[1:12] Good evening and welcome. Need to break
[1:15] up the friendly banter going up, but we
[1:18] will. So, welcome and a special welcome
[1:21] to our new fire chief, Eric McFaten.
[1:29] comes to us from Barry uh in his third
[1:32] day. He was involved with uh our
[1:35] emergency planning session. So, he's
[1:37] hitting the ground running and it's like
[1:39] he's been here for a week.
[1:43] So, having said that, uh please remain
[1:45] standing for the land acknowledgement. A
[1:48] moment of silent reflection in the
[1:49] senior Canada. So we acknowledge that
[1:52] Straford is positioned on the
[1:54] traditional territory of the Honosi, the
[1:56] Anesnaki, neutral and wander peoples. As
[1:59] we gather, we are reminded that the city
[2:01] of Straford is situated on treaty land
[2:04] that is state and rich indigenous
[2:06] history and home to many First Nations,
[2:08] matey and Inuit peoples. Today we
[2:11] acknowledge that Straford is situated on
[2:13] a land that was shared between the
[2:14] Honosomi, the Anesnabi, and the neutral
[2:17] lands peoples. And we are grateful to
[2:20] have the opportunity to live, work, and
[2:22] play on this land.
[2:36] » Thank you.
[2:50] » [music]
[2:57] » All [music]
[3:00] are all the days in love.
[3:05] True
[3:07] to love. [music]
[3:13] With flowing hearts, we see
[3:17] the true strong and free
[3:21] from
[3:23] [music]
[3:26] our fore
[3:30] [music]
[3:34] [music]
[3:37] and
[3:39] Oh, come
[3:42] [music]
[3:43] on. God,
[3:47] [music]
[3:49] come
[3:53] on. [music]
[4:00] Please be seated.
[4:07] Please allow me to share effective
[4:09] statement corporation at the city of
[4:12] Stratford is committed to providing
[4:14] quality service to all members of the
[4:15] public to challenge and our employees.
[4:19] Our goal is to promote a safe, healthy,
[4:21] respectful, inclusive and positive
[4:23] environment. We have a responsibility to
[4:26] treat people with respect by creating
[4:29] safe and respectful spaces. It is the
[4:32] city's expectation that all president
[4:34] will be respectful but I observe the
[4:37] meeting with yours worship. Item two is
[4:40] declarations of interest. Are there any
[4:42] declaration and if so please take the
[4:44] general nature thereof.
[4:48] Item three, adoption of the minutes and
[4:50] there is a motion that the minutes of
[4:51] the regular meeting of council of the
[4:53] corporation of the city of Straford
[4:54] dated August 10 be adopted as printed
[4:59] by counc second council ver any
[5:02] discussion
[5:04] see none all in favor of any that's
[5:07] unanimous carried
[5:09] » Item four adoption of the agenda and
[5:12] earlier today an agenda was circulated
[5:14] to add correspondents and delegations
[5:17] and I will now We did receive with a
[5:20] delegation request on Lina McKenna. Um
[5:22] so there is a motion that the agenda to
[5:25] the regular agenda council and stand
[5:27] date of September 14th be added to the
[5:29] agenda.
[5:30] » Thank you. Move by counc second by
[5:34] council 100. Any discussion on the
[5:36] agenda? Seeing none all in favor posting
[5:40] that's unanimous and carried. Item five
[5:43] is the report of the committee of the
[5:44] whole inc camera session in 5.1 just
[5:47] prior to today's regular council meeting
[5:50] and in camera session was held to
[5:51] consider two items as follows. The first
[5:53] being item 4.1, confidential verbal
[5:56] update of the chief administrative
[5:58] officer with respect to legal matters
[6:00] CN-26-24
[6:03] that was considered under the following
[6:04] exemptions of the municipal acts, labor
[6:06] relations or employee negotiations and
[6:09] litigation or potential litigation
[6:11] including matters before administrative
[6:13] affecting the municipality. Item 4.2 2
[6:16] confidential report of the chief
[6:18] administrative officer with respect to
[6:20] an update on the proposed disposition of
[6:22] land 270 water street CM-2625
[6:27] and this is considered under the
[6:28] proposed or pending acquisition or
[6:30] disposal of land by the municipality
[6:32] along with position plan procedure
[6:35] criteria or instruction to be applied to
[6:37] any negotiation carried on or to be
[6:39] carried on by or on behalf of the
[6:41] municipality at the main camera session
[6:43] for item 4.1 the chief ministry officer
[6:46] provided a verbal update and no
[6:48] direction was given. Along item 4.2, a
[6:52] report was submitted and direction was
[6:54] given to staff to advance negotiations.
[7:00] » Thank you. I just wanted to comment on
[7:01] item 4.2 regarding 270 Water Street at
[7:04] the former Normal School Discovery
[7:06] Center. U I just wanted to comment and
[7:10] share my frustration with the process
[7:12] regarding this item. Uh I just wanted to
[7:15] go over the timeline. So in October
[7:17] 2024, this item was just in camera and I
[7:22] did not support moving into camera
[7:23] because of this because I felt all
[7:25] discussion would take place in closed
[7:27] meeting in camera. And then November
[7:30] 2024,
[7:32] this was in a public meeting uh to begin
[7:35] the process to declare surplus. I wasn't
[7:37] able to attend and no discussion, not
[7:40] one word because it had already taken
[7:42] place in Denver away from the public.
[7:45] January 2025, a public meeting was held.
[7:48] But on January 9th, 7 days before
[7:53] at a budget meeting, a member of council
[7:56] said, "Until it's sold, we probably will
[7:57] need some maintenance. And if we're
[7:59] going to sell it, we don't need to make
[8:00] entire contribution for the maintenance
[8:03] of that building."
[8:05] June 2025 again in the camera and then
[8:08] again today. And my real concern and my
[8:10] expectation is that when this potential
[8:13] sale returns to the public in a public
[8:15] meeting, the decisions will again
[8:18] already be made and discussions will not
[8:20] take place in front of the public. So I
[8:21] just wanted to share my comments and
[8:23] frustration with the process.
[8:25] » Thank you.
[8:29] » Next item worship. Item six is hearings
[8:32] of deputations and presentations. Item
[8:35] 6.1 is an adjournment to a public
[8:36] meeting under the planning act. And
[8:38] there is a motion that the council
[8:39] meeting adjourn to a public meeting
[8:41] under the planning act to hear from
[8:42] members of the public with respect to
[8:44] planning application zoning bylaw
[8:45] amendment application Z03-26
[8:48] for 444 Duro Street and to reconvene
[8:51] following the public meeting. Thank you
[8:53] for that item
[8:55] by councelor Nager second in mind
[8:58] councelor McCabe.
[9:01] All in favor post
[9:04] carried. So I'd like to call this public
[9:07] meeting to order. The purpose of this
[9:09] meeting is the council on the public and
[9:11] opportunity link your interested persons
[9:13] between zone change application 703-26.
[9:18] The application affects the property
[9:20] will be addressed.
[9:25] The order of procedure for this meeting
[9:28] will be as follows. The planner will
[9:30] present the application on behalf of the
[9:32] city. Then the agent for the application
[9:35] will provide view of the application.
[9:38] Council will be asked questions for the
[9:39] purpose of clarifying the application
[9:41] but are cautioned not to make comment
[9:43] nor take a position on this application
[9:46] at this public meeting. Then the public
[9:48] will be asked for their presentations,
[9:50] comments and questions. questions and
[9:53] comments should be planning related and
[9:56] respectful of council staff and members
[9:59] of the public. If a member of the public
[10:01] is interested in providing comments or
[10:03] questions, please raise your hand at the
[10:05] appropriate time and once acknowledged
[10:07] proceed to the podium by exiting the
[10:10] main chamber doors and walk around the
[10:12] side doors at the podium. The public is
[10:16] advised that if a person has not
[10:17] provided council with oral submissions
[10:19] at a public meeting or
[10:22] submissions before a bylaw is adopted or
[10:24] a decision is made. The Ontario land
[10:26] tribunal has the power to dismiss an
[10:29] appeal. The public is also advised that
[10:32] comments expressed and written materials
[10:34] presented are a matter of public record
[10:37] for full disclosure.
[10:39] [clears throat] Are there any questions
[10:40] as to this club procedures?
[10:45] Seeing none, we will now proceed with
[10:46] public and I see our planner is ready
[10:53] for your
[10:56] » Good evening your worship members of
[10:58] council staff and members of the public.
[11:00] My name is Kumar. I'm one of the
[11:02] planners for the CD and I'm here to
[11:04] present result application 0326 for
[11:09] street following my presentation the
[11:12] applicant
[11:16] speak to this proposal
[11:23] as shown on the map the subject lines
[11:25] are located on the north side of Duro
[11:28] street east of Roia Street and west of
[11:31] page. The subject property contains an
[11:34] existing twotory medical center from
[11:36] custo clinics, diagnostic imaging
[11:38] facilities and other health related
[11:41] services. Surrounding lands include
[11:44] apartment wings to the north,
[11:46] institutional to the east, commercial
[11:49] business including professional offices
[11:51] to the west and light investigative
[11:53] business including contracting services
[11:55] to the south. Access to the property is
[11:57] provided from Google Street.
[12:02] The application was submitted by Zelinga
[12:05] Priya
[12:07] on behalf of Stratford Medical.
[12:13] A zoning amendment is requested to
[12:16] increase the maximum pered floor area of
[12:20] office uses. The ZA provides a maximum
[12:24] for area of 3,500 square meters for
[12:27] cleaning and office uses within I26 and
[12:31] I27 zones. With the proposed addition,
[12:34] the total combined floor area would
[12:36] increase to 4,680
[12:39] square meters exceeding the committed
[12:41] maximum floor area.
[12:46] Additionally, the application proposes a
[12:49] lot space measuring 3.5 m by 8.5 m
[12:53] whereas minimum length of 9 m is
[12:55] required. The application also proposes
[12:58] a lot space
[13:00] a plant justification report and a
[13:03] partication letter. We submitted with
[13:05] support of the application.
[13:13] The image shows the proposed addition to
[13:15] the existing building which would be
[13:17] located on the eastern portion of the
[13:19] subject lens. It also shows the proposed
[13:22] loading space, parking areas and
[13:24] landscaping.
[13:28] The subject lines are designated as
[13:30] industrial area on schedule A of the
[13:32] official plan and on to street which is
[13:36] identified as a culture road on schedule
[13:38] D of the official plan. This designation
[13:42] permits a range of employment uses that
[13:44] includes industrial storage, warehousing
[13:47] as well as compatible secondary uses
[13:50] such as institutional uses that support
[13:52] the area's industrial function.
[13:57] The subject lines are zone sight
[13:59] specific general industrial I27 I mean
[14:03] the city of Statford Va the IT zones
[14:07] permit a range of non-industrial uses
[14:10] including office offices clinics subject
[14:13] to a maximum combined network area of
[14:15] 3,500 square m. It also provides a full
[14:19] range of industrial uses per hyphen zone
[14:23] along with certain non-industrial
[14:25] business compatible in an industrial
[14:28] setting. [clears throat]
[14:34] The subject application was circulated
[14:36] on August 10 to all required agencies uh
[14:40] with comments you see from agencies
[14:42] listed on this week. Stratford fire
[14:44] credential in particular noted that the
[14:47] proposed basis must not obstruct the
[14:49] fire rule which is capable of being
[14:52] addressed through the subsequent site
[14:54] plan approval process.
[15:01] Notice of application was sent on August
[15:04] 10, 2026 to all property owners within
[15:07] meters of subject lands. in order was
[15:10] issued from the town flyer on August 15,
[15:12] 2026. Uh today no concerns have been
[15:16] received from members of public
[15:23] that concludes my region and available
[15:26] to answer any questions that you have.
[15:30] Questions from council at this time
[15:32] counc.
[15:33] » Thank you to the mayor. My question is
[15:34] about the loading zone. If it's directly
[15:37] in I think that's a driveway going in
[15:40] and if it's not as big as it needs to
[15:42] be, will they be blocking traffic coming
[15:45] in or is that uh learning space? Uh the
[15:49] applicants agent had indicated that the
[15:50] proposed learning space would not offer
[15:53] party or uh you know fire room or any
[15:57] other access. Thank you. Any other
[16:00] questions?
[16:04] Handerson to the mayor. So if we reduce
[16:08] um the loading from 9.0 to 8.5, are
[16:12] trucks going to have enough radius to be
[16:14] able to still get in there? Uh to your
[16:16] question, uh uh we can have indication
[16:20] that you know smaller vans and trucks
[16:23] will be using those spaces
[16:25] » Also not the big trucks.
[16:26] » Yeah, we are not expecting big big
[16:28] trucks to use that. Okay. Thank you.
[16:32] comments or questions at this time
[16:35] should say questions.
[16:38] Thank you very much
[16:40] for [clears throat]
[16:44] this time. Welcome
[16:47] Richard
[16:49] to come forwardation.
[16:58] Welcome.
[17:00] Thank you.
[17:02] I'm exhibited
[17:08] here representing the property owner and
[17:11] proponent of the zoning bylaw amendment
[17:12] application. Um I'd like to start by
[17:15] thanking Miss Kuman for her work and
[17:17] passed this application. I've been
[17:20] working with us over the last few months
[17:21] to get to this stage. Um the proposed
[17:23] development is supported by all levels
[17:25] of current managed planning policy and
[17:27] promotes the efficient use of land and
[17:29] infrastructure through compatible and
[17:31] desirable expandment of the existing
[17:33] medical center to respond to the
[17:35] increase in needs of the county. We
[17:37] understand that the decision will not be
[17:39] made this evening uh but we are hopeful
[17:41] that council will endorse uh the
[17:43] application in principally. Thank you
[17:44] and I'm available to answer any
[17:46] questions you need.
[17:47] » Thanks. Any questions?
[17:50] Uh, good mayor. Just is there any
[17:53] concerns about the reduction in the the
[17:55] number of spaces available for parking
[17:57] on site?
[17:58] » So, we had a a party [clears throat] um
[18:02] complete a planning or park
[18:04] investigation letter for us um and they
[18:06] found that at peak times um when the
[18:10] medical center is is at its busiest so
[18:12] around 2 p.m. during the day only 65% of
[18:15] the parking was closed. Um so it is it
[18:17] is quite low parked as it is right now.
