[1:00:02] and 9 linked townhouse units.

[1:00:07] The entrance now is only off of Rudell,

[1:00:11] as shown in Attachment 2,

[1:00:15] just south of the linked townhouse dwellings there.

[1:00:20] And then in terms of the number of units,

[1:00:25] the number of units in the apartment building is still 200—

[1:00:29] sorry, still 166.

[1:00:33] The stacked townhouse units have been reduced to 30,

[1:00:38] and the linked townhouse units remain

[1:00:43] as, I believe it was 9.

[1:00:47] Okay, now if

[1:00:51] I look at— and again, this is the Clearant and Official Plan— when it

[1:00:55] speaks to urban residential, which this is the urban residential

[1:00:59] area, says generally up to 3 stories. But if we look at this

[1:01:02] as a local corridor, it speaks to,

[1:01:06] in this case, a mid-rise 5 to 6. So, um,

[1:01:11] is this an urban residential or local corridor?

[1:01:14] In some ways I do know the answer, but I'd like to hear from staff

[1:01:18] because this is a 6-story building.

[1:01:29] So through the chair, I'm going to ask Haida to respond to that as that

[1:01:33] is also addressed in the staff report about the designations and how it came to

[1:01:43] I'm sorry, through the chair, if you don't mind repeating the

[1:01:47] question. I think it was about the heritage designation for the existing

[1:01:51] farmhouse on the property. Is that correct? Yeah. No,

[1:01:55] I appreciate that. No, I mean, I do know the answer. I asked

[1:01:59] the question when I know the answer. 5.8 answers it.

[1:02:04] This is a mid-rise building townhouse. Mid-rise building is proposed to

[1:02:08] be 6 stories. This is aligned with the urban residential and

[1:02:12] local corridor designation. So, um,

[1:02:15] apologize. Um, and is

[1:02:19] the parking sufficient? I see that there is a parking garage,

[1:02:23] and the parking garage is basically

[1:02:28] Basically for the tenants in the apartment building

[1:02:31] or for the townhouses? The townhouses would have their own,

[1:02:35] but would there be space for those that are in

[1:02:39] the townhouses or just for the, the 6-story apartment or

[1:02:44] multi-residential?

[1:02:56] Um, through the chair, um, so there—

[1:03:00] the townhouses have associated,

[1:03:03] um, parking on, um, you know,

[1:03:07] uh, associated with the dwelling units, um, whereas the apartment,

[1:03:11] um, building has underground parking,

[1:03:15] um, as well as parking to the, uh, to the, um, on the west

[1:03:20] portion of the property. There is— there

[1:03:24] was a traffic impact and parking study that

[1:03:29] indicated there was sufficient parking on the site.

[1:03:34] There— in response to comments from the public meeting regarding

[1:03:38] the parking, that is one of the reasons that

[1:03:42] the number of units was decreased

[1:03:47] to make sure there was enough parking on the site for the number of units

[1:03:49] there. Okay, no worries. Thank you for that.

[1:03:52] And my last question to the delegation

[1:03:57] that was speaking about traffic,

[1:04:01] can you speak to that?

[1:04:05] Maybe as far as traffic impact studies and that.

[1:04:09] So through the chair, I apologize, but just to intervene

[1:04:12] on this, I'd actually rather have Karen Richardson, who's the manager of

[1:04:16] development engineering, that can speak to that. And also, just to be a little clearer

[1:04:20] on the last response, the applicant through the traffic impact

[1:04:24] study amended and updated and increased the amount of parking to

[1:04:28] meet all of ours as well as Durham Region's requirements.

[1:04:32] So Karen, please. Through the chair to

[1:04:36] Councillor Wills, The traffic impact study did an analysis.

[1:04:40] As you know, Rudell's a collector and Highway 2's

[1:04:44] our arterial, so they have a higher order roads which expect more traffic.

[1:04:48] So the traffic impact study showed no impact. So it's expected

[1:04:52] with this development that the traffic will build up, but the

[1:04:56] roads are already assigned to handle it. Okay,

[1:05:00] thank you for that, Karen.

[1:05:05] I'm looking to members of council. Do we have any further questions on this?

[1:05:12] I don't see any. Darryl, I, I see, uh, I think it was 2023

[1:05:17] was the initial public meeting on this, uh,

[1:05:21] to the delegate's question, uh,

[1:05:25] suggesting that the, the neighbors were somewhat surprised. Can we Can

[1:05:29] we speak to the outreach, you know, what we do, what we did?

[1:05:35] Thank you. So through the Chair, yes, there has been a

[1:05:39] variety of pieces regarding public engagement. I'm actually going to have

[1:05:43] Amanda Tapp as the Manager of Development that could walk through the sequence of all

[1:05:46] of the points of public engagement that have occurred. There have been signs, there have

[1:05:50] been mailouts, there have been public meetings, but Amanda can go into a little more

[1:05:55] detail about that. Thank you, Daryl. And through the chair,

[1:05:58] um, Hiba has been the file planner on this file for bringing

[1:06:02] it to recommendation, but she wasn't the planner on the file for the history.

[1:06:05] So just going to walk through a little bit of, of that. So as

[1:06:08] mentioned, 2023, there was a public meeting on this application.

[1:06:13] It did look significantly different. It was much more dense at the time.

[1:06:16] We heard several comments from the public

[1:06:21] took that range of comments back to the applicant in which they made several

[1:06:26] extensive revisions. So yes, looking 3 years later,

[1:06:29] we brought something forward tonight that meets those requirements that

[1:06:34] are currently in the official plan and zoning

[1:06:37] that's appropriate for the site. I think it's also incredibly important to note that

[1:06:42] this meets the official plan designation that's been on the site for upwards of

[1:06:45] 10 years at this point now as well, and there would have been lengthy public

[1:06:49] process at that time in order to know we were going to be aiming to

[1:06:53] achieve this, these types of densities, these types of densification at this corner. So just

[1:06:57] something we wanted to, to note as well on, on the several points of public

[1:07:01] contact that's been had through, through maybe a few planners, but, but up

[1:07:05] into tonight. So thank you for

[1:07:09] that. I, I would make two observations. 2 observations, and this

[1:07:12] is, you know, to carry forward. One, despite our answer,

[1:07:17] I'm thinking the impression of the residents doesn't match their reality,

[1:07:21] perhaps doesn't match our reality. And the other observation,

[1:07:25] Darryl, you and I have spoken about this, we mentioned it earlier.

[1:07:29] When we do traffic impact studies,

[1:07:34] to the average individual, sometimes these just don't

[1:07:38] make sense. I wonder if at some point in the future we can take

[1:07:42] a before and after and quantify,

[1:07:46] uh, you know, quantify some of these to, uh, and maybe have a better

[1:07:50] understanding of, of how the experts, uh, do these. And I'm just,

[1:07:54] I'm not looking for a response, but it's, it's something to,

[1:07:58] uh, think about moving forward to, uh, to help with the public and,

[1:08:01] and move forward with. Thank you.

[1:08:06] All right, that I believe exhausts the

[1:08:10] delegations, Madam Clerk, unless you know something I don't.

[1:08:16] Oh, sorry. No, you're absolutely correct. We did.

[1:08:19] We exhausted the delegations a minute ago.

[1:08:22] So that is item 5.3.

[1:08:27] I'll need Those

[1:08:32] were just questions. We already did the vote on consent,

[1:08:36] so that's good. 5.5,

[1:08:39] Councillor Traill, you had questions to staff on the emergency

[1:08:46] comments from our emergency services. You have the floor.

[1:08:50] Yeah, thank you. Um, so it's my understanding, and perhaps I I'm

[1:08:54] not— I didn't record this correctly, but basically what we were

[1:08:59] told by the developer is that, uh, GHD said

[1:09:04] that an emergency evacuation analysis was not included in the traffic report

[1:09:08] because it's not required under Clarington's terms of reference, but it is in

[1:09:13] the emergency services, uh, review.

[1:09:16] So I just— I want to make sure that we don't have any kind of

[1:09:19] deficiency requiring developers to examine the need for emergency access routes and evacuation

[1:09:24] plans, and they want to make sure that that's being addressed. Or do we need

[1:09:27] to bring a motion forward to have staff report back on including that in the

[1:09:30] terms of reference when they do a traffic impact analysis?

[1:09:34] Because as I see it, an evacuation route is also traffic impact, right? Like,

[1:09:37] that seems to make sense. But so I would like to hear from staff,

[1:09:41] planning and emergency services, please. Thanks.

[1:09:44] Okay, so thank you. And through the chair, I'm going

[1:09:48] to have Nicole Zambri, the principal planner on this file, that can speak to

[1:09:52] the in fact, of the comments we've received from EMS regarding this proposal. And then

[1:09:56] for the more technical aspect of what you're asking about, Councillor Traill, I'm going to

[1:10:00] have Karen Richardson that reviews all of the TISs, that come— transportation

[1:10:04] impact studies that come forward, and the inclusions and how that

[1:10:08] is looked at as it relates to traffic as well as for emergency services.

[1:10:12] So over to Nicole.

[1:10:20] Through the— through the mayor, um,

[1:10:23] EMS did have comments on the first submission, mainly related

[1:10:28] to Block 9, where there's a single access. But for

[1:10:31] the existing Wilmot Creek community, that was

[1:10:36] looked at by EMS and they had no concerns with the

[1:10:40] emergency or evacuation or emergency access to

[1:10:44] the site and the response for a response call.

[1:10:48] So with that, I can pass it over to Karen

[1:10:52] to speak to the traffic, uh, traffic study

[1:10:56] report and how they address emergency response times.

[1:11:03] Through the mayor to Councillor Traill, so we, we have

[1:11:07] a general TIS guideline that's on our website that outlines

[1:11:11] the scope of work that's required for any development application that

[1:11:16] is has to provide a traffic impact study and support.

[1:11:20] So that's outlined. And then we have— we also request the

[1:11:24] terms of reference to be reviewed by staff, and it's

[1:11:28] at that point that we would outline that there's an additional scope

[1:11:33] that is required. It's typically a separate report,

[1:11:36] so it's not included in the traffic impact study,

[1:11:39] but EMS would recommend that report, or it

[1:11:43] also comes through the planning We ask for that report and then it's

[1:11:47] provided to us for review and, and we either,

[1:11:51] we review it internally or sometimes it is actually sent out

[1:11:55] for peer review also. Okay,

[1:11:59] so through the chair, my— or sorry, through the mayor because it's

[1:12:03] a special meeting, um, my question is, is that as we build up

[1:12:06] the waterfront, um, especially there's a, there's a, there's a lot of development now happening

[1:12:10] in Ward 3 Do we not have a specific evacuation

[1:12:14] analysis requirement in the terms of reference, especially for neighborhoods such as this one?

[1:12:18] And, and part of the reason I didn't support the Lake Breeze development was

[1:12:22] for this same reason— there was one in and one out. Uh, and so

[1:12:26] I want to know, A, is an evacuation analysis

[1:12:30] not currently required? And B, can that be added as

[1:12:34] a requirement for developments where there is only one access, or at

[1:12:38] the most two? Access and egress routes,

[1:12:41] because to me this does seem like a bit of an oversight, and I'm concerned

[1:12:45] for the safety of residents. This is also along a rail corridor,

[1:12:49] and again, if for some reason Coballdick Road becomes impassable, we've essentially

[1:12:53] trapped several thousand residents down there. And we know we

[1:12:57] did have a situation with, um, with the, with the train issue not

[1:13:01] that long ago, uh, which prevented access, uh, from, from the Lake

[1:13:05] Breeze area. So Can you please comment on that and if that's something

[1:13:08] that we want to look at going forward, please?

[1:13:13] So through the Mayor, uh, Nicole Zambri, the principal planner, can respond

[1:13:17] to that. It's also addressed within sections 10.37 and 10.38 of

[1:13:21] the report.

[1:13:25] Through the Mayor, um, so great question, and having written that report

[1:13:29] when that removal holding went forward, I am very familiar familiar

[1:13:32] with this situation. The difference in the Beaumont Creek case

[1:13:36] is that they have an at-grade separated crossing,

[1:13:40] and this proposed development is north of the CN rail line,

[1:13:43] so they're not directly impacted like the Lake Breeze community is,

[1:13:47] um, in the event of a derailment situation.

[1:13:53] Okay, and then what about the evacuation analysis as a, as a matter

[1:13:57] of protocol going forward? So that it's part of our

[1:14:00] terms of reference.

[1:14:03] So that could be more of a question for Karen then in terms

[1:14:07] of like what she's looking at technically. But in

[1:14:11] terms of this specific case, it is

[1:14:15] all north of that CN Rail line. So it would be no

[1:14:18] different than any other neighborhood subdivision in terms of access

[1:14:23] to public roads and major arteries and that sort of thing. So in

[1:14:27] this case, there's not— yeah, sorry, go ahead. No, it's okay.

[1:14:31] I'm just going to say just quickly, this one isn't the same though,

[1:14:34] because if Coballdick is not available, you only have one road.

[1:14:38] Yes. So there's another— there's an alternative access. And from what I understand from

[1:14:41] EMS is they always are looking for two access points.

[1:14:45] So in the case with the Lakeshore or the Lake Breeze community,

[1:14:49] both their access points are, uh,

[1:14:52] at-grade crossings. So, uh, and in that

[1:14:56] event, if there was ever derailment, the train lengths are long enough that they could

[1:14:59] block both at-grade crossings in that situation.

[1:15:03] Yeah, yes, that's why. Okay,

[1:15:06] um, Miss Richardson, would you be able to comment on whether or not this analysis

[1:15:11] is gonna— is part of our terms of reference going forward so that we're

[1:15:15] always addressing the concerns with, with, um, with evacuation.

[1:15:18] And again, I reiterate, this is because we're seeing a lot more waterfront development.

[1:15:24] So through the chair, through the mayor, it would be more of

[1:15:27] a site-specific requirement. So at the time

[1:15:31] of when we review the terms of reference, we would outline then that emergency

[1:15:36] access report would need to be included as part of supporting documentation

[1:15:40] for the development. So it's not a straight— it's not required

[1:15:44] for everyone. But it's site-specific.

[1:15:48] Okay. And was one required for this development?

[1:15:52] To my knowledge, they did do an analysis of the emergency

[1:15:56] evacuation and the EMS. Well,

[1:15:59] we had this— we asked the question and EMS said

[1:16:03] they had no concerns. So EMS would be the trigger for the report.

[1:16:09] Right. But is there a physical report in existence? That I can look at that

[1:16:13] assesses the safety from an evacuation standpoint?

[1:16:25] That, that was a question.

[1:16:29] Yes. So through the mayor, Nicole Zambri can speak to that

[1:16:32] on what has been submitted, the sporting, and, and also respond to that question.

[1:16:42] Through the mayor, um, from what

[1:16:46] I remember reading through the TIS report, it mentioned that

[1:16:50] there would be improvements made as part of this development that would actually

[1:16:54] potentially increase or better improve the traffic

[1:16:58] flow, as such as signalization, turning lanes, things like that. So it's actually

[1:17:02] going to improve the existing situation that's already there.

