wooded areas and also consider social benefits, the yearly
economic contribution would be even higher. And with a devastating
impacts of climate change, we are experiencing firsthand the economic
value of natural areas is only going to increase. With
natural areas are paved over the ecosystem is bankrupted in
the City eventually absorbs the cost of free ecological services.
Currently 791 are Rundell provides an important ecological buffer for
the boulevard Lake Natural Areous Complex. Rezoning this Community Green
Space means that this larger ecosystem will also be negatively
affected. Every time an ecosystem is fragmented by roads, parking
lots, housing, the land community becomes less viable. So essentially
the smaller and ecological area becomes the less healthy it
is. Other he had not ecological services relate to mental
health and well - being. Sir Robert Watson, he's the
chair of the Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and
ecosystem services said. Nature's contribution to people are of critical
importance. Nature underpins every person's well - being and ambitions.
From health and happiness to prosperity and security. People need
to better understand the full value of nature to ensure
its protection and sustainable use. Strong mental health is another
asset. Currently a rundo offers a peaceful mixed meadows and
wooded areas. A place where you can get away from
the noise of traffic breathing fresh air. Hear the bird
Sing Watch Butterflies, see wildlife. Enjoy flowers. Have a space
to reflect. To release stress and recharge. Strong mental health
also has economic benefits and is essential to building a
resilient and vibrant Thunder Bay. Apologies, but you have one
minute remaining. Okay. It's not too late to recognise that
791 or Randall Street is neither surplus nor vacant. The
ecological social and economic value of this land. Which is
vital, which is a vital functional part of broader boulevard
Lake Complex is significant. And these values benefit all of
Thunder Bay now and in the future. And they also
benefit the more than human wildlife that live there. In
conclusion, smart growth puts nature first. I'm there for asking
Council to take the following forward thinking actions tonight. Vote
no deny the application to amend the official plan and
zoning by - law for 791 to run the park.
In the short term maintain this valuable land's designation as
a community zone to preserve its public use and ecological
services and even be as bold to consider adding a
more protective designation in the future. Apologies I'll ask you
to wrap up please. Thank you. Thank you. For your
time, your consideration and your service. Thank you. We have
a question from Mayor Boschkov for you. Thank you very
much. That was quite fulsome and appreciated. Are you aware
that Thunderbi out of 5600 municipalities in Canada is in
the top 10 for percentage of land that are dedicated
to Parkland and Greenspace? Yes, and that's why I said
we're ahead of the game. You know, like we have
a chance to do it right. When you said it,
I would just pleased that someone that actually acknowledged it.
So I just wonderful. So you're understanding a Biodiversity and
with the number and size of the acreages of the
parks that we have, uh, are you thinking that there
are still some areas that within the city proper, uh,
that we still need to protect in view of this
debate tonight. Well, I looked for a plan on the
natural areas for the City of Thunder Bay. I couldn't
find one. Um, you know, showing the designated lands that
are protected. So that would be helpful. Um, and, you
know, call me an extremist, but honestly, every natural area
has these same values and contributes in the same way.
So that's the third question would be in terms of
then the conservation authority. And their designations of lands as
opposed to municipal properties. Mayor Bosch Cabrera, too, uh, snuggle
this up to 791 Arundle this question? Uh, so what
I'm trying to figure out what the impact of a
rundown on the lands that are being protected would have
because it's such a, actually minute piece of that puzzle.
Well, it does buffer up against the larger boulevard lake
complex. And so it's contributing there. And, um, there's numerous
studies showing even these small areas are making significant contributions.
Obviously biggers better, but, but they are important. And I,
there again, there's numerous studies now with cities that just
have little fragments left here and there and they're fighting
to save those. I hope I answered your question. Thank
you. I can't debate you. So I will, uh, I
thank you for your perspective. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you,
Mary Boschkoff. Any other questions. I'm seeing none. I'll ask
you to retire to the gallery. Thank you for your
deputation. Sorry. Council Hamilton. Oh, apologise Dr. Cortwait. And I
did not a question for you. I just said one,
one quick question on, on an element of the proposal.
And I apologise, Speaker, for coming in late. Um. The
one main feature of this proposal is the fact that
it's vertical. Um, and when it comes to urban infil
and building vertical, you spoke a lot about nature, you
spoke, you know, I'm sure you understand that in Parkdale
and Cherry Ridge, like the City is building out, uh,
forest is being cleared to make room for new subdivisions.
Uh, this, uh, proposal is at least vertical. It's a
lot of units in a very short, uh, small amount
of space. I just want, if you could just give
a comment on the fact that we're building vertically, dense,
uh, not out into suburban and taking over more and
more forest land at the city's perimeter. Yeah, it's definitely
part of smart growth. Part of me, you know, building
up, um, but essential fundamental value, our guiding principle is
smart growth is not taken away existing natural areas. Thank
you. Very good. Thank you. Next up on the list
is Dr. Harvey Lemelin. Thank you. As you see, the
mic is on. Again, I ask of all deputants to
please bring forward any new information or concerns. Um, please
introduce yourself and you will have 10 minutes. All right.
My name is Renal Harvey Lamnae. Bonjour. Hello. Uh, to
the speaker mayor and Council members. I know some of
you mentioned Lakehead. I am a Prof and outdoor rec
parks and tourism. I do feel like I've been teaching
the seven to 10 class and maybe enthusiasm is a
bit hard to garner it now. So I'm going to
try to build on some of the presentation. Mr. Speaker,
I'm going to apologise in advance. I could say that
will stole most of my ideas for her speech. But
I am talking about biodiversity. Let's view it as a
walk and places that we don't need to spend any
time on. I'll just move along very quickly. So I
apologise in advance with that. I'm a researcher with over
33 years of experience in Ontario Northern Canada. I have
published in co - published over 50 peer - reviewed
journal articles. Many of them pertaining to wildlife management in
Ontario and throughout Canada. From 20, 10 to 2012, I
was a member of the Fort Seven First Nations Delegation
Team for the Interjuris Dictional Engagement Session on the Protection
and Recovery of Polar Bears and Ontario. In 2022, I
was invited to grandfather Mountain and North Carolina to help
develop a management strategies regarding the management of a fly
- fly sanctuary. Last, I am also a resident of
current river and an act of cyclists and hiker who
wreck in the LPH lands Boulevard Lake, the bluffs, centennial
park and Throwbridge forests. Lately Biodiversity in native plants have
been on some councillors and on some city employee's mind.
Highlighting the importance of providing food sources for pollinators, whether
it is on City Boulevards or through no mozones, these
messages in an era of habitat fragmentation when global insect
populations are estimated to have decreased by 70 percent view
and colleagues in 2026 or when North American bird populations
are done by 2. 9 billion breeding pairs since the
1970s, Rosenberg. So those strategies should be commended. While I've
noted many of my concerns regarding the proposed 7091, a
rundo project to the standing committee and separately to individual
city council members. And I thank those members who took
the time to write back and address some of my
concerns. The focus of this deputation is regarding the potential
in environmental ramifications of the rezoning of this site. As
researchers like Rey and Kraus observed the decline of wild
species represents one of the most urgent crisis of our
time. Strategies at mitigating this loss includes the establishment of
protected areas, endangered species, legislation, and pledges to protect nature.
That's why governments at the federal and provincial levels have
initiated the 30 by 30. So we need to set
aside 30 percent of protected areas in Canada and in
the province by the year 2030. Or looking at urban
national park strategies to slow and hopefully stop this decline.
And municipal levels cities like Toronto and Hamilton Burlington have
initiated strategies to aim that protecting biodiversity and or migratory
species. Another situations, governments have instituted endangered species legislation. Now
the role of environmental groups with governments like the nature
conservancy of Canada and these conservation strategies are citizen project
are key. To biodiversity protection. And as stated earlier, some
cities like Thunder Bay have declared the support by pledging
their allegiances to various environmental initiatives, many of them mentioned
here tonight, and the mayor is Monarch Butterfly pledge. Park
Green Space's Park lands an essential component of all of
these strategies. The 791 Rundell Environmental Impact Assessment conducted on
August 12th, 2024, and again, on July 17, 20, 26,
mentioned the possible presence of Yellow - Banded Bumblebee and
the Canadian warbler. To these observations, I would like to
add that monarch butterflies and Grey Foxes have been observed
by citizens who frequently use this area. The reason why
I'm mentioning these species is the yellow - banded bumblebee,
Canadian warbler, and monarch butterflies are species of special concerns
in Ontario, while Grey Fox are considered a threatened species
in Ontario. As stated earlier, advocating for the planting of
food sources is an important component of biodiversity protection. But
it's only one component. For along with food sources, wildlife
requires habitat when we heard that today and shelter. This
is why the protection of green spaces and Parkland is
so crucial to biodiversity. Furthermore, far from being anti -
meadows or anti - spaces devoid of species diversity and
richness, urban meadows as MADA and colleagues in 2023 and
2019 demonstrated our critical habitat in urban spaces. Now the
term Nimby was addressed, so I won't address it, but
I would like to address it because there are some
creatures that don't have a voice in any of these
sayings. That is the flora and fauna, which is currently
residing there. So, on their behalf, let's address this Nimid
Label. Since they don't have a voice, they might have
been given the opportunity state the following. No development in
my habitat. Canadian and Thunder Bay residents often assert that
nature is an essential component of our identity. And we
take great prides in believing that we have really, really
enormous amounts of it. Now beside some of the challenges
associated to considering what our protected areas in the city
and throughout the province and throughout the country, the notion
that we have numerous green spaces and that these green
spaces will not be really impacted by developers landscape promises.
Nor impacted by other regulatory changes or other natural impacts
currently affecting the planet. Think of the forest fires this
summer. Is sadly outdated. And as the caller and as
the scholar and activists, Empire Ham highlighted, misguided for, and
I'm paraphrasing him here. A country, a province, a city
that believe and promotes nature but does not feel powerful
enough to protect it from corporations and other interests will
not make the necessary sacrifices the political choices or the
cultural investments that this land needs. Furthermore, the decisions taken
by Council when not only transform natural habitat and further
fragment this habitat, but may, and I stress me, enforce
a growing, parlessness that many Canadians and young residents of
Thunder, young and old of Thunder Bay Field when it
comes to political action. I urge you on behalf of
all residents. Human or otherwise, to not rezone 791 Arrendel.
Thank you, Nasi. Thank you. Uh, any questions from Council.
Mayor Boschkov, please. On 791 Arundel, thank you. Yes on
791, I appreciate your presentation very much. The City by
decision about three years ago, uh, decided that what we
had to do to sustain ourselves as a community and
understanding our large territorial area of the community. And the
large rural component of it, uh, that we needed more
population to provide a tax base, considering how expansive the
municipality is and our road network. So with that came.
A housing push to accommodate people in proper housing and
do it. So, uh. There are limits to growth understanding
that. So what are municipalities to do such as ours,
uh, in terms of our sustainable approach to both growing
and developing proper jobs and revenue. Okay, I don't want
to get in the debate here, but there are some
researchers saying we need to examine this concept of growth
and everlasting growth and sustainability. So perhaps that would be
one of the things that we start examining from that
perspective. I understand that people need housing. And I am
not against it. But I think that some of the
previous presentation that spoken more eloquently and more insightfully on
how we can address this. Again, I'm presenting you with
a perspective that no one else has talked about. And
I do believe that they deserve a voice. It's a
real shame in democracies that creatures that inhabit these areas
have no voice. That is my perspective. I know I'm
not answering your question. Maybe I'll make a good politician
one day, but I'm sticking with what I want to
present. And who I'm defending. I appreciate that. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Agwell, please. Thank you very
much, Professor, for Deputation. Just a question for you. You're
mentioning the Biodiversity and the Protection of some of these
species that are near extinction. Or can you go further
into that and explain that. On this land here, um,
cause I heard the Grey Fox now. What does it
mean to us. As a community or as a country
about the Grey Fox or the yellow banded bubble year,
the wobbler? Canadian Marble. Um, if you could, uh, explain
that a little bit better to me to understand what
you're meant there. Okay. Thank you for that opportunity. Um,
Species richness is a key component of biodiversity. I didn't
go into the technical definition. I would have needed two
hours, not 10 minutes to do that. So it is
a key component of to try and protect all of
these animals are again, addressing the previous question within a
sustainable fashion. Uh, I'm just pointing out some of the
animals that were listed in the environmental impact assessment. And
the reason why they're protected is there may not be
enough habitat for them or breeding pairs. Further studies would
have to be done. That's one of the reasons why
they are monarch butterflies, one of the most important thing
is not only protecting their habitat here, but protecting their
migratory roots back to Mexico. And when they come back
in the spring. So that is one of the key
components I believe warblers. Yes. Warblers are also migratory. So
it's very important to recognise that it's not only local
habitats, but transnational habitats because they go through the U.
S. and Mexico. Okay. So, um, through you, the speaker,
are you saying that they're on the verge of potential
extinction or reduction of their numbers have been reduced? How
is the impact? Councillor Eggwell. If you could please, uh,
rezoning or planning of 791 Arundo, please. Yeah. It's to
deal with the environmental on 791 because the doctor has
brought that forward as a species. If you could, please.
Thank you. Speaker, do you want me, can I address
Denlor? Well, I don't think we had a question. Well,
the question is, how is that impacting on this piece
of land with the Environmental He's mentioned the Environmental Studies
are incomplete. And that biodiversity is essential for these pieces
on this particular piece of land is where they've seen
them. Right? I don't know what a wobbler looks like.
I don't know all these things, but these are things
that have been impacting that's possible parcel, and that's where
I'd like to know what the long - term effect,
if any. Okay, thank you for that question. I didn't
say the Environmental Impact Assessment was in complete. What it
did note is yellow bent Bobo B, Canadian warblers and
Monarch Butterflies, all species of special concern in Ontario, which
are listed under our endangered species actors, also the species
at risk act in Canada, which will cover monarch butterflies.
So in other situations, I know, and I can't, this
is not my area of expertise. I know that studies
have been stopped and developments have been stopped when these
species have been found on these areas, or in similar
areas, but I'm usually talking about forestry projects and different
type of projects. Precautionary principle here is always the best
thing to do. But. Okay, thank you very much. Thank
you. Seeing no other questions. Alassy retired to the gallery.
Thank you for your deputation. Next up on our list,
we have Felipe Hamel. Again, apologies if I pronounce that
incorrectly. As you can see, the mic is on. Again,
as you've heard from previous Deputate, new information or concerns,
please introduce yourself, and you'll have 10 minutes when you
begin. Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Mayer, considers. Yes,
opponents, your pronunciation was correct, Mr. Speaker. My name is
Philip Amel. I reside on Fabric Crescent. I've been Tony
B. C. Citizen and resident for 30 plus years. And
I'm here as a private resident. About the concern about
791 Arendel Development, and especially the long - term effects
of rezoning that parcel there. So understood that.
Community meeting explanations for the proponent to give explanations to
the Community on July 22nd, and that some of the
comments from the Community were taken into account, amongst others
like bringing the parking on the knee to the building,
which is a good thing, avoiding a development that would
be a patch of asphalt with the smallish building in
the middle. And two, that there was some affordable housing
in the project. It's also a good thing. I'm wondering
how good it will be with the Affordable Housing in
the middle of food desert. My biggest concern was, however,
about the traffic. Miss Tent already mentioned the shortcomings of
the Traffic Study, only at one point. I won't go
long. I want to go back there. However, there was
a comment on July 22nd that was, oh yeah, we
might have two straightened up lion boulevard. And that raise
a huge concern in the person that grew up in
Quebec City, basically me. And Ms. Councillor Atreini mentioned that
comment again tonight. Like there was in Quebec City. I'll
take the example to see the consequence I'm talking long
- term consequence of the rezoning of 791 ARNDL. And
the impact of the online boulevard. The NK - BX
City was a little boulevard along the river that they
decided to strain it up. To East Traffic, exactly the
same words that we heard tonight. And at the meaning
on July 22nd. Street Enemy means also widening and ended
up doing a thoroughfare similar to Water Street on the
shores of the St. Lawrence. That dedicated that Torah Fair
to only one thing automobile traffic. So with that concern
of straining line boulevard, Toro family, but not to do
many truth of Water Street, but that would be coming
a thoroughfare. We be dedicated solely to automobil traffic. And
the park that we know as like the boulevard Lake
Park with cease to exist, basically. So in Quebec City,
the admitted the mistake, and 30 - 40 years down
the road, the corrected it by bringing back the curves
that eliminated, and the interruptions that were there by adding
up street lights and pedestrian crossings to give access to
the park that was there or the communal line that
was there in our park. Along the shore of the
river. So, and needless to say that was an extremely
expensive proposal to correct the mistake that was done like
50 years ago. So to avoid that mistake, my recommendation
would be to avoid a large development in the Parkland
that's there, and no, that's not an infill. That's building
on Parkland. So to be clear on that too. And
finally, okay, what do they do in Quebec City that
we could do here to alleviate the housing issues that
we have? Well, they're building brown field, like very desirable,
but of course the ways available brownfield, or like kind
of an industrial area that we could be convert to
housing. Well, the identified mall there. And in concert between
the city, that kind of brokered the deal and facilitated
the deal. The existing owner of the shopping mall, the
existing shopping mall tenants, and an external contractor, they're redeveloping
the whole area to build multiplex housing multiplex with many
units between luxury condos to affordable housings and some office
space. And a lot of the things in that area.
And I'm sure that we have internally here some shopping
malls that could be that are basically building in a
major patch of asphalt that could be redeveloped in the
same way. So again, to reiterate, to avoid casually mentioned
streetening of the Lion Boulevard is 791 Arundele, the first
domino of a lot of other developments that will happen
and force those streetening of Laien Boulevard and sacrifice Boulevardley.
My recommendation to this Council is to vote against the
rezoning of 791 Arendelle. Thank you. Thank you. Looking for
questions from Council. I'm Sing None. Thank you for your
deputation. Please retire to the gallery. Next on our list
is Paul Paulrini.
Thank you. And the Mike is on, as you see,
and I'll reiterate my ask that you please present new
information or concerns. Uh, and that you introduce yourself. You
have 10 minutes when you start. My name is Paul
Paul Lee. And I'm here this evening to make a
deputation on the housing project for 791 Rundell Street. Um,
and the last one, I guess, tonight. And so I
don't want to be repetitive. I will try to respect
your guideline on that. If you could please approach the
mic a little bit more. Thank you. Yes. Uh, and
I just want to mention quickly that I've got, I
spent a better part of my adult life and working
in the field of community development, travelling all over Northwestern
Ontario working on nonprofit organisations, uh, trying to encourage their
participation in the decision - making process of government at
all levels, and also their interaction with institutions. Lake Municipal
Governments. So, uh, I have some experience in this area,
and I'm particularly familiar with Public Consultation Process. They fascinate
me and how they work and whether or not they
work properly. And so, uh, that's my background. I want
to mention that I'm here to speak only to give
my own opinion at this point in time. But I
do belong to the group of individuals that have been
making presentations tonight. The Green Space Preservation Thunder B. Green's
preservation. I'm going to say that I have two parts
to my presentation, Deputation. And, uh, quite a few of
the pieces in the first part of it, already been
spoken to, but I want to just touch on them
quickly. There's some value in the bit of repetition. And,
uh, so, uh, one of the first things I want
to mention is the size of the project. When people
incurriver first saw the pictures of these buildings, they were
horrified. That's the work. They said the C can't possibly
be serious. About putting these huge apartment buildings in our
neighbourhood park. So the size of this thing is one
issue for sure. And, uh, and also it does, doesn't,
it's not consistent with the City's official plan. And I
think one of my other colleagues have spoken to that
tonight. The traffic issue is the second issue. And the
people have spoken to that as well. But the one
point that hasn't been mentioned here is the Rundell Street
is the secondary Street. It's two lanes, not four. Hotter
is a primary lane. And, uh, the other thing that
has been mentioned is that the room to expand a
Rundell Street from the bridge down to the corner, we're
hotteres. And so it'll always be a secondary street because
there's no room to expand it. And we can have
all the parking, we can have all the traffic studies
in the world. It's not going to fix that. That's
what we got. And there's a lot of traffic on
a rundo already at this point in time. We're talking
about adding at least a thousand more vehicles to that.
So there's not that you don't have to be a
rocket scientist to know that that's going to create problems
in our, in our neighbourhood. There is going to be
a traffic problem there. And it's not going to be
fixed with its study. My third point is the acting
living court or in the current river ward. If this
project goes ahead, the active living corridor, it's going to
spell the end of that corridor. People are not going
to be able to use that acting living corridor anymore
because there's going to be so much traffic there. It's
not safe. That's why we already have bullards there, uh,
in that area. That's a recognition that the problem. And
also people have been complaining for some time about, uh,
speeding drivers. People don't respect the speed limit there. That's
why we have those signs up. Shows you how fast
you're going. The destruction of trees and wildlife on this
property is a particular concern to me. And I want
to mention the fact that this park is not just,
it's not the same as other parks in the city.
Parks that have been engineered and they've been engineered by
human hands. They've been engineered by our parks division. This
is actually natural forest. This is typical of the Northern
boreal forest of Canada. And, uh, it's, and it's, but
it's biodiverse. It's got all kinds of biodiversity to it.