[18:19] There's quite a bit of space and extra
[18:21] capacity in the parking lot as it
[18:22] stands.
[18:23] » Sorry. Yeah, sorry. The 65% at current
[18:27] rates, is there a reduction in the
[18:30] number of spaces
[18:31] when when this addition comes in? So,
[18:34] there's going to be more people going
[18:36] there. Plus, it's taking out some of
[18:38] this parking is it or
[18:41] 260 spaces are required as per the
[18:44] zoning bylaw right now. um and and with
[18:46] the addition of this building. So, we're
[18:48] proposing a total of 194 spaces and that
[18:51] is worked into the um the new zoning
[18:54] that we're proposing for the site. Um
[18:56] but the parking the parking
[18:58] justification letter, they only found
[19:00] that as it sits right now through their
[19:02] site visits that only a little over half
[19:05] of 65% of the parking was being used. Um
[19:08] so they they found that the reduction
[19:10] that we're seeking is uh is reasonable
[19:13] and and appropriate for this uh
[19:15] particular application.
[19:18] Any other questions for the agent? Okay.
[19:23] See none. Thank you very much.
[19:27] So turning to the public. Are there any
[19:30] questions, comments, presentations from
[19:32] the public at this?
[19:35] Please come forward.
[19:38] I'll look at the back here. Come around
[19:40] and
[19:46] as you come forward, I remind to speak
[19:48] loud so that the owls can pick you up
[19:52] and the voice can be projected towards
[19:55] the audience at home. So just make your
[19:57] name for the records.
[20:01] » Uh my name is Nbridge. I'm just
[20:03] concerned about accessible spaces and if
[20:07] some of the spaces that are going to be
[20:09] lost are accessible and also is there
[20:13] sufficiently accessible space there at
[20:16] the moment.
[20:18] » Thank you. And what we'll do is once we
[20:21] have the uh applicant back then we'll
[20:24] address those question back question.
[20:26] Thank you very much.
[20:28] » Thank you,
[20:32] Mr. Brown. Did I see your hands also
[20:36] at this time as well?
[20:46] » Thank you. Please state your floors.
[20:49] » Yes, my name is Robert. Live at 212
[20:52] William Street. Um, and I'm a regular
[20:54] user of that facility. I don't think
[20:56] parking is a problem. I've never seen
[20:58] the parking lot even close to congested.
[21:03] So, I'm not concerned about that. But,
[21:05] uh, I do have a question. Where's the
[21:07] town crier today? Because there's no
[21:09] marketplace. So, unless
[21:12] how is it being distributed?
[21:16] I can turn to the
[21:18] cup about that, but um I'm not sure if
[21:21] it relates to tonight's present.
[21:22] » Well, it is because this is the first
[21:24] I've heard of this and I watch things
[21:26] pretty closely and I don't get even
[21:29] every day so I don't know what day you
[21:31] put it in there.
[21:33] » We'll certainly look into that, sir.
[21:35] » Okay. Now, my my point from standing up
[21:37] is what is going on the roof? We need to
[21:41] start really intensifying how we use
[21:44] land to be environmentally responsible
[21:47] and any flat roof from now on should
[21:50] either have solar panels or some other
[21:53] use in and I'll address that in the the
[21:56] growing city issue. But here's an
[21:59] opportunity to start. Say to the
[22:01] developer, well, you want a break from
[22:03] us. So, make sure that you come up with
[22:06] something to make good use of the roof
[22:09] space. Solar panels would definitely be
[22:12] a good idea, but that's up to them. Come
[22:15] up with something that makes use of the
[22:18] roof. I'm glad to see that it's a
[22:19] multi-story building. We have way too
[22:21] many one-story buildings, and that
[22:24] building functions very well, and I'm
[22:26] happy to see it. and uh I support the
[22:29] addition of [clears throat]
[22:30] Thank you.
[22:49] » State your name for public record. My
[22:51] name is Paul Brown.
[22:54] Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council. The
[22:56] opportunity to address this
[22:59] brief presentation.
[23:02] I think everybody knows that that
[23:04] building is very busy during the week
[23:06] from about 8:15
[23:09] 95 to 5.
[23:13] That's about and that's 5 days a week.
[23:17] That's 25% of the time
[23:21] is open twice as long as that. St.
[23:23] particular pharmacy is open long
[23:27] what it does I just like to present a
[23:29] broader perspective here on this concept
[23:34] when these facilities are open 25% of
[23:36] the time it draws staff and employees
[23:40] that like to work a 5day week which is
[23:42] great but what it does is it puts
[23:45] pressure on our hospital our public
[23:47] hospital
[23:49] 24 hours a day because the rest of the
[23:51] three4s of the time The staff that work
[23:54] there have long hours and have to meet
[23:57] many [snorts]
[23:59] requests of service that are in the
[24:01] evenings after 5:00 afternoon, Saturday,
[24:05] Sunday. So my point is is simply that is
[24:09] it going to increase the hours and work
[24:11] 7 days a week as being recommended by
[24:16] Dr. Jane Philbot with family here in
[24:19] Stratford for a primary care home that's
[24:22] open 7 days a week and everybody is
[24:26] included with the family physician nurse
[24:27] practitioner and a host of other
[24:29] services but right now they're all
[24:31] independent facilities whether you're
[24:33] talking about the high hospital out
[24:36] there or whatever the medical arts
[24:38] facilities sorry or the the Jenny Trump
[24:43] they take services away and the contrary
[24:46] to where we're trying to go with an
[24:48] integrated health system. So I would
[24:49] request that this Olivia maybe you
[24:52] propose that 24 hours or 7 days a week
[24:55] the hours of operation of this facility.
[24:57] Thank you Mr. Mayor and Council. Thank
[24:59] you. I'll I'll state that for record
[25:02] that I know that building is open more
[25:04] than 5 days a week. I was in an
[25:05] appointment there on Saturday. So
[25:11] council I'm going to go through the
[25:14] public and then we'll come back.
[25:18] Um so next did I have anybody else from
[25:21] public at this time?
[25:25] Final call. Anybody from public that
[25:28] wish to make presentation
[25:31] comments or questions? seeing none. Then
[25:36] councelor Henderson, I'll go to you and
[25:38] then we'll do a wrap up with B.
[25:41] » I just wanted to add that I was just
[25:42] there today and the parking is I've
[25:46] never had a trouble getting parking and
[25:48] I was there at 2:15. So that's a busy
[25:51] time. And and another thing is is that
[25:54] they have an after hours clinic that
[25:55] runs Monday to Thursday and then
[25:57] Saturday morning. So I mean it would be
[26:01] nice if they could have it open up but
[26:05] unfortunately a lot of dogs come day off
[26:07] too.
[26:09] Is that a high chest dog? If so, at this
[26:13] time I'm going to invite staff and the
[26:15] applicants the agent um to come forward
[26:18] and if there's any final comments or
[26:21] rest question that has come forward
[26:27] questions
[26:30] uh to your worship all points and some
[26:34] of those points will be addressed in the
[26:36] subsequent recommendation report and uh
[26:40] regarding
[26:41] parking. I may not be able to give the
[26:43] exact number of parking space parking
[26:46] space is required but those those
[26:49] concerns will be addressed during site
[26:51] plan application or site plan real
[26:53] estate
[26:56] council
[27:04] parking and they're actually adding one
[27:06] new ones in the new section. Yes.
[27:10] » Thank you, councelor Henderson. And at
[27:12] this stage, if there's nothing further
[27:14] for the planner, I'm going to invite
[27:16] Miss Richards back if uh she has
[27:19] anything to add before
[27:21] close this.
[27:25] » I think it was mostly addressed, but um
[27:28] but I just wanted to add that the
[27:30] current is at seven spaces and we have
[27:33] will have 10 um as a part of this this.
[27:36] So um and the other the other vice
[27:39] unfortunately I can't I can't really
[27:41] control the clinics hours. So that's
[27:43] certainly something that I can go back
[27:44] to open
[27:47] comments are always so thank you.
[27:51] » Thank you very much.
[27:52] » Thank you.
[27:52] » I think the other thing was solar
[27:54] panels.
[27:55] » Um yeah I I would take that back to the
[27:58] applicant to to speak to him about that.
[28:00] Um, right now it's my I my understanding
[28:02] that it's not necessarily a requirement,
[28:04] but I do understand that the city's
[28:05] choppers will be save money. Yeah. No,
[28:08] thank you. Absolutely. I can certainly
[28:09] talk
[28:13] for the
[28:15] city. Thank you very much.
[28:19] So, the city intends to consider this
[28:21] application at a future council meeting
[28:23] where members will have an opportunity
[28:25] for full discussion. and it would be
[28:27] acknowledged to be received with the
[28:29] public sign. If anyone would like to
[28:32] receive further notice of this matter,
[28:34] please email clerks.ca.
[28:38] A video of this meeting will be posted
[28:40] to the city's website and this public
[28:43] meeting is adjourned.
[28:45] Turn it back to you.
[28:47] » So through your work, returning to your
[28:49] regular council agenda, item 6.2 Two is
[28:51] adjourned to another public meeting and
[28:53] there is a motion that the council
[28:55] meeting adjourn to public meeting to
[28:56] hear from members of the public with
[28:58] respect to the official plan review of
[28:59] session paper 4 to growing city
[29:02] following the public meeting
[29:08] » By councelor niger second by councel
[29:11] discussion not all in favor
[29:14] of any that's unanimous and
[29:21] So the purpose of this meeting is to
[29:22] give council and the public an
[29:24] opportunity to hear all interested
[29:25] persons with respect to the official
[29:27] panel review discussion paper for a
[29:30] growing city. The order of procedure for
[29:33] this meeting will be as follows. Eric
[29:37] Bin Carbon
[29:39] of uh Watson and Associates will present
[29:43] a discussion paper on behalf of the
[29:44] city. Council may ask questions for the
[29:47] purpose of clarifying the applicant but
[29:49] are cautioned not to make comment nor to
[29:52] take a position on the official plan at
[29:55] this meeting. Then the public will be
[29:57] asked for their presentation to comments
[29:59] and questions. Questions and comments
[30:01] should be planning related and respect
[30:04] to all council staff and members of the
[30:06] public. If a member of the public is
[30:08] interested in providing comments or
[30:10] question, please raise your hand at the
[30:12] appropriate time and once acknowledged
[30:15] proceed to the podium by exiting the
[30:17] main chamber doors and walking around to
[30:19] the side door at the podium. The public
[30:22] is also advised that comments expressed
[30:25] and written materials presented are a
[30:27] matter of public record for full
[30:29] disclosure. Are there any questions as
[30:32] to this order of procedure?
[30:35] Seeing none, we will now proceed with
[30:37] public
[30:39] invite presenter forward.
[30:43] This
[30:47] you worship as part of the city's
[30:49] ongoing official plan review staff are
[30:51] pleased to introduce the final
[30:52] discussion paper entitled the broad
[30:54] city. This evening's discussions intend
[30:56] to support information sharing council
[30:59] discussion and early public input. No
[31:01] decisions are being requested or made
[31:02] this evening. This paper considers how
[31:04] strap would be responsive with land to
[31:06] accommodate future growth. A key
[31:09] component of this work is the land needs
[31:11] assessment. It addresses the land supply
[31:13] and support projected growth while
[31:15] considering the city's existing
[31:16] circumstance circumstances and broader
[31:18] application to assist council in
[31:21] understanding this work. The city plan
[31:23] consulted WSB Washington Associates
[31:26] undertake the land use needs assessment.
[31:28] I would now like to invite Eric
[31:31] Bermanent Watson and Associates to
[31:33] provide a presentation following the
[31:36] staff and consultant team will be
[31:38] available to respond to council's
[31:40] questions from here in public. Thank
[31:42] you.
[31:44] That includes details.
[31:48] » Thank you very much worship members of
[31:50] council. It's a pleasure to be here. I'm
[31:52] Eric Carbon representing
[31:55] Watson and associates here this evening.
[31:57] on this very important uh study growing
[32:00] city discussion paper
[32:07] go uh so
[32:10] back in the spring um
[32:13] LSP was here at Matt Alexander from that
[32:17] firm presented the four uh applied
[32:21] discussion papers cultural city a green
[32:23] city a connected and mobile city and a
[32:26] sustainable cities. Now, uh this is the
[32:30] fifth uh of those discussion papers of
[32:33] growing city as prepared by Watson and
[32:36] Associates of Congress is the the focus
[32:39] for speaking this presentation.
[32:43] So ultimately what this study is really
[32:46] all about is to help us understand how
[32:49] Stratford has grown over the years and
[32:51] how it will continue to grow in the
[32:53] coming decades.
[32:54] uh it's intended to provide clear
[32:56] direction on where and how growth should
[32:58] occur in Stratford over the next 30
[33:00] years and that's going out to the year
[33:02] 206. So again, we're thinking long term
[33:06] here in terms of future future needs. Uh
[33:10] we're really looking at uh the ability
[33:12] for Stratford to accommodate long-term
[33:14] growth potential land needs uh over that
[33:17] 30-year period in accordance with the
[33:20] provincial planning statement which
[33:21] requires municipalities to plan for a
[33:23] mix and range of uses and and land
[33:26] requirements throughout the 30-year
[33:29] period for both residential and
[33:30] non-residential uh uses. As part of this
[33:34] effort, we're also have provided an
[33:36] employment area review uh consistent
[33:38] with the MPS
[33:41] uh which basically requires us to uh
[33:44] accommodate and focus on more industrial
[33:46] type versus employment area lands as
[33:49] opposed to other types of uses. So I'll
[33:51] get into that a little bit further in
[33:52] the presentation. [clears throat] And
[33:54] the intent really of this uh report is
[33:57] to support the city in planning uh for a
[34:00] sufficient range of mix of land uses to
[34:02] meet future population housing and
[34:04] employment needs and again over that
[34:07] longterm 30-year planning horizon.
[34:20] Sorry.