[1:17:05] And that's all I can recall from that report in terms of emergency access

[1:17:10] and response times. Okay,

[1:17:13] Councillor, and just to add to what Nicole Zambri has

[1:17:17] said, as has been mentioned by a couple of staff throughout

[1:17:21] the entire review of every one of these applications, they are circulated to our professionals

[1:17:25] in EMS that provide a technical review. The idea

[1:17:29] identify if there's additional work that's needed or not. We rely upon

[1:17:33] our professionals in order to provide that level of expertise, and through that,

[1:17:37] what we have is outlined in this report. There are no concerns from

[1:17:41] EMS regarding this proposal going forward.

[1:17:45] Okay, thank you, Mr. Lyons. I appreciate that. And of course, as councillors, we rely

[1:17:49] on professionals too. We're relying on you guys, so we're all— we all do the

[1:17:52] same thing. My concern is that I don't have an evacuation

[1:17:56] analysis an analysis that I can look at, that I can, that I can physically

[1:17:59] touch, and that I can read. So without that background information,

[1:18:02] I'm not comfortable supporting this. So, uh, I would like to— I'm,

[1:18:06] I'm going to be voting no on this, and I would like to request a

[1:18:09] recorded vote. Hopefully in the intervening time between this and the next opportunity, we have

[1:18:13] to look at this application by a secondary plan that will be able to determine

[1:18:16] if there is in fact an actual evacuation analysis that was done,

[1:18:20] uh, that, that we can, we can review. Thank you.

[1:18:24] So, Councillor Traill, on the consent agenda,

[1:18:28] nobody pulled anything to amend anything,

[1:18:31] so we have, we have already voted on

[1:18:36] this. So a recorded vote,

[1:18:39] that, that time has passed.

[1:18:43] Do you have anything further, Councillor?

[1:18:46] Uh, yeah, so when we do the confirming bylaw, I'll do a recorded

[1:18:50] vote on that because I, um, expressing my opposition to the approval of

[1:18:54] that item. Thanks. So there

[1:18:58] will be a confirming bylaw, but it'll be at the end of the public meeting.

[1:19:03] Okay, so the clerk is confirming that, uh, that we'll pull that.

[1:19:06] Councillor Woo, I see you're reaching for your mic.

[1:19:11] Floor is yours, sir. Yeah, through Your Worship and to,

[1:19:15] uh, the director of Planning and Development.

[1:19:20] I did ask the question to the, the agent

[1:19:24] for the developer,

[1:19:28] and in the report 5.21,

[1:19:32] it says the height of buildings shall be a minimum of 6 stories and maximum

[1:19:36] of 8 stories. The revised proposal has low-rise apartment buildings

[1:19:40] with a height of 4 stories, which necessitates necessitated the need

[1:19:44] for an amendment to the high-density designation for Block 10.

[1:19:48] Block 10 is the one to the north, which basically wraps around

[1:19:52] Wilmot Creek Drive.

[1:19:56] Is there something that we can request that the

[1:20:01] buildings be kept to a 4-story height?

[1:20:07] So through the mayor, The challenge with that

[1:20:11] is you have a current secondary plan that's already in place that enables

[1:20:15] higher density. This official plan amendment that is before

[1:20:19] council would essentially vary and essentially

[1:20:22] lower the amount of development that is to occur in this area by

[1:20:26] almost 300 units. So while it is possible

[1:20:30] through an official plan amendment, and council can make a decision on the official plan

[1:20:34] amendment whether to to modify it or not. But I would anticipate

[1:20:38] that this would likely get appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal in the fact of

[1:20:42] the amount of modification that the developer has already essentially

[1:20:46] acquiesced on for this site. So yes,

[1:20:50] you— it could be amended. However, you would

[1:20:53] have to amend, of course, the secondary plan through the official plan amendment, the zoning

[1:20:57] bylaw amendment as well. And then once a decision goes out, it would go out

[1:21:00] for an appeal period of 20 days.

[1:21:04] So it is a case where this council could

[1:21:10] make that motion, but as you said, it could

[1:21:13] be appealed to the OLT.

[1:21:17] Is that correct? So through the mayor, that is correct.

[1:21:22] You also have a staff report recommending approval from your staff staff

[1:21:26] as well, which would result in a situation if there isn't

[1:21:29] an appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal that we would have to secure

[1:21:33] outside council, outside council likely, as well as for sure

[1:21:37] professional planners.

[1:21:41] Now, and as the

[1:21:45] previous, uh, well, Councillor Traill, when she mentioned about

[1:21:49] the evacuation or emergency evacuation,

[1:21:52] And with this, is this something that we could refer

[1:21:56] back to staff to discuss with the, the developer

[1:22:01] about these two issues?

[1:22:05] So through the mayor, through the further implementation, this is essentially

[1:22:08] establishing principle of development, a couple changes, as well as

[1:22:12] zoning for the site. When they come forward for site plan approval, of course,

[1:22:16] we'll be working very very closely with them. We could have further conversations.

[1:22:19] We are always looking through our reviews of those applications.

[1:22:23] They get circulated to EMS. They give us feedback. A lot

[1:22:27] of the departments across this organization, as well as to the region, they all

[1:22:30] see this. They'll give us feedback. We can look at those things.

[1:22:34] We can have conversations about them in order to ensure that,

[1:22:37] um, those elements are addressed appropriately.

[1:22:42] But I do I want to just sort of close on the fact that EMS

[1:22:45] has reviewed this from a policy as well as a zoning perspective

[1:22:49] and currently has no concerns. But they will be involved through the subsequent process when

[1:22:54] we review the site plan.

[1:22:56] Okay. And my last question again,

[1:23:00] it was discussion about baseball

[1:23:05] diamond. For parks,

[1:23:09] they have increased the size of the park block

[1:23:13] 13 from 0.71 to

[1:23:16] 1.02 hectares, and block 14,

[1:23:21] 0.6 to 0.79 block

[1:23:24] 14. Now, the municipality would assume

[1:23:28] those parks, are they big enough for a baseball diamond,

[1:23:32] or could block IT in an open space. Will we ever put a baseball diamond

[1:23:37] in an open space?

[1:23:41] So through the mayor, normally we would never put

[1:23:44] a baseball diamond into open space. Open space is more of a protective

[1:23:48] type of designation. Generally we would only put them within our park spaces.

[1:23:53] The parks themselves that are brought forward, of course it will go through a

[1:23:57] fulsome review as well as consultation of what elements should be put

[1:24:01] into that, we use the guidance from council and the approved Parks and Rec

[1:24:05] master plan that will inform what are the needed uses within that park and

[1:24:09] within that area. And then of course we'd come forward asking for a budget

[1:24:12] in order to implement it as well. Right, okay, thank you.

[1:24:18] Do we have any further questions on this?

[1:24:22] Yeah, so Darryl, I, I've got a couple in, in there. Either a

[1:24:26] follow-on to Councillor Woo's.

[1:24:30] Everyone wants to avoid the OLT because

[1:24:34] it, it just creates so much uncertainty. And to your point, where there

[1:24:38] is a positive staff report, uh, report that, that puts

[1:24:43] a mountain in front of us. Um, and I don't mean that

[1:24:47] in a, in a bad way towards staff, just so you know.

[1:24:51] But moving forward, I, you know, we've,

[1:24:54] we've heard a desire from the residents to have

[1:24:57] some ongoing dialogue, some understanding perhaps

[1:25:01] of, you know, an evacuation plan so they've

[1:25:06] got some, some comfort. Councillor Wu brings up, you know, the, the ball

[1:25:10] diamond, which it sounds like we don't have a great answer for right now,

[1:25:13] if we have an answer for it all. And, and there are other issues

[1:25:18] you know, around about a number of things. The,

[1:25:21] the 4 stories makes the residents happier,

[1:25:25] but they are fully aware that it

[1:25:30] may be a bit of a red herring where it's not going to be 4.

[1:25:34] So as we, as we move forward with this,

[1:25:38] what can happen in terms of talking to the residents and

[1:25:43] ensuring that where possible their, their concerns are met,

[1:25:47] as opposed to the developers saying, well, you, you put

[1:25:51] your hand up, um, we're, we're just bulldozing through.

[1:26:02] So through the mayor, you ask a very interesting question,

[1:26:05] which is why I was just conferring with our manager in development planning,

[1:26:08] because once If council, through what

[1:26:12] we've heard today, has approved the official plan amendment, which as we've said is

[1:26:16] only changing a couple minor things to vary from what the approved secondary plan

[1:26:20] has, and the zoning is implementing it, we would then be working

[1:26:23] closely with the developer when they come forward with site plan

[1:26:27] applications. Site plan applications, unfortunately, the province has really

[1:26:31] changed the planning system regarding public

[1:26:35] inputs, notice processes for public meetings, all of that. So it

[1:26:39] almost becomes a much more closed framework at that point because

[1:26:43] it's working out some of the detail. But from what I'm hearing today,

[1:26:47] and we want to work very closely with the community, these are

[1:26:51] things that I'd like to take that back and try and figure out how can

[1:26:54] we help support communication in this area. It's a large area

[1:26:58] that's coming on, it's implementing a vision of council for that secondary plan. And I

[1:27:02] think there's probably some methods in which we can at least make sure there's

[1:27:06] awareness around these pieces, looking into that as well.

[1:27:09] Plus, all of the material that we have associated with these, uh, these applications

[1:27:14] are fully available. So if any of the residents want to look at any of

[1:27:17] those, we can share them. We can get out all of the studies as well,

[1:27:21] and our staff would be happy to sit down with anybody and walk through that.

[1:27:25] Okay, thank you. And, and Mr. Juttant, I would

[1:27:29] encourage the developer. I, you know, it could simply be a matter

[1:27:33] of explaining, explaining a number of things,

[1:27:36] explaining how they got to— so I, I will

[1:27:40] hope that we reach out. Obviously, the homeowners association would be the,

[1:27:44] the best starting point to, to engage in dialogue on

[1:27:47] this. Thank you ever so much.

[1:27:51] So that is the end

[1:27:55] of the consent agenda.

[1:27:59] The public meeting will start at 6 o'clock.

[1:28:04] So folks, we will see you back for the public meetings at 6 o'clock.

[2:11:52] Since we have owned the property and built there,

[2:11:55] we have respected the tributary and split our farmland into two fields because it is

[2:11:59] too wet to drive our farm equipment through the swale.

[2:12:03] The Baptist Church on the third concession has been very kind allowing us to access

[2:12:06] the southern portion of our land but we have to be very careful to not

[2:12:10] damage their property when the area is wet. The bungalow

[2:12:14] to the west of the subject property was flooded 2 years ago during a heavy

[2:12:17] rainfall, and I've managed to get my own tractor stuck in the mud in those

[2:12:20] fields on more than one occasion. We have been very careful

[2:12:23] to ensure the tributary remains untouched to ensure drainage, but this

[2:12:27] proposal looks to drop 23 townhouse units directly on top

[2:12:31] of it. The bottom line is that careful inspections need to occur, and I'm

[2:12:34] more than willing to assist with providing accurate information about water

[2:12:39] flow through this area. I'm a big fan of Henry Ford.

[2:12:42] So, Rick, how much— how much time do you need? I need 1 minute.

[2:12:46] Okay, go ahead. I'm a big fan of Henry Ford, and he was

[2:12:49] quoted as saying, don't bring me problems, bring me solutions. So rather than stand

[2:12:54] here and only voice concerns, I'm offering a solution that allows the property to be

[2:12:57] developed while addressing density, traffic, noise, and most importantly, staying out

[2:13:02] of the creek. Did you hand those out already? On the second document

[2:13:06] we submitted, there's a townhouse complex kitty-corner on the southeast corner of

[2:13:10] Liberty Street, Third Concession intersections. It's made up of

[2:13:13] two buildings with three large townhouse units in one and four to five units in

[2:13:17] the other. Using an aerial shot, we marked the property and then

[2:13:20] transposed it on the subject property. It's fit— fits well in the eastern portion

[2:13:24] of the subject property, and more, more importantly, stays out of the creek. These townhouse

[2:13:28] units would fit well in the existing neighborhood, is made up of

[2:13:33] single-family dwellings and estate lots to the north. It could also provide green space and

[2:13:35] playground areas. So, Rick, at this point I'm going to need a motion. So you're

[2:13:39] well beyond, uh, your time. Well, thank you for your— Councilor Anderson was—

[2:13:43] you were giving a motion for 2 minutes.

[2:13:50] You know, I'm looking at you and not pushing the button. Okay, okay. How much,

[2:13:54] how much time do you need? 15 seconds.

[2:13:56] One 3 lines left. You know what,

[2:14:00] go ahead. Okay. These townhouses units would fit in the existing

[2:14:03] neighborhood that's made up of single-family dwellings in the state lots to the north.

[2:14:07] It could also provide green space and playground areas which do not exist

[2:14:11] in the current plan. If the applicant were to come back with a plan that

[2:14:14] mirrors the complex in the southeast corner, it stays out of the tributary. I'm sure

[2:14:18] that would help alleviate the concerns we have. Thank you for your time and the

[2:14:22] extra time. All righty, so before I go to

[2:14:25] members of council with questions, Rick, you're aware, and for members that

[2:14:30] are here in the audience, this is initial public meeting. Yes,

[2:14:33] council are making no decision this evening. This will go

[2:14:37] back to staff, they will take all of your questions and

[2:14:40] concerns, and a report will be coming. But, but no decisions

[2:14:44] are being made on the spot. That's correct. Okay, perfect. Thank you.

[2:14:47] So I will look to members of council for questions to

[2:14:52] the delegate.

[2:14:55] Councillor Elhajji. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You turned me off before,

[2:14:59] but now you turn me back. Yeah, anyways,

[2:15:02] I was going to crack a joke there, but inappropriate. I like jokes. Go ahead.

[2:15:07] Yeah, bad joke. Yeah, close enough. Thank you, Rick. Thank you for coming for explaining.

[2:15:11] You briefly, briefly touched upon cloaca.

[2:15:15] And how you raised your concerns to Cloaca. So I'm just wondering if there has

[2:15:19] been a response from Cloaca. Yes, I spoke to a

[2:15:23] representative from Cloaca yesterday by phone, and it was kind

[2:15:27] of an odd response. He said there are things in the file that he could

[2:15:30] not share with me, which I understand that, but he was going

[2:15:34] to be looking into it and taking biologists from Clarington,

[2:15:37] I believe. Clarington has an on-staff biologist.

[2:15:41] And representatives from Kloka to not only look at what has transpired

[2:15:46] on the land, but also to look at the setbacks on the southern edge

[2:15:49] of our property, whether that's considered water

[2:15:54] flow or watershed, whether it's 3 meters or 30 meters. So they

[2:15:58] were going to be exploring all that. But beyond that, he said thank you for

[2:16:01] your email and the phone call, and he would be back to me. So it

[2:16:04] sounds like there's like an active investigation for Kloka going on. Yeah, but he wouldn't

[2:16:08] share all the details with me, which it's probably legal requirements and frameworks that they

[2:16:12] have to do. I understand that. Yeah. Okay. And then, uh, just to clarify as

[2:16:14] well, because you, you, you went really quickly over, over what—

[2:16:18] can you just describe this? Okay. In a slower, more detailed

[2:16:22] manner. Beating the clock there. Thank you. So that, that is on the southeast

[2:16:25] corner of that same intersection. It's really

[2:16:28] well done townhouse unit of— made of 3 units. Looks like a,

[2:16:33] for lack of a better term, or premier type

[2:16:37] townhouse with another set of 4 or 5 premium

[2:16:42] townhouses, what I'm trying to say, another 4 or 5 on the other side.