Uh, the destruction of that forest would get rid of
that by a diversity. It's lost forever. It's gone. We
can't. We'll never recover that. And I don't want to,
uh, I don't want to understand the value of our
urban force. I think everybody around this table understands that
in terms of climate, moderation and what have you. So
I don't want to continue to speak on that. It's
going to lead to hotter summers if all of our
parks are in green spaces are taken up. The climate
is going to, it's just going to get hotter. And
it's already hot enough at this point in time for
seniors in particular. Um, I still have some questions about
whether the black cash trees on that property. I know
the city has made a commission to report. Internally and
they paid for that report. But I'm not sure that
that report is completely reliable. The issue of stormwater, the
removal of all the trees on that property, the water
table is going to drop. There's no question about that.
The soil is not going to be able to retain
the water any longer. And I think one of the
councillors around this table did say at one time that
it's impossible for us to out engineer tree. Okay. And
we agree. Any stormwater management plan that the city is
going to prepare is no match for trees. It's simply
no match for trees. Trees are the trees of the
answer. The grey fox family, I won't go back into
that too much except to say that the legislation covering
it. Okay. So if the habit titled that great Fox
family is destroyed by the City or the developer is
a criminal offence. There's a law. In place. Historic trail
network. The trails in that area Boulevard Lake. We're not
talking about two decades, but they've been there since early
1920s. Over a hundred years a century. Those trails have
been there. And. We don't really want those trails altered
in any way. We don't want them moved. They're there.
They've been there forever. So they should stay the way
they are. Walkable neighbourhoods. I think we should be looking
at creating walkable neighbourhoods and started a car dependent ones.
Somebody's already made that point. And I don't want to
be labour of that. The parking issue will remain. I
don't think there's going to be enough parking spaces in
those buildings under those buildings. Uh, to be able to
combinate everybody. We have to remember here that the average
family in this city doesn't have just one vehicle. They
have two. And sometimes if children are living with their
parents, there's four. So my question is where's the overflow
going to go? Where are the, where's the overflow from
that going to go? Uh, is there any plan for
that? I don't see a plan for that at all.
I think parking is going to be serious issue there.
Water pressure. There's no question at all that water pressure
is going to be a problem. There's going to be
huge impact on water pressure in that neighbourhood. You can't
add 360 units of housing to the existing system and
not expect it. It's not going to have any impact.
So we are concerned about water pressure. And we're also
concerned about water pressure and the fire hydrants. Fire hydrogens
have to have enough water pressure to protect our homes
and our properties and our lives. It's not difficult. So
that's an issue. The existing infrastructure in that area is
completely outdated. And totally inadequate to handle a project of
this size. Some of the sewer means in that area,
I suspect are as small as four inches. I went
through this process one time before. We found it in
Current River that there are some means there that are
four inches. And the standard now is eight. So that
doesn't meet, you know, we have to be conscious of
that. Also the question of the bedrock, some discussion about
the, uh, blasting operations. That may take place there. I'm
pretty sure the bedrock there. Because you can see bedrock
everywhere around there. The DOS and apartments building that, Sarah,
the property that's across the road that belongs to the
City that's been for sale forever. Nobody wants it because
you can't do anything with it. It's all bedrock. Um,
the Study of Thunder B, I think we've mentioned that
the City of Thunder Bay spent 30 million dollars on
updating infrastructure downtown course. That's where this project belongs. We
should not be spending another 30 million dollars. Fixing the
infrastructure in our neighbourhood to accommodate this project. That's ridiculous.
There's a limit to taxpayers'money. We need to be conscious
of that. Short - sighted planning. I think the planning.
The city's planning on this is a really short -
sighted. I spent a lot of time working with indigenous
organisations all over Northwest Ontario. You have less than a
minute remaining. Okay. How much? Well, 45 seconds. Okay. Um,
I think the indigenous organisations, when they plan their projects,
they plan them with seven generations in mind. I'm going
to ask this council to think about the children of
the future. Okay. This issue, this is not just a
decision for today or the current generation. It's for the
future. Building and design illustration, I want to go to
that. Affordable housing. I just want to mention quickly here
that this is not about affordable housing. We're not talking
these buildings. They're not going to add our address. So
issue affordable housing. It's got nothing to do with affordable
housing at all. Uh, high density housing projects. It seems
to me like the city is entirely focused on high
density housing project. We have no problem with that. I'd
ask the wrap up, please. Um. The housing study 2024,
we said, uh, I think somebody's mentioned that already. And
the targets. I don't think we need to develop. 791
or Street. We don't need to doubt it. We don't
need to develop that to meet our housing targets. We
can meet them with all the other projects that are
already in the two. Last, I want to mention the
fact that there's really the lack of public support for
this project. I think we've seen that there's been a
lot of pushback on this project. 2, 2, 624, uh,
2, 624 sages. That tells us the lot of pushback.
I'm going to respectfully suggest that there's no public support
whatsoever for this. For this particular project, in this particular
location. Thank you. Um, seeing if the questions from Council.
No, just one for me. Mr. Polarina, your name did
look familiar. Do I have it correct that you've provided
a few written responses to council over the last couple
of months? And we received one today too. Is that
correct? Yes. That's correct. And I want to thank Council.
I have had an opportunity to have my sea. I've
been involved in this thing all along. I have nothing
personal against anybody here. Not at all. Yeah. I wanted
to, um, according to the rules, I get my point
across with a question. And so I would just say
in future, you should add your email address and your
phone number so that we can get back to you.
I don't have any online presence. Well, then there you
go. Oh, sorry. Mary Boschkoff has a question. Yes. Uh,
Mr. Polderene, uh, your points from a planning standpoint. Are
appreciated notwithstanding that. Do you think there will still be
demand for people who want to live in the plan
facility. In this particular facility. I think
that's not the, I don't, Remite, that's not the issue.
Cause this project could be built somewhere else. Okay. It
doesn't have to be in a Rundall Street. We have
lots of land. And if this building, we're built, for
example, in the central avenue development area people, would probably
want to live in those apartment buildings if they can
afford it. All right. Well, I appreciate. I was, I
was just, you made some accurate points in terms of
walkability and stuff. So I was, uh, I was concerned
about. Thank you. Thank you for your deputation. I'll ask
you to retire to the gallery. And next up on
our list is Ernie Catanen. I apologise. If I have
that incorrect, these pronounced. Ernie Catanen. Welcome. I see the
mic is on. Again, I'll reiterate if you could please
bring forward any new information or new concerns that hasn't
previously been said already. Please introduce yourself and you have
10 minutes. Thank you very much. My name is Ernie
Katainen. I am a lifetime resident of the City of
Thunder Bay. I grew up for the most part. After
the age of two in the current river area. It's
beautiful and wonderful area. And it is with Boulevard Lake
there and everything. It's a real gym for the city.
And I think, and of course, this is my, just
my own opinion, but I think that building anything on
that green space is not going to. Increase the value
of this gym. Quite the opposite is going to degrade
it. This whole, uh, area is a wonderful and beautiful
area. And we should do everything we can to preserve
it. But what I was going to say is the
world in general is in a really difficult situation right
now because we have a lot of serious problems. We
got forests are burning. We got floods. We got hurricanes
that are super hurricanes. And everything gets tied in, even
a little city like this on the worldwide scope of
things. Is we must do our thing to be able
to preserve nature and have, have, uh, a world for
our children, our grandchildren to live in. People have spoken
about, uh, ecosystem and everything else like this. I don't
know if a few people are aware of this, but
every minute, every minute of every day, the worldwide, we
are losing. A football fields worth of space. Because it's
been cut down for various reasons. Mr. Katana, could you
back up from the mic just a little bit. Thank
you. Okay. Thank you. Uh, we're losing a lot of
space because of development or so - called development. They
estimate that we are losing every year 20, 000 different
species every year. And I implore to you people. I
implore Boschkoff and City Council. Please, please do the right
thing. Do not start chopping down forests. If there are
other places we can build these facilities, we must by
all means go and build them in other places because
we do not know what's going to happen. If we,
if we start building that, whether other areas of that
whole area will be developed or so - called developed.
And the City, I think, will remain richer to have
more green space. Than, uh, than if we start chopping
it down. It's, it's just not right. If the other
places to build it by all means, we should be
building it in those other places. And, uh, I think
that it's the best thing that we can do is
to preserve these green spaces. They are, they are wonderful,
beautiful spaces. And that's what makes the City a beautiful
place. And I think we should, by, by all means
not. Degrade the City by taking away our green spaces.
And we don't know what's that's going to mean for
the rest of that area around Boulevard Lake to have
this development done, you know. Virtually everybody I've spoken to
is against this. Just as they were against this development
over at, uh, at the waterfront with those buildings, the
people who live around there. Right now I'll tell you
right now that's going to, in my opinion, that's going
to degrade the value of your property. So I would
urge you please to let the people decide, let the
parks are for all the people. They're not just for
the city council. They're not for developers or anybody else.
They belong to the city. And one, one city council
should not have the ability to make decisions that's going
to affect negatively the future of the City of Thunder
Bay. So I think that we should strive
to let the people decide either by plebiscite or just.
Delay this board right now. So that it becomes an
electoral issue. And I'm saying this not for myself. I'm
saying this for you. I'm saying this for the City,
the citizens of the City and Thunder Bay. I'm saying
this for your children. I'm saying this for your grandchildren.
Please do not do this because I think the City
will remain much more valuable, much more desirable. If we
keep our green space, it's just, it's just not right
in my opinion. So that's about all I have to
say. And I know everybody's probably getting very anxious to
get going. And we've got to continue on. So I
thank you very much for allowing me to just say
the few words that really concern me. And, uh, I
wish you people all well. And I certainly hope that
you make the right decision. Thank you very much. Thank
you. Um, looking around for questions from council. Mayor Boschkoff,
please. Thank you. Is it Mr. Kiten? Kitainen. Ketinen. Yes.
Uh, is your prime issue one of the height or
the number of units or the livability or just that
are just plain against it. So I'll give you that
range of. Well, I'm definitely against it. As far as
the height, I think that's the people there should decide
whether it should be built there, you know, but, but
it's a, it's an issue for all the people up
there. Because, uh, like I just live on Ogden Street
down there. I spend a lot of time walking down
back lanes and stuff like that. And they're in just
terrible condition. There's dirt and there's garbage and there's plants
growing up. There's potholes there. And they're just not well
taken care of. I think the city should would be
much better off to take care of what we have.
And develop. In areas where we could build high rises.
I'm not against high rises. We could develop. And but
I don't think that we should be cutting down green
spaces. I think it's just wrong. I appreciate your passion.
Thank you. Seeing no other questions. Thank you for your
deputation. I'll ask you retire to the gallery. Thank you.
And thank you. Thank you for listening to me ladies
and gentlemen. Next on our list, I only have first
name Stephanie. Thank you. The mic is still on. Again,
I'll reiterate my ask that you bring forward new information
or new concerns. Please introduce yourself and you have 10
minutes when you're ready. Good evening everybody. My name is
Stephanie Denelgo. I am born and raised in Thunder Bay.
I'm 50 years old now. I have chosen that I
want to live in this city. I've never moved out
of the city. And the reason why I have stayed
here, the only reason why I've stayed here is because
of the green spaces that we have and all the
beautiful places that surround the city. So I am a
nature girl. I go hiking almost every single day. I
will drive hours to get to a hiking place. And
what I can tell you is that area 791 a
rundow. I have, I think the only place I've ever
come across something so beautiful like that, that was so
biodiverse was in Poland when I was in an area
that had never been, you know, clear cut, had never
been developed. And you can see the natural beauty. And
people have spoken about the biodiversity of that area. And
we like was so important. Like I know a lot
of people don't go hiking. A lot of people don't
go walking. They stay within the city. But sorry, let
me get my train of thought back. A lot of
the other places that we can go to and go
for hikes and walks, those places that have been clear
cut, even if it was a hundred years ago, it
does not offer a biodiversity with several different ecosystems in
the way that 791 or Rundell does. And I'll tell
you that when I was at the Council meeting, that
was that current river. I don't know, maybe it was
a year ago. And it was standing room only. And
everyone there except for one person was against. Building there.
I am not opposed to building. There are a lot
of places that we can build, but we really need
to protect these areas. Because if, if we don't protect
them, like we are here speaking, but you all are
representing us. So when we look at the developer and
Councillor Attrini had told us that the developer wants that
area. So if we move forward with this, that quite
literally sets a black and white line of a precedent.
That developers have a say now. Because you can't go
back. Once we do something like that, we get rid
of this area that's very old. The paths are over
a hundred years old. We can't go back with that.
You know, and just using an analogy, like so the
developer wants that land. They say we want this and
look at how far we've come because a developer wants
this land. So using an analogy, when our teenagers say
that they want this or that, do we give them
everything they want? No. We don't. We use our intelligence.
When we make those kind of decisions. So the representative
for Terahlox, he was asked a question. And that was
about blasting the Canadian shield. So. I have a little
bit of experience with that. What I can say, I
grew up in the Stanley Park. Area. On Morgan Avenue.
So for those that don't know where Stanley Park is.
So that's a cross from the Thunder Bay Mall. So
that would be right across from O'Vaudi. It's a very
old neighbourhood. So living on Morgan Avenue, we had Landale
right across the street. And then later Landyal moved. So
they cut off Morgan Avenue. They moved Landale. Tim Hortons.
So I can tell you that they didn't do any
blasting over there. However, just developing over there, it went
three blocks back. So Morgan Avenue, Willroy Avenue, Sifton Avenue.
There were cracks in foundations. When they redid the road,
the same thing happened. There were cracks in foundations. You
know, so no one can say that blasting through the
Canadian shield is not going to cause massive, massive problems.
And why this is not coming forward to be discussed
or addressed literally ball goals my mind. Um, so I'm
just going to read a quote. It's only two sentences.
So look, okay. So there is no question that residents
care deeply about their parks and open spaces. This is
also true of city council and city administration who notably
are your neighbours too. Brian Hamilton wrote that. So he
publicly posted that on his personal page. So he wrote
that on behalf of all of you. So if that
is really true, then that means that you stand with
the people. Who. Must change that
decision and choose to build elsewhere because the other places.
I watched documentaries from the United States where they have
cities like Memphis, Tennessee that is so, so sad to
see how far down they've gone. But developers that really
care about people, they care about the culture. They have
come forward and started building and all these areas that
were derelict. And now it's, it's beautiful. You know, like
that exists. Like what I asked city council. Just to
explore if we know that there's certain cities in Canada
or in the United States that are successful with building
and redeveloping areas that are just so dilapidated. Why are
we not exploring those options. You know, and just to
speak about mental health for a minute. So we can
all agree. Mental health now as opposed to 20 years
ago where when I was young, it's a massive thing.
Lots of people have to take off time from work
for, for mental health. We all experience it. Stress, anxiety.
So when this came forward to build there, thousands and
thousands of people are experiencing some sort of mental health
over this. I am. I don't live in current river.
So no one can say I'm a nimby. I live
in the end, but that area is precious to me.
And I can tell you that I've walked there thousands
and thousands of times on my own with my children,
with my dogs. So I'm almost done here.
Nature is our future. And without nature, there is no
life and quite literally there is no future. I ask
that your decision regarding 791 a rundole is a true
representation of what your constituents hold dear two our hearts.
Thank you. Thank you. Looking for questions from Council, Mary
Boschko, please. Thank you very much for your presentation. Uh,
as someone who. Understands the hiking association and the walkability
of the city, uh, over the past number of years,
uh, our administration and all sorts of groups wrote the
community have done enormous amount of work in terms of
developing trails and booklets to make sure people, uh, knew
what the new walking paths are and all those kinds
of things. So why wouldn't I'm trying to figure out
how this development of people who want to live near
Boulevard Lake, uh, who want to walk there, uh, how,
how you would, why would that be perceived as a
detriment? Because to me, it would be an ideal place
in which to live. Well, you're forgetting the fact that
we would be getting rid of an area. That is
naturally biodiverse. So you're not talking about building in a
place that you don't have to get rid of all
these animals. Like we've discussed the birds we've discussed the
Grey Fox. Like I live 20 minutes away from there.
So 20 minutes there, 20 minutes back. Most people have
a vehicle nowadays, if not, you can write a bike,
you can walk. You can take a bus. If anyone
wants to go for hikes in current river, like me,
there's a means to do that. You don't have to
live there. Okay. I'll ask my question about what the
footprint of this building will be. So that's something that
you don't have to answer. So thank you. But we'll
get it answered before the night is done. Thank you.
Councillor Attorney. Thank you through the speaker. Um, so in
the design, the trail's not going away. And I appreciate
all the trails there. I live there for a period
of time. Um, but we were talking about, I was
going to, I thought the mayor was going to go
there with his question. Um, but you were really focused
on the trail piece. And I wasn't sure if you
were aware that the trail is not going away. The
trails will still all be there. The act of corridor
will be there and the trail is just going to
be rerouted. But all the trails are still going to
exist. Nothing's leaving. It's not just about the trails again.
It's about the biodiversity of the area and the animals
and the birds and the insects that live in those
ecosystems. Thank you. Very good seeing no other questions. Thank
you for your deputation. Lastly, retire to the gallery. Thank
you. Next up on the list is Dear Jaspane.
Good to see you again. Um, again, I'll reiterate that,
uh, we're asked to speak to new information or concerns.
Please introduce yourself and you'll have 10 minutes when you're
ready. Okay. Good evening Mayor and Councillors. And thank you
for your patience. I'm being pretty patient too. One of
the later speakers. And, uh, the associated or affiliated with
any of the groups. I'm here as a person who
cares deeply about the city's decisions and how they see
the future of Thunder Bay. I'm a taxpayer. I moved
to Thunder Bay 50 years ago. I lived in Windsor,
London and Ancaster. All beautiful places. And Thunder Bay had
the best and most beautiful parks. And I'm not talking
about the Lakehead Conservation areas where you have to pay
or you have to have a car to transport yourself
there. I'm talking about in the City, you could walk,
take a city bus, and they were all connected. Everything
from Trowbridge, Centennial Park, the behind the houses on Toledo
Street where there's now a beautiful meadow that if you
have never walked it in the fall when it turns
golden, you're missing out on something really beautiful. And it
connects, as you follow the trails along, it connects to
Boulevard and you can go all around there. And that's
a precious, beautiful area. By building a huge high -
rise apartment. And by the way, the ones that the
waterfront, they're seven stories high. Okay. But by, by, um,
going ahead with this proposal that you have the responsibility
to vote on is something that I think diminishes and
destroys the very essence of what makes Thunder Bay a
tourist destination. And I say that because I've brought people,
um, friends and family, my uncle lived in Louisiana. He
came and he was 85 years old. He walked all
through the trails. He walked for an hour all by
himself. It was like a spiritual meditation for him. And
he said, wow, you're so lucky. And you can just
walk here. And you don't even have to pay. And
that's something that's really important for people to understand is
the paying part. Now the other thing that I wanted
to mention is I think, um, with all sincere humility,
I would say the people on Council, 360 units. That's
at least 360 cars or trucks. Now, have you ever
been by Oliver Road and looked at the parking lot
for the hospital. They're supposed to be putting some of
these underground, it says. That's a huge amount of traffic.
Have you ever ridden your bike along the bike trails?
I don't mean the bike trail around boulevard. I mean
the one that the city established and put money into
with all these other groups to have the bike trails
go across the City from the other end of town
all the way across the city. I mean, you're looking
at something on, on that street with the traffic pattern
that's going to create a real, a real danger. And,
um, when they talk about the area of a rendel
street that accesses according to the map, the planning map
on a flat surface, it looks pretty, doesn't it? Well,
I would challenge anyone who hasn't actually walked around and
looked, a rendell Street is a raise Street. It's raised
because there's a deraneage of water. And the streams under
there that go all the way down to Boulevard. Okay.
So the road is up high and there's huge ditches
on either side. There's huge cypress trees along that absorb
the water for most of the water along there. But
are they considering that? Um, so there's drainage, high ditches.
And the services. So this is another example as I
see it. Where the taxpayers are paying rather than the
city working out with developers and saying, Hey, developers, what
can you do for the City of Thunder Bay within
our plan, our beautiful plan. The no services. Who's going
to pay for all the sewers? Who's going to pay
for all the traffic modifications? And, um, with all due
respect, uh, Ms. Attraney, but when you said the trails
aren't going to be changed, maybe you haven't been on
the trails in a while. It's called, um, The Health
Corridor, the integrated health corridor. And they have all the
trails that have been paved. And then they have some
that are the dirt trails that people use as well.
They all connect in. There is no way that you
can have, um, a health corridor for people safely when
you've got to cut through the back. I saw that
plan. Like you're going to pave a new trail to
a rendel. Like have you been to that corner? Tibete
Transit makes the turn at the corner. Then they had
to put in the electric flashing light crossing for the
seniors and the other apartment there. And I'm telling you,
if you go there and walk, nobody walks that way.
They all try to go through the city, uh, pathways.
They cut through the, um, this property at 971 Rundell
Street. They cut through there to get into Boulevard or
to get a so they don't have to walk in
a rental. It's, it's not an easy thing. And saying
you're going to put in a sidewalk. My God, you
know how much money that's going to cost. They couldn't
even put the sidewalk all the way up to Lito
Street. So I have a lot of concerns about this.