[34:22] Um so in terms of uh looking at growth
[34:25] and change in the community, Stratford
[34:27] is not an island. Um and so it's really
[34:30] important to take a step back and look
[34:31] at it through a broader context. And we
[34:34] are living in a world of a lot of change
[34:37] u turbulence uh and obviously a lot of
[34:41] issues that are creating headwinds
[34:43] especially economically related to
[34:45] trade, tensions, geopolitical risks,
[34:47] inflation, changes in technology. We
[34:50] hear about this every day. um and how
[34:52] they're creating disruptions in terms of
[34:54] how we live, work, and and play. Um and
[34:58] while there are near-term economic
[35:00] uncertainty and headwinds, the long-term
[35:03] regional growth outlook remains very
[35:05] positive, including for the city of
[35:07] Stratford. Um migration to Canada, uh to
[35:13] Ontario, um and locally is expected to
[35:17] remain strong and be a key driver of
[35:19] population growth.
[35:24] » [clears throat]
[35:26] » Um, and this is going to be important to
[35:29] continue to grow the local labor force
[35:31] pool as well. We also recognize that
[35:34] like most communities and in Canada,
[35:37] Stratford has an aging population. Um
[35:40] and this will uh require uh you know
[35:43] diverse range of housing to accommodate
[35:45] you know an aging population over the
[35:47] coming decades as well as uh new
[35:49] residents moving into the community.
[35:51] [clears throat] We're also facing a
[35:53] range of of change as I mentioned
[35:56] earlier with respect to e-commerce,
[35:58] logistics, automation, AI and green
[36:01] technology and even how we've worked
[36:03] especially in a postcoid environment
[36:05] which are reshaping uh employment and
[36:08] landing particularly for non-residential
[36:11] uh sectors.
[36:16] Sure.
[36:30] » So hopefully everybody can see the
[36:32] screen. Okay, that's better now. Um, so
[36:35] you know, any study like this where
[36:36] we're looking at growth and looking at
[36:38] the future, it's important to uh also
[36:41] look at how the city has changed over
[36:43] the past uh 20 years. Um, and
[36:45] Stratford's population uh has increased
[36:48] particularly uh since 2016. And so up
[36:52] until 2016, your population growth was
[36:55] was fairly modest. And since that time,
[36:57] you've seen quite an increase in in
[36:59] population growth, [clears throat] uh,
[37:01] which has accelerated significantly
[37:03] since 2021. And we have to about an
[37:06] estimated 37,200 people in 2026, which
[37:10] represents roughly 10% increase in just
[37:12] the last 5 years.
[37:16] And this is important because we
[37:17] recognize that the city is expected to
[37:19] continue to see population growth in the
[37:21] future. Uh and we'll discuss that in
[37:24] more detail
[37:26] of it's important when we look at uh
[37:30] population growth to also understand
[37:32] historical housing growth trends in
[37:35] terms of it. If you have population
[37:36] growth, you need to have housing to
[37:38] accommodate uh residents. And you can
[37:41] see from this bar chart that the city's
[37:44] housing base of about 16,000 housing
[37:46] units uh has grown significantly over
[37:50] the past uh decade. Um it is largely uh
[37:54] great related to housing in terms of the
[37:56] existing base. So about every uh two and
[37:59] three houses are low density uh in the
[38:02] city. So this would be in single
[38:03] detached and detached types. But what
[38:06] we've seen over the past decade uh that
[38:08] housing mix is becoming more diverse
[38:10] with an increasing share of higher
[38:12] density housings representing a much
[38:14] larger share of the total. So over the
[38:16] last 5 years for example of the housing
[38:19] growth about 73% was of medium and high
[38:22] density. So this would be town houses um
[38:25] apartments lowrise and mid-rise those
[38:27] types of dwelling units. As an important
[38:31] uh when looking at housing and planning
[38:33] for housing, the city continues to
[38:35] support a range of housing products by
[38:37] location, density, type and
[38:39] affordability including tenure. Um so
[38:42] ownership and rental uh especially
[38:44] because we see such significant change
[38:47] with respect to demographics um and the
[38:49] J population need.
[38:56] Now, it's important when we're looking
[38:58] at a growth study of this nature to also
[39:00] focus on one residential sector. It's a
[39:03] really important part of your local
[39:05] economy. Um, and so we've looked at uh
[39:08] the city's employment profile and recent
[39:10] growth trends and the city that
[39:14] employment basis is just around 23,700
[39:17] jobs. And those are basically places of
[39:19] work that are located physically um here
[39:22] in in Stratford. And you can see from
[39:24] the pie chart here that a little over
[39:27] half of those jobs are in three key
[39:30] sectors. Manufacturing, healthcare, and
[39:33] social assistance and and retail trade.
[39:36] And what this really represents is you
[39:38] have a very diverse employment base
[39:40] represented by a range of industrial,
[39:42] commercial, uh, and institutional
[39:44] sectors. And employment growth has
[39:46] actually been quite strong here in
[39:48] Stratford coming out of COVID where
[39:50] you've seen about a 10% increase in
[39:52] [clears throat] jobs locally uh since uh
[39:55] since that time. Now you've also seen a
[39:58] fairly healthy amount of indust uh of
[40:00] non-residential development activity uh
[40:03] but the large share of that about 82%
[40:06] uh of of new GFA or gross floor area uh
[40:09] development has been uh within the
[40:11] industrial sector and industrial type
[40:13] developments.
[40:17] So um this is documented in a lot of
[40:20] detail in the study uh but we also
[40:23] provided a bit of a profile on
[40:25] employment and commercial areas in in
[40:27] the city and they're important part of
[40:29] the community's economic base. Uh we
[40:31] have two active employment areas. So
[40:33] these are areas that uh largely
[40:35] accommodate in industrial uses uh with
[40:38] respect to the to the right business
[40:40] park as well as the crane west uh
[40:43] business park. Uh and then of course you
[40:45] have a very um vibrant downtown core and
[40:48] commercial modes and corridors which
[40:51] help support uh many commercial related
[40:54] uh sectors and businesses in the
[40:55] community. What's very interesting about
[40:58] the employment lands side of the
[41:00] discussion and this again is largely
[41:02] related to industrial development is uh
[41:05] the relatively limited supply of of
[41:08] employment land that's available for
[41:10] development and the relatively low
[41:12] vacancy rate. uh in the industrial
[41:14] sector at 1.1% which is significantly
[41:17] lower than the neighboring
[41:19] municipalities such as Kitchener Walker
[41:21] Lew for example. Um and so it's
[41:25] important that as we look at planning
[41:27] for the future that we continue to
[41:29] support uh and foster development in
[41:32] both uh industrial and commercial
[41:34] sectors of the local economy.
[41:39] So it's important when doing a land need
[41:41] study uh when looking at the context of
[41:44] of growth and how to accommodate growth
[41:47] to look at where will future development
[41:49] both residential and non-residential be
[41:51] accommodated uh within the city and
[41:53] thankfully the Stratford has a range of
[41:55] opportunities to accommodate uh both
[41:58] residential and non-residential
[42:00] development both through intensification
[42:02] and infill within your existing builtup
[42:04] areas but also through new green field
[42:07] development. And uh we've identified
[42:09] through this work that um Stratford has
[42:13] the ability to accommodate about 8,500
[42:15] housing units within its builtup area
[42:18] and also designated growth area
[42:20] locations with a very healthy mix of
[42:22] low, medium and high density housing. So
[42:24] we're looking at a mix of great related
[42:26] housing such as single semi- detached
[42:28] town houses, uh stack town houses as
[42:31] well as a part of the lowrise, midrise.
[42:34] Um so quite a diverse range of housing
[42:36] opportunities. With respect to um uh
[42:40] vacant employment and commercial land uh
[42:43] those that supply is more limited. Um
[42:46] for vacant employment land we've
[42:47] identified about 160 net hectares of
[42:49] land available for for development. Um
[42:52] and with respect to vacant commercial
[42:54] mixed use land supply is even smaller at
[42:57] only six net hectors.
[43:01] So with this in mind, uh, one of the key
[43:04] parts of this deliverable was a
[43:07] long-term population housing and
[43:09] employment forecast looking at the year
[43:11] 2026 through 206
[43:14] uh, in accordance with the 30-year um,
[43:17] planning horizon.
[43:19] Now in undertaking any type of road
[43:22] forecasting um beyond the technical work
[43:25] which involves a range of demographic
[43:27] and economic modeling it's important to
[43:30] really understand what are those two
[43:31] growth drivers and agents of change in a
[43:33] community such as Stratford both
[43:36] regionally and locally and how that will
[43:38] influence and impact growth over the
[43:40] coming decades. So there's a number of
[43:42] things here to consider. One is regional
[43:44] economic development and the
[43:46] opportunities um within the region and
[43:48] locally to accommodate a range of of new
[43:51] employment sectors as well as new uh new
[43:54] residents and how that will drive demand
[43:56] for both residential and non-residential
[43:58] space.
[44:00] Uh we also have opportunities in sectors
[44:03] like tourism which will continue to
[44:05] drive certain aspects of the local
[44:07] economy uh which is very important to
[44:10] Stratford. Um obviously quality place is
[44:13] important in terms of attracting
[44:15] businesses to the community here as well
[44:17] as new residents. Many of that uh the
[44:20] population growth will be driven by um
[44:23] net migration as I mentioned earlier
[44:26] which is going to be a key source of
[44:28] population and working age uh population
[44:30] growth. And then we also recognize that
[44:33] with technological change, there's going
[44:35] to be, you know, continued opportunities
[44:37] for hybrid work um and and other sort of
[44:42] factors which influence how people work
[44:44] versus where they reside as well as
[44:47] automation and AI for example that are
[44:49] reshaping employment patterns uh which
[44:51] impacts job requirements and employment
[44:53] space needs which is quite important in
[44:55] doing land use needs assessment.
[45:00] So part of um looking at potential
[45:03] growth in a city like Stratford, we have
[45:06] to first look at it more from a regional
[45:08] lens. Um and this is actually u now a
[45:11] requirement by the province uh to look
[45:13] at your community within a a census
[45:15] division level which in this case is is
[45:18] Perth County. So if you look at Perth
[45:20] County as a census division that
[45:22] includes all the area municipalities as
[45:24] well as the single tiers including
[45:25] Stratford and and St. areas. Um so these
[45:29] are included in in the Ministry of
[45:31] Finance population projections. And so
[45:33] this is a starting point for us to kind
[45:35] of understand um you know that regional
[45:38] population growth picture and how that
[45:40] sort of will impact or influence our
[45:42] growth outlook at a local level. You can
[45:45] see from this graph uh quite a signific
[45:48] significant increase with respect to
[45:51] population growth uh for the county
[45:54] census division growing from about
[45:56] 85,000 people in 2021 to about 121,700
[46:01] by 201 represents over a um you know 50%
[46:06] increase over that time period. And
[46:08] what's interesting is these population
[46:10] projections that are compared by
[46:12] Ministry of Finance, they're released
[46:13] annually. Um and so if you look back at
[46:16] same projections from 5 years ago in
[46:19] 2021, um the growth rate uh was notably
[46:23] lower than it is based on the latest
[46:25] available data.
[46:27] So based on the province's projections,
[46:30] um this regional area is in this heat um
[46:33] notable growth uh with growth rate of
[46:35] averaging about 1.2%. 2% um between 2021
[46:39] and 2021.
[46:43] So keeping that in mind along with the
[46:45] growth drivers and those broader um
[46:48] trends that I've discussed, the graph
[46:51] here essentially illustrates our
[46:53] population forecast for the city. Uh,
[46:56] and so we anticipate that Stratler's
[46:58] population base will increase from about
[47:00] 37,200 in 2026
[47:03] to just under 53,000 by 206. This
[47:07] represents about a 42%
[47:10] increase um in in the population over
[47:14] that time period. That's about a little
[47:16] over 15,500 new residents uh coming to
[47:20] Stratford over the next 30 years. um and
[47:23] a significantly higher growth rate, a
[47:25] 1.2% average annual uh metric over the
[47:29] next 30 years compared to the historical
[47:31] average in 2006 to 2021 where the
[47:34] average growth rate was only 0.4%. So
[47:37] what we anticipate is that the recent
[47:39] growth you've seen in the community over
[47:41] the last 5 to 10 years that will
[47:43] continue uh in the coming decades al
[47:46] that growth rate will start to slow
[47:48] during the latter half of the forecast
[47:50] period.
[47:53] So um when we look at growth, population
[47:56] growth, you essentially have two
[47:58] buckets. You can only grow your
[47:59] population base in two ways. Um you have
[48:03] natural increase which looks to be
[48:04] difference between births plus less
[48:06] deaths or then migration. Um however,
[48:10] similar to other communities in Ontario
[48:12] and Canada with an aging population, the
[48:14] natural increase will actually be
[48:16] negative [clears throat] in the forecast
[48:17] period, which means that um there's
[48:19] going to be more deaths and births over
[48:22] that 30-year planning horizon. So, in
[48:23] order to hit population numbers, you
[48:26] will need to rely on net migration uh to
[48:30] quite a significant degree in order to
[48:33] uh see growth. And we see that that is
[48:36] expected to happen mainly because of the
[48:38] strong net migration numbers not just
[48:40] from international sources but also
[48:42] within the province especially people
[48:44] who are interested in moving to
[48:46] Stratford from other communities
[48:47] [clears throat] especially in the
[48:48] greater Toronto area uh and other areas
[48:51] of the greater portion.
[48:54] So this graph here presents um the age
[48:57] structure forecast. So basically looking
[48:59] at age cohorts uh historical and
[49:01] forecast to see how the age structure
[49:03] was expected to change. Um and you can
[49:05] see that um the older population groups
[49:09] especially those above the age of 65
[49:11] will remain relatively uh significant
[49:14] but a lot of the change in growth in
[49:16] your population base will be in that 45
[49:19] to 54 and 55 to 64 age group. Albeit
[49:24] you'll see growth in in all major
[49:26] cohorts over that three-year period.
[49:30] Now, as I mentioned earlier with
[49:32] population growth, you need housing for
[49:34] quality, new residents, and new
[49:36] population. So, this figure here
[49:38] presents our housing forecast. Total
[49:40] housing growth of about 7,200 units over
[49:43] the next 30 years. that represents an
[49:45] average of about 240 units a year. Um,
[49:49] which is normally higher than the than
[49:51] the 20-year average of 154 units a year.