[2:16:45] And I just, actually Morgan took that block and

[2:16:48] moved it over and transposed it on the subject property to say,

[2:16:52] hey, this would fit and stays out of that creek and

[2:16:57] stay away from any drainage issues. Okay. Okay.

[2:17:01] Thank you. Just as an example. And it was more the style versus cramming 23

[2:17:05] units into that small block and

[2:17:10] the increased traffic, the density, no play area.

[2:17:14] There's no septic in there, so I assume he's got to tie in with— north

[2:17:18] of the Third, there's no services, sanitary. So he's got to either buy

[2:17:22] or come up with some type of septic system in there, which isn't

[2:17:26] provided, and without any play area, just paying

[2:17:30] for parkland, that doesn't solve the problem of where 23 families

[2:17:34] are going to have their kids play in there. I know where they're going to

[2:17:35] end up. They're going to end up in our farm field, which is not a

[2:17:39] play area. That's an actively farmed property. Absolutely.

[2:17:43] That was one of my questions to the developer as well regarding the parkland

[2:17:47] and play area. So I'll be asking that later, but thank you for answering

[2:17:51] my question. Questions, and I appreciate you being here. Thank you. Thanks.

[2:17:55] Thank you, Councillor. I've got Councillor Anderson next.

[2:17:58] Thank you. I just want to emphasize, as the mayor said, this is just

[2:18:02] an information gathering session. It's just to gather information.

[2:18:06] No decisions are being made. Are you opposed to the 23

[2:18:10] units? Are you opposed to any kind of development?

[2:18:14] Or— no, that's— and that's why I provided that that

[2:18:18] second document, that if the applicant were

[2:18:21] to consider that, I wouldn't have any opposition to

[2:18:26] putting that type of development in there. Just stay away from that

[2:18:30] creek and whatever's happened to that creek over the last 3 years,

[2:18:34] 'cause there is water coming through there, no question.

[2:18:37] I know that property inside out, and there are ducks in there in

[2:18:41] the spring. They nest down in there. But you have

[2:18:45] alluded to the fact that Cloca is actively involved in this currently,

[2:18:48] so we are not sure what would be allowed

[2:18:52] or what wouldn't be allowed. No, no, Cloca may come in and say— Right,

[2:18:56] right. Yeah, that's their decision. But if Cloca

[2:18:59] were to ask me, what are you okay with?

[2:19:03] You take that block from the southeast corner, move it over here, I wouldn't be

[2:19:06] opposed to that so long as it meets all the setbacks and guidelines as

[2:19:11] established by Clarington, Durham Region, and CLOCA.

[2:19:14] Okay, thank you.

[2:19:17] Thank you. Councillor Woo.

[2:19:22] Yeah, to Your Worship, thank you very much,

[2:19:25] Morgan and Rick.

[2:19:29] What you handed out, and you have the red line, but I see the development

[2:19:34] and pretty well they're driveway is coming for that

[2:19:38] development is accessing Concession Road

[2:19:41] 3, basically where the house is. Yes. The house to

[2:19:45] the west. And, but it's basically right

[2:19:48] over top, what creek is that or what waterway is that? That's a tributary

[2:19:52] 3, it's identified as tributary 3 that feeds eventually down

[2:19:56] to Sober Creek. Sober Creek. Yes. And that's out of this

[2:20:00] This North Glen Environmental, which I was part of that development.

[2:20:05] We elected not to proceed with Kemps and Holmanen at

[2:20:09] the time. We preferred to have the farmed

[2:20:12] fields. So— but I was part and paid for the environmental

[2:20:17] impact study just so I knew what the property concerns

[2:20:22] were. Right. And right now— not that it's been destroyed.

[2:20:26] Councillor Wolff, if I could just Just back up. You're talking about that driveway.

[2:20:28] I did speak to my neighbour to the west. And he was very concerned.

[2:20:32] He wasn't able to be here tonight, but he was concerned about their driveway side

[2:20:36] by side with the volume of traffic coming out of the

[2:20:40] proposed area. And if that roundabout goes in, the cars

[2:20:44] coming down Liberty Street and heading directly west,

[2:20:48] I don't know if you've been in that area lately, but that intersection is treacherous

[2:20:52] at best. I've had, since we moved there in 2005, we've had 3 air ambulances

[2:20:56] land on our property for accidents. It's a

[2:21:00] bad corner. And speaking of that corner, there's a proposed

[2:21:05] roundabout in that area. Yeah, that's, that roundabout, they marked

[2:21:09] our property again this week, so I don't know what the status is now,

[2:21:12] whether it's moving again. They've done the locates on our

[2:21:16] property probably a dozen times now. Over the last 2 to 3

[2:21:20] years. Right. And the waterway in itself,

[2:21:24] like, for the property, the house is still there.

[2:21:28] Have you seen any activity going on? There are cars

[2:21:31] parked there, but I don't know if anyone's actually living there.

[2:21:34] I don't know. It seems to be boarded up, but I can't say

[2:21:39] that for sure. So the property is being maintained. The grass

[2:21:43] is being cut. The grass, as of Monday,

[2:21:47] the strip where the water comes through was not able to be cut with a

[2:21:50] lawn mower, it was too wet. But I see it has been cut, I assume

[2:21:53] by someone with rubber boots and a weed eater to cut the

[2:21:57] grass down. Okay, thank you very much.

[2:22:01] Okay. Okay, I'll look to council. Do we have any further questions?

[2:22:05] Rick, you noted that you have sent your questions and concerns

[2:22:09] by email to staff. Yes. Do you know how much

[2:22:12] staff appreciate getting those emails because they have, you know,

[2:22:16] a documented set of questions as opposed

[2:22:20] to writing down? I'm sharing this for the benefit of everyone. There you go.

[2:22:23] I can— tomorrow I will forward that email to Mayor and Council as well so

[2:22:27] you have it. So I must say, the planner with this project has

[2:22:31] been very helpful. I'm quite pleased with the response I've been getting from her.

[2:22:34] It's good to hear. And again, for, for being here tonight and for submitting those,

[2:22:38] thank you very much. Okay, all righty.

[2:22:42] Thank you for your time. So again,

[2:22:46] uh, for any members, uh, any members of the public in attendance,

[2:22:50] uh, if you'd like to speak in support or opposition

[2:22:54] to the file, please come forward.

[2:22:58] And if you'd write your, uh, your name, contact information

[2:23:02] there, that would be wonderful.

[2:23:34] You actually just turned it off. I apologize. Perfect.

[2:23:37] Good evening, everyone. We can, uh, my name is Melanie Chico.

[2:23:41] I am a longtime resident of Clarington.

[2:23:44] I have worked here and lived here for 25 years. Uh, I'm a local

[2:23:48] elementary teacher, uh, and I am also a very new resident of

[2:23:52] the neighborhood that backs onto, uh, this property that

[2:23:55] we're speaking of tonight. Uh, I live on Jennings Drive, which is just

[2:23:59] on the south side of the Concession Road. So my bedroom window looks

[2:24:03] directly into this proposed development. My neighbor did

[2:24:07] an excellent job of speaking to the environmental concerns, and I stand by

[2:24:10] all of those concerns that he's already shared. I won't repeat them.

[2:24:14] The concern that I'd like to bring forward to council tonight is from

[2:24:17] a parent perspective, from a safety— as a safety issue.

[2:24:22] Sometimes I'm told, and I understand in my learning this week, that these

[2:24:26] development proposals don't sometimes consider the wider picture serve

[2:24:30] the impact to the citizens and the community members who live close by.

[2:24:34] Uh, and one thing I would like to bring forward to council is, um,

[2:24:38] this area was within the catchment area for the brand

[2:24:42] new North Glen Orchards Public School, which is just opening this week, which I happen

[2:24:46] to be a teacher at. Uh, and so the students who live in this— who

[2:24:49] will live in this proposed community, uh, will be within the catchment

[2:24:53] area for North Glen Orchards. Um, when you look at the map and

[2:24:57] if you go to the KPRDSB website, you'll notice that The catchment

[2:25:01] areas are very strictly enforced, and there's good reason for that. Those things have

[2:25:04] been held in true for the board for a very long time, um,

[2:25:08] and because these students are where they are

[2:25:11] in that specific, uh, plot, um, they live

[2:25:15] 1.5 kilometers from the front doors of North Glen Orchards

[2:25:19] Public School, and KPR has enlisted a brand new policy

[2:25:23] this year where the busing distance for these students is

[2:25:26] 1.6 kilometers, and there is there's absolutely

[2:25:30] no flexibility, I assure you, of that distance, which means

[2:25:33] that we can assume that the students who live— are going to live in this

[2:25:37] proposed development will be walking to school.

[2:25:42] I can assure you that as a resident of that neighborhood, it is not a

[2:25:46] safe place to walk with your children.

[2:25:49] I have 4 children who live with me on Jennings Drive. None of

[2:25:53] them are allowed to go on Concession 3. There is a high

[2:25:56] volume of traffic. There are speed concerns about that traffic.

[2:26:00] The intersection at Liberty and Concession is a question mark

[2:26:04] at best and a danger at worst. So these

[2:26:08] proposed families who are buying in this proposed development may

[2:26:12] not know when they purchase their home or they rent their home that the expectation

[2:26:16] is going to be that they walk their children along Concession 3 to

[2:26:20] get to their children's assigned school. My students are—

[2:26:24] my children are a little bit older, but my 9 to 13-year-olds

[2:26:29] would not be allowed to walk along there, never mind students who would be starting

[2:26:33] at North Glen at 3 and 4 years old. This is a, a major question

[2:26:37] mark that I think sometimes gets overlooked when we propose these kinds of developments.

[2:26:41] I'm certainly by no means saying that we shouldn't develop the property. I just

[2:26:45] think having an eye on that impact and the way that that would

[2:26:50] impact those families should be really well researched and well, uh, discovered. Um, so my

[2:26:54] concerns from a safety perspective, from the student perspective, but also from a

[2:26:58] traffic standpoint— um, as I said, my backyard backs onto Concession

[2:27:02] 3, and my family sits in our backyard and listens to cars constantly.

[2:27:08] Uh, we made that choice in buying that home, but adding that significant

[2:27:12] volume of traffic to that very small area of

[2:27:16] the road will be a significant change to the

[2:27:20] community members who already own properties there, as well as adding to

[2:27:24] the safety concern that are already well documented for that part of

[2:27:27] the community. Um, there's also several, uh,

[2:27:30] additional plots of land within the North Glen subdivision that

[2:27:34] have still not been developed, 3 to my knowledge, um, one of

[2:27:38] which has an increase of potentially 700 units. So if

[2:27:42] you add all those things together and you consider the real people that would live

[2:27:46] in those properties, you're potentially adding between 1,000

[2:27:49] and 1,200 cars to an already congested area

[2:27:53] of our town in the next 3 to 5 years. From what I can,

[2:27:57] I can tell from looking at the literature, that's a huge concern.

[2:28:01] And while I understand the need for developing property as

[2:28:05] a growing community, I absolutely understand that. I think sometimes

[2:28:09] our property development can get ahead of our infrastructure development,

[2:28:12] and I'm concerned about the way that that impacts the citizens who already

[2:28:16] live in that neighbourhood, but also the prospective new neighbours who would be purchasing or

[2:28:21] renting homes in that proposed development. Thank you for considering

[2:28:25] this point of view. I appreciate your time. Thank you, and don't go anywhere.

[2:28:29] We've got Councillor Rang up first. Yeah, thank you, thank you for that presentation.

[2:28:33] Presentation, and thanks for the information about the— specifically about the

[2:28:37] busing distances. That's really helpful to keep in mind, and I

[2:28:41] do appreciate that. And also, thanks for being a teacher

[2:28:45] at North Glen. My daughter will see you shortly.

[2:28:49] My question is— and this is not an endorsement of the density or

[2:28:54] the proposal per se, but the

[2:28:58] sidewalks on Concession 3 stop quite far up.

[2:29:02] Well before that. Well before that. And, and I have

[2:29:06] had conversations with residents about,

[2:29:10] and have been talking to Works about adding sidewalk

[2:29:14] capacity all the way to Liberty. Would that be helpful?

[2:29:18] It certainly would be helpful from a walking transportation

[2:29:22] standpoint, for sure. It would be helpful.

[2:29:25] Certainly on the north side of Concession, where that transportation

[2:29:29] is most likely to happen as those students get to North Glen,

[2:29:33] would be a priority for sure. Okay, I don't think it changes

[2:29:37] a lot about the increase in the car traffic, but it certainly would allow families

[2:29:41] to travel to school in a safer way. Yeah, okay, thank you.

[2:29:47] Thank you, Councillor. I've got Councillor Zwart and then Councillor

[2:29:50] Anderson, you after that. Thank you, and thanks

[2:29:54] for coming today. Um, the school board, the school issue,

[2:29:58] have you discussed that with your school board trustee? I have not,

[2:30:02] no. It was really— the sign just popped up in the field

[2:30:06] across from our home about 2 weeks ago, so that's not something that I have

[2:30:09] had an opportunity to discuss with our trustees yet, no. Okay, because that's

[2:30:13] where that type of complaint— yeah, I did go to the school board website just

[2:30:17] to verify my understanding of the school catchment area. Um, and the

[2:30:20] school catchment for North Glen does go a little bit— I would

[2:30:24] say, my guesstimation from the map, probably 100 meters to

[2:30:28] the east of Liberty. So just that property that's also on

[2:30:32] the east side of that intersection would also be part of the North Glen catchment.

[2:30:36] Um, when you go further east than that line, those students would go

[2:30:40] to Longworth. Okay, yeah, thank you. No problem.

[2:30:43] Thanks, Councillor George. I've got Councillor Anderson.

[2:30:47] Thank you. And I guess you're looking forward to the new school. It's like a

[2:30:51] year overdue. I am. Fingers crossed the doors are open this week. We're looking forward

[2:30:56] to it. Yeah, I haven't heard of any hitches, so I am sure it will

[2:31:00] be open. Thanks for bringing that safety concern. When it comes to safety

[2:31:04] of kids, that's paramount. And I know when I was on the school

[2:31:08] board if there was a safety concern,

[2:31:12] like lack of sidewalk, etc. I know

[2:31:16] the 1.6, it's kind of etched in stone,

[2:31:20] but sometimes they'll make allowances for that

[2:31:24] for safety. It depends. It doesn't always happen, but yes,

[2:31:28] so that's— those are the kind of things we want to

[2:31:31] hear and the kind of things that will make me

[2:31:35] take a pause when it comes to development, because safety is

[2:31:38] always going to be number one when it comes to children.