I also think of tourists. I mean, when people come
to Thunder Bay, they like the nature. They like going
to the park. They say, Oh, them arenas. You say,
Oh, well, let's go to the sleeping giant. That smiles
away. That's a provincial park. It got to pay money.
Okay. Let's go to Cabecca. Oh, you got to have
a car. You got to pay my need to go
there. You've got now the waterfront, whether or not you
like the condos there, whatever, but you've got, um, an
area for people to congregate. You've got boulevard Lake Park
all connected in. It's all a huge, big, beautiful area.
And it should be promoted. There's so many wonderful things
that when Mr. Amale talked about things people can do.
Like, you know, like, um, the imagination and creativity. And
the lots of money in Thunder Bay too. And, um,
I'll just, uh, I don't have it, but I know
some people do. I was a little worried when I
heard someone talk about realigning a road around lying boulevard.
Are you kidding me? The speed limits, uh, let's see
30 kilometers an hour. It's a park road. It's a
park. All right. A parks for people. It's for relaxing.
It's for having, um, like when they talked about mental
health things and how, you know, for stress and any
kind of, uh, you know, have people with addictions and
all the rest of it. And they say, take a
walk in nature. Forest bathe. Right. Well, that's what we
have now. Why don't we promote that. Why don't we
take the beautiful meadow area and make it even more
beautiful. As part of that. There's lots of places to
build apartments. And I got to tell you, people want
houses. The people, those, those apartments, I looked at them
and they're going to look like those terror looks or
whatever they are on golfings rode their cross from near
the, before you get to the hospital. They put a
traffic light in there. And I bet you it wasn't
the developer who paid for that traffic light is the
taxpayer. And some other ideas for the City of Thunder
Bay, like you keep it moving the city farther out
and wanting people to have busts, the sidewalks, but they
don't want the developer to pay for it. So that
was just an aside on that. Sorry. I'll stick to
the topic. Okay. So, um, that's how I see it.
I echo everyone who spoke. I thought everyone was awesome.
I echo all their comments and sentiments and all their
professionalism and expertise. And I would say to people here,
I hope that you understand that people have taken a
lot of their time and effort just to make it
here. I feel this is really rushed. I didn't even,
when I first heard about this, I thought, Oh, something,
you know, whatever. And it seems to be really pushing,
pushing, rushing on it. You do not have to make
decision. Here's my one minute remaining. Okay. I'm not against
change housing development. I'm about the future of our children,
community, the City, the Quality of Life. It's about a
vision. Okay. Make it a haven for wellness. It's about
preservation of a precious resource. And I will say, please
consider thoughtfully and carefully your vote. I really appreciate your
patience and tolerance for listening to everyone. And I would
also like to leave with a Joni Mitchell quote. Pave
paradise. You don't know what you got. Pave paradise and
put up a parking lot. Only this time it's for
multiple apartments. So I hope it's not. Thank you very
much. Thank you. Any questions from Council. Sing none. Thank
you for your deputation. Uh, ask the retire to the
gallery. Next on the list is Zach White.
You see the mic is on. So again, I'll reiterate
the ask that you please don't repeat said information or
concerns. Please do introduce yourself and you'll have 10 minutes
when you begin. Sounds great. Uh, my name is Zach
White and I live on the corner of Toledo in
a Rundell. It's been a long night. I appreciate everyone's
patience after nearly 20 people. There's not much new information
to say. So I'll be keeping it pretty brief. Um,
I did do a deputation back in December when this
first came out. And I wanted to briefly commend the
planning administration on some of the changes that were made
from the initial proposal. Um, moving the 11 metre buffer
is very nice and addresses some of the encroachments on
the property owners along Toledo. The setback of the building
44 metres from the property line is nice, good distance.
The orientation of the buildings with the majority of the
building being on the East part of Property Line away
from to the Residence to leado residents is nice. And,
uh, the end face of the building closest to the
residents on the latest rendering doesn't have any balconies unlimited
windows. So the real efforts to accommodate the comments that
have been made so far. And I want to recognise
those and appreciate those from, from everything that's been done.
Um, in terms of the remaining concerns that I have,
much have already been touched on, uh, the traffic study,
again, the corner of Hudson and Huron and Hurrion and
Balsam. That's where all that traffic goes. The traffic study
focused on Toledo and Rundle intersection. Not many cars turned
there. Most are going to that four - way stop.
So I'd want to see some more investigation there, which
might happen through site plant control later. Um, the keeping
the character of the neighbourhood, the Stantec rationale memo mentioned
that it would be about three stories taller than the
apartment buildings across the street. So that's, I would think
of keeping in line with the neighbouring properties would keep
it similar height, not three stories taller. So maybe a
little bit lower would be good. Um, the blasting has
been brought up, obviously being on Toledo concerned about any
potential damage to the basement there. Um, and that's basically
at everything else has been covered. I've closely followed the
progression of the proposal. I've read every documentation from Stantech
and others. And the question here is not about if
something can be built on this site or if it
can be engineered on this site. The question is if
it should be built on this particular site. So that's
it. Keep it brief. Everyone else has been mentioned. Thank
you. Any questions. Well please. Hi. Uh, thank you speaker.
So what you are looking at, if I can survive,
you would like it tweet three stories similar to, uh,
Toledo 500 Toledo. Or sorry, that's four stories. Yeah. Across
the street, Department of Building Lacrosse the Street. One of
the goals was to keep it in line with the
existing neighbourhood. This would be three stories taller first antext
report. Than Department Building across the street. So smaller would
be good. Ideally there'd be nothing but if there is
something that would be improved as well. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you. See new other questions. Ask your retired to
the gallery. Uh, next on the list is Helen Leba.
Looking for Helen Leba. One more time for Helen Leba.
Next on the list is Maria. I apologise. Casasola. Maria
Casasola. One more time for Maria Casasola. No. And that
completes our list, correct? Yeah. Right. So now I'll go
to the second call for speakers on 791 a rundown.
Come forward, please. Thank you. Uh, I see the mic
is on. Please introduce yourself and you'll have 10 minutes.
All right. I'll be very fast. Um, my name is
Andre Gagne. And, um. So Coran River has roughly a
900 people per square kilometer. According to statistic Canada, uh,
and for comparison, Northwood has 2, 000 people per square
kilometer. The city's densification strategy is in part intended to
address our infrastructure deficit. Like our severe infrastructure deficit. Given
that disparity and density, I find it incredibly frustrating that
an area of the City with considerably more green space
would be unwilling to contribute some of that land toward
responsibly addressing a problem that affects the entire city. In
my view, Council needs to support this agenda item and
the next one together or oppose them both. Anything else
is not equitable. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions.
Mayor Boschkop, please. You've made a pretty dramatic statement in
terms of, uh, understanding, um. That, uh, more people in
the building doesn't necessarily create a population explosion. So, uh.
The people seem to be more concerned with the height
and perhaps the traffic. And what it might do to
the view scape. So how would you answer those people.
Well. I mean, the trade - off to all decisions
that you have to make, um, there's been a pretty
big effort by this council. To really, um, geared towards
growth. And, um, and address the infrastructure deficit. So.
Like, there are people, like the people in this room
are going to be the most affected by this decision.
And it's a difficult thing. But, um, but like consider
who loses when we don't address our infrastructure needs. I
mean, the places that are the most dense are almost
lifting up, um. Other areas, like some areas, I don't
know if I'm answering your question. Is that, uh, does
that answer your question at all? Well, I think that
the concern of the neighbourhood is the carrying capacity of
a, of another structure, but it seemed the mathematics of
the acreage means that it probably could. So my question
to you is it seems that you're leaning towards that
way. I don't know. Well, I think it's my, my
support would be conditional. I mean, there's another item. I
don't know what the rules are of talking about. But
they're all kind of, I can't. Yeah. So I'm not,
I'm not trying to, but I see them as part
of the same plan right there on the same night.
And, um. It just doesn't seem fair. When there's such
a disparity in density and density will resolve or will
help improve our infrastructure deficit because the more concentration of,
uh, taxable area, the more, the better economics for servicing
the area. Right. Cause if you have more people concentrating
in a smaller area. So, um, so there's winners and
losers with all decisions. Um, and you want to make
the best. I'd see the best and highest utility decision
is to, is densification. And this has been the direction
of council. But I, and I appreciate everything that everyone
here has said. And I know the costs and they're
the ones who are carrying it. Um, and it's, um,
but it's a tough. It's always, it's just tough no
matter which way you go, but I think the, um,
the densification is a sound strategy. To really improve our
infrastructure situation. Um, that's just what I believe. No, thank
you very much for that. Thank you. See no other
questions. Lastly, we retired to the gallery. I'll continue with
my second call for speakers. Sing nobody, I will go
to my third and final call for speakers. Third and
final call for speakers. They're in fond call for a
speaker. Um, David Kirk Walters. So next on this topic
is essentially asking questions of administration or the applicant, correct?
Okay. Uh, I'm getting the nod that we'll have questions
first for the applicant. So if we could have the
applicant, uh, make their way to the desk. And we'll
open it up for, uh, questions. We have one round.
Three questions or five minutes on this. If there are
any questions for the applicant and administration. Mayor Boschkov.
You've heard that the vast majority of the citizens making
comments feel that this is an overdevelopment in its proximity
to the lake itself. So you probably, it's a three
part question in terms of capacity of the building. Um,
impact on the lake. And is there any possibility in
terms of either height or size of the building. So
all three questions in one. Thanks. Okay. How take a
stab at that. So in regards to, you know, the
size and scale of it is a too big for
the, for the property, I would argue that it's, it's
not too big for the property. There's no site specific
amendments being requested as part of the rezoning. So basically
the UM Zone, we don't have to change anything. So
it size appropriately for it. We've, in our presentation earlier,
we actually showed that it was, we're, we're underutilizing this
space. Whereas 489 or so units could be comfortably put
on this lot. We're down to 360. Um, the comment
about, uh. How we would impact the lake. I mean,
I think we're pretty far from the lake. Not sure
how we would do that. But I mean, if it's,
if it's a stormwater piece, like we will be managing
the stormwater appropriately on site. And then I think your
third question is to, to the ability to lower the
number of units. Um, I think that's really a question
of economics. I mean, we need the units to pay
for the buildings and less unit means the rents go
up. Um, if we're truly trying to find the balance
of market and somewhat affordable units, more units means we
can, we can lower the price. I'll just ask you
to just explain the fact that you have addressed the
things within the planning act and the cities requirements, but
you still, you're not exceeding any capacity or unit according
to the city's bylaws. So I just had to make
that understand that. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Hamilton,
please. Thank you, Speaker. Um, I only have just a
couple of quick questions. The last speaker, one of the
last speakers, um, was talking about peripheral traffics studies. And
I use that area a lot. Um, I tend to
agree that probably the little catch halls, like the four
way stop at the, at Balsam. And I'm just wondering
if traffic studies would, uh, consider contemplate some of the
traffic congestion that might happen there. Sometimes, sometimes a day
it's quite congested. So just, just maybe in a little
note on maybe some of the areas of study that
would have been outside of the direct area. I think
might be helpful for me. Yeah. I'm going to see
if, um, Arash is still online. There he is. He
could probably answer that question about peripheral traffic studies. Thank
you. Sure. Uh, the simple answer is yes, we can.
But again, the TIS TIS guidelines, they have a specific
rule. Usually you're looking at the intersections that the percentage
of traffic, new traffic that comes to that is above
a certain percentage. And I have to say, uh, for
this development, the maximum directional traffic that was expected, that
was estimated was less than 120 threat vehicles per hour.
So again, based on that, the intersection was selected. And
if there is any specific intersection that expected to be
impacted by the development, this is something that we and
City and CT traffic team can agree. And again, I
don't want to commit to anything. This is something that
has to come from the City and has to be,
I agree with the developers. So it's not my role
to commit to that. But in general, yes, we can
look at appropriate concerns about traffic and traffic that will
be impacted by the new development. So usually if there
is an intersection that has some issues and the traffic
of the new development is not expected to be, uh,
considerable on that intersection, again, the way it has to
be a status is different from a scope of Ethereus
on a new development, but again, this is something that
can be IP. It can be discussed with the CT
and with the developer. And we can for sure looking
into that. Okay. No, that's fair. And thank you, Speaker.
And, and maybe that is a little bit more of
a question for our city staff. Appreciate that. Um, just
my, my only other question though, is based on some
of the comments that we heard from one, uh, another
member of your team about, um, we're only required to
do 20 percent minimum, but we're 50 just around the
green and the integration. A lot of obviously commentary about
green, the importance of actually, um, you know, nature. And
I really saw this proposal when it was first presented
as a real integrated kind of sensitivity to that desire
to have that integration. When you're doing other projects, I
don't want to imagine this is your only project or
file you're working on. What is the general expectation? Is
this project more or less? Is this a real integrated
community project? I see a lot of sensitivity actually. To
what the community, the community desires. And the consultation. I
attended most of them, uh, from what I remember. And
I'm just wondering overall, uh, how does this compare maybe
to other developments you've worked on. Um, yeah. I would
say, typically, and I would say, you know, people are
developers are usually looking for the minimums. That's, that's common
practice. They're trying to play within the bylaw. And we
often go to Committee of Adjustment for, for variances to
reduce it. Um, this project is, is a little different.
I think the fact that it came to the call
for proposals, um, it has a little bit more, um,
sensitivity to it and the developer wants to become a
member of this community with a development and be good
neighbours and increase the landscape. That's, that was a goal.
It was, you know, we don't want to just pave
the whole site and go for minimums. It's make this
a meaningful development for people that want to live there.
You know, being more attractive at landscaping, you know, helps
the marketability to selling those units as well. It's not
just for the neighbours. It's the people that want to
live there as well. They're going to want to use
that space. Thank you. Thank you. Working down on my
list. I have Councillor Attorney. Councillor Tranny, please. Thank you
through the speaker. Um, there was some, some of the
deputants talked about parking and the underground parking and the
number of spaces for parking. Can you speak a little
bit about that. Please. Yeah. Um, so we're, we're meeting
the bylaw. There's no, no parking reduction. Um, you know,
we've comfortably fit the parking within the building and then
additionally at grade. You know, sometimes again, we go in
for reductions in parking. This was, you know, we wanted
to maintain the bylaws. We found a way to accommodate
the entire requirement and parking ratio. Thank you. Um, water
pressure, I mean, we hear from a residence, it's a
concern of mine as well. Are there more studies that
are coming after this? This isn't our final step. This
is a rezoning day. Correct. What's still to come to
us? Um, it would be, um, the final functional site
servicing study, which is basically the detailed design of, um,
we get down to pipe sizing, um, does the building
require pumps or fire, any additional measures to help maintain
pressure. It also looks at, um, the need for additional
fire hydrants on site. Are they required? But that, that
gets the level of detail where it's, we know, we're
down to the pipe size, number of valves we need
chasing back to see how far the water pressure, if
the issues with water pressure. If there'll look at that.
Okay. Thank you for that. And then, um, there was
another comment made, um, about who's paying for the pipes
and who actually pays for the pipes to, um, link
into what the city exists infrastructure now. Yeah. If it's,
if it's cost related to this development, it's across any
development in Thunder Bay. It's, it's up to the developer
to pay for those offsite improvements. If it's needed to
support the development, it's, you know, if we're talking looping
water mains, uh, that's up to the developer to loop
it, including restoring the road back to its city standard.
You know, if, if we determine that the sanitary pipe
was in large enough in Toledo or wherever the developer
is responsible to pay for that. Um, to satisfy their
development. So no costs are shared from that perspective. So
no cost to the taxpayer. No. If any of the
studies, um, I think I have just a few more
minutes. If any of this studies show issues, is there
still an opportunity for, or potential for this development to
become smaller because of those issues. For sure. Um, so
we're designing and we're showing the maximum as part of
this rezoning, if hypothetical situation, if we came back and
said, Oh, we can't meet the water demands for this
many units. Or without having to do massive upgrades to
water treatment plans and whatever hypothetically, um, the alternative was
the lower, the number of units. Well, we would, we
would do that. Thank you. Thank you for your answers.
Thank you, Speaker. Thank you. Uh, next is Councillor Agawa.
Thank you very much, Speaker. I have a question. I'm
not quite understanding. Why are there private easements over this
land? And what were those private easements be. Um, because
typically what I've seen is public easements for utilities. But
what are the private Easements over the parcel of land?
Existing easements? I don't know the wording is saying private
is medicine. Um, I would say that's, that's because, um,
the development is, a part of this application was a
severance. Um, so that you'll say the Southern most building
is building B. They'll have to cut through lot A
to get out to a Rundell. So it's really just
a shared East Minds for parking to facilitate on each
other. Each property for services that kind of loop through.
We just do a blanket easement as well. Um, just
so you don't have to define each pipe by these
bin have a legal survey. They would just be blanketed
across the entire development. Okay. So through you speaker. So
what I'm understanding here is that the whole thing will
have a blanketise mitchell Lau for development. That could eventually
be severed off. And could be sold or be dealt
with by another owner in the future and the one
in the front would be another unit. Hypothetically, it could
be sold off, but the intent is to keep them
both. But one doesn't know what they're future holds, right?
For anything. But so, uh, may I have a question
to administration. Of course. But then the motion has the
floor. There's also an opportunity to follow up with other
questions. I would just like to know, um, where would
the frontage be then? If you could ask you for
the frontage for the, um, the lot in the back
end, the south side, the property. I'm thinking Sharon might
have that information to her. So the frontage would. She'll
have the plan in front of her. I don't. I'm
sorry. Could you repeat that question frontage for the entire
section? Yeah. Thank you very much. Um, Through you speaker.
The, the question I have is, um, being that the
lot would be severed. That means that the, the lot
frontage that would be required for the rear Southern exposured
lot would need its own front edge accessible off of
the city road, which would be a rundown, or sorry,
and where is that frontage? I didn't see that. Being
severed off or right away or how, cause we all
need accessibility. So where is that frontage? Um, we have
a full frontage of the property. That's what we've been
given. But being that two properties now within the same
property. Do we have that descriptor there? We would have
the frontage because there's no, we're not replying for any
reduction in it. So we know that the front edge
is there. If the frontage couldn't be there, we'd be
asking for amendment to reduce this amount of front edge.
Through the speaker, uh, administration can answer this question. I'll
go to supervisor lopes. Thank you, Speaker. If I make
clarify one of the amendments proposed with this application is
to amend the definition of lot to mean more than
one ownership. So that essentially does. It allows the Southernmost
building to have its own parcel as well as the
northernmost building to have its own parcel. And by redefine
a lot to mean the entire, um, holding, the frontage
for essentially the defined lot is that on a rundle,
essentially building B that has a Southernmost parcel has no
frontage, but it's taken care of through amending the definition
of Lot to mean both parcels working together. Um, through
you speaker, have we done this before redefine the definition.
Of lot? The Thru Speaker, this has been done in
the past on different projects. Of a similar nature. The
one classic example would be the Thunder Centre site. There's
four ownerships there. Um, the property occupied by Home Depot
is technically landlocked. But however, it all functions as one
defined lot despite the fact that there's four ownerships. And
that example, there's many cross - shared easements covering the
access, the servicing, and essentially the cross - sharing of
the traffic. And just people movement through there. Okay. Um,
Councillor, I have yet three questions asked. But you can
follow up with administration in the next round once it
hits the motionist for at this point I have Councillor
Bence next, but we have 11 o'clock resolution. So Deputy
Kirk Walters, do we have a mover in a seconder?
We do. It's Councillor Oliver and Councillor Trini for the
secondary. And of course, the motion is being that the
hour being 11 o'clock, but we continue with the business
at hand. Please call the roll. Yeah. Councillor Airwall. In
favor. Councillor. In favor Bent. In favor. Councillor Tree in
favor Councillor Folds in favor. Councillor Hamilton. Yes. Speaker, Johnson.
In favor. Councillor Oliver in favor. Councillor Pastorino. In favor.
And Councillor Cecino in favor. That is passed. I'll give
you a moment. And we'll turn to Councillor Bands, please.
Thank you Speaker. First question is regarding entrance and exit
from the Property. I understand there's one driveway into this
complex. First of all, is that correct? And should we
have any concerns about traffic patterns in and out of
facilities like this. Yes. There's one entrance and perhaps I
can have a Roche speak to the Traffic Study that
reviewed that. Sure. Uh. Just again, I want to start
with trips. The three estimation, as I said, is saying
that the maximum directional trips will be 100. Less than
120. One axis will be sufficient. We know that the
axis has to cross the multi - use paths. But
again, for the multi - USP, we have a special
treatments. These special treatments are coming based on what's becommended
by Ministry of Transportation and the Access Treatment for this
type of facilities. I have to say the VR looking
at treatment that we are taking the residential treatment. But
we are 44 enhancing it by adding some specifics from
high volume or commercial access treatment. So I have to
say the study that VD shows that this intersection, the
access intersection will work. And it's sufficient. But again, for
the future, we have also have a potential for a
second axis. But without considering it, I have to say
for the future horizon that we have, almost in eight
years, this is working sufficiently. And there are no concerns
about that. So it lines out enough. And I mean,
everything can work. Well at the, at the proposed intersection.