[49:54] Um, and that housing index is going to
[49:56] be fairly diverse. So, of that 7,200
[49:58] units, we would expect that about 31%
[50:01] will be low density. So, stables to
[50:03] semi- detached, about 22% being townous,
[50:06] and about 47% be uh apartments, lowrise,
[50:11] mid-rise, possibly some high-rise. um
[50:14] and other sort of forms of of sort of
[50:17] apartment dwellings such as uh stack
[50:20] town houses for example.
[50:24] So uh as part of the growth forecasting
[50:26] we also prepared an employment forecast.
[50:29] Um again this is going to be uh based on
[50:32] the same planning horizon uh with the
[50:34] same assumptions on on population
[50:36] growth. You can see that we have the
[50:38] employment forecast increasing the sorry
[50:40] the employment base increasing from
[50:42] about 23,700 in 2026 to about 32,000. In
[50:47] 206 that's an increase of about 35%
[50:50] overall an increase in about 80,300 jobs
[50:55] uh increase over that 30-year period
[50:57] which is which is quite significant. And
[50:59] so this helps demonstrate sort of a
[51:00] healthy balance in in growth between
[51:02] population and and employment which is
[51:05] important.
[51:07] In terms of what those uh jobs are of
[51:10] that over 8,000 new uh jobs, you can see
[51:14] it's represented by a range of sectors
[51:16] including industrial represented by
[51:18] about 39%. So this would include sectors
[51:21] like manufacturing and warehousing,
[51:23] transportation, logistics, construction,
[51:25] utilities, uh commercial population
[51:28] related about 27%. So this would be
[51:30] retail trade, food and accommodation,
[51:32] mercy services, those types of sectors.
[51:35] institutional level of 22% so this would
[51:38] be health care, social services,
[51:40] education, uh government service and
[51:42] then we also have two small categories
[51:44] work at home uh 6% so this would be
[51:47] again jobs that are entirely um remote
[51:50] and work at home and then 6% uh no fixed
[51:54] place of work then at P which is
[51:56] basically people who don't have like a
[51:58] place of employment Monday or like a
[52:01] regular day-to-day basis so just you
[52:03] know truck drivers and school bus
[52:04] drivers
[52:05] um people of that nature.
[52:09] So I mentioned earlier that part of our
[52:11] analysis we also undertook an employment
[52:13] area review. Um this is important
[52:16] because we needed to review and update
[52:19] strategy for employment land inventory
[52:21] and review sites in accordance with the
[52:23] new definition of employment areas. I
[52:25] mentioned the the new provincial
[52:26] planning statement which identifies
[52:28] essentially that employment areas should
[52:30] be accommodating industrial type sectors
[52:33] as opposed to other types of sectors in
[52:36] in an economy. Um and so it was
[52:38] important for us to identify site by
[52:40] sight um basically lands whether they at
[52:44] least like those that are developed u
[52:46] that conform with this new definition
[52:49] i.e fit that definition of industrial
[52:51] type uh uses or if they're
[52:54] non-conforming
[52:56] um meaning they don't align with the TPS
[52:58] definition and of those non-conforming
[53:01] sites if certain sites should be uh
[53:04] removed uh from an employment lands
[53:06] designation into some other type of land
[53:09] use designation. Um the term removals
[53:13] used to be called conversions. Um so
[53:16] it's very similar. Um so in terms of
[53:20] looking at this uh in in terms of the
[53:22] removals criteria uh we've looked at
[53:25] this within the context of you know
[53:27] provincial criteria which is you know
[53:30] essentially provided to us uh by the
[53:32] province and then also looking at it
[53:34] through a local um supplement to read
[53:37] sort of criteria range which is also
[53:40] important so that you know effective
[53:42] decisions can be made in this regard and
[53:44] what's really important here is that
[53:46] this discussion needs to be done within
[53:49] the context of long-term employment plan
[53:52] needs um which sort of balances between
[53:56] planning policy and forecast growth
[53:58] needs. So those core principles uh
[54:01] related to employment area uh removals
[54:04] uh the two uh points of direction from
[54:07] the province are the need to protect
[54:10] employment areas um especially those
[54:12] located in proximity to major
[54:14] transportation corridors and goods
[54:16] movement infrastructure. So major
[54:17] highways, rail corridors, that type of
[54:20] thing. And also when looking at
[54:22] potential removals to prevent
[54:24] fragmentation of contiguous employment
[54:26] area. So the idea is that while I like
[54:29] Swiss cheese, I don't want to create
[54:31] employment areas that have holes in them
[54:33] and they look like Swiss cheese. So the
[54:35] idea is want to have continuous
[54:36] employment areas um uh in in in planning
[54:40] uh for for employment uses.
[54:44] So some secondary criteria u that was
[54:48] considered in our analysis um and
[54:50] basically it's sort of a a left and
[54:52] right discussion related to retaining or
[54:55] removing or redesating. You want to be
[54:57] able to retain poor industrial clusters.
[55:01] Professional removals or redesinations
[55:03] should focus on uses that are
[55:05] predominantly commercial or office type
[55:08] uses in nature um or maybe institutional
[55:11] type uses. Um you want to retain uh uses
[55:15] within employment areas that are goods
[55:17] movement and trans and have
[55:18] transportation access. You want to
[55:20] remove uses that are located in
[55:23] residential or mixeduse locations. You
[55:26] want to retain um employment uses in
[55:30] [clears throat] areas that are part of
[55:31] larger continuous employment sites.
[55:34] Again, if there's an opportunity or a
[55:36] need to remove those sites that are
[55:38] fragmented or isolated, which don't meet
[55:40] the definition under the PPS. Uh we also
[55:44] want to retain sites that have strong
[55:46] industrial development potential. So
[55:49] again, marketable for industrial uses.
[55:51] uh if they have very limited industrial
[55:53] functionality or marketability for
[55:55] industrial uses, perhaps they should be
[55:57] redesated to another use. And finally,
[56:00] uh you should retain employment land
[56:02] sites uh if they serve a long-term
[56:05] industrial liability uh and as opposed
[56:08] to perhaps those sites that may be
[56:10] better suited to to accommodate other
[56:12] types of functions uh should be
[56:15] recommended for removal. So again, this
[56:17] gives you an idea of sort of the thought
[56:19] process when we undertook our
[56:21] evaluation. So these two maps here
[56:23] represent the two main employment areas
[56:26] within the city of Stratford. So you
[56:28] have the area in the southwest and then
[56:30] the area on the east side of of the
[56:32] city. Um the the purple lands are the
[56:35] lands that have been identified uh to
[56:37] remain uh employment area based on um
[56:41] you know this analysis. The lands that
[56:44] are shown in in this orange color are
[56:46] sites that essentially uh are
[56:49] non-conforming and we would recommend
[56:51] for removal based on the criteria that I
[56:53] mentioned earlier. So on the map on the
[56:56] on the left side um I guess in total
[57:00] there's about 40 hectares of developed
[57:02] land that we're recommending for Google
[57:04] and about two hectares of land that are
[57:06] critically vacated just for context. So
[57:08] this represents about 7% of the entire
[57:11] employment land space of recommended
[57:13] removal as shown in the orange sheet. So
[57:16] the major pockets here include um large
[57:19] contiguous uh lands that are fronting um
[57:24] Eerie Street between embro and Lauren
[57:28] Avenue east. And then there's also a
[57:30] small pocket of parcels on the west side
[57:33] of Erie Street north of Lauren um in and
[57:36] around Mont Keith Avenue, Jarvis Street.
[57:39] Uh again, some of those parcels are are
[57:41] quite fragmented. Um and so we're
[57:44] recommending those for removal. So those
[57:45] are the two areas in the map on the
[57:48] left. On the map on the east on sorry
[57:51] east on the right it includes um the the
[57:55] parcels on the northwest corner of
[57:57] Lauren Avenue and um uh down. Thank you.
[58:04] Knew I knew I was going to trip up on
[58:05] that. Um so those are kind of largely
[58:08] comprised of auto dealerships and other
[58:10] sort of commercial uses. There's also a
[58:12] small segment on the west side along
[58:14] Northolk Street um on north of on the
[58:18] north side of North Folk Street that
[58:19] we're also recommending for removal.
[58:21] It's includes a veterinary clinic and a
[58:23] few other commercial uses. Um and then
[58:25] in the northwest side of that east area
[58:28] map um you have the the recruit factory
[58:31] uh old factory lands uh which we would
[58:33] also be recommending for removal as well
[58:36] as lands along nuro uh east and west of
[58:40] of uh of King Street uh which includes a
[58:44] site on the east side which is largely
[58:46] medical and professional offices and
[58:48] then on the west side on the north side
[58:50] of Doro Street uh which is comprises
[58:53] some legacy
[58:54] uh industrial uh buildings and um
[58:58] including the Stratford festival
[59:00] um main and storage facilities that are
[59:03] located uh in one of the key properties
[59:06] there.
[59:09] Okay, so now we're going to get to the
[59:11] fun stuff, the landing assessment. Um
[59:13] sort of building on the growth forecast
[59:15] that I presented um the land supply and
[59:18] the opportunities that accommodate
[59:19] future growth. Obviously taking into
[59:21] account the employment area review and
[59:24] conformity analysis we undertook. Um
[59:26] this is now looking at the ability for
[59:29] Bradford to meet its its its future
[59:31] growth needs. So future housing needs uh
[59:35] has been looked at basically through two
[59:37] two lenses. Um the first is the PPS for
[59:41] planning stadium um test of threeyear
[59:44] and 15ear supply. So basically it's
[59:47] saying okay if you have enough sort of
[59:49] near-term
[59:50] uh residential supply versus longerterm
[59:53] supply citywide to accommodate growth
[59:55] over a three year and a 15 year period
[59:58] and you have to look at that by low
[1:00:00] medium and high dense and we included
[1:00:02] from that analysis which is in the
[1:00:04] report that this that Stratford has
[1:00:06] sufficient supply to accommodate growth
[1:00:08] for both of those periods. So that test
[1:00:12] is passed if you will and as in
[1:00:14] accordance with the PPS. Um what I
[1:00:16] wanted to focus on in the slide here is
[1:00:18] more on that long-term version of Brian
[1:00:20] Verizon because this is really looking
[1:00:22] at the ability for Stratford to
[1:00:24] long-term um green field development and
[1:00:27] growth. Um so the new provincial um
[1:00:32] methodology guidelines um essentially
[1:00:35] say that you have to look first at your
[1:00:37] overall growth in housing which is about
[1:00:39] 7,200 units over the next 30 years and
[1:00:42] to first identify how much of that
[1:00:44] future growth is going to be
[1:00:45] accommodated within your buildup area.
[1:00:47] So this would be within your existing um
[1:00:50] neighborhoods within nodes and corridors
[1:00:53] within your downtown areas essentially
[1:00:55] accommodated through intensification
[1:00:57] infill and redevelopment. And so we've
[1:01:00] gone through a fair amount of exercise
[1:01:02] to understand this and we've identified
[1:01:05] that over the next 30 years that about
[1:01:07] 34%
[1:01:08] of that forecast housing growth 7,200
[1:01:12] units will be accommodated through the
[1:01:13] buildout area. So that means that the
[1:01:16] other 2/3 about 66% or 4,780 units would
[1:01:20] be accommodated within designated growth
[1:01:22] areas i.e. greenfield development. So
[1:01:24] these would be in areas of you know new
[1:01:26] plans of subdivision uh essentially you
[1:01:29] know future growth areas uh that type of
[1:01:31] thing. And so this is important because
[1:01:33] then when we look at that ability to
[1:01:35] accommodate the 4,700
[1:01:37] units uh in in in designated growth
[1:01:41] areas, this figure here essentially
[1:01:44] says, okay, we know how much of that
[1:01:47] forecast growth uh we anticipate by
[1:01:50] housing by low, medium, and high
[1:01:52] density. We know the supply potential as
[1:01:55] I mentioned and talked about earlier
[1:01:57] within those same green field locations
[1:02:00] to identify that over the next 30 years.
[1:02:02] Do we have enough do we have enough
[1:02:04] supply to accommodate future growth and
[1:02:07] the overall finding is that yes Bradford
[1:02:10] has sufficient supply to accommodate
[1:02:12] forecast growth for all three housing
[1:02:14] types. Now the surplus by 206 is
[1:02:18] relatively healthy for medium and high
[1:02:20] density. for low density the surplus is
[1:02:23] relatively small only 20 units by 206.
[1:02:26] So while we obviously are demonstrating
[1:02:29] a surplus that surplus for low density
[1:02:31] housing is is is fairly modest uh
[1:02:34] compared to the other uh two categories.
[1:02:38] So similarly we've undertaken a land
[1:02:40] needs assessment for the non-residential
[1:02:42] sectors um learning with commercial and
[1:02:45] institutional land needs. So essentially
[1:02:48] this would be uh looking at how we
[1:02:50] accommodate future commercial and
[1:02:52] institutional employment growth. So this
[1:02:54] would be in all more population related
[1:02:56] sectors like retail, food and
[1:02:59] accommodation, personal services as well
[1:03:01] as health care, social uh services,
[1:03:05] education,
[1:03:07] you know, whether that be uh you know
[1:03:09] elementary school or high school versus
[1:03:12] uh you know postsecary uh as well as
[1:03:15] health as well as government related
[1:03:17] services as well at any level of above
[1:03:20] local and provincial government for
[1:03:22] example. Um so we've identified that
[1:03:25] overall employment growth in those
[1:03:27] categories is about 4,100 jobs. Um and
[1:03:32] we've identified that uh Stratford is is
[1:03:36] quite unique in that it has some really
[1:03:37] strong anchor areas uh and existing
[1:03:41] areas to accommodate these types of uses
[1:03:44] including a vibrant downtown as well as
[1:03:46] very strong uh commercial nodes and
[1:03:48] corridors. But particularly in those
[1:03:51] commercial modes and corridors uh such
[1:03:53] as along uh Eerie Street uh Ontario
[1:03:55] Street, there are areas of underutilized
[1:03:58] land um as well as you have a number of
[1:04:00] legacy properties like Grand Trunk and
[1:04:02] Cooper Standard that also offer uh
[1:04:05] opportunities for redevelopment and
[1:04:07] intensification. And so we see quite a
[1:04:10] bit of the employment growth in the
[1:04:12] sector being accommodated through
[1:04:13] inventation about 60% of the total. So,
[1:04:17] in terms of jobs that actually would
[1:04:19] require uh new land, um that's only
[1:04:23] about 40% of those jobs. They're 1,640
[1:04:26] jobs. Um and then in order to do a land
[1:04:29] demand calculation, we look at what we
[1:04:31] would expect the employment density uh
[1:04:34] to be for these sectors. And those
[1:04:36] sectors tend to have a fairly high
[1:04:38] density um of 65 jobs per hector on the
[1:04:42] whole. um and that generates a a land
[1:04:45] demand forecast of about 25 hectares for
[1:04:48] the 30-day period. Now that 25 hectares
[1:04:53] uh is the demand and we will get the
[1:04:55] supply of that I mentioned earlier of
[1:04:57] six hectares of land to accommodate
[1:04:59] these types of uses and you can see that
[1:05:02] we have a deficit or a shortfall of 19
[1:05:05] hectares over over that 30-year period
[1:05:08] by 206.