[2:31:43] So, Councillor Anderson, there's a question in there somewhere,

[2:31:46] right? So, to follow up on Councillor

[2:31:50] Rong's point, if there were sidewalks in,

[2:31:54] would you be— have less of a concern? I think the sidewalks

[2:31:59] would definitely help. I, I think to ask families to try to transport their children

[2:32:02] to school without a sidewalk would be a liability the city would not

[2:32:06] want. It would be, it would be very dangerous. The only

[2:32:10] way to access that area on the road is actually

[2:32:13] physically on the road. There is a shoulder, but on the other side of the

[2:32:17] shoulder there's a culvert, so you, you literally couldn't even walk on the side of

[2:32:20] the road without being on the gravel. So I think it would be

[2:32:24] impossible to consider families even trying to walk their

[2:32:28] young children to school without some modification to the

[2:32:31] side of that road. Okay, so you have answered my next

[2:32:35] question. I was going to ask if there was an alternate route other than walking

[2:32:39] on the shoulders to get to the school. Well, you have

[2:32:43] answered that. There isn't. Sorry, could you repeat that? If there was an alternate route

[2:32:46] other than walking on the main road to get to the school,

[2:32:50] there isn't, correct? Well, I think I think the alternative— excuse me for one moment,

[2:32:53] Councilor Anderson, if you speak more closely so we're actually

[2:32:56] all— it's not just you. I'm sorry, I'm already a little

[2:33:00] bit hard of hearing, so I'm having to— yeah, I was just wondering if there

[2:33:03] was an alternate route other than walking on the shoulders,

[2:33:06] whether it's Concession or Liberty or whatever the street might be.

[2:33:10] So there is not a currently developed alternate route because

[2:33:14] the space between the proposed property and where the school is

[2:33:17] is farmland, or it's a home to the immediate west, and then

[2:33:22] there's farmland, and then there's the Baptist Church. So there's no walk-through

[2:33:26] pathway across those properties to be able to get to the North Glen

[2:33:30] neighborhood. Um, certainly, you know,

[2:33:33] some families might choose to drive their children to school if they can't

[2:33:37] safely walk. Um, the challenge with that is that the area

[2:33:41] in front of North Glen Orchards Public School is going to be highly

[2:33:45] congested already with families driving their students to school.

[2:33:48] So there isn't a lot of other walkways and

[2:33:52] pathways to transport students, um, into that neighborhood. There's a—

[2:33:56] if you walk along Concession 3, you could turn right onto

[2:34:01] North Glen Avenue and follow the, the street itself where there are already sidewalks,

[2:34:05] um, over to the school. Um, but it's a 1.5

[2:34:10] km walk, which I've had little ones and

[2:34:13] it's not something I would enjoy doing with 3 and 4-year-olds for sure,

[2:34:16] even if it was safe. So it's a very long walk. Yes, and I know,

[2:34:20] I know it's congested because if there's a

[2:34:24] soccer game at the park, it's congested. I see that

[2:34:29] firsthand. So thank you. No problem.

[2:34:32] Thank you, Councillor. I've got Councillor Wu next.

[2:34:36] Yeah, through his worship, and thank you very much for coming

[2:34:40] forward. And again, it's been a long time for that new school

[2:34:44] to open, isn't it? It has been a long time, sir. Yes, you're right.

[2:34:46] We're ready. Now, getting back to— and

[2:34:50] especially, you know, when you're mentioning about even your kids, if you live

[2:34:54] on the south side of Concession, on the north side, I think

[2:34:58] the sidewalk ends at the Baptist Church, but on the south side, it comes

[2:35:02] closer to you but not to you. It does. You're right, it doesn't go as

[2:35:06] far as my home. If you look at the map

[2:35:09] that you originally had up, my home is literally

[2:35:12] directly across from the driveway of the proposed neighborhood.

[2:35:17] So there's no sidewalk there. So you're basically having to

[2:35:21] walk on your shoulder till you get this side. But the other part is,

[2:35:24] where do you cross? Right. Where do you cross?

[2:35:28] So there is an entrance just at the end

[2:35:32] of our street on McCorkle Drive. I think you can't really see it on the

[2:35:35] map, but just if you look at the home with the pool on the far

[2:35:38] left there, that home faces onto McCorkle Drive. So there's

[2:35:42] a road right there that meets up with Concession, but there's certainly no crosswalk there

[2:35:46] to be able to cross over to the other side of Concession. And I'd have

[2:35:51] to look at a wider map, but I'm pretty sure that the sidewalk only goes

[2:35:54] as far as Gimblett Street, which is the next major street to

[2:35:58] the west. So I don't even think the sidewalk

[2:36:01] comes as far as McCorkle. So you've still got probably at least

[2:36:07] maybe 3/4 of a kilometre, maybe half a kilometre before you get

[2:36:11] to the sidewalk on the opposite side of the road. And there's no

[2:36:15] crosswalk there. Now, you are about

[2:36:19] how— what's the distance? You said 1.6 kilometres. Correct.

[2:36:22] So be able to bus, and you're probably 1.5.

[2:36:26] It is exactly 1.5. I checked on the map this afternoon. So the school

[2:36:29] board modified their busing distances this year. Um, so in previous

[2:36:34] years, junior kindergarten to grade 4 students were at 1.2

[2:36:38] kilometers. So in that case, these students would have qualified for a bus up to

[2:36:42] grade 4. But recently, just as of last September, they've modified

[2:36:46] that distance to be 1.6 6 kilometers. So in this case,

[2:36:49] um, based on my calculations this afternoon, the entrance to that community

[2:36:54] to the front door of North Glen is 1.5, so they'd be just under that

[2:36:57] cutoff. Um, and my experience with navigating this pathway for students

[2:37:01] this year is that the board is very strictly enforcing that boundary this year.

[2:37:05] There's very little exceptions made. In some cases, they might make an

[2:37:09] exception for a student who had significant special needs who needed special transportation requests But

[2:37:14] generally speaking, for the regular student population, that would not be an available accommodation.

[2:37:21] So in order to qualify— and you did mention about

[2:37:24] the Ketchum area, maybe just a little bit east of Liberty.

[2:37:31] So I don't know if they pick you right up at the door or you

[2:37:34] would have to go to a bus pickup if you qualify. Yeah, so if

[2:37:38] there was a development on the opposite side outside of Liberty. I'd have to do

[2:37:41] the math, sir, but I would think that would be just barely on the outside

[2:37:45] of that 1.6-kilometer catchment. And so theoretically,

[2:37:49] if there was a proposed property development on that other corner,

[2:37:53] on the northeast corner, those students would qualify for a bus

[2:37:57] to North Glenorchards. Yeah. Okay, thank you. And,

[2:38:00] and maybe it wouldn't hurt to reach out to the school board trustees.

[2:38:03] I will do that. Thank you for the suggestion. I will for sure. Thank you.

[2:38:06] Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Wu. I've got Councillor Elhaj next.

[2:38:11] Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you, Melanie, for coming in and speaking. My wife's

[2:38:15] a teacher as well, so I know the hard work that, that you guys put

[2:38:18] in, and so a big thank you, I guess, on behalf of council as

[2:38:21] well. Thank you for being a teacher. I had a specific question on

[2:38:25] the catchment area, and, and I know you mentioned

[2:38:29] safety, and I just want to— it was kind of— it's kind of a rhetorical

[2:38:33] question, but are you aware that this council changed, uh, school zone speed

[2:38:37] limits to 30 km/h, improving safety? I am very aware, yes.

[2:38:41] I, uh, I had my oldest child went to the Pines Senior

[2:38:45] Public School, and so I was party to some of the conversations and the,

[2:38:48] um, parent advocacy to manage the school

[2:38:52] issues with the transportation speed limit in front of the Pines, uh,

[2:38:56] in the last few years. So yes, I'm very familiar with that piece. For sure.

[2:38:59] Great, thank you. And thank you for, for talking about your, your safety concerns,

[2:39:03] you know, on Concession 3 as well. I think we all— I think you've heard

[2:39:06] all of council, you know, share those concerns as well. Um, so back to the

[2:39:10] catchment area, I know you mentioned that the busing areas are 1.6 and you're

[2:39:14] roughly around 1.5 kilometers. I'm just wondering if you— like, I,

[2:39:18] I haven't— in, in you being up here, I haven't been able to find why

[2:39:22] they chose 1.6 kilometers. I'm just wondering if you are are aware why

[2:39:25] they chose 1.6 kilometers. I unfortunately can't speak to the school board's decision-making

[2:39:30] process there. In my experience, I was a special

[2:39:33] education teacher in my last job, and so a lot of my responsibility was

[2:39:37] supporting students who needed special transportation requests to get to school,

[2:39:40] who had special unique needs. And I know that in my navigating

[2:39:44] that part of my job with the board, they were very strictly enforcing that

[2:39:48] distance. But I don't know much about— I imagine As most things do,

[2:39:52] it came down to a budgetary concern, but I don't

[2:39:56] know the specific background of the conversation that went on to create that

[2:40:00] specific number of distance. No. Yeah, that's my assumption as well, is budget

[2:40:05] related, which obviously comes down from province, right? And I know that the trustees

[2:40:09] and the school boards are very tight with their budgets as a result.

[2:40:12] So, so yeah, thank you. That was my only question.

[2:40:16] Thank you for coming up again and And God bless you for

[2:40:19] working with special needs as well. I know the hard work there as

[2:40:23] well. So thank you. Thank you,

[2:40:26] Councillor. I'll look around. I don't see

[2:40:31] anything further. Thank you for coming. No problem. I will reiterate,

[2:40:34] please reach out to the trustee.

[2:40:39] I know that they will be delighted to hear from you.

[2:40:43] And I know that if you help to advocate for budgets that

[2:40:47] allow for better busing and a

[2:40:51] whole range of things that you know way better than we do that the

[2:40:54] school boards need, again, they will be

[2:40:58] just more delighted than you can imagine. Yes, sir, I will do my

[2:41:02] best. Thank you very much. Oh, thank you.

[2:41:06] All righty. So again, we will look To members of the public,

[2:41:09] anyone speaking in support of or opposition

[2:41:13] to this application?

[2:41:18] I don't see any further takers.

[2:41:22] So that's who's going to speak for— oh yeah, okay. Uh,

[2:41:26] oh, there you are, Mr. Jitan. You're the agent for the applicant.

[2:41:45] Good afternoon, Mayor and members of council. My name is

[2:41:48] Christian Détan. I'm a registered professional planner with GHD, and I'm here

[2:41:52] on behalf of LAK Realty Appraisals and Consultants,

[2:41:56] the owner of the subject property. The owner, Phil, is in

[2:42:00] attendance today. Regarding the app— and I'm here

[2:42:04] regarding the applications for the zoning bylaw amendment and draft plan of subdivision at

[2:42:09] 2658 Concession Road 3 in Bowmanville.

[2:42:12] Here's just an overview of the subject site,

[2:42:16] and here is an overview of the proposed concept.

[2:42:20] So the proposed concept consists of a small-scale

[2:42:24] residential infill development on approximately 0 0.45

[2:42:28] hectares located at the northwest corner of Concession Road

[2:42:32] 3 and Liberty Street North. Um, the application proposes

[2:42:36] 11 front-loaded townhouse dwelling units, um, 12 dual-frontage,

[2:42:41] uh, townhouse dwelling units, uh, for a total of 23 residential

[2:42:45] units. Um, the Concession Road,

[2:42:49] um, is a Type B arterial road, and the proposed

[2:42:53] concept plan is illustrated in the staff report.

[2:42:57] Um, and here's just an illustration of the draft plan of subdivision,

[2:43:01] which is pretty straightforward.

[2:43:04] Um, the pre-consultation meeting was held, um,

[2:43:07] with municipal departments and external, uh, commenting agencies in

[2:43:12] October 2023. And through that process,

[2:43:15] staff advised that a zoning bylaw amendment would be required to facilitate

[2:43:19] the proposed development. Applications were submitted in March 2026 and

[2:43:23] subsequently deemed complete, with the municipality

[2:43:29] deeming it complete in April 2026. At that time, supporting plans and

[2:43:33] studies have been circulated to departments and agencies for review. We've not received

[2:43:37] all comments yet, and we did not receive the

[2:43:42] emailed correspondence from residents today, so we're happy to hear about

[2:43:46] it today. We're hoping to get a copy of that and, you know, respond to

[2:43:50] some of those comments. Um, just to review on the zoning

[2:43:53] bylaw, so the property is currently proposing

[2:43:57] the townhouses, which requires site-specific zoning permissions to implement the

[2:44:01] development concept, and the draft zoning provisions establish the appropriate

[2:44:06] development standards related to lot frontage, setback, landscaping,

[2:44:09] building height, driveway widths, and other site-specific zoning matters.

[2:44:13] The owner of the property is in contact with the resident immediately

[2:44:18] to the west. They have a good working relationship,

[2:44:22] um, and I can review quite briefly—

[2:44:26] I don't have the schematics for it, but the— our

[2:44:30] traffic, um, transportation report includes a ghosted-in image

[2:44:35] of the, um, the roundabout that's proposed there.

[2:44:38] I do see sidewalk crossings in all directions, so that's

[2:44:43] a plus for the area. And also the region

[2:44:46] has been in contact with us regarding the driveway. And because

[2:44:51] of the proximity to the roundabout, our site

[2:44:55] has to develop our proposed driveway as far west as possible.

[2:44:58] And we have to accommodate the appropriate spacing and

[2:45:02] sweep paths for vehicles. And we've been in close contact with

[2:45:06] the resident to the west and no major concerns regarding the proximity

[2:45:10] of the driveways. Has been identified. With respect to the natural features of the

[2:45:14] property, I'm a planner, I'm not an environmental person, but we have been in touch

[2:45:18] with, uh, Kloca as of today,

[2:45:22] and we are scheduling a site visit to walk the site and see,

[2:45:26] um, any, um, wetland features that they want to,

[2:45:30] um, identify. Um, our, our EIS report,

[2:45:33] uh, didn't identify anything on our subject property, but we are adjacent to a property

[2:45:37] So we understand that, you know, stormwater management is not managed

[2:45:42] on one site. It's a holistic view that we have to take. And with respect

[2:45:46] to the property, it is occupied with a dwelling right

[2:45:50] now. And the current owner-developer, when they took over the

[2:45:54] property, the previous owner was a landscape company and there was a lot of like

[2:45:58] refuge and stone and other materials that was all cleaned up

[2:46:01] without Cloca prompting them to do that. They just did that to be a good

[2:46:04] neighbor. And they continue to do so, and they're hoping to bring forward

[2:46:08] this residential development. Um, I can't speak too

[2:46:12] much into detail about the school boards. Um, I do

[2:46:16] have their comments. They did talk about how the

[2:46:20] Kwatha Pine Ridge District School Board, uh, notes that dedicated pedestrian

[2:46:24] pathways are being proposed and would like the sidewalks to remain part of our plan,

[2:46:27] which they are, to ensure the safe movement of pedestrians throughout the proposed development,

[2:46:31] school bus pickup points will generally be located on a

[2:46:35] through street at a location selected by the Student Transportation Services

[2:46:39] of Central Ontario. Please be aware school buses will not

[2:46:43] travel on private roads. That's, that's pretty standard. So we

[2:46:46] do have some of the comments from the school boards. So we

[2:46:50] weren't really looking at that area because we didn't have any concerns,

[2:46:54] but we do have the matters about

[2:46:57] the, the the potential wetland and, and cloaca comments to be addressed, and that's

[2:47:02] being taken care of next week. Um, so,

[2:47:05] and, um, just to close, um,

[2:47:08] we're interested in getting this feedback today. Uh, we will like electric

[2:47:12] copies of the one that was sent because we were not provided it just yet,

[2:47:15] and we appreciate the opportunity to present the application and welcome

[2:47:19] further comments and dialogue from residents and staff.