Okay. Uh, second question is, what does the current zoning
on the property allow and how did it become to
be zoned that. S all supervisor Lopes to answer the
question? Through the speaker, the current zoning of community, um,
essentially. Implements, uh, the official plan from 2019, which designated
for community designation. The Zoning Bylaw allows in the Community
Zone. I'll provide the list. Cemeteries and Crematoriums, daycare centres,
indoor recreational uses. Minor institutional uses. Um, which includes elementary
schools and religious institutions. And of course, if it's a
property that fronts on water, there's water related uses that
are also permitted. Okay. So it sounds like in 2019,
there was a change made. I don't know what it
was previously. It doesn't really matter at this point. Um,
finally, is this actually Parkland as being claimed? Was it
ever designated as potential Parkland in any official plan. I
can answer that. Uh, so, so this land is part
of the Boulevard Lake Park area. It is not, uh,
let's say program for improved Parkland as if in comparison
to a playground, it functions open space and perhaps supervisor.
Shore wish add to that answer.
To the speaker. Yes, that area of boulevard Lake Park.
Is not, it's considered natural area rather than maintained area
like the playground is that's beside the lake. Thank you,
Speaker. Thank you. Any other questions. Please. I'd just like
to follow up on, uh, that question that Councillor Bentz
said, uh, I didn't want 100 percent understand. That Boulevard
is considered 650 acres, uh, is that part of the,
like the boundary of Boulevard or this is associated with
Bulmar. That, that was my concern with that.
I'm through the speaker. It really, I believe that number
is the total. I don't have it in front of
me. At my fingertips, but the boulevard Lake Proper is
everything south of Arundel Street. So that would include, um,
the west side and east side. I believe that that
total acre you're talking about may include centennial park, which
is on the north side of a Rundell Street. As
well. Thank you for that. I just want to make
a statement. Like I've looked up some of this stuff,
did some research on it. And, uh, it said that
Centennial Park is 147 acres boulevard park is 650 acres.
And I just threw in chipwall park, uh, that would
be 270 acres. Um, that doesn't include various other parks
through the city. Vickers Park, Marina Park, Hillcrest Park, Junot
Park, Heath Park Thorn Lowe Park and Trowbridge Falls. Um,
so anyways, just those three parks like Centennial Park Boulevard
and Chippewa. That's over a thousand acres. And then I
was, uh, looking up at how many acres, uh, per
person in Thunder Bay. And apparently we are, just hold
on. I got, we are like number one in Ontario.
It's like the, um, City that comes up to it.
I think we're like 19. 7 hectators per person. Um,
the next one, I believe is, is growth. And there
are something like nine or something between us. Uh, so
anyways, uh, we're significantly bigger than other, other areas for
it. And a lot of it is actually even better
than most parks because ours are on, they're not manipulated.
Let's say they're natural parks. So anyways, I'm looking at
this and it's eight acres that were roughly taking away
from the area. And it's, it's really kind of tiny
anyways of that. I think that, uh, like I understand
the people's concerns because certainly we wouldn't want, you know,
especially if you're living by there, you wouldn't want to
go ahead and do it. But I mean, it's not
like we're shutting down the park, you know, that boulevard.
So anyways, uh, like I said, um, I just wanted
to make, that's why I was asking if it was
actually part of the 650 acres, you know, the park
or whether this is like a separate part to it.
But that's okay. It still makes my point anyways of
what I was trying to say. Thank you very much
for that. Thank you. Next up, I have Councillor Gattuga.
Thank you Mr. Speaker. Um. I want to talk about
the 11 metre easement for a little bit. Can you
tell me the rationale for. Putting that he's been in
place. Yes. Uh, so along that 11 metre easement, the
residence along Toledo Street, uh, there are yards are not
as deep as others that are on Toledo Street. And
I think that there are many of assume that their
yards are larger than they actually are going to have
encroached on city on land. Uh, so retaining this 11
meter's provides, um, some opportunities to recognise the encroachments and,
uh, work with the neighbours. Um, so that is for
that reason that's been kept out of the, uh, the
reason, we'll say the lands to be rezoned and will
be retained by the city. Okay. So this is lands
that the residents have been utilising city lands for the
last, also not through the speaker, not in all cases,
uh, but we certainly do find that's case for many.
Okay. And so would we be looking to sell that
to the residence. So should this show this planning application
be. Be approved and the, and the, uh, and the,
uh, person sale agreement continue Administration will be speaking with
the owners about, uh, whether there might be interest purchase
lands. Okay. So, so city property has been utilised for
many, many years. And, uh, so not, well, legally paying
taxes. But now we're accommodating by allowing that option to
purchase that property that's been utilised by the homeowners for
say 30, 40 years. Correct. So the Speaker of the
intention has provided the opportunity for the homeowners to purchase
these lands. Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. I
mean, um, I think that's good that we're doing that.
I mean, not necessarily good that people have been utilised
in city property and fenced it in. But I think
it's good that we're, um, looking to provide that compromise
for people and additional buffer. So thank you for that,
Mr. Speaker. Thank you. See no other speakers. Uh, at
this point Council like to put the motion on the
floor. You need to move her in a seconder. Moved
by Council Hamilton. Second by Councillor Gatuga. On this, we
have three rounds five minutes each. Again, that's three rounds
five minutes each. Are there any speakers on this round,
first round. Councillor Hamilton. Yeah. Thank you for the opportunity
to speak first. Um, I, I need to understand a
little bit about the housing needs study. It came out
virtually every, um, uh, deputation that we had tonight. Um,
so just like a reminder, from what I understand, that
housing needs study. There's not an abundance of development ready
land. Um, a lot of that land is actually forested
would need to be cleared. And because I was actually,
you know, I believe in the, in preserving nature, that's
actually why I like this properties because it's seven stories
vertically. If we were going to actually make this, uh,
property, uh, horizontal and lateral, maybe that, that, that I'll
just form that new in my first question. If we're
going to make 360 units into a lateral, um, development,
how much space and how much forest and natural area
would that require. If that's a clear question? Yes. The,
um. So that this development would be at approximately six
times the density of a single family single family dwelling
subdivision. Okay. So, so if we wanted to do this
in traditional suburban development, we would require at least six
times the amount of land. Okay. Those speaker, that's correct.
Yeah. So yeah. And that's just one of my main
points is that this kind of development actually is saving
is actually providing more natural habitat for animal species. Um,
so I just wanted to start there. Um, and then
the housing needs study. I mean, cause we always hear
somewhere else. No one ever really tells us we're somewhere
else. Um, could we just get a little bit of
a sense of what development radio lands we have that
are ready that are ready to come online that maybe
just a little notice if some of those lands required,
uh, clearing of forest as well. Yes. So the speaker
just clarify the, um, so as, uh, as Noor Deputants
noted the housing land needs study did conclude that there
is a large amount of land within the urban service
area, that could accommodate additional growth. However, not all of
that land, well, very, let's say little of that land
is for sale or shovel ready at this point. So
much of this land is requires minor service extensions, rezonings,
our fragmented type essentially contaminated in the case of many
downtown properties. Um, so we have heard consistently through our,
um, collaboration with the Development Community that finding development ready
lands shovel ready lands extraordinarily difficult. Uh, so, uh, with
the, uh, under leadership of Council, great works have been
done to establish a pipeline of Lance and to continue
to bring lands, um, make lands ready for development. You'll
through the call for proposal process 10 lands where 10
different properties were brought forward. Um, which were in different
locations of the city. And these lands and others that
the Council's directed be sold, uh, for the purpose of
housing are those that were, um, successful through the initial
stages, the call for proposal process. Speaker very kind of
direct question. What, what, how much do we have land?
Is there land available currently that's Development Ready that could
accommodate the scale of development currently. Well, there are other
lands that remain within the call for proposals inventory that
could support development of this scale. Many of those other
properties have complications, which administrations work in mitigate. Thank you.
Uh, Speaker, just on the remediation of land, we knew
that the Art Gallery Project, they had budgeted a couple
of million bucks that it ended up coming in at
almost 10 million dollars for the remediation of that land.
Could we just get a sense here now about development
of brownfield sites? Some of the complications around remediation. And
that additional costure for developers that are already facing significant
construction costs. As well, complications, uh, take the form of
costs and also time. Uh, so it's, you have, could
not provide an estimate on, well, different properties have different
requirements and different levels of contamination. Uh, some can be
remediated for less. But the, the, um, the time that
it can take to, uh, receive the clearances from the,
uh, uh, uh, uh, from, uh, from MECP can be
considerable. And, um, for that reason administration is working on
those properties so that they can be available in the
future and considered reshuffle ready. Speaker, I do appreciate the
latitude. That was not based on seven, nine, one, but
it is kind of, I'm trying to frame around the,
uh, the somewhere else, um, kind of question. So I
appreciate the latitude. Speaking of that. Thank you, Councillor Folds,
please. Uh, thank you Speaker. Um. I think I'd like
to start my comments, uh, evening, uh, by stating, I
think everyone in this room believes that we need more
housing. I mean, I think, um, I don't think there's
any doubt about that. Um, and I'm not entirely sure
that the decision this evening, which is a planning and
a rezoning states whether we are for or against housing.
Um, colleagues three months ago when we started this process.
Um, where we declared land surplus and then decided to
clear them surplus and sold on conditions. I was leaning
towards supporting, um, this particular development. Largely because I was
myopic just on housing. And over the last few months,
the amount of information that I've received has changed my
mind. And I will not be supporting the rezoning this
evening. And I, and I have nothing disparaging to say
about the developer, uh, the responses tonight, um, you know,
the accommodations, nothing disparaging about our administration and the number
of reports. And like I said to Director Deputer earlier
tonight, I mean, I had emails being responded to, uh,
late this afternoon. And I want to state that I
appreciate that. But there's really three planning, um, items that
I'm just frankly not confident in. And one of them
is on the scoped environmental assessment. And just to get,
I mean, I'm not sure if everybody's read that, but
we had a individual visit the site once in 2024.
And took a look at soils and vegetation. And then
visit it once. In 2026. Just looking at the boundaries.
That was the extent of that study. But even in
that extent of that study, there was identification of potential
habitat for, uh, bats and potential habitat for this bird,
the Wurbler. Um, but there was the identification of this
yellow banded bumblebee. Now it's only, it's only. A species
of concern, which means legally we actually don't need to
do anything. Because it's only of concern. But if you
are in a species of concern, you are in the
verge of potentially being threatened. I was sent a video
this past week of a Grey Fox. And thanks to
staff, it was confirmed the identification of this Grey Fox.
And it was in this neighbourhood. That is a threatened
species. But in two day visits, we're not going to
see it. And have we done the work to identify
dens and all that kind of stuff. So for me,
it's just not enough. Just not enough. The traffic study.
So I voiced my concerns not so much about traffic
volume because I actually think the traffic study did a
very good job on traffic volume. And that road can
handle. That volume. But I was very specific about my
concerns around safety. And I haven't been satisfied. About the
safety concerns. In particular, about the sight lines. And in
particular, about the speeds. This traffic study was based on
a model. With data from our administration. It doesn't reflect
what's happening on the ground. The sight lines and the
speed. And so I have some real concerns about that.
I also have some concerns with the fact that this
property is first. Some discussion around whether some 55 is
next. And then the LPH grounds is rezoned future development
residential. And the models that were presented were only two
percent growth. Not looking at future developments. The comment was
we would have to do further studies in the future.
So my second issue is really the traffic in that
issue. And I have to say I am, I was,
I think explicit early on. Cancer both 30 seconds left.
Thank you. Thank you. I was explicit and I am
disappointed that my concerns raised earlier were not addressed. And
then finally the overall plan, our official plan guides us,
our administration in its wisdom, designated this community use. If
you recall, Council actually flipped the LPH grounds. Unfortunately, the
province flipped it back. The LPH grounds is going to
be developed. You developed this. 755 and the LPH grounds.
You fundamentally change this entire area. Thank you, Council. Page
Grounds developed. We should be leading, please. Order, please. Uh,
Councillor Fools, I can put you on the second round.
If you'd like to prefer. Thank you. Um, next up
I have Councillor Cortuga. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Um, through
you to, uh, Adrenal, there's talk about traffic and people
walking and people are crossing from Chartwell. So I know
that the warrants don't necessarily, um, warrant a stoplight there
or potential crossover. Um, but has there been other times
in other places in the community that council has directed
administration to put these type of things in based on
concerns in the community. And such. Thank you. And through
the speaker. Generally speaking, we have fall to will of
counsel. So if council give us direction to provide some
kind of controls at intersection, um, we will follow that
direction. We haven't so much done it for Signalize Intersection.
Um, we've done it more for stop controls. Always stops
or stop on side treats. So historically it's been focused
on, on those type of controls, um, well, it's not
warranted. We will follow the Council have given that direction.
I'll add there is existing PXO on a run to
let Toledo for pedestrian safety today. Thank you for that.
Um, so that we can address the traffic issues and
pedestrian safety issues. As far as future developments, you know,
coming down the line. And we can't predict what's going
to happen. I mean, and that's part of growing as
a community. You know, at one point, you know, the,
uh, people on auto Street next to Toledo had green
space in there backyard. And then Toledo Street came and
they lost their green space in the backyard. And that's,
that's progress. That's growth. Um, you know, administration's recommending this.
Um, I understand the concerns of the resonance. I've listened
to them. You know, I owned my first house on
Hot Ravenue. And I had a little green space in
behind my house that I utilised. I didn't put a
fence on it, but I, and I utilised it with
my children. And, uh, but I checked into it first
to find out that it couldn't ever be developed. Um,
just because I, uh, I liked it there. Um, so
this is a planning decision. And our decisions have to
be based on planning rational. You know, and everyone seems
to want growth and housing and in our community, but
maybe just not beside us, not beside them. And we
can't have, um, you know, I look at this overall
plan and it's, it's got more green space than chart
well across the street. Much more. You know, we talked
about traffic. We can address that, you know, and we
talk about growth. I mean, as a community, you know,
we're always talking about taxes. We're talking about roads. We're
talking about policing, reducing crime, improving our infrastructure. How do
you do that. Without. Going to the taxpayers over and
over again. How do you use a burden on taxpayers?
Growth. And that's what this is. A million dollars a
year roughly in taxes. So the more development you have,
the more it's spread over more people. If we can't,
we can't sustain by not growing as a community and
keep raising taxes. So I understand, um, the concerns, you
know, and the 33 foot easement, I think that's a
great compromise. I mean, the developers, I know came in
at 600 units initially. But we as a city asked
for the best and highest density use. And that's why
I'm sure they came in that. And then they dropped
to 400 and now 360. And it could accommodate. Over
400. Um, so this 33 feet easement provides that buffer
for the residents that have been utilising that. So we're
not taking away their land like we potentially could. We
could potentially take down those fences and put up our
fence. On the 33 feet. I think what we're doing
is good compromise. And I think it's, it's taking into
consideration what they've been utilising and giving them an opportunity
to purchase that, that property to maintain, you know, um,
their space. And the bars I can see developer has
moved those buildings around to be the least impactful on
Toledo Street as possible from what I see. So, um,
I'm going to support this, um, resolution, uh, I want
to see our community grow and, uh, I understand the
concerns of the residents, but we're going to have this
everywhere. No one's going to want apart me building beside
them. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Uh, next on
the list, I have Councillor Agual, then Councillor Aiello and
Mayor Boschkoff. Councillor Agawa, please. Thank you very much, Speaker.
I have a few concerns with this as we've been
presented. Number one, we have one entry in and out.
Parked L has many concerns in many comments have come
from people who live there because there's only one way
in. But we're making an exception on this one. We're
allowing them to do only one way. If there is
a broken down vehicle that's blocked the road, then we've
got 360 units of people. That would be compromised. So
I guess that's why 755 came along as an exhilary
road to connect down the road for a realignment. But
development doesn't happen with one access. All developments that I've
seen have two except for Parkdale, which is very contentious.
And many people have complained repeatedly about that. To make
that exception here with only one entrance, which would be
a share exit. Is concerning for that many units. As
I look at FANCHA, the one way in and out
there. And there's half the number of units there. That's
one concern. The next concern I have is we hear
that, you know, the 5, 600 municipalities. We're number 10.
We have in the top 10 percent for parks. But
we are making one big mistake that we fail to
recognise that the majority of parks were requested to us
by families. You look at Bicker's Park. It was a
family that gave it to us. You look at chapels.
It was a family. And now you look at boulevard.
It was James Lyon. Who gave us that acreage for
the park. And. That was in 1914. After that, Charles
Ritchie gave us the other side, the north side of
the, of Arundel at Boulevard in 1979. Why do we
have all these parks and why do we boast about
all these parks? It's not because we did something. Is
because great benefactors of our community chapels, Mr. Clem Chappell,
The Crown in 1871 gave us Waverly Park. Catherine Vickers
gave us Vickers Park. So what are we doing? We're
saying, you know, thanks. You gave it to us in
the past. However, now we're not going to follow your
historic generosity. We're going to do with it what we
wish. They didn't give it to us to sell off
for land development. How are we giving out this land.
That was a part of the original donation. In 1914.
By Mr. Lyon. He wanted a path around Boulevard. Which
was gravel and paved and upgraded. There were certain things
that were noted in what he had donated and how
he sold. He requested that to our community. So international
friendship gardens. 1967. The surropters group raised the money and
did that. Do we say, well, we don't want it.
Now we want to put an apartment building there because
we can. These are generous donors of our past. The
historians that built our community. And why do they build
it? They built it with that green space in mind
because they wanted that recreation. If we go against their
will, are we saying to everybody else, donate, give quest
us, but we'll do what we want with it in
the future. I don't think that's right. I don't think
that's right at all. This land was owned with the
By - Law 2022. It was number one. As Community
Zone. It was passed by this Council, right as the
first thing in the first year of our Council. Community
Zone. It's within our, it was the same year we
were told that there's a housing shortage. Our administration brought
it to us saying, this is Community Zone. And we
passed our official plan based on that. With these members
of Council sitting at this table. 30 seconds, please. So
how are we changing your mind when the housing studies
were at the same time. Nothing's changed. We've got to
respect the historians of our community. We've got to respect
the requests that we received. Those are generous requests that
people left us as legacy for their families. And we
must respect that. I ask everyone to really think about
what we're doing here on this land. Of the history
that was given. Because it was not ours. And they
didn't have to give it to us. Thank you. Councillor
Ayala, please. Thank you. And through the speaker, while I
share pretty much all the sentiments, I'll apologies. Um, administration,
uh, likes to provide some rebuttals to the Councillor Egge
walls. Thank you. Speaker. I just wish to go to
Director Deputer just to clarify these lens and, uh, there
was a comment made around which lands may have been
donated. I just wish to go to Director Deputer just
to confirm the information that we have on the file.
Very good. Dr. Deputer, please. Yes, just, uh, just, uh,
want to clarify that these specific lands were not part
of the lying trust. Those surrounding lands that are part
of the Boulevard Lake Park area were. We were told
just earlier. Councillor, I can put you on the second
round. Yeah. But I just want to clarify, but we
were told by the administration that this was part of
the same. Okay. Well, we can clarify further. It was,
uh, administration stated that this land was part of the
boulevard Lake Park Complex. This particular land is not part
of the line trust that was donated to the City.
Thank you. Thank you. Councillor, would you like to be
put on the second round. Great. Councillor, please. Thanks. Okay,
we'll try it again. Thank you through the speaker. Um,
just going to go back. I share a lot of
the sentiments of, uh, Councillor Gutuga. I think he's, he's
right on target. The need for growth. Again, it's something
that we've been starving for, for years. Um, and we're
finally getting it. And I do consider it smart growth.
Um, I think it's really, really important to, um, acknowledge
the work of the developer. In this case and really
listening to the constituents as far as, you know, what
they wanted to see. Um, you know, the overall, the
overall project, their ability to accommodate really the needs. And
I believe just, you know, one of the residents stated
that and that he was very, very much aware of
it. Um, you know, through, through, through Site Plan Control,
and, um, you know, other forms of studies and stuff.
I think everything, everything will be, will be addressed. I'm
very confident, you know, we've sat through how many of
these on council where, you know, we, we have zonening
amendments. And, you know, a lot of times the same
concerns. And, you know, if you look at the development
on, on Junot, again, one way in, one way out,
all it's going to be crazy. It's going to be
so much traffic, not an issue at all. It's great.
It's great for the, for that community. Um, it doesn't
lower property values. All this stuff, all these concerns, just,
you know, didn't happen, you know, as well as, as,
uh. Again, John C Road, a series of, of big
apartment buildings, beautifies the area. Looks very great. Um, just
a lot of those concerns just never materialized. Um, again,
and that is done through, uh, cooperation and work between
our administration, uh, the developer and Site Plant Control. Um,
we have to have, have faith that all these things
will get looked at and they are concerns. And I
understand where the residents are coming from, uh, but fear
of the unknown is exactly that. You know, you could
think worst case scenarios, um, but they, they very rarely,
if ever, ever come to light. So I am in
support of this. I think it's, uh, it's, it's a
great movement forward. Um, and again, um, you know, we're
dealing with a housing crisis for sure. We're dealing with
a tremendous, uh, shortfall in our, um, in our capital
and stuff that we need to, uh, our set management
plan. We need to, we need to repair things. And
we need money to do that. And, um. Uh, this
is probably one way to do it. Thank you. The
start anyway. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, uh, Mirror
Boschkov. Councillor Tranny and Councillor Benthaschkov, please. Thanks so much.