[1:05:10] um anytime we're doing land needs
[1:05:12] assessments, we always uh present
[1:05:14] numbers of this type in a gross up uh
[1:05:17] fashion. So when we do the metrics,
[1:05:19] we're looking at a net hector basis, but
[1:05:21] we also need to gross that up to account
[1:05:22] for local infrastructure like roads and
[1:05:25] um you know sort of non-developable
[1:05:27] features and so that we usually apply an
[1:05:29] 80% net to gross ratio. So 19 hectares
[1:05:32] is 24
[1:05:34] gross hectares. Um and then we also
[1:05:37] apply a market contingency factor of 20%
[1:05:40] to allow for sufficient market choice uh
[1:05:43] for land supply over that uh uh planning
[1:05:47] horizon. Uh which adds another five
[1:05:49] vectors to this calculation for total
[1:05:52] gross land of 29 gross hectares uh for
[1:05:55] commercial and institutional lands uh by
[1:05:58] 206. So essentially that means that in
[1:06:00] order to accommodate forecast to 206 the
[1:06:04] city will need to plan for an additional
[1:06:05] 29 gross factors of commercial and
[1:06:08] institutional land uh over that timing
[1:06:11] horizon.
[1:06:12] So in a very similar fashion
[1:06:16] uh we've done a calculation for
[1:06:19] employment area uh and the assessment is
[1:06:22] undertaken in a very similar u
[1:06:24] structure. um we first have to identify
[1:06:28] the amount of jobs that we would expect
[1:06:30] to be accommodated within employment
[1:06:31] areas over the forecast period and this
[1:06:34] would be essentially industrial jobs
[1:06:36] because now we're focusing on industrial
[1:06:38] type development in in employment areas.
[1:06:41] Uh but that represents about 3,200 jobs
[1:06:44] over that time period. We also recognize
[1:06:47] an opportunity for some intensification
[1:06:49] about 10% of those jobs um to be
[1:06:52] accommodated through intensification. So
[1:06:54] this would be basically through you know
[1:06:57] um you building expansions um infill
[1:07:00] opportunities albeit if those
[1:07:02] opportunity years are not as significant
[1:07:03] as on the commercial side. Um and so the
[1:07:07] demand calculation then is based on uh
[1:07:10] 2,900 jobs uh the intensification
[1:07:13] component. We've also looked at the
[1:07:15] employment density looking at the
[1:07:17] various types of industries um that
[1:07:20] would be accommodated within employment
[1:07:21] areas and the drop will be 15 jobs per
[1:07:23] hectare um and that generates a net land
[1:07:26] demand of about 193 hectares over the
[1:07:30] forecast period. Um as I mentioned
[1:07:32] earlier we had a vacant inflamming area
[1:07:34] land supply of 161 hectares. Um we have
[1:07:38] made an downward adjustment to the
[1:07:40] supply to remove the two hectares of
[1:07:44] recommended removals of vacant land. Um
[1:07:48] so that reduces the supply to 159
[1:07:51] hectares. We've also applied the
[1:07:53] long-term vacancy adjustment of 15%
[1:07:55] recognizing that some of these sites due
[1:07:59] to marketability or the side of those
[1:08:02] sites may not develop at all over the
[1:08:04] over the planning horizon. So we've
[1:08:06] reduced the the developable land supply
[1:08:08] by 15% which produces the supply of 135
[1:08:12] net hectares. And so then comparing the
[1:08:14] land demand of 193 hectares against the
[1:08:18] long-term uh land supply with the
[1:08:20] vacancy adjustment of 135 net hectares
[1:08:23] generates a shortfall or deficit of 58
[1:08:26] net hectares by [snorts] 206.
[1:08:29] Uh we've also grossed that up um to uh
[1:08:33] by 20% to to generate a gross land area
[1:08:37] requirement of 73 hectares. Uh and then
[1:08:40] also applied a 20% bump up for market
[1:08:43] contingency uh and which increases the
[1:08:46] gross land need by another 18 hector to
[1:08:49] 91 gross hectares in total. So again, in
[1:08:52] order to accommodate the employment
[1:08:54] forecast and the employment area land
[1:08:56] needs for the city over the 30-year
[1:08:58] period, the Stratford will need an
[1:09:00] additional 91 gross factors of
[1:09:02] additional employment area land to
[1:09:04] accommodate the growth in this regard.
[1:09:09] So terms of conclusions
[1:09:13] um Stratford is well positioned for
[1:09:15] continued growth with population housing
[1:09:17] and employment growth expected to remain
[1:09:20] strong over the long term period as
[1:09:21] we've established. Um we've identified
[1:09:24] an approximate need of 7,200 new housing
[1:09:27] units to accommodate population growth
[1:09:29] over the next 30 years and the
[1:09:31] importance of providing for a range of
[1:09:33] housing forms
[1:09:35] accommodated through the culmination.
[1:09:37] you know, they need densification
[1:09:39] between field developments. Diversity
[1:09:40] and housing is going to be really
[1:09:42] important. Um,
[1:09:44] and particularly to ensure that the city
[1:09:48] continues to foster opportunities for
[1:09:50] medium and higher density housing, uh,
[1:09:52] support changing household needs and
[1:09:54] improving housing choices.
[1:09:57] The city will also need to continue to
[1:09:58] monitor housing development absorption
[1:10:00] to ensure sufficient capacity means to
[1:10:03] meet long-term growth needs. This is
[1:10:04] particularly important for the
[1:10:05] lowdensity housing has shown a
[1:10:08] relatively small surplus uh by 2056.
[1:10:12] It's also important that uh the city
[1:10:14] continues to integrate residential and
[1:10:16] commercial uses with other community
[1:10:19] uses and public open space spaces to
[1:10:22] create diverse and vibrant neighborhoods
[1:10:24] and workplaces. So again the idea about
[1:10:26] having mixed communities, complete
[1:10:28] communities is very important for
[1:10:30] quality of place.
[1:10:32] Um on the economic side, economic growth
[1:10:35] will depend on the city's ability needs
[1:10:36] to align with employment opportunities,
[1:10:38] housing, and civil labor. We'll continue
[1:10:39] to support Stratford's establishment of
[1:10:41] emerging economic sectors. Obviously,
[1:10:44] we've identified fairly robust
[1:10:46] employment forecast uh which we think is
[1:10:48] attainable and reasonable. Um the
[1:10:51] employment land supply is the primary
[1:10:54] challenge from the land supply
[1:10:55] perspective that the city's facing a
[1:10:57] long-term shortfall that reinforces the
[1:10:58] need uh to protect strategic employment
[1:11:02] lands and manage employment areas in
[1:11:03] accordance with the updated provincial
[1:11:05] planning policy which we've demonstrated
[1:11:08] um and the importance of growth
[1:11:10] management uh to ensure essential uh
[1:11:13] that you know there's a balanced
[1:11:14] approach meeting housing employment land
[1:11:17] infrastructure municipal services which
[1:11:18] are planned together support complete
[1:11:22] and sustainable communities over the
[1:11:23] next uh 30 years
[1:11:27] and I think that's it that concludes my
[1:11:30] presentation.
[1:11:32] » Thank you.
[1:11:35] I'm going to council for questions
[1:11:38] questions from council at this time.
[1:11:41] » Thank you to the mayor. Um so the the 91
[1:11:43] hectares needed for employment plans by
[1:11:46] 206 that would all be taken up according
[1:11:49] to this forecast. So we need more than
[1:11:51] that to have an inventory for 206 that
[1:11:55] he
[1:11:56] » Yeah. So essentially that 91 gross
[1:11:57] hectares is what the land need is to
[1:12:00] accommodate the forecast over the next
[1:12:02] 30 years. So by 206 and obviously well
[1:12:05] before then you'll already be planning
[1:12:06] for a close 206 period.
[1:12:09] » Okay.
[1:12:11] Other questions?
[1:12:13] Counc.
[1:12:15] Um, thank you for your presentation.
[1:12:17] It's a lot of information in that short
[1:12:20] time. Um, I'm interested in the the
[1:12:22] density graph slide that you had on page
[1:12:25] 16. Um, I didn't see that when I'm in
[1:12:28] the report, but maybe I just I don't
[1:12:31] know if it's easy to go back to. Um, so
[1:12:34] way of thinking about this is we're
[1:12:35] talking about we mean diversity and
[1:12:37] housing. We need them it to be
[1:12:40] sufficiently diverse so that we can
[1:12:42] build the the 7,200
[1:12:44] houses in the next 30 years. Um so we
[1:12:48] start maybe it's not
[1:12:53] » Is it in the housing needs?
[1:12:55] » Yeah. Yeah.
[1:12:57] That's it. So density versus um so high
[1:13:02] density versus a lower density. Maybe
[1:13:04] that's not the gra but um so what I'm
[1:13:08] trying to ask I think is over time the
[1:13:12] last eight years that I've been on
[1:13:13] council we have sort of had an intuitive
[1:13:17] knowledge that we need more medium and
[1:13:20] higher density. So we've we've
[1:13:22] accomplished that. You have you can see
[1:13:23] from the graphs that we we have created
[1:13:25] more medium and and high density
[1:13:27] housings. Um, one thing that I was
[1:13:30] always hinkering for was data around
[1:13:35] your R&D. So, like creating targets that
[1:13:39] will get us
[1:13:41] to where we need to go. So, is that
[1:13:44] going to be part of the official plan
[1:13:46] recommendations? Right. Right now,
[1:13:47] obviously, you collect this data. Um but
[1:13:51] moving forward is the official plan
[1:13:53] going to say okay by you know in 10
[1:13:56] years you would want to have 20% more
[1:14:00] this type of housing or you need to be
[1:14:02] have this number of units medium density
[1:14:05] this number of high I just to give
[1:14:08] council some direction in the decisions
[1:14:10] that we make to say okay rather than
[1:14:13] just sort of bit falling and think okay
[1:14:14] we need this amount of medium density
[1:14:17] versus high density to have some more
[1:14:19] specific speific data and focus goals
[1:14:23] for future
[1:14:25] » Through you Mr. Mayor. Um yeah, that's
[1:14:27] really a question comment. Um yeah, so
[1:14:31] obviously there's uh flexibility when in
[1:14:35] how the official plan is written from a
[1:14:37] poly perspective as far as housing
[1:14:39] targets uh or or sort of you know the
[1:14:42] diversity of housing that you know the
[1:14:44] city would want to you know foster
[1:14:46] development hub. Um, you know, obviously
[1:14:49] this is meant to help inform that and
[1:14:51] and provide that foundational piece in
[1:14:53] the road map of what those needs look
[1:14:54] like from a growth perspective. Uh, but
[1:14:56] certainly, you know, something I'm sure
[1:14:58] the planning staff will be will be
[1:15:00] looking at.
[1:15:03] » Director
[1:15:05] you worship. Thank you. The the the lead
[1:15:08] consultant Alex
[1:15:10] uh is here who can answer that question.
[1:15:14] Well, what I will say before Mr. scholar
[1:15:16] speaks though is that we have the
[1:15:18] students from UW who are new to work on
[1:15:20] the evaluation and monitoring section
[1:15:22] that we will look at in the official
[1:15:24] plan. So um I think what we're looking
[1:15:26] at is a land of the sand right now.
[1:15:28] We're looking to get a new OP and start
[1:15:29] fresh where we're at least reporting to
[1:15:31] council annually about what type of
[1:15:33] development we're seeing and whether
[1:15:35] we're meeting goals and objectives and
[1:15:36] the
[1:15:38] valuations. So if you have anything to
[1:15:41] add now, please you may um so the intent
[1:15:46] is for the official plan to include
[1:15:48] targets uh related to the different
[1:15:52] densities of of housing and number of
[1:15:55] units at least by the uh end of the
[1:15:58] planning horizon. And then uh as the
[1:16:01] director mentioned um
[1:16:04] the monitoring policy will provide that
[1:16:06] direction to council and guidance on how
[1:16:10] to track and report back on achieving
[1:16:13] those targets over over the years. Um
[1:16:16] also mentioned you know after a new
[1:16:18] official plan is adopted another review
[1:16:21] comes along uh 10 years five years later
[1:16:24] and so as Eric has done uh with this
[1:16:28] presentation showing progress in the
[1:16:30] past um it will catch that up and
[1:16:33] provide an update as well.
[1:16:35] » So just as a followup that that was my
[1:16:37] next question was the piece about
[1:16:39] monitoring. So I think in our existing
[1:16:41] official plan we had targets but we had
[1:16:44] no way of knowing where we were in
[1:16:46] heading towards those targets or if we
[1:16:47] were hitting them at all. So I think I'm
[1:16:49] really glad to hear that there will be a
[1:16:51] monitoring element to it. I think that's
[1:16:53] really important for decision- making
[1:16:54] moving forward.
[1:16:56] Anything
[1:16:58] further than the council? Councelor
[1:17:00] Bristol.
[1:17:00] » Thank you, Chair. Um, one of the
[1:17:03] experiences I've had with employment
[1:17:05] areas is once something's designated in
[1:17:07] employment area, it uh limits uh
[1:17:10] vulnerable service provision within that
[1:17:12] area. And a lot of times what we look
[1:17:13] for that's good for uh employment is
[1:17:16] also good for social services being on
[1:17:18] transport areas and things like that.