[2:47:22] Thank you.

[2:47:26] Sir, thank you again. Members of Council, do we

[2:47:29] have any questions?

[2:47:35] I don't know if you did a great job or if you wore out your

[2:47:37] welcome. I don't see any questions. Thank you ever so

[2:47:40] much, and we will, we will get a copy of the correspondence

[2:47:44] to you. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor.

[2:47:50] Start talking. Oh, you want me to call you out?

[2:47:59] The clerk has helped me out here. So that is the

[2:48:03] statutory public meeting for this particular file.

[2:48:08] We are on PSD-073-26— 072-26.

[2:48:16] 6. And again, to members of the public, um,

[2:48:19] while we are voting on this, no decision is being made.

[2:48:23] Uh, this is going back to staff for further processing. Uh, so I'll need a

[2:48:26] mover and a seconder. Councillor Jort, you made eye contact. Thank you.

[2:48:29] Seconded by Councillor Alhajay. Thank you. Uh,

[2:48:33] questions or comments?

[2:48:37] Councillor Anderson.

[2:48:41] Your mic's on. So I'm just asking for a recorded vote when the

[2:48:45] time comes. Uh, and just a quick correction,

[2:48:50] I know you— the 1.6 was done for financial

[2:48:54] reasons, but trustees have no say.

[2:48:58] The province has taken away that authority when it comes to finance

[2:49:02] budget, so I don't know where you go

[2:49:06] if you need that change, but Trustees have no authority

[2:49:10] over that anymore. Just, just wanted to put that out there.

[2:49:14] I can guarantee that if you go to the trustees,

[2:49:17] they, they have addresses and emails of

[2:49:21] the people that have the purse strings, which might be elected

[2:49:25] members of the provincial parliament. That's right. So I just

[2:49:29] wanted to put that out there. Yeah, no, it's a, it's a good point with

[2:49:32] the changes. Yeah, you're right. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Woo.

[2:49:39] Yeah, Your Worship, and to the Deputy CAO,

[2:49:43] just looking in fact at the map that was supplied by one

[2:49:47] of the first delegates, but if you look here,

[2:49:52] and I'm surprised that that tributary

[2:49:56] to, I guess, the Soper Creek wouldn't be— that

[2:50:02] area wouldn't be environmentally protected.

[2:50:06] Can you give me an idea why it may not?

[2:50:11] So through the mayor, I'm going to ask Sreeja Phora, the planner

[2:50:14] on the file, that can respond to that about how we are, where we are

[2:50:17] on that. Sreeja. Thank you.

[2:50:21] Through you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you for that.

[2:50:25] So, uh, to answer your question on that, the adjacent

[2:50:29] property does have some wetland, uh,

[2:50:32] you know, designated on the property. However, this property parcel does not

[2:50:36] have any wetland feature. So to, you know,

[2:50:39] to work around, uh, the EIS that is supplied by the applicant and

[2:50:43] with CLOCA, uh, myself, our ecologist,

[2:50:46] that is Paul Finnegan, and the CLOCA team is going to have a

[2:50:49] site visit next week. We have a scheduled site visit next week, and we just

[2:50:53] want to understand what are the features existing on the property, and, you know,

[2:50:57] just to get a better understanding of wetland extension and everything.

[2:51:01] Okay, uh, just so I heard, next week you plan on going out—

[2:51:05] let's say groundproofing, I guess I'll call it groundproofing,

[2:51:09] uh, yourself, Cloca,

[2:51:13] through this— yes, that's correct. So it's going me, myself,

[2:51:17] Paul Finnegan, that is our ecologist, and Cloca.

[2:51:21] And the site visit is scheduled for 27th of

[2:51:25] August, that is next Thursday. Okay, perfect. Thank you very much.

[2:51:29] Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Any further questions? Uh,

[2:51:34] Sreeja, you know, and Mr. James, uh, one of

[2:51:38] the delegates, I, I suspect has intimate knowledge

[2:51:42] of of that area. So I would take a close look at

[2:51:45] what he has submitted as you're

[2:51:49] wandering through the meadow, which makes your job sound

[2:51:54] way nicer than what it actually is. Thank you.

[2:51:57] Councillor Anderson, you wanted a recorded vote? Oh,

[2:52:02] all right, Madam Clerk.

[2:52:24] They're working on it. I briefly disappeared from the

[2:52:28] microphones. On the matter before you, report PDS 07226.

[2:52:33] The motion is showing there to continue processing, beginning with

[2:52:37] Councillor Anderson. No.

[2:52:41] Councillor Allagé. No. Councillor Rang. Yes.

[2:52:46] Councillor Traill. No.

[2:52:50] Councillor Woo. No.

[2:52:53] Councillor Zwart. Yes. Mayor Foster.

[2:52:57] Yes. And that That is lost

[2:53:02] 4 to 3. So we'll need a different motion.

[2:53:13] Councillor Zwart, it's unusual, but— You're

[2:53:17] looking for a motion, correct? That was a

[2:53:20] motion. You're looking for a new motion, aren't you?

[2:53:28] Yes, yes, you're correct. So that the report be

[2:53:32] referred back to staff to continue to work on it.

[2:53:38] Thank you. I know what you're hoping for. That, that in fact

[2:53:42] is— it was the motion. This, this is a public meeting,

[2:53:47] slightly different words, but sure, we'll give it a try. Do we have

[2:53:51] a seconder for that? Councillor Rang,

[2:53:54] thank you. Can we assume that this and this is in place?

[2:54:00] Okay, so that's on the floor. I would encourage

[2:54:04] councillors to look at the difference

[2:54:08] between the recommendation and what we are doing and suggest possible

[2:54:13] changes to the recommendations.

[2:54:17] Because this, this is going to be very confusing to staff. Uh,

[2:54:21] Councillor Elhajji, um, if I could make a suggestion to

[2:54:25] the, uh, the motioner, uh, to add a piece in there about,

[2:54:29] uh, Cloca, since the concern is, is, uh, waiting for

[2:54:33] Cloca's response. So maybe refer to staff until,

[2:54:37] um, uh, refer to staff, uh,

[2:54:40] waiting for Cloca's response kind of thing. So that,

[2:54:45] that's, that's part of what we're doing. So I understand,

[2:54:49] for us as an initial public meeting, we're simply gathering

[2:54:52] information. Staff will get all of the information

[2:54:57] from all of the agencies before they bring something forward. So we can,

[2:55:01] we can highlight cloaca, um,

[2:55:05] if that's friendly, Councillor, but it's it's

[2:55:10] already realistically part of what they're going to do.

[2:55:13] So you just want to double make sure that they're talking to Cloca.

[2:55:17] Yes? Okay, is that friendly?

[2:55:20] It's already intrinsic to what we do.

[2:55:25] Oh, I'm sorry. That is friendly,

[2:55:29] but maybe with significant attention paid to the wetland

[2:55:34] teacher. Would— is that sure?

[2:55:39] Okay. Councilor Anderson.

[2:55:42] And I would add to that, look at reducing the number of units as

[2:55:46] well.

[2:55:51] So, Councilor Anderson,

[2:55:54] why don't you give me a, a mo— you know, but I— so, so folks,

[2:55:59] um, You know, this, this is an initial public meeting where

[2:56:03] no decision is being made. Everyone is being circulated

[2:56:08] on this. We are simply gathering information at

[2:56:12] this point in time. I, you know, so it's— we can certainly

[2:56:16] take the request to reduce the numbers,

[2:56:20] but there, um, we, we have

[2:56:23] no facts to, to support that.

[2:56:27] So, so I will ask staff to pay particular attention to that.

[2:56:31] Give me that. Give me the most— want to make sure that that's looked

[2:56:35] at. So, Councillor, I can— as, as you know, and you've been here for a

[2:56:39] very long time, um, that, that is part of this process.

[2:56:42] But Councillor Anderson, you're moving that staff pay particular attention

[2:56:46] to the number of units? Yes, and safety— and the

[2:56:50] safety concerns raised by the events. All righty,

[2:56:53] and seconded by Councillor

[2:56:59] Alhajji. So on the amendment,

[2:57:02] um, questions and comments?

[2:57:07] Okay. And Mr. Lyons, I, I know I'm repeating

[2:57:10] myself, but you would be doing all of this anyway.

[2:57:15] So to the mayor, absolutely. As part of the process, we work closely with

[2:57:18] CLOCA. You've heard we have an upcoming meeting to try and figure this matter out.

[2:57:22] We work with the school boards. They're all circulated on every planning application

[2:57:26] that comes forward to provide advice to us from their professional expertise.

[2:57:30] So I would suggest that we are going to do all of those matters.

[2:57:34] I just would also just flag that in this situation,

[2:57:38] we have an official plan that already enables development on this site.

[2:57:42] So we just— it It's fine for staff to get direction about whether

[2:57:46] it's reduction or not of units, but we also have to abide by what council

[2:57:50] approved as the official plan guiding development on the site. So we're going to call

[2:57:54] this the belts and suspenders amendment. How's that, Councillor Anderson?

[2:58:00] Uh, all right. Anything further on, uh, on the amendment?

[2:58:05] Can I just say the amendment? Uh, so the clerk

[2:58:09] is going to repeat it back. Councillor Ward, I, I've We've got you next,

[2:58:12] but we're going to get the clerk to repeat that back to make sure that

[2:58:16] she has that correctly noted.

[2:58:22] No, on the second one, it was moved by Councillor Anderson and

[2:58:27] seconded by Councillor Rahelajay. So we had a friendly and now

[2:58:31] we have this one.

[2:58:34] So the amendment as I have it, that staff pay particular attention

[2:58:38] to the number of units and the concerns of residents.

[2:58:44] All righty.

[2:58:47] Safety concerns. And you don't want to call out the

[2:58:51] belts and suspenders.

[2:58:55] All righty. On the amendment, any further questions

[2:58:59] or comments? Call the question. All in support?

[2:59:05] Opposed? That is carried. We're back to the main motion.

[2:59:12] All right, Madam Clerk, you're going to read the main motion.

[2:59:16] So I am assuming that this first one is in

[2:59:19] here, that report PSD 72 and any related communication

[2:59:23] items be received for information only, and then it goes,

[2:59:27] uh, that the matter be referred to to staff to obtain Kloca's response

[2:59:30] and to continue processing the applications,

[2:59:33] including the preparation of a subsequent recommendations report.

[2:59:37] I'm also assuming that all interested parties listed

[2:59:41] in the report and any other delegations be advised of council's decision.

[2:59:44] Is that a fair assumption? Plus the

[2:59:48] amendment. That's the amendment. Alrighty, so again, we're back,

[2:59:51] back to the main report. Further questions,

[2:59:55] comments? Don't see any.

[3:00:00] Do you need a recorded vote on this, Councillor Anderson? No. All right.

[3:00:03] With that, I'll call the question. All in support? Opposed? That is carried.

[3:00:08] Councillor Traill, thank you. We saw your, your note there,

[3:00:12] or notice. Okay, we will move

[3:00:15] further to item 6.2.

[3:00:19] This is a public meeting for a zoning bylaw amendment and

[3:00:23] draft plan of subdivision. The applicant is Boycefields—

[3:00:28] I never get that pronounced correctly— on behalf of Lambs Road Development,

[3:00:31] Kaitlin Corporation, 2273 Lambs Road

[3:00:35] in Bowmanville. And we've got— where'd

[3:00:40] Sarah go? And I lost a councillor.

[3:00:46] What did you say? So we're looking for Sarah to do

[3:00:49] the presentation. No, staff doesn't do presentation. Oh, never mind.

[3:00:53] Yes, you're right. Uh, so with, uh, that,

[3:00:57] uh, we will look to, uh, folks in the gallery here,

[3:01:01] uh, anyone wishing to speak in support of,

[3:01:04] uh, or in opposition to this

[3:01:08] application. Councillor Trill,

[3:01:11] I'm I'm going to the public first. I will come to you. We have Emma,

[3:01:15] who's the applicant, who's going to speak electronically.

[3:01:20] Okay. I'm looking again to folks

[3:01:24] in the gallery. Anyone willing to speak to or in opposition

[3:01:29] of this application?

[3:01:33] Seeing none, I'm sorry, the applicant or agent

[3:01:37] For the applicant? Okay, and is Emma with us?

[3:01:41] Emma West from Blue Streets. Okay, Emma.

[3:01:44] Electronic. Emma is with us electronically.

[3:01:49] So Emma, you need to hit the talking head button.

[3:01:53] She has lots.

[3:01:58] Have you got her there? She's with us.

[3:02:03] So, Emma, we know that you are online with us.

[3:02:14] Okay,

[3:02:21] Emma, something is happening, but we still don't see you.

[3:02:35] Emma, we can see you, but you'll need to unmute yourself. So leave

[3:02:39] the talking head button alone and look for the

[3:02:43] mute/unmute. Can you hear me? We can. Perfect.

[3:02:47] Thank you. Wonderful. Thank you so much for your help on that.

[3:02:51] Right. Well, and so you've got a slight delay. Slide deck, so you need to

[3:02:55] hit the share button. Okay, perfect. Thank you.

[3:02:59] And I'm

[3:03:03] sorry, I haven't used this platform before. Can you see my screen?

[3:03:08] I've hit the share button. I appreciate your

[3:03:12] accommodation of me here. Yes. Yeah, wait a

[3:03:15] minute. Waiting to share. Hang on one second. The, uh,

[3:03:21] It would appear that the computer's thinking about— the clerk speaking. So have you hit

[3:03:25] the share button, which is in the top left toolbar?

[3:03:29] Yes, I, I have. Could you unhit it and then hit

[3:03:33] it again, just in case I need to do something here? We rarely have this

[3:03:37] happen. Okay, so I've

[3:03:41] hit it. Uh, there's something that's prohibiting the

[3:03:45] source from your side. But I have your slides,

[3:03:48] so I can display them. You'll just have to tell

[3:03:52] me when to advance. Just hold on. That would be wonderful.

[3:03:55] Thank you. Sorry about that. Looks like my system

[3:03:59] settings are not set to share in this platform.

[3:04:10] Sorry. Emma, we're going to try one last-ditch effort. Can you share

[3:04:14] again? We think we might have hit Hit a new button.

[3:04:18] No. Okay. I've hit share screen.