Overriding all of this, I'm more astonished that some people,
some members of Council seemingly do not seem to think
that we are in a housing crisis. We have a
housing shortage in which to find good places for people
to live. We have a proposal with, uh, developers who's
yielded pretty much to every concern. And, uh, we've got
the province and the feds patting us on the back
for our success in building more homes. And, uh, and
here is a, uh, an amazing compromise on that lake.
It's not like we're going to pave the whole thing
or do anything like that. So I, uh, the fact
that the proponent is listened and agreed to much more
than, uh, less than max is to me, uh, the
kind of attitude that you want when you're going to
be entering into some kind of business proposition with someone
who's going to invest multi millions of dollars into your
community. So, but more importantly, what is the message that
we're sending people to thinking and moving here, uh, when,
when we're turning down affordable housing or reasonable, we price
housing. Knowing that they could have a place like this,
it's a real incentive. We're spending hundreds of thousands of
dollars trying to get people to move here and get
people to invest. So, uh, I've listened to this argument
as we all have for, for many hours, every NIMBY
argument has been addressed. And if we're going to be
a welcoming community, uh, then let's build decent homes for
people. What is wrong with that? And we don't want
to just want these at homes. We want them to
love living here. And you know what? That part of
current river is spectacular. And I, you know what, it's
as good as we could possibly get. So, uh, and
I truly believe that those who donated this land to
build, uh, boulevard Lake would want people to live there.
And so I'm just going to leave it at that.
And that they knew that their successors would have people
who also want it to help people to find decent
housing housing. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Attraeney, please. Thank
you. Through the speaker, just because of some of the
commentary, I just, a development, you know, there was some
discussion about, uh, a development and the housing and having
one access. But that's different than an apartment building. Is
it unusual or uncommon to have one access to an
apartment building. Uh, through the speaker, it's not unusual to
have one access. To apartment complex, uh, but definitely the
concern is noted and something we can examine at the
Site Plan Control stage. Thank you. And then I want
to go back to the lion Boulevard piece. I'm sorry
to, to go back to that, but it was included
in one, but wasn't included in the others. Um, I
believe it's future development. It's not in our projected budgets
for next year or like our budgets right now or
what roughly three years out projected. Where is this looking
at for future development? I just, you know, once it
was added to a plan, whether it be shouldn't have
been, you know, irregardless, it was. And I just want
to have a better idea about that. So the conceptual
road was shown on the plan through the speaker, uh,
to demonstrate that the development did not interfere with the
conceptual future road and all turnover to director Medima, uh,
to provide the background on this future Street. Potential future
Street. Thank you. Under the speaker, so this north -
south collector road that would connect a run of Sogoma
has been long - term plan part of the Cities
Transportation Master Pining. I would say it dates back to
1987 and that transportation plan at the time recommended as
a whole network improvement for that corridor to have a
new collector road, the exact alignment and how it configured
through lands was to be determined as future studies and
the area growed. But this is kind of a long
- term plan road that the city's always known about
and it's been reaffirmed and updated transportation master plan studies
2019 with most recent one being kind reaffirming that need
for that road is still desired to help improve traffic
flow in that area. Thank you. So this has been
planned for quite some time as future development. It wasn't
because of this potential. Building. Three speaker that is correct.
Thank you. And then, um, environmental assessment and traffic studies.
Is that it? That's done. We're not doing that anymore.
We can't do that anymore. Or is there still an
opportunity to still receive some of that data in case
some there may need to be some alterations? Like I
said earlier, something smaller or. Pardon me through the speaker,
the, uh. We, you know, administration will be, uh, requesting
an additional look at the, at the, um, Grey Fox
survey for Dens, uh, recognising some of the concerns I've
been heard from the neighbours and, uh, pictures that have
been provided. Of the animal in the area. And, um,
also the traffic study that is submitted is preliminary and
would be further refined as the, uh, as a design
continues, um, and, uh, submitted as a final report to
the Site Plaft Control Process. Thank you for that. Speaker,
how much time do I have left. Two minutes. I'll
go on the second round, please. Thank you. Very good.
Councillor Bent's, please. Thank you, Speaker. I was impressed this
evening with, with the people that came forward, both foreign
against, you know, your passion and your research and the
time you put into this. That's really important to a
community. However, this item is decided. I mean, your voice
is important. And I'm happy that you came out and
engage in democracy. Um, I guess what this comes down
to is, is managing change and managing growth for the
future. Uh, so our assessment, um, growth in this community
is below a percent. Uh, which is low in the
province. We're not, we're not a growth community. The result
of that is a deteriorating infrastructure. And taxation. That's what
happens when, when you're not growing assessment. And that's why
this council set out on a growth strategy. Um, we
see it as a way to manage the infrastructure, uh,
deficit that we currently have. Uh, we see it as
a way to, um, attract business. And part of attracting
business and having people, um, being comfortable in your community
is for them to have a place to call home.
Um, you know, I'm very concerned. I'm a fortunate person.
I have a place to call home. Uh, there are
some people though that cannot find a place to live.
And, and I can't imagine how anxiety provoking that would
be, not to have a place to live. Um, so
I'm very focused on providing housing. Um, that's not to
say I'm going to put housing in every park. Um,
this is a vacant piece of land adjacent to a
massive park. Um, I am not worried about Thunder Bay
not having enough Parkland. What I'm worried about is Thunder
Bay not having enough money to maintain the parks it
has. Uh, you just have to drive the road of
Chipwa to see, um, the state of our infrastructure. There's
more patch on that road than there is pavement. And
that's what concerns me is, is, you know, I want
quality on a certain standard of quality of life for
our residents here. And that's going to take, um, that's
going to take money. That's going to take money. And
it needs growth in order to happen. So, you know,
I think we have to keep all these things in
mind, uh, as we, as we move forward. Zoning changes.
That's what these procedures are for, right? That's why we
have these sessions to decide the merits of whether or
not we're going to change zoning. I happen to feel
that, um, not just Thunder Bay, Canada is in a
housing crisis. And that's one of the reasons why they
kind of tapped back on immigration. Um, we need immigration
in this country to succeed. Uh, if we didn't have
immigration, our, um, our population would be shrinking in this
country. And we could not, uh, become an economic success
story. Um, so I see this as part of the
bigger picture too. We need to provide housing. We need
to provide, uh, welcoming communities where people are happily housed
and happy to be in Canada, not just for our
own residents, but we've got a lot of people joining
our country. And we have to be cognizant of that.
There's people, you know, 12 people living in a place
that should only accommodate six. I mean, there is a
housing problem. Um, I see this as a benefit, not
only for people looking for housing at the moment, but
long term, we need a diversity of housing in the
community. We're an aging community. Um, there's going to be
a lot of downsizing and apartments and condominiums are going
to be important in that mix. Um, so I will
be supporting this. And I do want to say to
developers out there, we want, we want growth. We want
development. And we don't want to be a roadblock. You
come with a good plan. We'll go through the zoning
process. And, uh, we have to do, I think our
part here and bringing the housing that we need desperately
in Thunder Bay. Thank you, Speaker. Thank you. Uh, Councillor
Oliver, please. Thank you, Speaker. Um, I want to begin
by thinking everyone that's come this evening as well to
a democracy is an important and vital aspect to the
way our governance works. And so, um, recognising the time
and effort that you've put in in the studying and
everything that you've done as well too. I mean, kudos
to everyone for your passion. Um, further, I just want
to echo a lot of what Councillor Bentz just said,
those similar, I was similar line of thought. The thing
is that, uh, I think is sort of missing from
this conversation is around the discussion around affordable housing. I
mean, we were, many, the commentary about what the monthly
rents are for these apartment buildings. And I think it's
important to recognise that this is filling a gap that
we do have where people don't have somewhere else to
go. So they're staying in their homes longer, which is
then driving up costs, which is then impacting the ability
for people to get into the housing market. I know
that obviously tonight we heard people in opposition, but it
is important to recognise that I know we've all heard
from people in support of this program or this project
rather because they are looking to downsize. They are looking
for opportunities to stay in their neighbourhood. And as, you
know, developers have said on a few occasions that we've
had conversations, um, it they find that creating residential or
creating housing within residential areas where people have called home
for a long time. That's where people want to live.
That's where they've, they've spent their time raising their families
and creating their memories and looking to downsize into something
smaller, but staying in their neighbourhood. It's so vital and
important that developers are investing into our community that way.
And then further recognising as well too, there are off
ramps. If the further studies do identify that there are
issues around, you know, water and sewer lines and, you
know, even to some extent traffic studies, there are off
ramps to revisit the design of this property and to
ensure that it correlates with what's available and making those
needs making ensuring those needs are met. So, you know,
recognising how important it is to have people choosing Thunder
Bay, uh, finding a place to live. We, you know,
speaking to Councillor Ben's comments around immigration and how vitally
important it is, while other parts of the country may
not be experiencing, uh, experiencing the same level of, uh,
population challengers and barriers like we are, we are going
to rely on immigration. We do not have the birth
rates to support the people that we need to work
in this, uh, in this district. And that's even taking
into consideration the jobs available today not to mention any
of the jobs that are coming along with the mining
sector. And we are going to, to be relying on
that since 2013, we've been hearing about how our population
growth is so stagnant and how desperate we are to
get people to move here and choose Thunder Bay. All
of this is really important in terms of being an
attractive place. And so with that in mind, I will
be supporting this. Thank you. Thank you. See no other
speakers on the first round. I'll go to the second
round with Councillor Foltz. Councillor False, please. Very good. Councillor
Hamilton, second round. Speaker, yeah, I just wanted to offer
some closing comments. Um, obviously, uh, this is a really
interesting site. It's not in Mikela Ward specifically, but I
just like to speak about, um, what this means for
Mikel Award. This project is actually, uh, pegged at a
B in about 110 million dollars to completion. So this
means jobs for residents for folks that I represent, uh,
to Councillor Benza's point. These are, these are taxes. Uh,
here that are going to be fixing roads in the
ward that I represent. Um, and ultimately this is, you
know, housing is good at how we're going to land
growth. Alsom needs in 27 and 28, 29. They're going
to be ramping up to hire, I think, 500 workers.
Um, uh, the, the correctional facility needs three or 400
new staff. Um, people need homes and places to live.
And also, uh, people that are aging out of their
homes need places to downsize. So I think that's really
important. I also just want to just quickly just reiterate
the thank you, not only to the folks in the
gallery tonight that spoke so eloquently to this issue. And
I do appreciate that. Especially the comments about the critters
and that's actually really impactful for me. I share that
same, but also to the people that sent in, uh,
dozens and dozens of emails, both for and against. And
I just also want to recognise the value in this
land. And I think this land is sacred. Um, it
is. And for that particular reason is actually all the
more reason that I think that, um, people are going
to make this place their home. And not forever homes
too, uh, we're building 360 units here at the developer
is, but we're probably going to be cycling over the
next several decades going to be cycling thousands and thousands
of residents and families through those, uh, particular units. So,
um, so I just wanted to offer those, uh, and,
and just make a note about the cascading effect of
development like this. So, uh, thank you to all the
speakers. Thanks to administration for your tireless work on this,
uh, and thanks to everyone for and against, uh, these
decisions aren't easy. So thank you. Thank you. Councillor Attorney,
please on the second round. Thank you through the speaker.
Um, you know, we've had everyone thanking the deputants tonight.
And of course I would share the same they have
done a lot of work. We've done a lot of
work, administrations done a lot of work. Um, really appreciating
that work. Uh, personally, I love walking Boulevard Lake and
its paths. It was my home for quite a while.
And Kurt River was my playground growing up. So I
understand the connection that people have to this area. This
decision, it's not easy. Balancing housing, we need the things
that we have to balance the things that people value
about their neighbourhood. And it's just not easy to be
able to just quickly come up with an answer. But
I do want to say something briefly about how this
is unfolded. And I've already alluded to that I'd like
to work with administrations so that we can, I'm going
to use the word fix, but definitely look at and
examine this process. For those who might not realise around
the table, um, I've had personal attacks, threats, milling comments,
inappropriate names, things that you would never say to your
mother. Um, some of this has happened on social media
through phone calls, emails and in person. I welcome disagreement.
That is part of the job, but threats personal tax
and accusations that even an accusation that councillors around this
table have been bribed for this. That's crossed the line.
And I'm just going to leave that there because I
really've really given enough air time. But none of that's
going to determine how I make my decision tonight. My
responsibility is to listen, ask questions, consider all the information
brought forward and make the best decision for our community.
About a month ago, Council voted unanimously on a 41
single dwelling unit in a much larger green space footprint.
Why? Because we need housing. Unanimously. Tonight, we're looking at
approximately 360 units on a much smaller footprint, about one
third the size. And I hear a concerns about affordability.
And I agree affordability is an issue. But we need
housing across the continuum. We've talked about that around this
table a lot. People who want to downsize professionals looking
for apartments, families who can't afford to buy and young
adults who want to move out of their parents'basement. This
spills that gap. We continue to do the other work
through the housing of four ability action plan that we
discussed about a month ago through DSAB and through our
provincial and federal partners. And finally, I'll go back to
this process. I really, really want to see this process
examined and I'll be working with administration. And hopefully we
can bring something forward at our next council meeting. We
need to learn from what happened and improve how we
communicate when concepts change. And as a proposal moves through
the planning and moves through and gets community input. There's
definitely some lessons learned this time around. Thank you. Thank
you. On the second round of Councillor Agwell, but before
we get to Councillor Echwal, I'm told we have to
do the 12 a. m. resolution. So we need a
mover in a seconder. Move by Council Gratuga. Second named
by Mary Boschkoff. Deputy Kirkwalters, I'll have you call for
the vote. General Sercino. In favor. In favor Councillor Oliver
in favor. Speedr Johnson in favor Councillor Hamilton. Yes. Councilorduga.
In favor. Councillor Folds in favor Councillor Tree in favor
Councillor Benz in favor Councillor in favor Agrowall. In favor
your worship. Yes. That is passed. We're now to round
two Council Raggawa on round two. Thank you. Thank you
very much. Um. My concerns. I voiced earlier, but there's
also another thing we've heard. Housing crisis. We're not in
a housing crisis in Thunder Bay. We have a shortage
of housing, but it's not deemed a crisis. We're the
crisis is, is the low income affordable housing. I'm looking
at a report that we received two weeks ago. From
our administration. In 2025, we had a three percent vacancy.
In Thunder Bay. For rental apartments. A crisis was in
2022. When we were under that value. We were at
two percent. The lowest that we have gotten. Was in
2012 where it went to one and a half percent
vacancy. So we have housing. They're not all occupied. So
if all the rental units we have. So a crisis
would be the other way. The issue we have based
on the report that we received two weeks ago at
the Growth Committee is the housing, the Affordable housing that
meets the average income. Of up to 62, 000 dollars.
So a person, a household that earned 62, 000 dollars
and based on the math of 32 percent can be
used as the gross debt service ratio. And you divide
that by 12 months. That's the amount of rent they
can afford. That's what's missing. So to say to the
public and cry out that we are of a crisis,
it's really wrong. It's the low income. It's the supportive.
It's the transitional housing. That's where our crisis is, not
on the upper end. There's no crisis there. And that's
all from this report that we received. It's a very
lengthy report with great statistics coming from reliable sources. So
what do we need? Yeah. We need small apartments. We
need to house our seniors. But we need to go
within their income bracket. Are they making over 62, 000
dollars a year. If they're on fixed income? They're not.
They're making 2, 200 dollars a month. So we have
a problem, yes. But this is not the problem. I
can't support this project only for a couple of reasons.
It's Parkland Community Use. It's got an active corridor in
front of it. Where people have biked, I can go
there at any time during the summer. From May to
October. And you will see families pushing a baby carriage.
Kids on Bicycles, family going into tandem on that act
of court or side. To get to Boulevard to get
to Centennial to get to that side from the senior
area. There's not a time that I don't see anyone
there. And I too grew up in Current River. I
know that area. I walked it. I hiked it. I
biked it. I ate the apples out of people's backyards.
But we have to be honest with what the problem
is. Right? The problem is not high - end housing.
And we need to make it safe. We've got one
entrance. That's all we proposed. Thankfully, administration is going to
look at that and make it a two entrance if
they do it. But I don't think we need to
give up precious park land or green space in order
to create housing. The housing we need. And also we
have to remember anything built after 2018. Has no cap.
Anybody can raise the rent as much as they wish.
As long as they wish. And as often as they
wish. So what we need to do and focus on
is to get our older stock to be brought up.
To house the people that need housing. Anything built before
November of 2018. Because we were actually not looking at
the true picture. The provincial law. Which supersedes us in
our decisions. Councillor, you have 30 seconds left? Says very
clear. Thank you. Says very clearly. I can build this
and I can charge you 1, 500 this month. And
six months from now I can charge you 2, 000.
That's not a problem. There's no law against it. There's
no 2. 1 percent increase like everybody else who has
properties that were built prior to 2018. So I can't
support taking away precious green space. And give it for
housing. And when it was lined that was requested because
what I've studied, I saw that land came from James
Lyon. It was a part of the same parcel back
in 1914. But that's contrary to what I hear from
administration. Um, so I don't know which one's correct. What
I've studied or what they've studied, but something is a
mess. Councillor, would you like people on the third round?
No, I'm good. I just, I cannot support taking away
green. For something. That we don't need right weight. Very
good. Your time limit is up. Thank you. Uh, Mayor
Boschkov, please. On the second round. Sure. And, uh, as
a city that has, uh, probably the most green space
of any municipality, uh, of the 5, 500 in Canada,
uh, that has a housing crisis. Any housing stock that
comes forward to address any part of that will help
the other parts of it. So the construction industry, uh,
means that they can grow here, which means that they'll
have more, uh, capacity to keep building. And, uh, this,
uh, again, help us with our federal and provincial grant
system. So everybody in the community wins, including those who
don't have. So this will allow the community to support
even more people in need. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor
Boschkoff. On the second round, Councillor Foles. Um, I sense
how the vote's going to go this evening. So I'm
not going to belabor this, but I do want to
say, I'm a little bit frustrated by some of the
commentary, um, this evening. To suggest that one either supports
or doesn't support this somehow doesn't support growth. I'm sorry
I take exception to that. Um, if you don't, this
is a planning meeting. On this specific property. If you
don't support this, I mean, I really take exception to
those that would insinuate or had innuendo that you don't
support growth. Again, I get the impression on how the
vote is going to go tonight. I do, um, I
just wanted to say I suspect that Councillor Benson and
I are not going to vote the same way this
evening, but I did appreciate his commentary about not looking
at developing on parks. I mean, he has a different
view of this. And that's fine. But I'll tell you,
um, certainly. I have some concerns. Of what's happened over
the last number of years. You know, we received a
number of reports. Planning reports on parquets. You know, there
was this situation on Juneau Avenue. There's this, and I
understand that there's perhaps an argument either way. I have
some real concerns about what's next. I have some real
concerns. And I think the next council is going to
have to really wrestle with that. There's been commentary about
parks and where we rank. How dare we be ashamed
if we rank number one for parks. That's something to
be proud of. And the deputant said, right? Anyway, so,
I mean, this is something that we should be proud
of. And we should aspire to. Thank you. So important
to voter. I don't recall anybody saying we're ashamed of
parks. Councillor Gertuga, please. That was just going to be
my point. I haven't heard anyone say that we're ashamed
of the monarparks we have. I just, I don't know
where that came from. At all. It wasn't stated at
all tonight. Okay. Any other speakers through this topic. It's
been a very good, a very lengthy conversation. I think
we all have an understanding of what the resolution is.
I don't think we need Deputy Kirk Walters to read
it out, but I'm happy to be corrected. If anyone
wishes for it to be read out. If not, we
can go right to calling the vote. Very good. Uh,
Deputy Walters, please call for the vote. Your worship in
favor. Council Raider Wall. Opposed Councillor in favor. Councillor Bence
in favor Councillor Trini in favor Councillor Folds opposed Councillor
Curtuga? Yes. Councillor Hamilton. In favor. Outsorted or Speedr Johnson
rather? In favor. Councillor Oliver in favor Pastorino in favor
Councillor Jacino. Opposed. That is carried. Deputy Kirk Walters. What's
next on our agenda? It has been requested by administration
because we have some things that we've just changed over
between the next item that we have just a five
minute recess. Very good. I need to go in a
seconder. We would buy Councillor Trinity. Secondly by Councillor Folds.
I do need to call the role on that. We
are calling the role on this Councillor Asino. In favor.
Squino. In favor. That's where Oliver in favor. Johnson in
favor Councillor Hamilton. Yes. Councillor Gertuga? Yes. Councillor Folds. Your
favor. In favor. That's where I will. In favor. Edgar
Wool in favor. Your worship. Opposed. That is carried. We
are on a five minute recess. Five minute recess. Thank
you.