[1:17:20] I've had a lot of food banks have to be
[1:17:22] relocated in shelters in other
[1:17:23] municipalities. I haven't seen the
[1:17:25] employment generating supportive uses
[1:17:27] designation before. Is that the best
[1:17:29] practice to have that happy medium so
[1:17:31] that we can continue service provision
[1:17:33] alongside employment in these especially
[1:17:35] in the downtown area that brings
[1:17:37] together both of those? Is that the best
[1:17:39] practice?
[1:17:40] You know, that's that's a great question
[1:17:42] and comment actually and and perhaps uh
[1:17:45] Matt here can speak to that or her staff
[1:17:47] as well. But um one important part of
[1:17:49] this uh report in identifying regulators
[1:17:52] [clears throat]
[1:17:53] and identifying them as employment
[1:17:55] generating supportive uses to kind of
[1:17:57] leave it open as to well what what would
[1:18:00] those uses you know allow for um I think
[1:18:04] at a high level it's focusing more on um
[1:18:07] like commercial and mixed use function
[1:18:09] excluding residential but again you know
[1:18:12] that is generally the framework that
[1:18:15] we're working under uh but again those
[1:18:16] details will come through further
[1:18:18] further analysis and studies.
[1:18:23] council. Uh the chair, what I find
[1:18:26] interesting about this is something
[1:18:27] intuitively we feel is that we are we
[1:18:31] have not enough industrial and we have
[1:18:33] not enough employment uh lands as far as
[1:18:38] our tax base goes and we've been reliant
[1:18:40] on single uh family homes to to fuel our
[1:18:45] economy. This looks you can kind of see
[1:18:48] where we need to go in order to have a
[1:18:50] balanced
[1:18:52] city in the next 30 years when it does
[1:18:55] include more of a focus on the
[1:18:58] industrial land and on lands coming
[1:19:02] online.
[1:19:07] Anything further?
[1:19:11] Seeing none, I'm I'm going to ask if uh
[1:19:14] you stay host but set away from the
[1:19:16] podium and I'll ask if there's anybody
[1:19:19] from the audience the public that would
[1:19:21] make any comments.
[1:19:25] So I have uh you come first.
[1:19:52] Thank you. Exchange your name for public
[1:19:54] record, please. Myself. Um, thank you,
[1:19:59] uh, council and mayor for having this
[1:20:01] meeting. Um, we didn't have to, but it's
[1:20:03] good that we have. I've been waiting for
[1:20:05] this analysis of where Stratford is at,
[1:20:08] and I'm not surprised by the results.
[1:20:11] Um, we essentially have we're building
[1:20:14] too many houses and don't have enough
[1:20:16] industry
[1:20:18] » And we have too much land set aside from
[1:20:20] housing and not enough land set aside
[1:20:22] industry.
[1:20:23] Um, by 2,800
[1:20:27] units surplus according to the map and
[1:20:30] the province has thrown us a curve by
[1:20:32] saying that in plant plants don't
[1:20:34] include what we used to include is
[1:20:36] plant. So they're recommending removal
[1:20:39] of a bunch of
[1:20:41] from army and and I didn't see those
[1:20:44] removals
[1:20:45] come back anywhere. Maybe I missed it,
[1:20:49] but I would have thought that those
[1:20:50] removals are still
[1:20:52] of them. They're commercial and
[1:20:55] institutional, but they didn't get put
[1:20:57] into the commercial institutional were
[1:21:00] short by 29 hectares calculation.
[1:21:04] I also when reading this document was
[1:21:08] quite baffled by
[1:21:12] um the old apps that were used the the
[1:21:15] old uh
[1:21:19] so a surprising thing is that the the uh
[1:21:22] parkland at uh Dun Avenue and uh
[1:21:29] in the in the West End is listed as
[1:21:32] industrial.
[1:21:33] his cards. It's not understood, but it's
[1:21:36] listed as a bill.
[1:21:38] Um,
[1:21:40] you voted in
[1:21:43] April to endorse Bill 21
[1:21:46] to protect farmland in Ontario,
[1:21:49] but there's going to be a temptation
[1:21:52] here because we're short by so much 91
[1:21:57] to swallow our
[1:22:00] you just can't be doing.
[1:22:02] Um,
[1:22:05] council swallowed a farmland 5 years ago
[1:22:08] that it didn't need because it was never
[1:22:10] built. I'm hoping the council will put
[1:22:13] that farmland back.
[1:22:15] Um,
[1:22:21] the this report
[1:22:26] flies the face of what this council has
[1:22:28] been doing over the past two years. as
[1:22:31] you convert employment plans to housing.
[1:22:36] You can't be doing that. The cashach a
[1:22:38] development is a a great example of 25
[1:22:43] acres, 25 hectares of what was
[1:22:46] employment plan that this council
[1:22:48] allowed to be converted to
[1:22:51] housing when you have too much land for
[1:22:53] housing already anyway.
[1:22:56] And the fact that this initial plan
[1:22:59] review is taking five years means you
[1:23:02] well you should have known because the
[1:23:04] the report in 2020 on the annexation
[1:23:07] clearly stated you didn't have enough
[1:23:09] employment plans and yet you went ahead
[1:23:11] and converted stuff and and crude is
[1:23:13] another thing got converted. I don't
[1:23:15] know there may be others that I miss but
[1:23:18] you can't keep doing that and then just
[1:23:21] saying oh well that's okay we can just
[1:23:22] swallow some more farms. No, we can't.
[1:23:26] Those farms are providing food for
[1:23:28] people. Those farms are providing
[1:23:30] employment for the farmers that are that
[1:23:32] are doing that. And and you as a
[1:23:34] council, I think unanimously, endorsed a
[1:23:37] motion saying you would support
[1:23:40] not swallowing more farmland.
[1:23:43] The city has a big chunk of farmland
[1:23:46] right in the middle of it right now. I
[1:23:48] think you know what I'm talking about.
[1:23:51] That is zoned for housing. It's part of
[1:23:53] the surplus of housing. Why not zone it
[1:23:56] for industrial? At least it'll get get
[1:23:58] us over the till 2056. Even if you never
[1:24:01] use it for industrial, but it's already
[1:24:04] in the city,
[1:24:06] it is
[1:24:09] um
[1:24:12] and and then as you get closer to 206,
[1:24:15] you've obviously got a lot of land now
[1:24:18] that can be used for money.
[1:24:23] And there was no there's no time graph
[1:24:26] of when the usage will take place
[1:24:29] between now and 206. But there's 160 odd
[1:24:33] acres of or hectares, sorry, right? I
[1:24:37] was born too early. I keep thinking in
[1:24:39] acres for hectares. Um that is in the in
[1:24:45] the inventory now. And that's
[1:24:48] uh three-fifths of what you need. If in
[1:24:53] if if in three-fifths of the time it
[1:24:55] takes to get to whether you might need
[1:24:58] what 90 91 more hectares, maybe you can
[1:25:01] find some other way. Maybe you can
[1:25:04] figure out that in fact you don't
[1:25:05] because there's so much employment is
[1:25:07] going to be at home based employment. so
[1:25:09] much employment will be affected by AI
[1:25:12] centers or who knows but you can't just
[1:25:15] keep swallowing
[1:25:17] uh employment and making it residential
[1:25:21] even though that gets a lot more profit
[1:25:24] for the people that own the land. I know
[1:25:26] that that's that's where the pressure
[1:25:28] comes because they want that profit. I
[1:25:30] came from a community in Toronto that
[1:25:32] had literally dozens and dozens and
[1:25:36] dozens of factories that supported A it
[1:25:39] was called Wesson in
[1:25:42] um in in Ontario in Toronto and
[1:25:46] Kodak was there and um
[1:25:51] Brandy Packard and many other big
[1:25:54] industrial places and the city council
[1:25:56] in Toronto said to the developers you
[1:25:58] can make that into housing. Yeah, make
[1:26:00] that into housing. Yeah, that into
[1:26:02] housing. Now, that land has no jobs.
[1:26:06] And that's because of a policy of the
[1:26:09] then city council. I think they're
[1:26:10] changing it now to just let developers
[1:26:13] get as much money as they could with
[1:26:15] their land. And some of them even moved
[1:26:18] to places outside the city where land is
[1:26:21] cheaper in order because they still
[1:26:22] wanted to run businesses,
[1:26:24] but they ran them somewhere else. You
[1:26:27] got to pay attention to that farther.
[1:26:29] And I I hope that you'll
[1:26:32] read this report and I hope you'll find
[1:26:35] all missing land that
[1:26:38] that was there within the city
[1:26:40] boundaries so you don't have to do it
[1:26:41] every
[1:26:59] state your garden.
[1:27:05] So I too want to talk about the loss of
[1:27:07] on farmland
[1:27:09] that won't be able to feed the
[1:27:10] additional people that are going to be
[1:27:12] here. So growing food requires land and
[1:27:17] um we have to find different ways.
[1:27:20] um in the projections um I'm wondering
[1:27:24] how much they talk are they planned for
[1:27:28] smaller families because families are
[1:27:30] smaller now because they can't afford to
[1:27:32] be big so that means more housing fewer
[1:27:35] fewer people
[1:27:37] um want to talk about the reducing
[1:27:40] barriers to affordable housing so having
[1:27:44] less single detached housing and more
[1:27:46] staff homes in the form of condos
[1:27:49] apartments, town houses and some with
[1:27:52] one and two bedrooms as they always say
[1:27:55] three and up. I think they don't think
[1:27:57] about smaller families because so many
[1:28:00] families are smaller nowadays.
[1:28:03] Intensify especially infill where
[1:28:06] infrastructure already exists cost less
[1:28:11] also to encourage four and sixes for
[1:28:14] infill and for um additional dwelling
[1:28:17] units.
[1:28:19] Um,
[1:28:24] also to include in the um, official plan
[1:28:30] things that are more neighborly like the
[1:28:31] six flexes and the borlexes. Um, and
[1:28:35] especially including small neighborhood
[1:28:38] parkets
[1:28:39] because you want the neighborhood
[1:28:41] feeling. You need to have things close
[1:28:43] to it. On the climate side,
[1:28:47] Canada is burning more and more each
[1:28:49] year and flooding more and more as well
[1:28:52] every year. So with new housing,
[1:28:56] I think there should be some
[1:28:57] encouragement whether it's from the
[1:28:59] city, the province, I don't think the
[1:29:00] province will do it right now, um for no
[1:29:03] natural gas for fossil fuels so that we
[1:29:06] can have a higher population of people
[1:29:08] in 20 and 30 years from now and people
[1:29:12] aren't dying because of the air.
[1:29:14] Also there are no surfacing
[1:29:17] constraints
[1:29:19] by confirming that the water capacity
[1:29:23] data for the water quantity is available
[1:29:27] is pretty wise to the reservoirs. So the
[1:29:30] more you're going to be building, the
[1:29:31] more you're going to need to know what's
[1:29:32] there.
[1:29:37] » Another
[1:29:40] is another individual from the public
[1:29:41] that you would like to come forward.
[1:29:44] » Please state your name for the record.
[1:29:47] » Britney Venice and let me speak today.
[1:29:50] I'm here to formally request that the
[1:29:52] city begin the process of returning our
[1:29:54] property located at 3516 highway second
[1:29:58] from the jurisdiction of the city of
[1:30:00] Straford back to the township in Perth.
[1:30:02] So in July 2020 our property was annexed
[1:30:06] to the city of Straford to support the
[1:30:08] proposed Zingi Glass Canada
[1:30:12] manufacturing facility. At the time, the
[1:30:14] annexation was justified by a specific
[1:30:17] industrial development proposal that
[1:30:19] required the land to be brought with
[1:30:22] thousands. However, the project was
[1:30:24] never receded.
[1:30:26] In 2021, the province revoked the
[1:30:29] minister's zoning order associated with
[1:30:31] the development. The Ministry of
[1:30:33] Municipal Affairs confirmed that the
[1:30:36] planning permissions allowed the flow of
[1:30:37] glass man sorry manufacturing facilities
[1:30:40] were deliber and as a result the purpose
[1:30:43] of which the land was annexed cease to
[1:30:45] exist.
[1:30:47] Importantly the property was never
[1:30:49] developed for industrial use and remains
[1:30:51] agriculturally zoned today. It continues
[1:30:54] to be agricultural in both its use and
[1:30:56] character just as it was prior to the
[1:30:59] annexation.
[1:31:01] Despite the cancellation of the project,
[1:31:02] the property was never returned to us
[1:31:05] and remains within the city of
[1:31:07] Stratford. At this time, we received few
[1:31:10] if any of the municipal services that
[1:31:13] would normally connect property to the
[1:31:14] city. Our electricity is supplied by
[1:31:17] hydro. We did not receive municipal
[1:31:20] water services and we do not have any
[1:31:21] access to city source. The reality is
[1:31:24] that this land continues to function as
[1:31:26] agricultural land while the reason for
[1:31:28] the annexation no longer exists.
[1:31:32] Given these circumstances, we believe it
[1:31:34] is appropriate to reconsider the current
[1:31:38] municipal lands. We're not seeking
[1:31:40] development opportunities or financial
[1:31:42] gain and we have absolutely no intention
[1:31:44] of selling this property. Our goal is
[1:31:46] for it to remain in our property for the
[1:31:48] generations to come. Our request is
[1:31:50] based on a simple principle. The
[1:31:52] property's municipal designation should
[1:31:54] reflect factually use and circumstances.
[1:31:57] The project was canceled. The land
[1:31:59] remains agricultural. Please consider a
[1:32:02] request. Thank you. Thank you.
[1:32:12] I have somebody at the very guy I
[1:32:15] believe.
[1:32:23] Um, thank you to the mayor and Scott
[1:32:27] speak. Uh, my name is Jim Beness. I own
[1:32:30] the property at 4079 line 29. I was
[1:32:33] wondering if the clerk could bring up
[1:32:36] report 37 and page 7
[1:32:44] figure 37 page 71.