[3:04:22] I— No, we're no further ahead. Back to me.

[3:04:27] Okay.

[3:04:47] Emma, I'm sharing for everyone else. Are you seeing that?

[3:04:51] I can see that. That's perfect. Thank you so much.

[3:05:06] Tonight, and obviously we're here to listen and to answer questions

[3:05:10] if needed, just have a brief presentation location

[3:05:13] here. If you can go to the next slide. The site

[3:05:18] is located at Lambs

[3:05:21] and Concession in the northeast quadrant of that

[3:05:24] intersection. The site is approximately 40

[3:05:28] hectares in size. It's got about 400

[3:05:32] meters of frontage on Concession and about 1,000 on

[3:05:36] Lambs Road. Currently, the site is used for

[3:05:41] agriculture, and there is a 1.5-storey dwelling

[3:05:45] at the south end. Next slide, please. Just to briefly

[3:05:49] touch on the planning context, so you can see the

[3:05:53] Durham Region Official Plan, which is a part of the Clarington Official Plan now.

[3:05:58] You can see the subject site is outlined there. It's a part

[3:06:01] of the community areas. On the right-hand

[3:06:05] side, you can see the Clarington Official Plan and that the site is designated

[3:06:09] urban residential. The yellow, it's got a community park

[3:06:13] in green, and there's also a piece of environmental protection.

[3:06:17] Next slide, please. Importantly, the secondary plan,

[3:06:22] Soper Hill Secondary Plan, applies to the site.

[3:06:25] You can see the outline black area in the

[3:06:29] northwest quadrant of the secondary plan.

[3:06:32] That secondary plan was approved in May of this

[3:06:36] year. The application that we are here to discuss tonight

[3:06:40] was submitted 2 months before that. I do just want to point out a

[3:06:45] few things in the secondary plan. Here you can see the medium

[3:06:48] density in orange wraps the northwest

[3:06:52] and south edges of the property. The yellow is

[3:06:56] a low density residential. In the

[3:07:00] approved secondary plan, you can see a school site in the middle. You can

[3:07:04] see a neighborhood park, and there are 2 little blue dots

[3:07:07] that are probably hard to see from there, that are two stormwater

[3:07:12] management ponds. So to the next slide,

[3:07:16] just briefly, the site, even though that is the secondary

[3:07:20] plan that applies and is designated for residential and some

[3:07:24] of the other uses I mentioned, the site is currently zoned for agriculture.

[3:07:29] If we go to the next slide, I'd just

[3:07:32] like to show a comparison of that approved

[3:07:37] secondary plan on the left side and the concept that supports

[3:07:41] the zoning bylaw amendment and plan of subdivision that have been submitted

[3:07:45] to Clarington. So you can see that the orange,

[3:07:49] the medium density, wraps the north, the west, and the south.

[3:07:53] The low density is the yellow, that's a mix of singles

[3:07:58] and towns. You can see the purple is the school site,

[3:08:02] the green is the park in the middle of the plan area, and two stormwater

[3:08:06] water management ponds. So if you go to the next slide,

[3:08:09] a summary of what that includes. So again, a mix of single

[3:08:14] detached dwellings, townhouses, some apartment units

[3:08:18] as well. The natural heritage system block up in the

[3:08:21] northwest corner is protected. There are storm ponds, there are new

[3:08:25] streets identified throughout the plan area. If you

[3:08:29] go to the next slide. On this one, you can see what is actually

[3:08:33] being proposed through the zoning bylaw amendment and the draft plan of

[3:08:37] subdivision that have been submitted. So on the left side,

[3:08:40] that's the schedule in the draft zoning bylaw amendment

[3:08:44] that was submitted with the application. You can see that it includes

[3:08:48] 3 zone categories, the green up at the top,

[3:08:51] environmental protection, and then the medium density residential

[3:08:55] is an R4 zone, and the low density that would

[3:08:58] include the school and the park is the R2 zone.

[3:09:03] Right-hand side is the plan of subdivision that, as I mentioned,

[3:09:06] creates new blocks and streets and the school block and the

[3:09:10] park block and the stormwater management ponds. So in conclusion,

[3:09:15] on the final slide, the applications again align fully

[3:09:19] with the secondary plan that was approved by this council.

[3:09:23] They introduced new public roads, a new school block, a new

[3:09:27] neighborhood park, All of which integrate the subject

[3:09:31] site into the surrounding context and the planned areas in the

[3:09:35] surroundings. It optimizes the use of the urban area,

[3:09:41] contributes to a greater mix and range of housing

[3:09:44] options, and it's consistent with the PPS and the official

[3:09:47] plans and the secondary plan. Looking forward to your questions

[3:09:51] and hearing the comments. Thank you.

[3:09:54] Well, thank you very much. I've got Councillor Traill.

[3:10:00] Hi, thank you very much. Um, and I just have some questions

[3:10:03] for you arising out of my support for

[3:10:07] the Camp 30 site across the road. Um, I would like

[3:10:11] to know what the process would be if— so I'm just

[3:10:15] going to preface this with saying that I think one option

[3:10:19] that, that we may see or we'd like to see is

[3:10:22] that perhaps a private investor or a company or

[3:10:26] a developer, uh, ends up, say, purchasing the,

[3:10:30] the remaining properties in the Ring Road and converting them into, you know, like a

[3:10:34] distillery-type district, um, you know, development with, with, with commercial.

[3:10:38] But if that doesn't happen, and there's a role for the municipality, I'd like

[3:10:41] to know what the planning process would be with respect to the new park

[3:10:46] that is put forward in this proposal. So I'm turning

[3:10:49] to the new park that you noted next to the school.

[3:10:53] Now, it's my understanding that that new park was not in the original

[3:10:56] plan. That was on the first slide. There was a

[3:11:00] big park at the south end of the development. Now,

[3:11:03] in the north end, I see that the park has been added there.

[3:11:06] So if there is a role for the municipality and

[3:11:10] say they don't end up going with the private sector, my question is,

[3:11:13] what would be the process for removing that parkland and applying

[3:11:18] applying that parkland credit or that dedication to the Camp 30 site instead,

[3:11:22] just hypothetically speaking, what process would we follow to do

[3:11:25] that? And I'm assuming this would be in the next term. So these

[3:11:28] are two separate parcels of land. We're here to

[3:11:32] talk about the land on the east side of Lambs Road. And as I mentioned,

[3:11:37] the park site in the center of the proposal that's

[3:11:41] before you today, the neighborhood park that's there,

[3:11:43] that's— exactly where it's shown in the secondary plan.

[3:11:47] So the earlier version of the Soper Hills secondary

[3:11:52] plan did show a community park down at the corner

[3:11:56] of Concession and Lambs. That was in a draft,

[3:12:00] but that wasn't what council ended up approving

[3:12:04] back in May. And so— So I'm gonna

[3:12:08] jump in here for a moment. We're supposed to be speaking to the application

[3:12:12] in front of us. Oh, that's right. I am.

[3:12:16] Thank you. Could I not be interrupted? Not the property interrupted.

[3:12:20] Councillor Trail. Mr. Mayor, you're interrupting staff. Could you please show some

[3:12:24] respect and allow her to finish? Councillor Trail, you are out of order.

[3:12:28] I think it would be helpful if you're interrupting people. Emma. Yes,

[3:12:31] both of you. You're interrupting both of us now.

[3:12:36] Councilor Trail, can you please apologize? Councilor Trail, you are

[3:12:40] out of order, right?

[3:12:44] Second time. Whatever you say.

[3:12:51] So if you would focus your questions on

[3:12:55] the report in front of us, please. Councilor Trail,

[3:12:58] I have— Mr. Mayor and Miss West

[3:13:03] has confirmed that so is she. Would you like to not interrupt either

[3:13:06] of us further, please? This is going to be the third time.

[3:13:10] I will look to members of the council to ask you to leave

[3:13:13] this meeting. I won't make that decision on my own,

[3:13:17] but the disrespect that you are showing and the disrespect that you have shown in

[3:13:21] the past, I think we have all just about had it.

[3:13:25] So if you want to carry on Speaking to

[3:13:29] the report in front of us, but I would encourage you to be

[3:13:33] respectful.

[3:13:36] Mr. Mayor, you're gaslighting me. Miss West had the floor and she just confirmed

[3:13:41] I was speaking to the report, and so is she. May we please proceed without

[3:13:44] interruption? Thank you. Members, Councilor,

[3:13:48] I wonder if you'd give a 5-minute break.

[3:13:51] Thank you, Councilor Zwart, seconded by Councilor Alhaj. This is bullying,

[3:13:54] Mr. Mayor, and I hope it ends. That is great.

[3:13:58] Thank you. Thank you.

[3:19:21] Sorry, am I permitted to continue asking my questions?

[3:19:29] One moment, Councilor Trill.

[3:19:48] All righty, so we'll call the meeting back to order. I'm hoping that

[3:19:53] we have a, a bit of a reset

[3:19:57] to, to get back to some productive, uh, work and

[3:20:00] dialogue, uh, on this. Uh, Councillor Traill, you,

[3:20:04] uh, you do have the floor. Oh, I do? Okay.

[3:20:08] And hopefully I won't be interrupted again. Thank you. I will keep my comments as

[3:20:11] brief as possible. Okay, so although I was democratically elected

[3:20:16] to be here to ask— All right, Councillor Traill, I— yep,

[3:20:20] you know, we, we could move forward We are— I don't need your editorial comments.

[3:20:24] I'm trying to move ahead. Miss West, may I please proceed

[3:20:28] to ask my questions? Thank you. When you have the floor, Mr. Mayor,

[3:20:31] you can speak. That's how this works. Um, actually, Councillor, that's not how this

[3:20:35] works. Um, okay, I am— I am the

[3:20:39] mayor. Uh, I am the chair. I— you know,

[3:20:42] you, you are— you are being disrespectful, uh,

[3:20:46] to myself and all of your colleagues.

[3:20:50] Councillor Wu. How so, sir? Your Worship,

[3:20:54] Councillor Traill, point of order. Let's just get on with

[3:20:58] this and ask your question to Miss West.

[3:21:01] Let's just move on. Forget all this other,

[3:21:07] uh— This is incredibly belittling. Can I please proceed? Thank you.

[3:21:10] I've got Councillor Anderson, I think, has a point of order as well.

[3:21:14] Everybody here wants to weigh in on my ability to speak. I think Councillor Wu

[3:21:18] has said it quite eloquently. Ask your question. It's no

[3:21:22] need for back and forth banter. Just ask the question you

[3:21:25] want to ask. So, Councilor Trajan, to the

[3:21:29] application. Thank you. Thank you for your permission

[3:21:34] to all of my male colleagues who have decided to weigh in to let me

[3:21:37] know it's okay for me to do my job. Thank you. Now, getting back to

[3:21:41] my question, would anybody else like to let me know it's okay for me to

[3:21:45] do my job, please? Well, I think I've got a— I think I've got

[3:21:48] a third point of order from Councillor Zwart. Thank you. Point of order.

[3:21:52] I'm sure you do. As your female colleague, I would also like this,

[3:21:56] uh, the questions be directed to

[3:22:00] the report that we are currently discussing. Thank you,

[3:22:03] Councillor. I need to do that for the last 5 minutes. So wow,

[3:22:09] this is why people are upset. Okay, so I'd like to know, and what I'd

[3:22:13] asked you before I was interrupted, is what process we follow if

[3:22:17] we want to move the new parkland that has been added,

[3:22:21] right, as part of this most recent revision,

[3:22:24] if we want to allocate that parkland to the west side of Lambs Road—

[3:22:27] this is directly on the report. I asked this 10 minutes ago, and I'm so

[3:22:32] sorry, Ms. West, for all of the interruptions that you just had to deal with.

[3:22:35] Could, could you please advise what the protocol would be for us to do this

[3:22:39] if this is something we'd like to explore, or if today's decision sets this

[3:22:43] parkland in stone and we cannot reopen this down the road depending

[3:22:47] on what the, the landscape looks what it looks like for the historic World

[3:22:51] War II site across the way.

[3:22:55] Thank you for the question, and through you, Mr.

[3:22:58] Mayor, to Councillor Traill,

[3:23:02] I would remind you, and I don't know if the clerk can bring

[3:23:06] my presentation back up to slide 7.

[3:23:09] So what's before you today is the zoning bylaw amendment

[3:23:14] application Apologies, it might be, yes, that one. Thank you.

[3:23:18] So what you can see here on the left is the

[3:23:22] approved secondary plan that council, this council approved

[3:23:26] in May of 2026 of this year.

[3:23:30] So you can see in that approved secondary

[3:23:34] plan, which is a part of the official plan,

[3:23:38] that the secondary plan schedule shows a neighbourhood

[3:23:41] park sort of in the middle of the subject lands that

[3:23:45] we are here to talk about, that green area. So the

[3:23:50] secondary plan and all official

[3:23:54] plans that indicate that a park would go somewhere

[3:23:58] in a municipality would provide some

[3:24:03] flexibility for some modifications to

[3:24:06] the location of the park that has been identified.

[3:24:10] I was not involved in preparing the secondary plan, but did monitor

[3:24:14] the process and understand that a fair amount of thought went into where the

[3:24:18] parks and schools would be located within the secondary plan more

[3:24:23] broadly because it's much bigger than this area. So if

[3:24:27] there was a desire by the municipality

[3:24:31] to change the plan, change the secondary plan,

[3:24:36] there would need to be an official plan amendment to do that.

[3:24:40] If it is a wholesale change to the

[3:24:43] secondary plan, more limited modifications

[3:24:47] to it, to a secondary plan, can be contemplated

[3:24:52] often for the location of a park

[3:24:55] or even the precise location of a school or a stormwater

[3:24:59] management facility. So you can see all of those things are in

[3:25:03] the approved secondary plan and that the application,

[3:25:08] the concept is on the right side and that those are

[3:25:12] put where the secondary plan put them. So it,

[3:25:16] it's something that if the municipality chose to update

[3:25:21] the secondary plan, they would need to go through a process to update

[3:25:25] the secondary plan. Okay, thank you. Yeah, I'm asking

[3:25:29] because protecting Camp 30 is in our Parks and Recreation Master Plan.

[3:25:32] So when I see that this additional park is being added, in order to ensure

[3:25:36] that we follow our Parks and Recreation Master Plan and do everything we can to

[3:25:40] preserve that site, I'm wondering if this is something we might want to explore.

[3:25:43] So I appreciate you explaining that process to me.

[3:25:46] Um, now what about the fact that we do have the Bowmanville Zoo site just

[3:25:50] to the south of this development, which includes 34 acres of parkland?

[3:25:53] Was that considered when the additional park was added here? Because again,

[3:25:58] I'm looking at this from this perspective of somebody saying, hey,

[3:26:01] we have one in, you know, probably the only one of its kind

[3:26:05] in North America, as from a historical perspective, across the road, but we

[3:26:09] were short on parkland there. So with respect to being able to

[3:26:13] look at that site, so I just want to ask again, was the Bowmanville Zoo

[3:26:16] site factored into this when we're doing the calculation for

[3:26:20] how much parkland is needed for new developments? So again,

[3:26:23] that's the point I was trying to make. Through the mayor to the councillor,

[3:26:26] as I said, I was not involved in the preparation of the secondary

[3:26:30] plan. I think that question would be better directed to staff.