Colleagues, I'd like to call the meeting back to order,
and I'd like to just recognise Deputy Speaker Johnson for
sharing that first part of seven hours of that meeting,
appreciated. City clerk, next item please. Speed with the nuts,
I'm on the agenda, it's item 5. 3, it's a
Zoning Bylaw Amendment for 144 Fan Chastreet, Confidential Memorandum dated
to Audis IV from Joel Deputer, Director of Development Services
Relative to the above noted, also report 315 - 2026
growth development services planning services provider recommendation relative to this
Zoning Biolaw Amendment on the Lands Municipally known as 144
Fanshaw Street, which is for Council's Consideration. Also memorandum from
senior planner Desea Lopes dated August 5th, 2026, I believe
that's Supervisor. Deseal, whoops, relative corresponds regarding this report, who
is distributed separately to City Council on Friday, August the
7th. We have Open Comments this evening from a director
deputer. Acting Commissioner Deputer, please. Thank you. Through the Speaker,
this report recommends approval of Zoning Bylaw Amendment to permit
in approximately 150 unit apartment building at 144 Fanshaw Street.
The application is preceded through expanded Public Consultation and Technical
Review, including servicing, environmental and transportation studies. The preliminary traffic
study concludes that the existing road network in support the
Development. Longer - term anticipate traffic volumes driven by growth
and surrounding areas will be stuttering, monitored, and should future
improvements be warranted. Those improvements would be subject to potential
developer contributions and recommended to council through the budget process.
After careful consideration, planning services has concluded that the proposal
is consistent with provincial policy conforms to the official plan
and supports council's smart growth action plan objectives by increasing
housing supply and making efficient use of existing infrastructure. I
now invite Planner Ingram to provide an overview of the
application. Thank you. Is it Planner Ingram. Planner, please go
ahead. Good evening, Mayor Speaker. Members of Council and the
Public. This presentation outlines a proposed Zoning By - Law
Amendment Application for the Property Minister Pleaknown as 144 Fanfaw
Street. If approved this amendment would allow for the Development
of One New Residential Apartment Building. I will provide an
overview of the proposal, Policy Alignment, Community Consultation, and staff
recommendation. Next slide, please. The subject lands are approximately 1.
23 Hectors in size and are located between L. Ron
Crescent and Golf Link's Road with approximately 105. 2 metres
of frontage along Fincha Street. The Property is currently undeveloped
and consists of a mixed wood - treed area. Hydroezmith's
but both the eastern and western sides of the subject
lands. In terms of surrounded land uses, the lands to
the north contained four to six - story apartment buildings
under condominium ownership and are zoned urban mid - rhizome.
To the east is the McIntyre River Corridor with natural
heritage features and is zoned environmental protection. Also located to
the east are the Confederation College Campus Lands, which are
zoned institutional. To the south and west, the surrounding area
is characterized by low - density residential development within the
urban Lori Zone. Next slide, please. The subject lends are
designated residential in the official plan and are located within
the urban settlement area boundary. The proposed development aligns with
the general objectives of the residential policies by providing a
broad arrange of housing options supporting the efficient use of
existing infrastructure and community services and directing residential growth within
an established residential area. Next slide, please. The applicant is
proposing to reason the lands from UL Urban Lowrise Zone
to UM Urban Midhizome. The purpose of the UM Zone
is to encourage urban - scale housing by permitting a
variety of multiple unit residential forms, including apartment buildings. The
proposal meets all requirements of the UM Zone. Next slide,
please. As shown in the rendering, the requested amendment would
allow for the construction of one new Six - Story
apartment building with approximately 150 residential units contained within five
stories. The proposed building includes one above ground parking level
and one below ground parking level. The two indoor parking
levels are intended to reduce the amount of service parking
to allow for more landscaping and amenity spaces for the
future residents. The proposed development is designed to comply with
the UM Zone requirements for related to the building height,
setbacks, access, landscaping, and parking. Next slide, please. The statutory
of Public Consultation Process included the circulation of a notice
of application on June 30, 2026. A Public Information session
by the applicant was held on July 9th and provided
residents with opportunities to review and comment on the proposal.
The Public Meeting Notice also afforded residents additional opportunity for
review and comment. The Developer led information session had approximately
25 attendees. The developers consultants collected 12 written comments, forms
during that engagement process and shared them with City staff.
As of July 24, 2026, three comments had been received
from agencies and 24 comments were received from the public.
All commons received were provided to the applicant and members
of Council on July 31, 2026 in a comment summary.
Additional Cummins received to date were also provided ahead of
tonight's meeting. Next slide, please. While Comments covered a range
of topics, the generally focused on 10 key themes. Transportation
and parking, building form and neighbourhood compatibility, residential amenity impacts,
environmental considerations, loss of green space, infrastructure capacity, ownership structure,
mixed - use consideration, hydro - quarter safety, and public
consultation process. Public feedback helped inform the review of the
application and ongoing discussions between city staff and the applicant.
As part of the process, aspects of the proposal were
refined in response to concerns raised by the residents. Next
slide, please. Initial support and studies included a stage 1
archaeological assessment and a scoped environmental impact study, which incorporated
species at risk and black - ash assessments, as well
as the supplementary ecological assessment focused on how will habitat.
To support the application, the applicant submitted technical studies, including
a traffic impact study, and a preliminary civil site servicing
assessment. These studies along with the updated plans in supporting
documentation were reviewed by relevant city departments. Traffic was one
of the primary concerns raised by residents. The traffic impact
study concluded that the Golf Lynx Road and FanTR Street
Intersection is expected to continue operating at an acceptable level
of service and that the proposed development can be accommodated
within the existing road network. A final traffic impact study
will be required through the Site Plan Control Process as
additional development details are finalised. The site benefits from access
to traffic long golf for Lynx Road as well as
nearby Public Amenities and Trail Connections. Staff evaluated the Application
in accordance with the applicable criteria, including Provincial Policies, the
City's official plan, and the proposed regulations as set out
under the UM Zone within the Zoning By - Law.
Particular attention was given to transportation impacts, compatibility with surrounding
land uses, housing objectives, and the Sites location near Transit
and Active Transportation Infrastructure. Based on this review, staff concluded
that the Proposal Represents an Efficient Form of Development that
supports Cities Intensification Objectives while remaining compatible with the surrounding
area. Next slide, please. Administration supports the proposed amendment and
recommends approval for the following reasons, the proposal is consistent
with the Provincial Planning Statement conforms to the growth plan
for Northern Ontario, aligned with the official plan, and meets
the general intent and purpose of the Zoning Bylaw. The
proposal represents a positive contribution to the City's Growth in
Economic Development Objectives by expanding the residential landscape supply and
providing enhanced residential opportunities for surrounding neighbourhoods and the broader
community. This concludes the presentation. Thank you. Thank you very
much for your presentation. Is the applicant present and wishing
to make a presentation. Welcome once again. Thank you know
the drill. Introduce yourself in 10 minutes, please. Good evening.
My name is Tyler Rizzuto, the Project Manager with Stantec
Consulting. Joining me online is Sharon. She's never been planner
with Stantec and Arash, the senior associate, and Transportation Planning
Lead with Stantec. We're here on behalf of the applicant
Terra Lux General Contractors and Development Limited to present the
proposed development at 144 Fanchise Street. The purpose of tonight's
presentation is to provide an overview of the proposed development
discussed a planning framework that supports the application, summarize the
technical studies that have been completed and explain how the
proposal has evolved in response to community and stakeholder feedback.
This proposal represents an opportunity to introduce new housing choices
within an existing serviced area of the City while making
efficient use of available land and infrastructure. Throughout the design
process, careful consideration has been given to the Site Layout
Access Landscaping and Compatibility with Surrounding Area. Next slide. This
proposal is for the development of one apartment building under
19 metres in height. Uh, the proposed department includes five
residential stories for a total of 150 units comprising 45
- 1 bedroom units, 82 - bedroom units, 25 -
3 - bedroom units. will be affordable as defined by
CMHC. This mixture of housing and unit sizes will again
provide additional housing choice for young professionals, young families, and
older adults who may be looking for opportunities to downsize.
Next slide please. A total of 188 parking spaces will
be provided, including 160 in closed spaces across one level
of AtGrade parking and one level of underground parking, as
well as 28 outdoor surface parking spaces, which will provide
more parking spaces than the number of units proposed. Most
of the proposed parking spaces will be enclosed to minimize
surface parking and increase the amount of landscaped area on
site. The orientation of the building will also help screen
the surface parking area from street view. And vegetated buffers
will be maintained and provided along the north and east
property lines to increase privacy and reduce traffic noise from
Van Jaw Street and Golf Lynx Road. The Hydro Corridors
on the West and East of the Subject Lands will
provide an additional buffer area from the existing low density
residential uses west of the subject lands. Next slide please.
The Proposal introduces a greater range in mix of housing
options through intensive vacation and infel within previously developed areas.
And the proposal represents efficient land use within an existing
settlement area where growth is directed for these reasons, the
Proposal is consistent with the PPS and growth plan. Next
slide please. The smart growth action plan was approved by
City Council in December 2025 and similar to the Arundel
Street Project. This proposal aligns with the principles for advancing
smart growth through housing, um, with compacts built form, infill
development and land optimization. Next slide please. The subject lands
are currently designated residential in the city's official plan. And
within this designation, residential intensification, including infill development, is encouraged
where possible. The proposal introduces new housing types within an
established neighbourhood providing additional housing choice and flexibility along an
existing transit route where higher density development is encouraged. As
such, the proposed ZBA would permit the type of development
encouraged by the city's official plan. Next slide please. The
subject lands are proposed to be rezoned to urban MidRise
as shown in the table, no site - specific amendments
or provisions are required. For instance, the maximum height within
the proposal would permit 25 metres, whereas the proposed development
would be less than 19 metres. The lot coverage is
also well below the maximum sitting at approximately 24 percent
based on this lot area. 200 units would be permitted.
Whereas 150 units are proposed. And under the UM Zone,
a 3 metre side yard setback is required from the
West Property line facing the existing residences, um, based on
the proposed height of the building, uh, with the proposed
development, a setback of more than 16 metres is provided.
Whereas the UM Zone would typically require 20 percent of
the property to be landscaped area, The proposed developments would
provide close as well. Next slide please.
Our transparent, our transportation planning team completed a comprehensive traffic
impact study in support of the application. The study assessed
existing traffic conditions, future traffic conditions, projected vehicle trips, generated
by the development, site axis operations, site distances, and parking
demand. The results indicate that the development is expected to
generate relatively modest traffic volumes to the surrounding road network
and as efficient capacity to accommodate those trips. The study
also concluded that no geometric roadway improvements are required and
that the access to the site is expected to operate
efficiently. And that parking supply proposed for the site is
adequate and will meet anticipated demand. Next slide. In addition
to the transportation analysis, several supporting studies were completed, including
the Planning Justification memo, an urban design brief, a shadow
study, and a functional site servicing memo. Together these studies
confirm the proposal aligns with planning policy represents appropriate residential
intensification considers potential shadow impacts and can be supported by
the existing municipal services. Next slide. Um, we also completed
a Public Information session for this project. Um, 25 Sign
Ins, several common themes emerged the discussion with stakeholders and
members of the Public. Questions raised regarding municipal servicing capacity.
Traffic parking. Privacy, noise and preservation of green space. These
are, these are important considerations and each, we're carefully evaluated
through the technical studies and completed as part of this
application. The studies indicate that the adequate servicing capacity exists,
anticipated traffic impacts can be accommodated. And the proposed landscaping
and setbacks help address compatibility considerations with neighbouring properties. Public
feedback played an important role in refining this proposal to
ensuring that concerns were fully considered. Next slide. Since the
City's call for proposals, the development concept has been evolved
to incorporate the feedback that was perceived. Key themes include
maintaining neighbourhood character, preserving landscaping and buffers, providing adequate parking
and creating an appropriate transition between existing development and future
growth. The development concept has since been refined to address
this feedback while balancing the functionality of the site. One
of the more noticeable changes is the addition of an
extra story to the building. The reason for this change
was to accommodate the additional structured parking within the building.
And by moving more parking indoors, we were able to
reduce the amount of surface parking required on the site.
And to dedicate more space to landscaping amenity areas and
buffering. The revised design also includes greater setbacks from the
hydrocorridor, enhanced landscaping, and the retention of vegetation along property
boundaries. These elements help strengthen the separation between the proposed
development and the neighbouring properties while improving the overall appearance
of the site. It is also important to note that
the proposed building height is comparable to the existing condominium
developments in the immediate area. And so in that regard,
the proposed will maintains the established character for this portion
of the neighbourhood while continuing the pattern of mid -
rise residential development along the golf links road corridor. Overall,
we believe the revised concept balances new housing opportunities with
the priorities identified by Council and the Community. Next slide
please. In closing, we believe this proposal represents an appropriate
well - supported form of residential intensification within the City
of Thunder Bay's urban settlement area. The development is consistent
with the provincial policy direction conforms to the City's official
plan and can satisfy the requirements of the proposed urban
mid - rise zoning. Tactical studies demonstrated that the site
can be serviced with existing infrastructure, the transportation impacts are
manageable and the proposed design provides appropriate landscaping buffering and
amenity space. As stunned bay continues to grow and address
housing demand developments such as this helps provide a range
of housing options needed while making efficient use of land
and infrastructure already in place. Thank you. Thank you for
your presentation. Members of Council. This is your opportunity to
ask the applicant or administration questions. However, remind you again
an opportunity to ask administration questions later on. So Councillor
Pascalino, please. Thank you very much. And through Speaker, my
question is, is that the traffic studies, were they taking
place while the college was active or was it during
the summer? And if it was during the summer, what
did you do to accommodate that. I'll pass that to
Rosh if he's. Not online. Saudi Arrows.
Should I have to say the set of data that
we received for the intersection of Van Show and Gold
Flink's Road. We receive different sets of data. We use
the combination of them. We selected the highest and more
recent one, which was in. July 2022. But as I
said, we compare the traffic volume to older traffic volume
that was collected during fall season. And we found that
this is a higher one. So I have to say
that. I mean, we consider and we use the hoist
traffic at the intersection, which was in July 2022, which
was collected in July 2022. So keeping on with the
traffic, um, I realise that the development that's going to
happen in that area besides this, do we do these
like silo and check each one? And then, uh, because
we, there is a huge amount of development going there.
We're looking at potentially 4, 000 housing units plus the
Costco plus them all. You know, the hotels being built
on Oliver Road. That's my, my issue. And I think
most of the people have an issue with, with the
traffic in there, um, just wondering how, how that's been
worked out. And, uh, just comment. I'll, I'll have a
rush into that one. Yeah. Uh, so we consider the
traffic information that's available for the future development in the
area. It includes several housing projects. It includes forum commercial
and also the warehouse does plan in the areas. All
of them. We call them background development traffic. So they
are already considered in the traffic study. Through the chair,
or sorry, through the speaker, I'd also ask director meet
a much provide some additional information on other traffic studies
that are underway. Thank you. And through speaker, CD engineer
is also undertaking other mid - city transpirations studies for
this corridor. We're looking at golf links, um, HExpressway Balmoral,
the whole traffic in that area as a whole, as
you alluded to, in this corridor, um, the 2009, I
guess going back in time 2009. EA Study for Golf
Links recommended we four lan golfings to come a traffic
for this future growth. And we're building off with prior
studies to look at the continued growth and making sure
we have network capabilities for the long term as well.
So we're looking at this for today and until the
next 20 or forecast as part of the Mid City
Transportation Study that is currently underway. How much time do
I have left or go? Okay. Um, I was just,
uh, wondering, uh, if, uh, I know that right now
it's difficult to get a left hand turn coming off
of North towards the hospital. And, uh, I know that
a lot of residents have been talking about putting in
a traffic light in there and, uh, I'm sure that
you are going to come up with some kind of
solution with, with that at some point, right? Like I'm
sure you're dealing with it. Maybe you can comment on
that. Yeah. Through the speaker as part of this development
and as part of the global picture of the whole
golfings corridor, we're looking at issues on this corridor, whether
signals are the preferred approach and solution for fan showing
golfings by still to be determined as part of Larger
global review of the golfings core. Like I said, there
may be other opportunities we can improve efficiencies at this
intersection. That it's really a corridor base approach. Um, while
this development is contributing to traffic, it is not, um,
pushing it over that threshold where it warrant signals. It's
more of the global aspect we need to consider improvements.
Thank you, Councillor Councillor Trainee, please. Thank you through the
speaker. Um, besides traffic parking is definitely something that's been
brought forward numerous times. And I know we just finished
discussing the other, uh, rezoning, but parking is similar in
this, uh, Property as a concern. How did we come
up with the number of parking spaces for this? And
do we feel that we're sufficient? The people in this
area really concern in particular about, um, overflow landing on
the streets there, especially with a tough intersection to get
out of. And then of course winter. Yeah. Um, so
again, we're, we're meeting the bylaw, uh, I believe it's
1. 25 to one unit. We're comfortably hitting that. You
know, we think it can, we think that's adequate. It's
meeting the bylaw. And that number is there for, I
mean, there's that number isn't just made up. So, um,
what are you thinking? We can make that number work.
And then there's enough parking as well for visitors, right?
Correct. Yeah. That's a, that's included in that. Yes. Yes.
Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Seeing no further hands, um,
we do have a number of people that assigned up
to speak to this, but we think maybe a couple
of them have maybe gone to bed online is Rey
N. Robinson. Online. Rey Ann. Is Jack Jameson
online. Jack, are you online. Okay. We do have Peter
Gobinski, I think, uh, The Gallery. That would like to
speak. Would you like to come up now and address
council. So welcome. Uh, you have the microphone in front
of you. There's a button in the middle. You've turned
it on. The green light is on. If you want
to speak somewhere between five and eight centimeters away from
the microphone, please introduce yourself and you will have 10
minutes to speak. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good morning to,
uh, Council. To worship. Um, I just might make a
slight, please, Mr. Speaker for a bit more time than
10 minutes. I was thinking perhaps two hours because we
had to sit through four hours of, uh, deputations with
respect to the Arundel situation. Um, much of what I'm
going to say has, in a sense, been covered just
with the questions and the presentations from, uh, I should
say my colleague from Stantek. I don't know if it's
a conflict of interest, but I used to work with
them in Winnipeg. So that was quite a while ago.
And I'm a little bit critical of their transportation studies.
So, um, I hope they will, uh, accept what I
have to say in good humor. Um, let me start
with two footnotes if I may. And I remember addressing
council, oh, about a year and a half ago when
they're suggesting it was made, I was, I believe it
was by Councillor Attrinie that we do take a look
at Parkland and we do take a look at, um,
the possibility of Confirm Converting unused parking areas, for example,
into housing. And I think at the time I asked
Council members if they'd ever been to Vancouver. I'm sure
many have been. If they've been to Halifax, if they've
been to Quebec City and Levy, um, Thunder Bay has
got one of the most beautiful shorelines in all of
Canada. And being wanted in three states and four provinces,
I can assure you that I've had an opportunity to
travel and see most of it. And it's quite remarkable
how from fishermen's park all the way through to mission
march, the amount of territory unused spaces there that could
be very profitably turned into affordable and not so much
affordable condominiums and rental space. And this is not meant
to be a criticism of, um, of the planning in
the city. But it struck me having moved back to
Thunder Bay for the last time in my life that
if you travel Simpson, if you travel on Arthur Street,
if you travel north from Red River Road, East, I'm
sorry, South and North on Red River Road. The number
of abandoned derelict houses. The number of unused commercial properties
that could be easily converted into housing. I know what
the response is going to be. These are for the
most part, private properties. And the city does not have
the right of eminent domain, but it does have a
bylaw. And I'm amazed at the number of derelict units
in this city that should be forced to either convert
into proper housing or to sell it to the City
so that developers can then take it over and put
in some profitable housing. Um, but especially along this immensely
beautiful shoreline that we have that is sitting there so
that when the Viking ship comes in from Milwaukee or
wherever, uh, they're not greeted by a bunch of derelict
rusting, um, grain elevators that are the first thing that
you see there. So blue sky thinking down the road,
I think the opportunity there for, uh, maybe for the
next council to look at other possibilities. I must say
that, um, that I am, I was currently, I was
on the board of the condominium association at 145 Fan
Cha. I am no longer on the board. I'm speaking
today just as a resident of 145 Fancy, which is
directly across from the proposed 144 development. Um, as much
as I'd love to see that beautiful Cedar cops retained
as green space, I understand the need for additional housing.
I don't personally oppose it. Uh, I just think that
there's a number of amendments that going forward need to
be considered into the final plan before final approve. And
is, is given to this. You've probably received much correspondence
from residents there who are concerned about everything from the
noise, from traffic, uh, from the possibility that much of
their own land is going to be dug up so
that the developers can access appropriate water infrastructure on the
north side of Fanchaw. At any rate, my concern is
with 150 units being suggested for 144 that I think
it is essential that the City, planning and council, take
a look at the strong possibility of putting in a
traffic light. At the intersection, the T intersection of golf
links and fanshaw. I was told, I remember about, uh,
a year and a half ago when I had the
opportunity of meeting with our councillor in the Northward Councillor
Pascal Leno and also with Councillor Agarwal that I was
told that the time that it was very unlikely that
a traffic light could be put there simply because it
is too close to the expressway. And then lo and
behold, a year later, we find that the city has
approved the traffic light at the corner of innovation drive.
Which is approximately the same distance from the harbour expressway.