[1:32:51] So just to avoid any confusion here, the
[1:32:54] original property
[1:32:56] 173 acres 3516
[1:32:59] 119
[1:33:01] was severed here a few years ago. So I
[1:33:04] own the back half my son and
[1:33:06] daughter-in-law in the front. So
[1:33:08] December and
[1:33:13] that property as Britney said
[1:33:16] was annex simply
[1:33:20] for the blessing
[1:33:22] and it it was the only property of three
[1:33:25] that were annexed. Three farms were
[1:33:27] annexed into the city. Only one was
[1:33:30] subject to the NO that was offering it.
[1:33:32] The other three two farms were annexed
[1:33:35] had nothing to do with the ministry's
[1:33:37] empty border.
[1:33:39] Um April 21st
[1:33:42] after of 2021 we send a letter to the
[1:33:47] city of Stratford attention mayor D
[1:33:51] and I'd like to read it's a virtual
[1:33:53] letter. Uh we are writing this letter in
[1:33:56] regards to annexation of the father's
[1:33:58] smart located 2 three four and five
[1:34:00] concession
[1:34:02] uh concession fives for council person.
[1:34:05] At the time of the annexation this
[1:34:07] parcel was annexed along with two other
[1:34:09] properties totaling 350 acres.
[1:34:12] Our farming a little bit more than 170
[1:34:14] was annexed and was solely used for the
[1:34:18] purpose of the glass plant facility. It
[1:34:21] was the only property that had the MCO
[1:34:24] applied to it. The MCO was then created
[1:34:29] strictly uh for the glass plant due to
[1:34:32] some minor public pressure against the
[1:34:35] proposed glass plant. The city of
[1:34:37] Stratford stalled progress long enough
[1:34:40] that Zingi last plant owner walked away
[1:34:43] from which was unfortunate because there
[1:34:45] was over a thousand jobs related to that
[1:34:48] plant and incillary services and backers
[1:34:50] that were diff
[1:34:54] thousand.
[1:34:55] It's unfortunate.
[1:34:57] It was our belief as a family that the
[1:34:59] benefits of that finance would have come
[1:35:03] to the city of Straford, the county of
[1:35:04] Perth
[1:35:06] and to the township of Pur South and it
[1:35:10] was enough reason to allow our home farm
[1:35:12] to be used as a buildings.
[1:35:14] At that point, my father was had
[1:35:17] dementia and it was it was being taken
[1:35:20] care of by myself, my brothers, my
[1:35:22] sister. We voted two to one at that farm
[1:35:25] allowed unanimous. It was not unanimous
[1:35:27] in our affair.
[1:35:30] Since the float glass plant was no
[1:35:31] longer being built, we requested the
[1:35:34] city to overturn the MO because we see
[1:35:38] no reason for that that land stay in the
[1:35:41] city.
[1:35:43] Our letter was [snorts]
[1:35:44] on May 5th. We got a reply from the CEO
[1:35:47] of Stra
[1:35:49] and in it that stated that they cannot
[1:35:54] revoke the MCO. The city cannot do it
[1:35:58] and it says any revocation and
[1:36:01] alteration of the MCO must be completed
[1:36:03] by the minister. The city has indicated
[1:36:06] its support to the minister for
[1:36:08] revocation of the MCO.
[1:36:10] The MCO was revoked
[1:36:13] on July 13th. to the land was still
[1:36:17] annexed. He never went back to her cell.
[1:36:22] And I guess the concern I had with the
[1:36:24] Watts report is if Zingi would never
[1:36:27] have
[1:36:29] our farm would never go to the city and
[1:36:32] if you don't mind I'd like to start just
[1:36:34] a caution that we're getting a little
[1:36:36] bit this very
[1:36:39] » So our farm was down here.
[1:36:42] So Watson report has stated we need 91
[1:36:46] hectares more the land nowhere in any of
[1:36:50] the report has to talk about any of the
[1:36:51] annex land the annex land I assume is
[1:36:54] where the 91 hectares is coming to get
[1:36:56] to our farm to have industrial and land
[1:37:01] to get to it needs 2 kilometers of water
[1:37:05] and sewer pipes together to get to the
[1:37:08] far right is 3 km to
[1:37:12] the students going out to spend
[1:37:13] together.
[1:37:16] Okay, [clears throat] we have other
[1:37:17] event up to the north end right off of
[1:37:20] Lauren at 122 which ex which could be
[1:37:24] extended
[1:37:25] from the blue there a little bit further
[1:37:28] and you're less than half a point from
[1:37:31] the uh city sewage plant right now.
[1:37:34] That's where building should be going.
[1:37:36] It's an extension. We got the extension
[1:37:38] of Dun Road. Um,
[1:37:41] right here the road here,
[1:37:44] there's a round boat going. It's built
[1:37:48] already to go into there. There's no
[1:37:50] sewage pipes to go into.
[1:37:53] All I'm saying is we're going to save
[1:37:55] the city millions and millions and
[1:37:58] millions of dollars not going to our
[1:38:00] farm. You will not need a pumping
[1:38:02] station. People go to our farm, you're
[1:38:05] going to need a pumping station if not
[1:38:06] two. [clears throat]
[1:38:08] So,
[1:38:09] I have really asked
[1:38:14] that the city of Stratford and it is
[1:38:17] only possible by the direction of the
[1:38:20] city of Straford to ask the Ontario
[1:38:21] government to remove our farm from
[1:38:24] manifestation. You can be created with
[1:38:28] Pur South with some other land closer to
[1:38:31] the amenities you need.
[1:38:34] South will have no concerns. The birth
[1:38:35] of council will have no concerns and the
[1:38:37] city of Straford should have no concerns
[1:38:40] with that. It will, as I say, it will
[1:38:42] save humans.
[1:38:45] We
[1:38:46] by running the farm right now, we're
[1:38:49] paying 8% higher tax rate than we were
[1:38:53] first.
[1:38:55] » That makes our farm less sustainable.
[1:38:58] And we do not want the worries for the
[1:39:01] next 30 years of expropriation hanging
[1:39:04] over our heads as that will be the only
[1:39:06] way the city gets that land. So we ask
[1:39:09] you to make the application to the
[1:39:12] government. It cannot be made by county
[1:39:14] workers. We ask the city of Straford
[1:39:17] make the application to have uh 4079929
[1:39:23] 3516 road 119 taken out of the city of
[1:39:26] Straford.
[1:39:40] once again
[1:39:50] there members of council staff and all
[1:39:54] the general public. Thank you for the
[1:39:57] opportunity for allowing me to speak to
[1:39:59] the scene on behalf of the downtown BIA.
[1:40:04] We first like to congratulate the city
[1:40:06] council on moving forward with the
[1:40:08] development of our new citywide master
[1:40:10] plan. This is an important opportunity
[1:40:13] present
[1:40:15] today and how the community has evolved
[1:40:18] and how we need to plan for the future.
[1:40:21] This time also makes it an ideal
[1:40:23] opportunity to review the boundaries of
[1:40:26] the D times back.
[1:40:29] Our BA was established in 1973,
[1:40:32] more than 50 years ago. Back has changed
[1:40:35] considerably since then, but our banners
[1:40:38] continue to reflect what it once was
[1:40:40] instead of the downtown business
[1:40:42] district more than half a century ago.
[1:40:46] We're often counseledled to support
[1:40:48] updating the boundaries so they closely
[1:40:51] align with the city's current official
[1:40:53] value boundaries of the downtown core.
[1:40:56] The two maps are very different one.
[1:41:00] Two areas are different but quite
[1:41:03] similar but it's not
[1:41:07] a drastic expansion. rather some
[1:41:10] significant properties and community
[1:41:12] assets that we naturally think as part
[1:41:14] of our downtown that are currently
[1:41:17] actually outside of today which includes
[1:41:19] the boat house, the stock public
[1:41:22] library,
[1:41:24] the Cooper site, transit terminal and
[1:41:27] the university campus all lie outside
[1:41:31] and we try and treat them as
[1:41:33] unofficially part of
[1:41:36] including these areas but allow
[1:41:38] inconsistency between the students plan
[1:41:40] the framework and that represented by
[1:41:43] the DIA.
[1:41:45] There are four main reasons that this
[1:41:46] makes sense and it's not about
[1:41:49] increasing our value. That's not what
[1:41:51] we'll learn about. Um we really want to
[1:41:54] make sure that the boundary should
[1:41:56] reflect how residents and visitors
[1:41:59] actually experience downtown Stratford.
[1:42:03] Third, if the alignment would help
[1:42:04] create greater consistency for future
[1:42:07] investment, improve programs and
[1:42:10] economic development.
[1:42:12] Fourth, clear planning, one common
[1:42:15] definition of downtown will help the
[1:42:17] city and BIA better coordinate
[1:42:19] infrastructure, parking, transit, public
[1:42:23] space improvements.
[1:42:25] As the city undertakes this broad
[1:42:27] fighting process, we believe this is the
[1:42:29] right time to address a boundary that
[1:42:31] has been in place for more than five
[1:42:34] decades. Our existed boundaries have
[1:42:36] served well and unbelievable.
[1:42:39] The staff return to demogize the
[1:42:41] boundaries, better align them, ensure
[1:42:44] the city, the VA understanding of the
[1:42:47] area we're working to support. On behalf
[1:42:50] of the downtown VA, I respectfully also
[1:42:54] support this moving forward. Thank you.
[1:42:57] Thanks for your time.
[1:42:58] » Thank you.
[1:43:01] Just wondering whether somebody was else
[1:43:12] did you step by
[1:43:17] » Step.
[1:43:19] » Yes.
[1:43:20] » I don't believe I acknowledge her and
[1:43:27] you can go back.
[1:43:31] George
[1:43:36] members council
[1:43:38] I appreciate and value the opportunity
[1:43:41] to be able to share a seat
[1:43:44] gift. Yeah, just to share uh some of my
[1:43:47] uh my thoughts, opinions, and with me
[1:43:50] tonight. And I I also very much
[1:43:52] appreciate the opportunity to be able to
[1:43:55] heard hear other people's opinions on on
[1:43:58] your new document. So, uh I'm going to
[1:44:02] I'm going to read my presentation to you
[1:44:05] and I just want to state up front uh
[1:44:08] that [clears throat] this document is a
[1:44:09] co-creation. It's not simply mine. Uh
[1:44:11] there's been so many changes that
[1:44:14] Ministry means
[1:44:16] housing in terms of policy state
[1:44:18] planning that um mayor comes out that I
[1:44:24] simply have not easily been tempted to
[1:44:26] debug change.
[1:44:29] So when I was looking at this document I
[1:44:31] thought I'm going to list the help of a
[1:44:34] planner planning that I use in the days
[1:44:37] of the annexation in 2020. So, this is
[1:44:41] my document. I own it, but it'll be
[1:44:44] obvious that I've had some professional
[1:44:46] input on this because I want to be very
[1:44:47] succinct with you. Keep it very.
[1:44:51] My name is Jim Gil and I'm a farm
[1:44:54] located at 41459
[1:44:56] First Township just outside of the city
[1:44:59] of Stratford.
[1:45:01] My interest in appearing here today is
[1:45:04] to speak to the protection of
[1:45:05] agricultural landscape.
[1:45:08] I am not trying to stop industrial
[1:45:10] development.
[1:45:12] My interest is in making sure that the
[1:45:15] amount of farmland designated for
[1:45:17] industrial development is reasonable and
[1:45:21] that it is completed in the right place.
[1:45:25] Firstly, the amount of land for
[1:45:26] industrial development. I have now had
[1:45:28] the chance to review the most recent
[1:45:31] official plan reviewed report by Sienna
[1:45:34] Watson
[1:45:36] and would like to highlight five inputs
[1:45:38] into the calculation that I would
[1:45:40] respectively
[1:45:42] recommend should be revisited.
[1:45:45] The first input is the 15 employee per
[1:45:49] hectare density assumption.
[1:45:51] [clears throat]
[1:45:52] It is my understanding that previously
[1:45:54] targets used in various documents here
[1:45:57] in the city of Stratford were using 25
[1:46:01] to 30 employees per hectare for fully
[1:46:04] service industrial land.
[1:46:07] The use of 15 employees per hectare is
[1:46:10] more typical of densities projected for
[1:46:13] unservice industrial land.
[1:46:16] I understand the lands to which this
[1:46:19] would apply are all anticipated to be
[1:46:21] fully serviced. So it is unclear to me
[1:46:25] why would
[1:46:27] being used.
[1:46:31] Second input is the assumption that only
[1:46:34] 10% of new industrial development occur
[1:46:39] on lands that are already developed. In
[1:46:43] other words, through intensification,
[1:46:46] industries often buy larger parcels than
[1:46:49] immediately required in order to provide
[1:46:52] for future expansion opportunities.
[1:46:56] Uh based on a review of aerial
[1:46:59] photography by Mr.
[1:47:01] and by ground truthing by myself simply
[1:47:04] driving through the indust
[1:47:07] appears to be sufficient opportunity to
[1:47:09] accommodate a much higher percentage of
[1:47:13] forecasted industrial growth through
[1:47:16] intensification. [clears throat]
[1:47:20] Third is the inclusion of a 15% vacancy
[1:47:25] rate.
[1:47:27] The city of St. official plan has a
[1:47:29] 30-year planning horizon. Section 26 sub
[1:47:33] 1.1 of the planning act requires updates
[1:47:38] to the new official plan to be completed
[1:47:40] within 10 years and every 5 years
[1:47:44] thereafter which is the reference by one
[1:47:46] of our previous speakers.
[1:47:49] This means that the new Straford
[1:47:51] official plan
[1:47:53] will be reviewed four times before the
[1:47:56] end of the 206
[1:47:58] planning horizon. Each update will
[1:48:02] involve a corresponding extension of the
[1:48:05] plan
[1:48:07] meaning that there should be at a
[1:48:09] minimum 20 years worth of vacant plan
[1:48:13] remaining at any time.
[1:48:16] Now this this is a planners note here.
[1:48:20] This minimum vacant inventory would
[1:48:22] occur in 2036 before any extension of
[1:48:26] planning horizon 2066 was to
[1:48:32] this equates to a minimum 67% vacancy
[1:48:35] rate.
[1:48:36] So the question is why is an additional
[1:48:39] 15% vacancy allowance required?
[1:48:47] Number four,
[1:48:49] the same concept applies to the addition
[1:48:51] of a 20% contingency.
[1:48:56] Why would you need the another 20%.