[3:26:34] I am here on behalf of the applicant who, right, as you can

[3:26:38] see with these two images on the screen, we have a proposal to

[3:26:42] update the zoning and to create a plan of subdivision. Those are the applications

[3:26:47] before you that implement what you see on the left side of the screen,

[3:26:50] and that's what staff and council made a decision on

[3:26:54] and worked on, that, that's not my work to,

[3:26:58] uh, comment on. And you represent— there's a group of landowners

[3:27:02] involved in this, right? It's Lambs Road Development is

[3:27:06] the owner. Yeah, yeah. Okay, so this was— so I

[3:27:11] do appreciate that this would require going back to the table if we,

[3:27:14] if we end up reopening this in January, but at this

[3:27:17] point You are saying that that is a possibility through an

[3:27:22] official plan amendment? The municipality can

[3:27:25] update their official plan whenever they choose to,

[3:27:28] but we're here to have an application heard,

[3:27:33] get some input here, some questions about something that implements

[3:27:37] the secondary plan. So definitely the municipality can choose to

[3:27:40] update the official plan whenever they choose to. And all

[3:27:44] that will result in your clients doing would be essentially

[3:27:47] building more houses, to be honest, right? Because if, if we are— if we end

[3:27:51] up moving that parkland dedication to the other side, for example,

[3:27:55] you would just simply have more room to build more homes there. Is that accurate

[3:27:58] or no? That's, that's not something that we've analyzed

[3:28:02] in detail, and obviously, you know, the parkland dedication

[3:28:06] requirements for this proposal are the

[3:28:10] thing that we have focused on in terms of the amount of development the

[3:28:13] Planning Act parkland dedication requirements and also following

[3:28:18] what was in the approved secondary plan. For sure.

[3:28:22] Well, and I appreciate it. However, we do also happen to have, I think,

[3:28:24] what will be the biggest park in Clarington on the south side of, uh,

[3:28:28] of, of that road with the Bowmanville Zoo site, which we are having the grand

[3:28:32] opening for tomorrow. So thank you again, and I do appreciate

[3:28:36] your patience. Thank you very much. Those are all my questions. I'm finished asking

[3:28:40] questions now. Thank you, Mr. Lyons. You're almost

[3:28:45] chewing your tongue off. Would, would you care

[3:28:49] to address some of what we just heard? Thank you,

[3:28:53] Mr. Mayor. It's not necessarily that I'm chewing my tongue off,

[3:28:56] but I would like to clarify a couple of things, in particular for the public

[3:29:00] that is joining us today. Emma West is the consultant for the applicant. They are

[3:29:04] not a member of of our staff. Staff and council have been involved in the

[3:29:08] development of a secondary plan. They are only one voice of an entire

[3:29:11] landowners group that we have support letters for on this secondary plan that council

[3:29:16] just recently approved. It is before the Ontario Land Tribunal because

[3:29:19] we have received an appeal on it. So it is in a litigation as well,

[3:29:23] which is why I don't really want to go into a lot of detail myself

[3:29:26] about the status of that secondary plan. In order to change policy

[3:29:30] policy is different than what we're looking at here, which is implementing approved

[3:29:34] policy direction. So in the situation of removal of parkland,

[3:29:38] applying it elsewhere, council can approve policy change.

[3:29:42] You can direct staff on what to do in litigation and what

[3:29:46] decisions to make bringing that forward. But also

[3:29:50] in the development of that secondary plan, staff were ensuring

[3:29:53] that it conformed to the Parks and Rec Master that already identified

[3:29:57] the Camp 30. It already identified all of the other park

[3:30:01] space, and I don't have the exact number on the top of my head,

[3:30:04] but I believe that the Parks and Rec Plan also spoke to a requirement of

[3:30:08] an additional 105 hectares of land that we need to get,

[3:30:12] and that was direction from council. So through Planning Act

[3:30:16] process, the Planning Act enables the municipality to require

[3:30:20] parkland and and/or cash in lieu of parkland.

[3:30:23] That would be looked at through this process. So as Emma

[3:30:27] has kindly walked through the nuance and the fact that this application

[3:30:31] came in prior to the secondary plan being approved,

[3:30:34] of course the land use had changed. Council approved a direction for

[3:30:38] what should be protected for in that area.

[3:30:41] And Emma, and I know that Caitlin Group, who I met with

[3:30:45] earlier today, outlined that they were doing work in order to bring it into conformity

[3:30:49] with that secondary plan, which is the new map that has been shown.

[3:30:53] I do want to flag that none of my staff have had a chance or

[3:30:56] opportunity to review that or receive it or even have conversations with

[3:31:01] Caitlin Group or with them to sort of walk through that. So that will

[3:31:04] be all part of the upcoming process. But I am happy to see

[3:31:08] that Caitlin Group as well as, as Bousfield

[3:31:12] is already working to try and bring it into alignment with the direction and decision

[3:31:16] of council. So with that, staff will

[3:31:20] of course take any direction from council on which direction you would like to go,

[3:31:23] but I just wanted to sort of bring together all of the different layers and

[3:31:27] the pieces that led to where this secondary plan is at.

[3:31:32] Thank you, sir. From members of council, do we have,

[3:31:37] uh, further questions for Emma.

[3:31:41] Oddly, it feels like a lot of energy has left the room,

[3:31:45] sadly.

[3:31:46] Councillor Woo.

[3:31:51] Through Your Worship and to the Deputy CAO,

[3:31:54] so the Figure 1 that I have in the report certainly is

[3:31:58] different than what was presented by Emma,

[3:32:02] and especially with a school block with what we have in

[3:32:06] the report that we have before us and what was

[3:32:10] presented. There's a school block and no

[3:32:13] longer is there a parkland at the corner of

[3:32:17] Concession and Lambs, which I think was the community

[3:32:21] park that was— I'm

[3:32:25] trying to think how far it was back, maybe 2014,

[3:32:28] 2015. When we decided to move the community park

[3:32:32] from the Camp 30 lands, the south park, to this

[3:32:36] area. With that parkland now,

[3:32:40] and it's 2.4 hectares or about 6

[3:32:45] acres, the school right beside it makes sense.

[3:32:48] That's what we tried to do, is have a school beside

[3:32:53] a park. Is that correct? So through the mayor,

[3:32:56] that is absolutely correct. One of the things that I would just like to sort

[3:33:00] of add to explain that even further was that through the ongoing work with the

[3:33:04] landowners group for this area, there was an identification by the school board of the

[3:33:08] number of school sites that were required. There was also trying to figure out what

[3:33:12] is the parkland dedication required amongst all of those landowners,

[3:33:15] the participating landowners, to define what is an appropriate space,

[3:33:19] size, and location in the different areas of the secondary plan for

[3:33:23] park space. So what you'll have seen within Emma's

[3:33:28] updated version, which is what they're trying to conform to, is there's actually

[3:33:32] a school, a neighborhood park, and a school. So we're really

[3:33:36] trying to find ways to maximize opportunity for park

[3:33:40] space, for play space that's safe for kids, as well as

[3:33:43] having it co-located with schools. Okay,

[3:33:47] so the parkland that we're seeing in the new updated, which was

[3:33:51] posted, that is parkland dedication. The school

[3:33:54] beside it, there's no guarantees there will be a school

[3:33:58] because the school has to first buy the property, then I guess

[3:34:02] go through the whole process with

[3:34:05] the Ministry of Education for funding. Is that correct?

[3:34:09] So through the mayor, that, that is correct. Thank you.

[3:34:14] Thank you, Councillor. Do you have any further questions

[3:34:17] or comments for Emma?

[3:34:21] I don't see any, so that puts

[3:34:26] 6.2.1 on the

[3:34:30] agenda. If I can get a mover and a seconder, please. Moved by Councillor Rang,

[3:34:33] seconded by Councillor Elhaj. Questions or

[3:34:39] Comments? Make a brief comment. While this is an initial meeting,

[3:34:43] um, I, I would be hard-pressed to

[3:34:48] support development of this size, uh, with no parks

[3:34:52] and more houses. Uh, this council has done a huge amount of work to

[3:34:55] make sure that we have green space, but, um,

[3:34:59] you know, 1,290 units, uh, to swap

[3:35:03] out parkland to add more houses and

[3:35:06] no place for people to, to enjoy. It'd be very difficult.

[3:35:10] With that, I'll call the question. All in support?

[3:35:13] Opposed? And that is carried. Thank you.

[3:35:17] That brings us to item 6.3, public meeting

[3:35:21] for an official plan amendment. The applicant is Netheri

[3:35:25] Planning on behalf of Farsight Investments. The file

[3:35:29] is PDS-076-26,

[3:35:33] which is an official plan amendment application to facilitate

[3:35:37] 182 townhouse units within a single site

[3:35:41] plan block.

[3:35:46] So I will look to the— do we have anyone registered?

[3:35:51] Just the planner? So I'll look to the folks Folks in the gallery,

[3:35:55] is there anyone willing or wanting to speak in support

[3:36:00] or in opposition to this application?

[3:36:06] Go for a second time. Anyone speaking

[3:36:10] in support of or in opposition to?

[3:36:14] And with that, we'll look to the applicant and/or

[3:36:44] Good evening, Mayor and members of council. My name is Michelle Diplock.

[3:36:48] I am a registered professional planner. Working on behalf

[3:36:51] of Farsight Homes. I am joined in the audience by both

[3:36:55] Bob Shikinanz and Joe Vaccaro, um, and we are here today

[3:36:59] to request approval of our minor official plan amendment in alignment with

[3:37:03] planning staff's recommendation.

[3:37:07] So we are here to discuss an official plan amendment,

[3:37:11] uh, to the policy that limits the number of townhouse block or

[3:37:15] townhouse units units on a block to 50 units.

[3:37:19] We are requesting council approve this amendment.

[3:37:23] As the intent of this policy is to ensure the good

[3:37:26] urban design is part of the overall development application.

[3:37:31] While this policy in your official plan currently limits the number of townhouse

[3:37:35] units on a block, this policy has been exceeded through applications.

[3:37:39] When the applicant can demonstrate a

[3:37:43] good and thorough attention to detail and urban design for

[3:37:47] the site. Um, part of the rationale for the amendment of this project is that

[3:37:51] Farsight Homes does have a long history of developing

[3:37:54] beautiful homes and neighborhoods with a strong attention and investment

[3:37:59] in urban design. Um, and the foundation of the design for the Timber Trails

[3:38:02] community is the municipality's own general architectural guidelines.

[3:38:08] So what we're seeking from council today is the ability to build

[3:38:13] out the 2011 community community design plan for the Timber,

[3:38:16] Timber Trails subdivision, um, and builds on Clarington's vision

[3:38:21] for design, not just for the Timber Trails community but for the whole

[3:38:24] of Bowmanville. So this file does have

[3:38:28] a long history. Um, in terms of what we're here for today, uh, we are

[3:38:31] talking about the red block on the draft

[3:38:35] approved subdivision. The site is currently zoned for

[3:38:40] residential development and is designated for a residential development

[3:38:43] in the official plan. We are seeking a policy amendment

[3:38:48] to enable the development to

[3:38:51] proceed in a way that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and

[3:38:56] aligns with Bowmanville's housing needs. So in

[3:39:01] terms of the site context, we are looking at— you can see on the slide

[3:39:05] above that there is currently work on phase 1

[3:39:08] of the project being done. We are talking about the block to

[3:39:12] the south. There is work being done in that area

[3:39:16] as well. But we are looking to get approval to amend the policy

[3:39:21] as Phase 1 is under construction. So currently

[3:39:26] the proposal includes a total of 182 townhouse units,

[3:39:30] 86 front lane townhouses, 84 back-to-back townhouses,

[3:39:34] and 12 rear lane townhouses. Um, we are meeting all of

[3:39:38] the other zoning requirements as it relates to parking space and visitor

[3:39:42] parking spaces, as well as proposing a significant central

[3:39:45] amenity space. Um, we are continuing to work with staff on

[3:39:49] the finalization of the site plan. Um, this is one of the rare planning cases

[3:39:53] where we've submitted a site plan application and an official plan amendment application,

[3:39:57] um, and we are requiring council approval to proceed

[3:40:01] with an official plan amendment as it relates to the urban design

[3:40:05] of the site.

[3:40:09] So in terms of the policy and regulatory

[3:40:13] context, we do comply with all of the provincial legislation,

[3:40:17] including the Planning Act and the Provincial Policy Statement. We align with the Durham

[3:40:21] Region Official Plan as well as the municip— municipality of

[3:40:25] Clarington's Official Plan. as the plan

[3:40:29] before you supports a compact urban form and neighborhood

[3:40:33] integration through urban design and sustainability.

[3:40:37] The OPA is related to allowing a higher number of units on a single block,

[3:40:42] um, and the intent of this policy, uh,

[3:40:45] that we are amending is to ensure the urban design, uh,

[3:40:48] context for the site, uh, matches with the vision for the

[3:40:52] community. And so I wanted to just share a little bit about

[3:40:56] the urban design context of what we're proposing, um, as it helps to

[3:41:00] illustrate the type of development that we are intending to

[3:41:03] build. Um, so the proposed development reflects a coordinated and

[3:41:07] high-quality built form that is consistent with the established vision for the community

[3:41:11] and the architectural design guidelines. The attention to

[3:41:15] detail proposed in finishings is really about

[3:41:19] proposing a— and creating a new neighborhood

[3:41:22] character and building out the neighborhood for the community.

[3:41:26] The built form incorporates variation in facade design, materials,

[3:41:30] and architectural detailing to provide that visual interest and

[3:41:33] avoid repetition while maintaining that cohesive neighborhood

[3:41:37] character. Importantly, we did look

[3:41:41] at other ways to accommodate this project without needing to seek approval

[3:41:44] for an official plan amendment. But the resulting designs to break up

[3:41:48] the block into multiple blocks would have made the site significantly

[3:41:51] less functional. Um, so we are before you today in support of

[3:41:55] the staff recommendation for approval of this OPA so that we

[3:41:59] can proceed with a site plan that is functional and

[3:42:03] in service of creating a complete and,

[3:42:07] um, beautiful community for residents.

[3:42:14] So to conclude, uh, the proposal does support

[3:42:19] key strategic objectives found within the Clarington Official Plan and doesn't seek

[3:42:23] to change anything about the existing land use designations or patterns envisioned

[3:42:28] for the Timber Trails community.

[3:42:36] Um, the zoning for the site already permit— permits this type of development. The official

[3:42:40] plan encourages it. And this really is about implementing the vision

[3:42:44] for the area in a way that enables good design and a livable

[3:42:48] community. In summary, on the slide is just a summary of

[3:42:52] what staff have recommended in terms of the overall proposal.

[3:42:56] We do believe it introduces a more efficient low-density townhouse built form,

[3:43:00] supports the housing pledge of 13,000 units by 2031.