A little bit further, but nevertheless, the same distance. So
it's accommodating 850 parking stalls in innovation. But at this
point in time, we are still asking for consideration that
a traffic light be installed at the corner at that
T - junction quarter. All right. It's interesting that on
Riviera further down on golf links that there has been
a traffic late installed there to serve individual residents and
this highly priced condominium complex at the other side of
that T - junction. So it's a consideration that I
would ask Council as it's moving forward. I know that
the study that was done by Stantec is not the
final say on this. In fact, as you can read
in their deposition and their submission of information to council
that with respect to that single development, it was found
by the traffic gurus that there would not be a
significant modification required because the traffic would not be significantly
affected. And I would really want to dispute that. And
I just draw attention to the Council to where I
would call the law of unintended consequences. And especially develops
when a complex situation is such that a single answer
or a single particular proposal does not take into account
all of the other variables that could affect that decision.
So that the consequences that are reaped afterwards, um, are
unfortunate. And I think of LPH and its conversion. I
also think of previous council's decision with respect to what
happened Victoriaville. The law of unintended consequences. The reason that
it can happen here, despite what Stantec has said about
not requiring any change with respect to traffic flow on
golf links, east or west. The reason is that, and
I think Councillor Pascalina mentioned this, that over the course
of the next few years, the next number of years,
then anticipation of 4, 000 additional units. If you break
that down and you take a look at the fact
that innovation forum is going to have 850 parking stalls
for commercial vehicles, you move a little bit further and
you've got Costco coming in. With God knows how many
traffic stalls are going to be required or put in
place there. Um, it's going to become an extremely popular
place. You move a little further and you've got the
degregorio, um, development right across from Tim Hortons and the,
um, the golf course that is located there. So you
multiply all of these together. And you are going to
have a significant increase in traffic flow north and south
on golf links road. It'll become, if not the major
arterial corridor and Thunder Bay, certainly it'll be ranking very
high up there. So there's going to be a significant
substantial increase in traffic. I'm not disagreeing with the conclusion
that Stantek has come to because they were focused individually
on one project. Right? It is not their quote unquote
fault that they didn't take into account all of the
others. City Council and City officials are going to have
to do that. Otherwise the law of undintended consequences is
going to reap its rewards, um, in a very unpopular
way. You have about one minute. So as much as
I would prefer to see green space there, I remember
coming back late at night. Driving into the condo and
seeing either a coyote or a grey fox cross into
the cost that is now going to be represented by
145. I understand that the acquisition of property for the
development of adequate housing. And hopefully this will be affordable
housing is as important, if not more so in this
particular case. But I would ask certainly that, uh, serious
consideration be given to the location of a traffic light
at that T junction of fancy and golf links. Um,
so that we do not reap the rewards of unintended
consequences. Thank you very much for your attention. Thank you
for your presentation. Before we go to questions, I have
Councillor Training and Councillor Agerwall on the list already. It
is 1 a. m. and we need to do the
1 a. m. resolution. Uh, just before we do this,
as people maybe start thinking about voting against continuing, we
have a number of items on our agenda that must
get through, um, because of the consequences of the lame
duck. However, the petitions could be deferred to the next
meeting. I'm only providing that to you for information. So
as you're thinking about your vote, uh, we have a
number of things that we have to do. Okay. So
we need to move our deputy city clerk. Go ahead,
please. I need to move them in a second or
swoll of Councillor Oliver and Councillor training. Sure. Uh, your
worship. In favor. Councillor Ehrwall. In favor Councillor in favor.
Councillor Bence in favor Councillor Trenny in favor. Speedrfolds in
favor. Councillor Cortuga in favor. Councillor Hamilton. Yes. Councillor Johnson
in favor. Councillor Oliver in favor. Councillor Pastoweedl in favor
Councillor's Asino in favor Deputy City clerk. I see that
carried Councillor Attrini for questions for the Deputado, please. Thank
you through the speaker. Um, I really like that language.
You use the unintended The Law of the Unintended Consequences.
And that is definitely something that we've brought up before
with regards to the traffic study. Um, I did hear,
and I did see some pieces, but because we have
a traffic study already doesn't mean we can't go back.
And, um, I recognise one hundred percent as soon as
Costco was approved that there's definitely going to be some
collateral from that. And then recognising the central avenue pieces
as well. So I appreciate your comment about the traffic
study. You did also comment about the waterfront area and
the possibilities. Councillor, a question, please, from the deputant. Yeah.
About the possibility for, um, housing in that area. And
I wasn't sure if you have noticed or seen anything
about the, uh, Pool 6, um, proposal. Have you seen
any of those pieces? Yes, I have a Moira of
it, not in any. Sorry. I'm going to rule that
question out of order tonight. We're talking about the rezoning
of Fanshaw and not housing on the waterfront. Okay. So
I'm going to fair. I appreciate that speaker. I just,
the deputant wanted us to look at other. And I
just wanted to make sure he was aware of the
other, but I appreciate that. I think I'm going to
be finished then. Thank you. Okay. Thank you Councillor Trinity.
Councillor Agarwal, please. Thank you very much, Speaker. Um, based
on your knowledge of traffic studies, if, I'm not sure
the City has to look at if a traffic light
cannot go there. What about a NO left hand turning.
Off a fan show? Would that be something that would
be beneficial? So you only take a rate. When you
depart franchise. As it stands now, because I use it
every day, um, a left turn is very difficult. Because
of the lack of synchronization, I'm sorry, of, um, of
lights. So if you're not facing something coming south from
the harbour expressway, um, you're obviously facing something coming from,
from Edward. And, uh, their preference would be that, um,
there'll be a light there so that a left hand
turn can be permitted. And I've had all kinds of
statements saying that, Oh, you've got a synchronization of traffic
lights is not quantum physics. I mean, it can be
done with careful attention. And, um, the problem with turning
right is that we're then, do you turn around to
go back to the harbour expressway to go south or
east or west or rather. I mean, putting up a
sign, I don't think you're going to have to because
it's going to be obvious because people will not be
able to turn left there at all. There'll be far
too much traffic, I think. And through you speaker, what
I was thinking, and I'm, and you're more of an
expert on this than I am. Is it that if
you had to take a left, you come off of
James and go off a cornerstoga through Counter Stoga to
James and turn left that way. Yep. Um, often when
we're going towards Arthur Street, for example, will go all
the way up to, uh, the Crescent and then go
that way. Um, if you have a light there on
Constituga, I think that's about a kilometer away from, from
James. It's not too close. But you would have to
put a light there because traffic on James as a
byproduct of the increased traffic on golf is going to
increase as well. No question. Thank you. Um, may I
ask administration, is this something for you speaker? Is this
something that has been Councillor Anger Walt, you can ask
administration questions, but let's just finish up with the deputant
and then we can. I'm good. I live with the
diputado. Okay. So, um, any more questions for the deputant.
Councillor Pascalino, please. Um, thank you very much for your
endurance and for the many conversations we've had and also,
uh, for staying on, this certainly does show your dedication.
Um, tonight we're actually talking about the issue of the
building on Fanshaw. These issues that you are discussing this
evening or this morning, uh, are actually issues that we
had even before any development have taken place. And certainly
with the development on, uh, that is proposed for the
area that would make this more severe, like, like you
say, the left - hand turn coming out of fanshaw.
Um, do you, do you think that actually this is
even significant, you know, whether this building gets built or
not for that left turn? You know, how much significance
is this in the whole scheme of the development in
the area. Um, I can only speak for myself on
this case. I do not object at all. To the
density to the number of flowers to the number of
units that are the housing. The only caveat I would
put to that is it's not been my impression that
I'm not an expert on this, that Terelux is not
in the business of developing affordable housing. They are in
the business of developing extremely rich housing. So I hope
with the accelerator fund and the demands that are made
there, that there is a sufficient number of units in
144 that will support, uh, families that can't afford to
pay 3, 000 dollars a month in apartment fees. I
don't know if that answers your question. We are not,
I am not personally opposed to, um, the development of
the housing units there. It's the byproducts that I'm mostly
concerned about. Okay. So you're in favor of it. And,
uh, but we need to deal with these issues. That's
why you're here tonight. Yes. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Thank
you, Councillor Pascalino. Any other questions of the deputant. Seeing
none, thank you very much for your presentation. And I
need to reiterate the fact that you've stayed here till
1 a. m. Thank you, sir, for participating. Thank you.
Thank you very much. So I now need to make
calls for other speakers. So my first call, are there
any speakers that would like to speak to this zoning.
File. For a second time, are there any speakers to
this report on Fenshaw. For a third and final time,
are there any speakers to this report on Fenshaw. Okay,
seeing that, um, there are no further speakers. I'd like
to invite the applicant back to the table. Councillor Agerwall,
I cut you off. You wanted to ask questions. This
is an opportunity to ask questions of either the applicant
or administration. So Councillor Egerwall, please. Thank you very much,
Speaker. Um, the deputy that we had just before spoke
of some major concerns that we have in that area
for traffic. Is there a possibility of putting a traffic
light there like it's suggested or some sort of mediation?
Because it is a high density neighbourhood. And turning left
is very challenging. Thank you. And through the speaker, um,
so that is on the table. I'll say it's not,
uh, final solution we were recommending tonight. Um, again, we
need to go through this whole mid city, um, traffic
setting. We'll look at Golfings Corps as a whole. So
whether to your point is making fans all right in,
right out, traffic lights on Konastoga. I'll just throw those
different options. The table we need to consider roundabouts are
also an option. So we would evaluate all the options
to improve traffic along the entire golfings quarter with looking
at the intersection as well as whole court itself and
see how we can improve traffic flow and minimize congestion,
um, for the corridor as a whole. So thank you
very much. And through the speaker, would that be considered
in conjunction with this project happening right now? Through the
speaker. So yes, we are started this Mid City transportation
centre right now. Um, we are looking to add this
development as part of the mid CD transpiration review. It
is looking at that one. The Costco Forum lands further
development lands in and overpark. Burrowed. We've also taken consideration
future upgrades to the Thunder Bay Expressway interchanges and divide
in that way. So what impact that traffic change have
on a golfing scorer. So we're looking at the whole
quarter as a whole, see what traffic could change in
the next 20 year horizon. It would improve to me
to make in a short medium and long term. Okay.
Now the other question I have through youth speaker. As
I see on the, I have no opposition to this
project other than the only one entrance in. And to
have 150 units with only one entrance. Is a concern.
Is there an option to have a secretary interest for
emergency vehicles? En case there's a closed area there. Um,
you had appreciate the concern. Um. When we're meeting with
administration for Site Plan Control Process, uh, it's made something
that we've already agreed to look at. Potentially a write
in, write out. Through the hydro corridor. To the south
of the development. So directly onto golf links. As long
as there's a secondary access, I'm good. We're, yeah, just
we're exploring the possibility of it across the Eastmont is
difficult, but we're, uh, we're looking at it. Because would
there. As long as you're looking at it, there'll be
a solution down the road. That's all that matters. I
mean, we would, we would like one too. So understood.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Agarwa. Any further questions
of either the applicant and or administration. Seeing no hands.
Deputy City clerk. Could we put the resolution on the
floor, please? Yes, we can speed her. We just need
to move her in a seconder for this. Councillor Gertuga
and Councillor Attrini. Are there any further questions of administration
at this point in time. Seeing none, Deputy City clerk,
please call the rule. Your worship in favor. Councillor Egerboam
in favor. In favor Councillor Bence. I'm sorry. I just
returned. Is this on Fan Shop? Apologies. Yes, it is
on Fantasy. In favor. Councillor Attorney in favor. Speaker Foltz
in favor Councillor Cortuga in favor Councillor Hamilton. He's over
the room. Uh, Councillor Johnson in favor. In favor Councillor
Pastowieno in favor Councillor Zesino in favor Deputy City clerk.
I see that carried. Next item, please. Speech with the
next item on the agenda this evening is the consent
agent agenda. There's a number of items on this this
evening, including a number of minutes. It will go through
the other items that are a bit more substantial. We
do have a signed variance application that's item 6. 10
for 1000 for early enroad Sport Check. Sits 1 1,
which is the application of cancellation reduction or refund of
taxes under section 357 of the municipal at 6. 12
is in addition of a crossing guard location. So it's
0. 13 is the waverly park fountain restoration project NOHFC
funding application. Since point 14 is the Thunderbolt Public Library
Recruitment and selection process. Since point 15 is the repeal
of By - 1 99 2017 City Solicitor and Corporate
Council, although many of administration are hoping that does not
pass this evening. Since. 16 is a land related matter
of 120 and 122 cover win street. South surplus and
sale. So it's 0. 17 property related matter for certain
blocks on Francis Street West as well as part of
Metcalf Avenue. I do need a mover and a seconder
for the consent agenda. Councillor Oliver and your worship. Seeing
no hands. Please call the roll. Councillor Assinal. In favor.
In favor. Councillor Oliver in favor. Councillor Johnson. In favor.
Councillor Hamilton. He just stole at the room. Councillor Tertuga.
Yes. Speedr folds in favor. Councillor Benz. In favor Council.
In favor Councillor Egerwol in favor and your worship in
favor. Deputy City Clerk Councillor Hamilton is back in the
room. Please. Yeah. I'd love to vote. Yeah. This is
the in favor. That's fine. Thank you. Deputy City clerk.
I see that carried next item please. Speech within its
time that we have are three items arising from closed
session. Uh, so the first one is board and committee
appointments for the Compliance Auto Committee, as you heard earlier
in close session. Confidental Men random from Crystal Deputy Election
Coordinator dated July 20th presented in Special Committee of the
Whole earlier this evening. The appointment is for the compliance
audit committee in such an accordance with such an 88.
37 of the municipal elections at recommending the following individuals
be appointed to the 2026 - 2030 term of City
Council, which would be Norm Dale John Friday and Eve
Frico. I do need a mover in a seconder for
this. Councillor Johnston, Councillor Agerwall, seeing no hands. Please call
a roll. Your worship in favor Council Reagerwolf in favor.
Councillor? In favor. Councillor Bence. In favor. Councillor Trenny in
favor. Peter Folds in favor. Council Order Tuga. In favor.
Councillor Hamilton? Yes. Council Johnson. In favor. Councillor Oliver? In
favor. Councillor Pastorino in favor. Deputy City clerk. I see
that carried.
Next item, please. Speech with the nuts. I'm on the
agenda is also coming out of closed session. It is
the Confidential Report 2023 CLS - 017. This is a
Weedle matter. Uh, we do need a mover and a
seconder and the resolution is to proceed as directed. Councillor
Pascalino. Councillor Johnson. Seeing no hands, Deputy City clerk, please
call a rule. General Source Casino is not in the
room. Apologies, Councillor Pastolino. In favor. In favor. Councillor Johnson.
In favor. Councillor Hamilton. Yes. Councilworker Tugra? Yes. Speaker Folds.
In favor. Councillor Tranny. In favor. Bence. In favor. Councillor
Rio. In favor. Councillor Ederwall. In favor. And your worship.
In favor. Deputy City Councillor Zizino is back. Councillor Cezino.
This is on the legal matter preceding as directed. In
favor. Thank you Councillor Cezino. I see that carry deputy
clerk. Next item, please. Next item is the Property Related
Motor. I'm 7. 3 Art Gallery Update. Again, Taunfens Report
CLS - 018 from Realty Services presented earlier this evening.
It is a proceed as directed. I do need a
mover and a seconder. Your worship Councillor Johnson. Seeing no
hands. Deputy City clerk, please call a role. Councillor's the
Sinum in favor. Councillor Pastor Weenum. In paper. Councillor Oliver.
In favor. Councillor Johnson. In favor. That's where Hamilton. In
favor. Councillor Curtuga. In favor. Speedrfuls in favor. Councillor Trenny.
In favor. In favor. Councillor. In favor. Councillor Agerwall. In
favor. Your worship. In favor. Deputy City Clerk. I see
that. Carried next item, please.
At a B. 1. H. Z. Is the component's Audi
Committee's report 275 2020 sits from B. City Manager's Office,
Office of the City Twerk, recommend in terms of reference
for the 2026 2030 compliance audit committee be approved. I
do have introductory Mercures on this item. Please go ahead.
So the Municipal Ethernet requires Municipal Councils to establish a
compliance audit committee by October 1st of an election year.
This time you need reviews and responds to applications made
by voters for audits related to candidate financial statements as
well as any discrepancies raised by the City Torque with
respect to a valuable contribution limits. Once established, this committee
is in place for the duration of the term council.
Council appoints three members to the Committee who are typically
represented by Community Members with Backgrounds and Accounting, Auditing Local
Government Administration and Law. Earlier this evening Council Appointed Members
to the Committee, which has just some of the closed
session. Part 275, 2026 is presented this evening for Council's
approval of the terms of reference, along with the proposed
members. So we need a mover in a seconder. Councillor
Aiello, Councillor Gertuga. Seeing no hands, Deputy City clerk. Please
call a roll. Your worship in favor? I'm sorry, Agarwal.
In favor. In favor. Councillor Bence. In favor. Councillor Trenny.
In favor. Folds in favor Councillor Cortuga. In favor. Councillor
Hamilton. In favor. Councillor Johnson. In favor. Councillor Oliver. In
favor. Councillor Pastoino. In favor. Councillor Zesino. In favor. Deputy
City clerk. I see that carried. Next item, please. And
so I'm on your agenda this evening is an 8.
2. The Thunder Behydra Corporation Dividend Policy. It's report 305
- 2026 corporate services providing a recommendation relative to the
allocation of dividend proceeds. It's for Council Consideration. Uh, we
have introductory commons from Commissioner Greaves. Commissioner Greaves, please. Thank
you. Through the chair or through the speaker in 2021
City Council approved the transition from a rate, minimization model
to a rate of return model with respect to synergy
North Corporation. And Thanovi Hydro Corporation. This report represents an
important milestone in that journey. For the first time, the
City of Thunder Bay has received dividend revenue from synergy
North Corporation through its ownership of Thunder Behydro Corration. In
June 2026, Synergy North declared dividends payable to its shareholders
that Thinne Bay Hydro Corporation and the City of Chinoura.
Thunder Bay Hydro Corporation subsequently declared regular and performance dividends
totally in approximately 383, 000 dollars payable to its soul
shareholder of the City of Thunder Bay. Administration is seeking
council's direction regarding the use of these proceeds and recommends
that the funds received in 2026, as well as future
dividends received from Thunderbird Hydro Corporation be dedicated to capital
investment rather than be used to reduce the municipal tax
levy. While the dividend is modest relative to the city's
overall infrastructure needs, it represents a new and sustainable source
of revenue that can help support acid renewal and infrastructure
investment. Accordingly, this report recommends that current and future dividends
received from Thunder Bay Housing Corporation be transferred to the
capital general Reserve Fund and Subsequently allocated through the annual
capital budget process, establishing a consistent and sustainable approach to
managing this new revenue source. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner.
We need a mover in the secondary place. Your worship,
Councillor Oliver. Councillor Benz, please. Yeah, I just wanted to
speak to this. I'm very, very happy to see the
focus on Capitol Renewal. I think it's an awesome thing
that this isn't being folded into operations. This has a
specific purpose. And I would argue that in the long
run, this will help with the tax rate because we'll
be taking care of infrastructure before it fails. And so
congratulations on that focus. And I fully support it. Thank
you. Speaking. Thank you, Councillor Benz. I'm sorry, Deputy City
Clerk. Do we have a mover in a seconder for
that? We do have a mover in a second different
this, yes. Okay. Seeing no further hands, Deputy City clerk,
please call a role. Councillor Zecino. In favor. Councillor Pasquino.
In favor. Councillor Oliver. In favor. Councillor Johnson in favor.
That's where Hamilton in favor. Councillor Cortuga. In favor. Peter
Folds. In favor. Councillor Trenny. In favor. Councillor Bence. In
favor. Councillor Lowe. In favor. Councillor Aggerwolf. In favor. Your
worship. In favor. Deputy City clerk. I see that carried.
Next item, please. Speed with an insight on your gender
item 8. 3 appointment of municipal officers. It's 317 -
2020. Six corporate services finance recommends the appointment of the
firm MNPLLP as municipal auditors for the City of Thunder
Bay. And it's a local boards for a five -
year period. At the Fed of January 1st of this
year. This is for Council's consideration. We have Open Incroyments.
Please. Through you Speaker, the Municipal Act requires City Council
to appoint an external auditor for the Municipality and its
local boards for a term not exceeding five years. As
the auditory's accountable to you, this appointment is important. Governance
Responsibility of City Council. To meet this requirement, Administration conducted
a request for proposal process and received one Compliance submission.
A selection Committee completed a comprehensive evaluation of the proposal,
considering all established criteria, including the firm's technical approach, Municipal
Audit Experience, proposed audit team, references, and pricing. The Committee
also assessed the proposed fees in relation to historical, auto
fees, and current marketing conditions. Based on this review, the
Community determined that MNP LLP has the Qualifications Public Sector
Experience Independence and Capacity required to serve as the City's
External Auditor. The firm also demonstrated a strong understanding of
the City's complex Financial Reporting Environment and related entities. Furthermore,
the proposed fees were found to be reasonable and reflective
of current market conditions given the scope and complexity of
the services being provided. As a result, administration is recommending
that MNP LLP be appointed as the external auditor for
the City of Thunder Bay and its local boards for
the 2026 through 2030 Fiscal Years. Thank you, Commissioner. Councillor
Gertuga, did you want to move or do you want
to speak to it? Or both? Okay, I'll get a
mover and a speaker, sorry, a mover and a second
or not go to you. So Councillor Hamilton, Councillor Agarwal,
moves in second Councillor Gertuga, please. Thank you, Speaker Folge.
Um, so reading the report, we had two bids come
in. One was non - compliant. And so that was,
uh, kicked out. And then so we only had one
compliant bit, correct. Correct. And my reading is properly that
it's more than double. Than we're paying for now. To
the speaker, yes. It is more than double. However, there
are some additional circumstances to consider the previous engagement was
developed coming out of the COVID years. Um, so a
lot of things have changed in the market. Um, not
just in Thano Bay, but across Canada. Um, it's becoming
a lot more difficult for firms to find, qualified staff
and auditors. Um, and the capacity across these firms. Probably
less, less, I'd say less than it has been in
the past. Um, so it is coming in about double
the price, but given everything that's kind of going on
in the market, we did feel of as reasonable. So
the other noncopliant bid, why was it non - compliant.
So through the speaker, um, not sure I can say
that in an open session, uh, the reason for the
uncompliance. It was not a, it was not, it didn't,
it didn't meet any of the legitimate the criteria required
in order for us to consider it. Okay. I mean,
going from 219, 000 last year to 459 starting this
year with the four percent increase every year. I mean,
I just have concerns that it's doubled and we only
had one bid. So I mean, do we have any
options to go out to bid again? Or I mean,
it's just a, the comparative, right? You know, I mean,
so I don't unless you could tell me what the
non - compliant bid came in relatively the same. I
mean, I need something that compared to. So through the
speaker, um, it would not be in our best interest
to go back out again. We do have a compliant
bid. It was not, unfortunately, it wasn't unexpected amount. We
knew it was going to come in a lot higher.
Um, I can say that just based on my, uh,
my peers in the province, there are some, especially smaller
municipalities, uh, in the north that are having trouble finding
an auditor. And there are audits are being delayed because
of the inability to, to acquire the services required. So
there is, there is danger in going back out. Um,
that danger would be that we may not get an
auditor. And then we would have to. I actually don't
know what we would do at that point. Okay. I
did. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Cartu. Oliver, please. Thank
you, Speaker and through you just to bring some comfort
to Councillor Gertuga. I do sit on to not -
for - profit, um, boards and both boards have seen
their auditing fees double from last year or even the
year before. It does seem to be common practice across
this sector. And so unfortunately, I think we're just going
to have to grin and bear it. Thanks. Thank you,
Councillor Oliver. Councillor Egerwald, please. Thank you. Just speaker. Is
there, is that a requirement such have such a multiple
year agreement with the auditor? Or can it be a
two - year agreement. So through the chair, the length
of the agreement was part of the RFP. It's often
good to have a longer - term engagement. There's a
lot of work that goes into developing the, not just
the RFP, but the plan and getting to know the
organisation. Uh, luckily, um, NMP, so in 2025, um, the
City's auditor BDO was acquired by MNP. So, um, we've
had a relationship with this firm now for many years.
They understand the business. They understand really what it takes
to audit an entities such as the size of the
City. Which is why I think some audit firms who
aren't familiar with the autoimmune municipality. May shy away from
that. Okay. So multiple years were, is it required? There
is benefit. And yes, it is an increasing four percent
per year through the speaker. But it is bid based
on the entirety of the five year. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor, seeing no further hands. Deputy City clerk,
please call a roll. Your worship in favor. Councillor Egerwald.
In favor. In favor Councillor Bence in favor. Councillor Attorney
in favor. It's beautiful. In favor. Councillor Truga? In favor.
Yes. Councillor Johnson in favor. Councillor Oliver. In favor. In
favor Councillor's Asino. In favor. Deputy City clerk. I see
that carried. Next item, please. Speed for the next item
on the agenda is item 8. 4. It's the Vacant
Position of the Resonation of Councillor Shelby Chun. It's report
353 2026 City Manager's Office Office of the City Torque.
Provides a recommendation relative to the resonation of Councillor Shelby
Chungham from office on July the 31st, 2026. This is
for Council's Consideration. I do have opening comments on this.
Let's hear them. So this report this evening is presented
you due to the vacancy of Townsort Shelby Chun who
has vacated her seat as of Friday, July the 31st.
Municipal out provides that council at its next meeting can
determine how the seat shall be filled as this is
an election year. There are restrictions in the municipal act
on the options that Councilton choose to fill the vacant
position. This means that a bioelection is not an option.
The date of the vacancy is noted in the report
allows council to leave the seat as vacant. And that's
because this vacancy is within 90 days of the Municipal
Architean Council. Also the report before you prevent two options
based on City of Thirty Policy and the Municipal At
one of which is recommendation is recommended rather is contained
in the Resolution. Happy to answer any questions that you
may have. Do need to move her in a seconder
as well. Mover in a seconder, please. Councillor Johnson, Councillor
Hamilton. Any questions to the Deputy City clerk. Seeing no
hands. Please call a roll. Councillor Assino. In favor. Councillor
Pastorino. In favor. Councillor Oliver. In favor. Councillor Johnson in
favor. That's for Hamilton. In favor. Yes. Speeder Foods in
favor. Councillor Trenny in favor Council for Bentz in favor.
Councillor Aiello in favor. In favor. Your worship in favor.
Deputy City clerk. I see that carried. Next item, please.
So I do want to bring something up, Spieter. I
have received a message from a member of Council who
is noting that we could deferring other items on the
agenda this evening that are not considered crucial and essential.
I would note that those items based on Conversations with
Administration would be items 9. 2, 9. 3, 9. 4
and 9. 5. All of these items would be deferred
the Setember of the 15th meeting. I would note that
we will still have to go through item 9. 1
as it is time sensitive. Uh, we do have a
mover for that. That would be Councillor Johnson. I don't
know if we want to, if there. Speaker. Um, concern,
I didn't queue in before, but item 9. 4, my
memo council. I do think it is important to get
in, given that it asks Administration to come back, uh,
with information. So I would argue that it should remain
on the list and not be removed. Well, in order
to these items to be deferred, there'd have to be
a motion to defer off. No one defers them. Then
we're doing them. So I'm seeing no hands. So we're
on item. We're going to be doing them. We'll continue.
9. 1. We have a mover. We do have mover.
So that's Councillor Gertuga. And can we have a second?
Councillor Trenny will second that. Councillor Gertuga, please. Thank you
Mr. Speaker. First off, I want to say thank you
to Councillor Trini for bringing this forward to the IGA.
Um, you know, in respect to the Northern Policing costs,
I mean, crime is higher in Northern Arterial and Northern
Terial Urban Hubs are absorbing the increased social injustice sector
costs. By the crime in Northern Ontario is three times
3. 7 times higher than Southern Ontario. The opiate mortality
rate is higher. Benees death rate is six times the
provincial average. And it went from 3. 9 to 2024
to five times in 2025 and then six times in
2026. Um, Residents pay in the Northern Ontario paid 45
dollars average more per year than our Southern Counterparts. Um,
communities within 100, 000 square kilometers. Um, and in southern
territory, there's 38 in the same, um, square kilometers. And
our police and costs here have increased 24 percent over
the last five years. And the different funding approaches between
Northern Ontario and Southern Ontario. Yet the provincial Government has
given 77 million in cost relief to the OPP with
no equivalent funding for Northwestern Artero. So there's some disparity
there. Um, and thank you Councillor Trini from bringing this
from the police services board. Anyways, we need to address
it. And we'll be doing that at AMO. Thank you
Councillor Councillor. Oliver, please. Thank you, Speaker. Uh, just looking
at the motion, I do see that, uh, it's to
be forwarded to AMO. Um, but in terms of collecting
some of that information, Deputy Clerk, you may want to
look at, uh, working with the Association Municipality on this
because they've just done a significant review of policing costs
across the province because OPP costs is substantially increased and
other parts of the province as well too. So in
terms of collective some of that data, I think you'd
find that up to be very useful. No, did thank
you. Sorry on the second round, Councillor, uh, any other
speakers on the first round. Councillor Gurtuga on the second
earlier. Thank you. And also just adding Nolam, the Ontario,
Northern Ontario larger with mayors have, um, presented a fact
sheet and a study also with it. So. And they'll
be presenting to the minister at Amo as well. Thank
you, Councillor, seeing no further hands, Deputy City clerk, police
call the role. Your worship in favor. Councillor Edgar Wall.
In favor. In favor. Councillor Bence in favor. Councillor Trenny
in favor. Speaker Foltz in favor Councillor Gertuga. In favor.
Yes. Uh, Councillor Johnson. In favor. Councillor Oliver in favor.
Councillor Pastorino in favor Councillor Zasino in favor deputy City
clerk. I see that carried. 9. 2 next item, please.
Now some of your agenda speter is a capital funding
options infrastructure deficit. It's a memorandum data joy. The 28th
from Councillor Mart Bentz providing a motion relative to the
item as Distrust Council Bence is the mover. I need
a seconder. Second, our Councillor Gertuga, please. Councillor Bence. Thank
you Speaker. Um, this resolution seeks to gain council support
to direct administration to explore options that will increase the
amount of funding being directed to capital maintenance. With the
goal of expediting the elimination of the infrastructure funding gap,
uh, maintaining our existing infrastructure leads to lower overall costs,
improved safety, as well as better quality of life. Uh,
the infrastructure deficit currently sits at more than 30 million
dollars annually. And we're currently on track to reach sustainable
funding to properly maintain our assets in the latter part
of the 2050s. It's 30 plus years. Um, more of
these budgets that aren't sufficient enough to take care of
our assets. So on top of that, we know this,
this gap could grow as analysis continues and inflationary pressures
continue to mount. Uh, information and options will come forward
to the next term of Council via the long term
or the long range financial plan update scheduled for the
first quarter of 2027. I see this is important for
the next Council to have. So they fully understand the
infrastructure deficit. Uh, it's implications and the options available to
them. If they wish to alter course, uh, one of
the concerns that this work will explore is if our
current approach is moving the dial significantly. On the infrastructure
gap. We may learn that our currents approach is not
sufficient. And that's really what I'm concerned about. I mean,
inflationary pressures, uh, maybe eating up most of the work
we think we're doing here. So I really think we
need to have a, have a close look at this.
Um, so in light of that, um, I worked with
administration. Uh, that's what, that's where the municipal price index
comes in. They're looking at what are the true costs
from municipal work in terms of capital. Um, you know,
we tend to focus on the CPI, which is a
basket of goods that a household would buy. But the
municipality is much different. And we may need to be
aware of that and understand it in order to, uh,
if we do wish to, to invest more in that.
So just let you know I collaborate with administration, uh,
on the broad context of this and the timing of
the information to come back. So that's, that's my intro.
Thank you, Councillor. Seeing no further hands. Deputy City clerk.
Councillor Hamilton, please. Yeah. Speaker folds just the note, a
quick note from admin in 2019, we've got the program
and services review, uh, that was great. There was a
number of initiatives up till now. So that's been six,
seven years. Many of those, uh, initiatives remain unfunded or
piecemeal funding. So I'm just wondering what kind of, you
know, what kind of innovative revenue generating ways to address
capital might we be looking at. From a revenue perspective,
just to kind of put it into perspective on what
that report might read, how that report might read. Through
the speaker. Um, so they report that we, uh, we're
working on with Councillor Benz for that, while we were
contemplating, it was an update to the long range financial
plan. Um, and seeing how that, how like, what that
would look like in terms of sustainable tax levies while
addressing, be more aggressively addressing the, uh, the infrastructure gap.
Um, in terms of revenue, I think that's another discussion.
Um, I don't, I don't have the information with Ami
to really discuss that at this point. But, uh, yeah.
Okay. I'm okay with that. Then looking forward to the
report. Thanks. Thank you. Deputy City clerk, please call the
roll. Councillors Asino in favor. Councillor Pastorino and Craver. Councillor
Oliver in favor Councillor Johnson in favor Councillor Hamilton. Yes.
Councillor Gertuga. Yes. Speaker Folds in favor. Tell us what
we're training in favor. Council for Bentz in favor. Councillor
in favor Councillor. In favor your worship in favor Deputy
City clerk. I see that carried next item, please. Speech
with the Nights. I'm on the agenda. Item 9. 3
information on the sale of Parkland. It's a memorandum data
July the 16th from Councillor Trevor Gertuga. Providing a motion
relative to this item. It is Move My Councillor Cortuga.
I do need a seconder. Councillor Attraining, please. Councillor Gertuga,
please. Thank you. I just laid. I won't take a
lot of time. This is specific to Parkland. Designate Parkline,
not Green Space. And it's just to avoid any kind
of possible problems where we might have had with Junot
Park and just, uh, I know administration did come to
us, but I just at earliest possible point I'd like
to have, uh, especially if contentious issues, which Park Land
will be, um, that had come forward to us at
the earliest convenience so that we're not, uh, far along
the process of negotiations when council may not want him
to take that direction rate from the start. That's all.
Thank you. Seeing no further hands. Deputy City clerk, please
call a roll. Your worship in favor Agerwall. In favor
Council Rayo in favor in favor Councillor Trenny in favor.
Speaker folds in favor Councillor Cortuga in favor. Councillor Hamill.
Yes. In favor Councillor Oliver in favor Councillor Pastolino in
favor Councillor Jacino in favor. Deputy City clerk. I see
that carried next item, please. Speer than I say, I'm
on the agenda. I'm 9. 4 Road Work for Mountain
Road N 15 Side Road. Mebrerandum Datajoy. The 20th from
Councillor Greg Johnson providing a motion rather relative to the
above noted. This is moved by Councillor Johnson. I do
need a seconder. Councillor Training seconds Councillor Johnson, please. Thank
you through. Um, yeah, and actually speaker folds. Thank you
for the quick conversation on this in July 7th essentially
creating the memo, at least in my head. Um, Council
will remember the July 7th Planning meeting we had. Residents
came forward. Uh, much like tonight, although not as long.
And many other comments were, well, very diverse, but they
all seem to concentrate on the road work on 15th
side road in Mountain Road. And so this is essentially
a nod for administration. Our engineer department to simply gather
information, um, there's no money's involved. Um, now our journey,
our budget time. It essentially just, um, puts the details
on the page. And I think a couple of residents
actually, uh, emailed Councillor Gattuga, Councillor Agawal, Concert Benson suggesting
that they wanted to do an upcoming deputation to a
committee. So, uh, this might be helpful for, for that.
And, you know, it's, it's deemed as a concern by
residents there as it was expressed month or so ago.
So this is essentially, um, meeting them where they're at
and providing information. Just information. Um, and as I understand
it in consulting with clerks department and engineering, this isn't,
uh, an egregious ask in some ways, I think I
was told, um, nearly complete already, if I could use
that phrase. So, uh, seeking council support. Thank you. Speaker.
Thank you, Councillor. Seeing no further hands on this Deputy
City clerk, please call a roll. Councillor Asino in favor.
Councillor Pastolino. In favor. Councillor Oliver in favor Councillor Johnson.
In favor Councillor Hamilton? Yes. Councillor Gertuga. Yes. Speedrfolds in
favor. Councillor training in favor. In favor Councillor in favor.
In favor. And your worship. Deputy City clerk. I see
that carried. Next item, please. That same speedruns item 9.
5. Advocacy harmonization rather of Northern Road Construction Standards. It's
a memorandum data joy. The 23rd from the chair of
the Intergovernmental Affairs Committee Council Trevor Gertuga providing a motion
relative to this item. The mover is Councillor Tuttuga. I
do need a seconder. Secondary, please. Councillor Johnson. Councillor Couga,
please. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Well, let me just transportation.
Through the highway transportation highway proven act has given the
minister at new authority to cementary standards for, um, road
construction. Minister of Road Construction. And under the Provincial Standard
Specifications for the Miz Rebel Road Construction. And the concern
is it may add due to our climate and other
issues. It may add additional, um, pricing to our role
construction. Um, and, uh, perhaps Mr. Director Minama might want
to add something with that. Director, sorry, manager, sorry. Direct
here. Director, my goodness, it is quarter to two. So
director meet him up, please. Thank you, Councillor Tuga and
Mr. Speaker. Um, yeah, the general preface of this is
the province has put in new legislation. That helps control.
They got into the weeds of controlling our construction standards,
we'll say. Um, so this proposed harmonization is a cross
of province of harmonizing road construction standards from Thunder Bay
to Toronto. Um, well, engineers generally supportive of the use
of OPS standards as our interior provincial standards. Um, we
do use them as a base. We do have some
flexibility and refinement of what we've done for our local
conditions supporting our local environment in Thunder Bay, as well
as more local economy and kind of how we've done
things in urban environment. Um, so this proposed legislation will
help limit that and limit our flexibility to our job
as we have done for many, many years. Um, there's
also concerns in terms of the general conditions of a
contracts that we have modified with the help from legal
team to how we manage our contractors from a legal
perspective. Um, so the proposed legislation was significantly hamper that.
So we have concerns with, with multiple aspects of this
proposal legislation. So we're just asking to kind of all
lobby be an advocate on behalf of us to the
province help. Put us at the table to continue to
consultation and make sure our voice are heard when this,
when this program is further rolled out. And just to
add that we, we generally use the provincial standards for
construction, but we mandated to have to do that at
certain times and in certain seasons. Perhaps would be hardship.
Thank you, Councillor. Your worship, please. Yes, thank you, perhaps
you can address this that, would we not also be
forwarding this to such organisations as the Ontario Good Roads
Association, those types of groups. Yeah, I mean, I think
so. Yeah. That'd be we add that to the resolution,
please. Uh, can you please just specify what you're looking
to add here? Ontario Goodroads Association. Okay. Just, uh, just
to send them a copy. Yes, please. As part, I
think we probably, we've already put it on the floor.
So I think we need an amendment. Well, we don't
do friendly amendments at Council. Yeah. Through the speaker just
to clarify, we have added other municipal advocacy bodies as
a general statement in the resolution. So good road to
be covered off in that general statement. Okay. So it's
your worship that's covered up. I'm good. Thank you. Seeing
no further hands. Deputy City clerk, please call a role.
Your worship in favor Councillor Eagerwol. In favor Councillor in
favor Councillor Bence in favor. Tell us where attracty in
favor. It's Putin. In favor. Councillor too. In favor. Councillor
Hamilton. Favor. Council Johnson in favor council Oliver in favor
Councillor Pastorino in favor Councillors Asino. In favor. Deputy City
clerk. I see that carried.
Next item, please. There's a number of Bywalls this evening
in the Biowell Resolution. The first one was Biolaw 125
for Site Plan Control for 144 Fan Chubb. Bywaw 126
for Site Plant Control for 791 to Rundle. 239 for
sub 91 a Rundell Street. A holding symbol removal at
2170 Linda Avenue. By 1. 314 zoning Byloff for 144
Fan Shaw Biolaw 327 of Bylo to repeal Bywaw on
99 2017 by 328 for the official Plan Amend Amendment
of Rundell Street Bywaw 331 Community Services Municipal Enforcement Services
for parking. Bywaw 334 subdivision agreement with DK's Development's Inc.
Bywaw 344 2020 sits to withdraw Delegate of Authority for
Committee of Adjustment 791 Arundel Street. I need to move
her in a seconder. Need a mover in a second
or please. Councillor Cezino Councillor Pascalino seeing no hands deputy
City clerk please call a roll. Outs of Sino. In
favor. Councillor Pastowieno. In favor. Councillor Old. In favor. In
favor. Councillor Hamilton. Yes. Councillor Tertuga? Yes. Speaker Folds. In
favor. Councillor Trenny in favor Councillor Benz. In favor. In
favor Agarwal. In favor. And your worship in favor Deputy
City clerk. I see that carried. Next item please. For
the next time on the agenda is the establishment for
coal session. Minuten will be Special Committee of the Hole
on Tuesday, September the 15th at 530 to receive information
239 subsection 2 and K of the Municipal Act. I
need to mover in a second. Councillor Oliver and Councillor
Gertuga. Seeing no hands. Please call a roll. Your worship
in favor Councillor Egerwolf in favor. Rio in favor Councillor
Bence. In favor. That's where Trenny. In favor. Speaker folds
in favor. Councillor Cortuga. In favor. Councillor Hamilton. Yes. Councillor
Johnson in favor. Councillor Oliver in favor. Councillor Pastowieno in
favor. And Councillor Zesino. In favor. Deputy Circle. I see
that carried. Next item please. Well, I'm on the agenda
this evening is the confirming Bywall from the Siemens Proceedings.
I need to move her in a seconder. Councillor Gertuga
Councillor Hamilton, please call a roll. Council or Zecino. In
favor. Councillor Pastoino. In favor. Councillor Oliver. In favor. In
favor. Councillor Hamilton. Yes. Councillor Gertuga. Yes. Speakerful in favor.
In favor. Councillor Bence in favor. That's Rio. In favor.
Councillor Egerwolm in favor. Your worship in favor. Deputy Clerk.
I see that carried. Next item, please. There are no
further items. A motion to adjourn. Councillor Johnson and Councillor
Pascalino. Have a good morning, everyone. Good morning.
Inter. Jeez, I was 10 minutes off.