[3:43:05] And provides development at an appropriate scale,

[3:43:07] um, height, and massing that is compatible with the surrounding residential

[3:43:12] context and planned character for the Timber Trails community.

[3:43:18] And so to conclude, we are supportive of the staff recommendation,

[3:43:22] uh, that the official plan application submitted by us is

[3:43:27] supported and the amendment in Attachment 1 is And

[3:43:31] I'm happy to take any questions. Michelle, thank you

[3:43:34] ever so much. We've got Councillor Rang. Yeah, thank you,

[3:43:37] Chair. And through the chair to Michelle, thank you so much for the presentation.

[3:43:42] Um, looking at it in, in toto,

[3:43:45] uh, looking at this proposal together with the residential neighborhood

[3:43:50] to the north, uh, and given the fact that this calls for increased density,

[3:43:54] um, is, uh, retail space

[3:43:58] something that is considered in, in a proposal of

[3:44:01] this sort? Would that be something that the developer would potentially look

[3:44:06] at? Through the

[3:44:10] mayor to the councillor, at this time, resident— or sorry, commercial development is

[3:44:14] not proposed. This is a townhouse site block, which typically does

[3:44:17] not well accommodate

[3:44:21] the type of kind of commercial mixed-use development.

[3:44:25] And so at this time, we are just considering, uh,

[3:44:29] residential development for the site as was envisioned.

[3:44:35] Sorry, thank you. Um, yeah, no, and I say that because,

[3:44:39] um, again, when we have, uh, when we have, um,

[3:44:43] residential neighborhoods of this scale— I'm thinking particularly of Northland,

[3:44:46] for example, um, You know, a community like Timber

[3:44:50] Trails, I think, could benefit from having some adjacent

[3:44:56] retail space or commercial space. So just with respect to,

[3:45:00] you know, the overall plan, that's something that I would, I would suggest that the

[3:45:04] developer and our planners look at as a possibility for the neighborhood.

[3:45:08] Otherwise, it's a long way to the nearest corner store.

[3:45:11] That is, is my only comment. Thank you.

[3:45:16] Thank you, Councillor. I'll look to members of Council.

[3:45:22] I don't see any further questions. Michelle, I'm going to ask you a,

[3:45:27] a really unfair question because I'm pretty sure you don't have the answer,

[3:45:31] and Mr. Schickendanz might. As,

[3:45:35] as we're looking at development like this,

[3:45:39] you know, one is is homes. Homes and communities are, are important.

[3:45:43] Would you have any idea, boilerplate, on the number of jobs

[3:45:47] that are being created? So, you know, I've said it

[3:45:51] before, I'll say it again, you know, we need to get those

[3:45:54] plumbers, electricians, carpenters,

[3:45:58] you know, frame— we need to get all of those folks back working because it's

[3:46:02] been exceptionally slow. Would you have any idea at all I

[3:46:06] don't have the specific number, uh, for Farsight Homes

[3:46:11] in this particular development, but I do know that,

[3:46:14] um, the residential construction industry, even the planning industry, has been

[3:46:18] significantly impacted by the, I guess,

[3:46:22] slowdown in construction with some of the provincial announcements

[3:46:26] as well as, um, federal announcements. We are starting

[3:46:29] to see a lot more momentum and people kind of coming back to work.

[3:46:33] Part of the reason we're here for you— before you today is

[3:46:38] to be able to move this project forward, be able to get people working

[3:46:42] on the site, building, framing houses.

[3:46:46] And Bob may be able to give you a more fulsome answer, but I do

[3:46:49] know— thank you. And I'm looking at boilerplate, just,

[3:46:53] you know, general, because there, there are a lot of people who have not been

[3:46:56] able to find work. Mr. Chikanez.

[3:47:00] Thank you, Your Worship, and thank you for the question. If I may,

[3:47:03] if it's not inappropriate to answer Councilor Rang's

[3:47:07] question through you, our entire

[3:47:11] site includes the lands fronting on Highway

[3:47:15] 2 and King Street as well. Currently, we have a

[3:47:19] sales office there that's been there for some time. We'll continue

[3:47:24] to use it. While we haven't engaged in specific

[3:47:28] applications at this particular time, but I know,

[3:47:32] I think previous, actually to this current staff, we've had discussions

[3:47:36] with the municipality that that's ideally suited

[3:47:39] for some form of commercial uses.

[3:47:42] Certainly that we would be looking towards that.

[3:47:46] Again, specifically, we haven't made applications, but but

[3:47:50] we'd be looking to that. Now, to your question, Mayor Foster,

[3:47:54] it's hard to pinpoint exactly how much

[3:47:58] additional employment

[3:48:02] we would be creating, but we're looking at this particular block

[3:48:07] of land to create and augment

[3:48:11] and support the offering of units that we have currently

[3:48:15] available in our phase 1. We have a mixture of larger single families,

[3:48:20] single detached units, smaller single detached units, some street

[3:48:24] townhouses. But really, we're looking

[3:48:28] at creating a range of product type in that community,

[3:48:31] hence the townhouse block.

[3:48:34] And it's important for us, we feel right now,

[3:48:38] since there is perhaps a limited tax holiday on

[3:48:43] new housing to, to move forward with this project.

[3:48:46] We'd like to move forward expeditiously to have that to offer

[3:48:50] people who want to live in this great community of Bowmanville-Clarington,

[3:48:55] to offer that sooner than later. And hence, that's why we're in front

[3:48:59] of you today. I will say that we're

[3:49:03] not per se looking— it might be viewed as increasing

[3:49:06] density and more units. We're really trying

[3:49:10] to just, as Michelle mentioned, as a technical amendment,

[3:49:14] the OP says shall generally not be more than 50.

[3:49:18] I mean, one exercise would be to break it off, that block,

[3:49:22] into smaller blocks and have it

[3:49:25] not exceed that and we would be in conformity.

[3:49:29] But you'd lose a lot of efficiency and create a lot more

[3:49:33] cost, which translates to more expensive housing units.

[3:49:36] So I hope in a roundabout way that— sorry, I can't be more

[3:49:40] specific. So I would ask you,

[3:49:43] and you're not the only folks that I've been

[3:49:47] picking on with this, perhaps through Build, I would

[3:49:51] expect that someone has to have boilerplate numbers for

[3:49:55] the person hours,

[3:49:59] you know, of work years that we could look— the,

[3:50:03] the development industry employs

[3:50:07] a massive number of individuals in this

[3:50:10] province. And quite frankly, moving forward,

[3:50:14] I think it would be interesting for us to understand,

[3:50:18] you know, what— a lot of those jobs are local jobs. And, you know,

[3:50:21] as I suggested, I, you know, a lot

[3:50:25] of, a lot of folks that a few years ago were bringing home good paychecks

[3:50:29] are simply not working today. So I

[3:50:33] know you don't have the numbers, so I'll bug you at a later date,

[3:50:37] remind you at a later date to see. So in this public forum, let me

[3:50:41] make the commitment to you and members of council and staff,

[3:50:45] let us go back and we'll provide that information to you to give

[3:50:49] a framework to better understanding which certainly we

[3:50:54] agree and wholeheartedly support that this industry does provide

[3:50:58] a lot of economic stimulus, not only locally but

[3:51:02] right across the province. And I, you know, I would think that that would be

[3:51:05] of interest if those numbers come out, not just, not just to the

[3:51:09] council in Clarington, but I, you know, I would think,

[3:51:14] you know, councils everywhere looking at this to, to be able to to see again

[3:51:18] some tangible benefits for folks. So thank you for that. That, you know,

[3:51:22] a bit of a diversion, but thank you.

[3:51:25] You're welcome. Alrighty, with that, I've got 6.3.1,

[3:51:32] PDF-076-26. If I could get a mover and a seconder. Councillor Rang,

[3:51:36] thank you. Councillor Anderson seconding that.

[3:51:39] Questions or comments? Councillor Wu, go ahead.

[3:51:47] Yes, through you to the Deputy CAO,

[3:51:51] and in the report, Official Plan

[3:51:55] Amendment Application 2.3,

[3:51:58] if we look back in 2020, which was a different time,

[3:52:03] Official Plan Policy 9.4.5 was identified

[3:52:07] limits multi-unit developments with

[3:52:11] a single block to 50 dwellings. And now

[3:52:16] we have— how many bills have we had besides Bill 23 and all

[3:52:19] of them? And it was mentioned in the pledge the

[3:52:24] province would like to have 1.5 million homes by 2031.

[3:52:28] Our pledge— when I say our pledge is 13,000.

[3:52:33] So Uh, when I look here,

[3:52:35] 182 units, and it

[3:52:40] is supported by 5.10 under,

[3:52:43] uh, Clarington's Official Plan.

[3:52:46] Staff have reviewed the applicable site development criteria and are

[3:52:50] satisfied with the proposed increase in the residential

[3:52:53] units from 50 to 182 is appropriate

[3:52:58] for the subject site. Are we going to see more of these where pre-pandemic

[3:53:04] or during the pandemic, now with the pledge that we

[3:53:08] may have the development industry asking for more density.

[3:53:14] So through the mayor, thank you for that question, because this is something that

[3:53:18] we've had a lot of conversations as staff about. As council knows,

[3:53:22] we've relaunched the official plan review process through the Official Plan

[3:53:25] review, we're going to be looking at all of our policies. We need to integrate

[3:53:29] Envision Durham and then come forward with a future plan for

[3:53:33] all of Clarington. And through that, one of the things that

[3:53:37] we need to look at is currency of policy. This is a

[3:53:40] policy that I believe that we've had 3 or 4 variations

[3:53:44] to it in the last year, because what we are seeing is the land

[3:53:47] use topology has changed, density is getting higher. We are seeing

[3:53:51] squeezing lots, making them a bit smaller, trying to find— as

[3:53:54] we know, the development industry is trying to find a way to actually get people

[3:53:59] buying homes. And the one of the ways to do that is to reduce the

[3:54:02] cost in order to look at smaller land parcels. But of course,

[3:54:06] it triggers other things that, as staff outlined in that staff report

[3:54:10] that you just quoted, we need to make sure that there's still enough space in

[3:54:13] those lots in order to deal with snow storage, softscape,

[3:54:16] parking, all of the really critical pieces for land

[3:54:20] use planning to make sure that our, our communities are not only efficient, but they

[3:54:24] function. So this is a policy, yes, you're going to be

[3:54:28] seeing this one coming back numerous times until we update our

[3:54:32] official plan. One of the things that I believe we're going to be exploring through

[3:54:36] the official plan review is looking at outcome-oriented policy

[3:54:40] versus putting a sense, a line in the saying 50,

[3:54:43] all of a sudden you're going through a $70,000 official plan amendment. I'd rather see

[3:54:47] a framework brought forward that says here's the topology that we're looking for

[3:54:51] across different types of built form, and if you meet within that, then through

[3:54:55] development review guidelines, all of those pieces, that way we

[3:54:59] set forth the recipe for success. And then we're not coming back all

[3:55:03] of the time through development applications to look at an arbitrary line in

[3:55:07] the sand that is 50. What What happens when you want 51 or 49?

[3:55:10] And these are always a challenging piece. There isn't a perfect

[3:55:14] answer to it, but I appreciate the question because it's something

[3:55:18] that I know we need to look at. The provincial planning statement has come out

[3:55:22] from the province. They repealed the growth plan. It has targets, it has framework.

[3:55:26] It is driving at all costs an increased supply of housing.

[3:55:30] And that is direction right down from the province, which is putting pressure on municipalities

[3:55:35] in order to respond in kind. Okay, thank you for

[3:55:39] that. Alrighty, do we have

[3:55:43] anything further? I'm not

[3:55:46] seeing any further questions or comments.

[3:55:51] Um, to your staff, thank you for the, uh, the work on this one,

[3:55:54] and it is good to see things, uh, coming to

[3:55:58] conclusion. Conclusions, you know, actual progress, we hope.

[3:56:03] And we hope you'll actually be able to sell that

[3:56:07] between the tax holiday, the suggestion that the federal government and

[3:56:11] province have on the reductions. We don't know

[3:56:15] where that's going yet, but it would be good to see some activity in

[3:56:19] the market again. So with that, I will call the question.

[3:56:22] All in support? Opposed? And that

[3:56:26] is carried. Thank you, thank you. So this

[3:56:29] brings us down to the bylaws.

[3:56:33] If I can get a mover and a seconder on the bylaws.

[3:56:36] Councillor Woo, seconded by Councillor Rang.

[3:56:40] Questions or comments on the bylaws?

[3:56:44] Call the question. All in support? Opposed?

[3:56:49] That is Carried. Apparently my time

[3:56:53] is up. Come on, Councillor Rang, that was hilarious.

[3:57:02] I will remember that you laughed in a good way.

[3:57:06] I need a confirming bylaw.

[3:57:16] So let's do the confirming bylaw and right before adjournment. How's that?

[3:57:21] Okay, so you're moving the confirming bylaw,

[3:57:24] seconded by Councillor Anderson. All in support?

[3:57:28] Opposed? That is carried. Councillor Zwart.

[3:57:32] Thank you, Chair, and you thanked all of us at the beginning of the meeting,

[3:57:36] and I want to thank you for your strong leadership.

[3:57:40] We, we got a lot done this this term,

[3:57:43] not only down to you but the great staff

[3:57:47] that we have in this room and in this building. We've made

[3:57:51] great strides this term, and I really want to thank

[3:57:54] you for your leadership and for the whole team here. It's been a, it's been

[3:57:58] a good team. Thanks, Councillor. Thank you. But, you know, your point,

[3:58:02] team, is, is I think the,

[3:58:06] the most valid. You know, the last couple

[3:58:09] of years working as closely and progressively with staff and

[3:58:14] with council has been a true joy. But thank you for that.

[3:58:18] I have one last motion.

[3:58:22] Councillor Rang, I think it is only appropriate that you move the motion

[3:58:26] to adjourn. Do I have a seconder?

[3:58:29] Councillor Wu? We have a recorded vote on A

[3:58:32] recorded vote. Well, yes we

[3:58:37] can. You know,

[3:58:40] she's a lot closer to me than you folks, and there

[3:58:45] aren't any blunt instruments, so I'm safe.

[3:58:48] Madam Clerk.

[3:58:55] On the matter, since you want to draw this out,

[3:58:59] of the recorded vote, moved by Councillor Rang, seconded by

[3:59:03] Councillor Ruh. Beginning with Councillor Wu.

[3:59:07] Yes. Councillor Dewart. Yes.

[3:59:12] Councillor Anderson. Yes. Councillor Allagé.

[3:59:15] Yes. Councillor Rang. Yes,

[3:59:19] and thank you very much. Councillor Traill.

[3:59:22] Yes, and thank you all. Mayor Foster.

[3:59:26] Yes. That carries 7 to 0. So look at that,

[3:59:30] the last vote of this term of council was

[3:59:34] a unanimous decision. Way to go, guys. Thank you

[3:59:38] all. And again, to staff,

[3:59:43] you, you are awesome. You are outstanding.

[3:59:47] It has been such a pleasure.

Special Council Meeting

Agenda

Transcript