[1:49:00] When at a minimum
[1:49:03] the planner notes again when at a
[1:49:05] minimum we would already have an 81%
[1:49:08] agency 66% unemployment growth 2036 to
[1:49:13] 2056 plus a 15% contingency plan.
[1:49:20] uh the fifth and final input that should
[1:49:22] be reviewed in the use of
[1:49:25] in the use of an 80% factor to determine
[1:49:29] net land use from gross land
[1:49:32] acquisition.
[1:49:34] So that means what you need to deduct
[1:49:36] for your right way, your easements, your
[1:49:39] utilities, infrastructure,
[1:49:42] etc.
[1:49:44] The city of Straford in the past has
[1:49:46] typically used 85%
[1:49:49] Why is this faculty being changed to
[1:49:53] each of these five inputs provide for
[1:49:56] redesation of more agricultural land to
[1:49:59] industrial than is necessary to
[1:50:02] accommodate the forecasted industrial
[1:50:05] employment.
[1:50:06] All five of these inputs should give
[1:50:09] review at this point before you move on
[1:50:11] to the virtual
[1:50:13] screen.
[1:50:18] Secondly is the direction of future
[1:50:21] growth of your industrial ends.
[1:50:24] The only publicly released uh report
[1:50:27] supporting the 2020 annexation was a
[1:50:30] planning justification reported by
[1:50:33] Arington Maven.
[1:50:36] This report is seriously flawed.
[1:50:40] It fails to follow provincial policy to
[1:50:43] terminate the direction of future
[1:50:45] growth.
[1:50:47] It is obvious in hindsight that the sole
[1:50:50] purpose of this report
[1:50:53] was to justify inclusion of land out to
[1:50:58] and including lands already pre-selected
[1:51:02] for the glass manufacturing facility
[1:51:06] outside of any public process.
[1:51:11] The direction of any future growth in
[1:51:14] the city of Straford should not be
[1:51:17] predetermined based upon a flawed and
[1:51:20] subsequently abandoned process.
[1:51:24] The annexation should be revoked
[1:51:27] and the determination as to the
[1:51:30] direction of future growth should be
[1:51:33] left to a comprehensive review
[1:51:37] of the city of
[1:51:40] this can be done in accordance with the
[1:51:43] provisions of the provincial policy
[1:51:46] statement which which require legitimate
[1:51:50] consideration
[1:51:52] of a fold or anything of potential
[1:51:55] location objects.
[1:51:59] I uh I have this all in electronic form
[1:52:01] and I will respect submitted to whoever
[1:52:05] you would care to select it to me.
[1:52:10] I can send it to you if it's been
[1:52:11] clearly fine and and I'm I'm free to
[1:52:15] open to any questions about
[1:52:22] » Uh through the mayor. Uh thanks for for
[1:52:24] presenting that information which is
[1:52:26] very useful. Did you manage to when you
[1:52:29] did those subtractions figure out what
[1:52:32] that would uh decrease the net uh plans
[1:52:37] that we would need for industrial? I
[1:52:40] personally didn't do that. You're saying
[1:52:42] did I do the math to get from was it 91
[1:52:44] hectares down to another? No, I I
[1:52:47] didn't. What I'm what I'm hoping to
[1:52:49] suggest is that this is something that
[1:52:53] you need to review lots needs to review
[1:52:56] before the next step and hopefully if I
[1:53:00] get a little more of that information or
[1:53:02] my
[1:53:04] answer
[1:53:06] maybe that will help
[1:53:09] and and again my
[1:53:13] would would make himself available on my
[1:53:15] behalf to provide details.
[1:53:19] Any other comments or questions with
[1:53:21] secretary at this time?
[1:53:23] See none. Thank you very much.
[1:53:31] » State your name for the record, please.
[1:53:33] » Yes, Robert.
[1:53:35] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
[1:53:37] Um, I just want to clarify that the uh
[1:53:42] 91 nectar that we have to add to our
[1:53:45] industrial inventory does not include
[1:53:49] the land that was recently annexed from
[1:53:51] verse 7. Is that correct?
[1:53:55] » I can't answer that, but perhaps when we
[1:53:58] wrap up that answer in the wrapup andor
[1:54:02] information
[1:54:03] » According to what Mr. And that's going
[1:54:06] to do that is the area south of the
[1:54:10] Duke.
[1:54:10] » Well, we will add the
[1:54:12] » Okay, my point is Thank you.
[1:54:15] [clears throat] My point is that this is
[1:54:18] the last place in Canada that we should
[1:54:21] be taking farmland and turning it into
[1:54:24] factories. This is the finest farmland
[1:54:28] in the country. When European settlers
[1:54:31] arrived, the soil was so deep that it
[1:54:34] grew trees with 7 foot diameter and it
[1:54:38] was a peculiar task to clear the land
[1:54:41] and that today is some of the finest
[1:54:44] farmland in the world and it produces
[1:54:47] food. We all need food and it was
[1:54:51] absolutely
[1:54:53] wrong for this city to be just being
[1:54:56] like any other city in the country. This
[1:55:00] report is just a
[1:55:02] statistical exercise. It doesn't reflect
[1:55:06] who we are in Stratford. You'll notice
[1:55:09] that the word festival appears nowhere
[1:55:12] in the report. We are unique.
[1:55:16] We have a a a worldclass institution
[1:55:21] here that gives us the character that
[1:55:25] draws people to live here, to open
[1:55:28] businesses, to open factories too.
[1:55:31] And everything we do needs to be focused
[1:55:34] on keeping the quality of life and the
[1:55:38] millure that makes the festival thrive
[1:55:42] because the city thrives because the
[1:55:45] festival is here. Otherwise, we're just
[1:55:48] another town that doesn't have anything
[1:55:52] of of distinction. We have a unique need
[1:55:54] to protect the quality of life that we
[1:55:58] have here. And we also have an
[1:56:00] obligation to protect farmland being you
[1:56:04] talk about being sustainable. It's
[1:56:06] mentioned once in this report and that's
[1:56:09] not good enough. Um it refers to primary
[1:56:13] industries in agriculture as well.
[1:56:16] There's no potential for that here.
[1:56:18] Well, when are we going to get serious
[1:56:20] and stop having acres and acres of flat
[1:56:24] roofs that aren't being used for
[1:56:26] anything? They could be used for green
[1:56:28] houses and that creates [clears throat]
[1:56:29] a lot of work and a greenhouse is not a
[1:56:32] heavy structure put on top of a factory
[1:56:35] not like putting deep top soil on top of
[1:56:38] it. Green houses using hydroponics are
[1:56:40] very light buildings. So we should be
[1:56:43] saying that's what we want in this city
[1:56:46] and then we can create jobs and have
[1:56:50] intensification
[1:56:51] and create food. I mean
[1:56:55] green houses there's a big operation
[1:56:57] near exit the client's just fine for
[1:56:59] green houses the technology is there and
[1:57:03] the menite farmers around the library
[1:57:05] broke some of the finest tomatoes in the
[1:57:07] country in green houses they got they
[1:57:10] saw there was a market and they're
[1:57:11] meeting it so [clears throat] this
[1:57:15] report doesn't really do us any good at
[1:57:18] Straford we need to get serious about
[1:57:21] intensification
[1:57:23] And I'll give you an example. I was at
[1:57:24] the Shaw Festival last week in Niagara
[1:57:27] Lake. They have a nice shopping center
[1:57:30] as you come in the main entrance of town
[1:57:32] and it looks like downtown Stratford on
[1:57:35] a smaller scale. They're multi-story
[1:57:37] buildings with offices and apartments
[1:57:39] above the stores.
[1:57:41] And the QEDW was plugged up on my way
[1:57:44] home. So, I followed the lake shore and
[1:57:46] ended up in Grimby's new development
[1:57:50] area, Grimby on the lake. And they've
[1:57:53] created a main street with shops
[1:57:57] and on the ground floor and three-story
[1:58:00] buildings with offices and apartments.
[1:58:02] They've created a town just like what we
[1:58:07] have here and should be working hard to
[1:58:10] protect. we with new commercial
[1:58:13] development should all be multi-story
[1:58:16] with housing. Um because of
[1:58:19] gentrification and the demand of
[1:58:22] short-term accommodation, a lot of the
[1:58:24] people who work in Stratford can't
[1:58:26] afford to live here because the
[1:58:28] overstore apartments are now being
[1:58:30] converted into the hydroastic
[1:58:32] accommodation that they can't afford.
[1:58:35] Well, any new commercial development
[1:58:37] should be serving that need. And you
[1:58:40] know, it just painens me to drive down
[1:58:43] Ontario Street and see acres of
[1:58:46] one-story buildings that could be
[1:58:49] buildings with apartments above them and
[1:58:51] creating communities because you've got
[1:58:53] services there. And that's what we need
[1:58:56] to be doing. A walk-in lifestyle should
[1:58:58] be created everywhere in the city, not
[1:59:00] just in Thor. a privilege to to live a
[1:59:03] 10-minute walk from here. Yes, I walk
[1:59:05] tonight. Um, but we can't we can do that
[1:59:09] in neighborhoods and we need to do that.
[1:59:12] No more one-story buildings in this city
[1:59:14] should be our mantra. So, all the
[1:59:17] statistics in this report don't do us a
[1:59:20] lot of good if we are really serious
[1:59:23] about sustainability, about our
[1:59:25] environment.
[1:59:27] I'll be gone soon. But um we need to be
[1:59:31] looking out for our grandchildren and
[1:59:33] our great grandchildren. We need to be
[1:59:35] looking out for the world. And I think
[1:59:39] Ben factory is going to change
[1:59:42] if we get a lot more electric cars. They
[1:59:45] have far fewer parts. So there'll be a
[1:59:47] lot less uh car part manufacturing going
[1:59:50] on. Um people will still find jobs. They
[1:59:54] always do. and we can accommodate them
[1:59:57] and that land should be turned back to
[1:59:59] those farmers. They want to farm. They
[2:00:02] don't want the big paycheck from selling
[2:00:04] their land for development. They want to
[2:00:07] farm. So for heaven's sake, read about
[2:00:09] that boundary and give them some
[2:00:11] stability that they can stay in
[2:00:15] agriculture. You know that yourself, Mr.
[2:00:18] Mayor, that you need to have stability
[2:00:20] to know that 10 years from now you're
[2:00:23] going to still have that land. And so
[2:00:25] it's worth your while to put back into
[2:00:27] the land so that it remains fertile and
[2:00:31] remains some of the best farmland in the
[2:00:34] world. And as [clears throat] far as
[2:00:35] removals, that are not going to happen.
[2:00:39] That's just fiction. But there is one
[2:00:42] that can happen. The Scotia Bank
[2:00:44] building is not a place to put the
[2:00:47] police headquarters. It should be an
[2:00:50] industrial site. And you better set the
[2:00:52] example by starting. That should be
[2:00:54] removal number one. Thank you very much.
[2:01:01] » Thank you very much.
[2:01:05] » Okay. I believe
[2:01:10] » Yeah. Thanks so much for your
[2:01:13] organization. Really appreciate it and
[2:01:16] you are very committee mind and would
[2:01:18] love to work with you and I would love
[2:01:20] your advice for our community. Thanks so
[2:01:23] much.
[2:01:24] » Okay, I'm here. I'm got a lot of
[2:01:27] experience. Had my own farm for 15 years
[2:01:30] just up the road near Wall Lake. I know
[2:01:33] what I'm talking about with agriculture.
[2:01:35] I got a lot of dirt on the bike
[2:01:40] for any other
[2:01:42] public at this time.
[2:01:45] Any other presentations to the public?
[2:01:48] The final any other presentations,
[2:01:51] questions or comments?
[2:01:54] Seeing none, I'm going to ask staff and
[2:01:57] all to come forward and
[2:02:00] perhaps answer some of the questions and
[2:02:11] Right. Um Drew
[2:02:15] mayor. Um
[2:02:18] that was that was
[2:02:20] great great feedback and comments. Um
[2:02:24] I'm taking notes. Hopefully I've
[2:02:27] captured most of the themes and
[2:02:29] questions and comments that were raised.
[2:02:31] I'll do my best here to answer them.
[2:02:32] sort of focusing on on those
[2:02:34] specifically that are related to the
[2:02:37] growth study itself and then perhaps
[2:02:39] some of the broader planning um
[2:02:41] components can be discussed by staff and
[2:02:43] and uh uh the consultant from
[2:02:48] on the planning side. Um
[2:02:51] there was early on there was a comment
[2:02:53] related regarding the removals uh that I
[2:02:56] had identified in our work uh in
[2:02:59] employment area review about 40 or so
[2:03:02] hectors and uh the question or comment
[2:03:05] was were they factored into the
[2:03:07] intensification analysis and the answer
[2:03:10] is yes. Um so essentially because a lot
[2:03:13] of those lands uh you know would be are
[2:03:16] are underutilized or have opportunities
[2:03:18] to accommodate you know further
[2:03:20] commercial and and institutional life
[2:03:22] type development. That's one of the
[2:03:23] reasons why our intensification
[2:03:26] uh percentage for commercial land needs
[2:03:28] was 60%. Which is quite high and we
[2:03:31] recognized many of the opportunities for
[2:03:34] for intensification including those
[2:03:36] lands uh that were identified for
[2:03:39] removals. Um
[2:03:41] I think it speaks more broadly I think
[2:03:44] as far as the need for sustainable
[2:03:47] um growth. Uh and I think one of the
[2:03:50] words you know comes to mind is it needs
[2:03:53] to be balanced. Um, you know, we need to
[2:03:55] kind of recognize,
[2:03:57] uh, that, you know, obviously we can't
[2:03:59] we can't grow in and just, you know,
[2:04:00] looking at new green field areas. Uh, to
[2:04:02] accommodate development and
[2:04:03] intensification and county growth in
[2:04:06] your buildup area is incredibly
[2:04:07] important and certainly our report
[2:04:09] reflects that in in the share of housing
[2:04:12] growth that's anticipated to be able to
[2:04:14] develop area and commercial
[2:04:16] institutional employment. Um, and then
[2:04:19] of course higher densities of
[2:04:20] development. um uh you know particularly
[2:04:23] with higher uh density type housing um
[2:04:27] you know release kind of speaks to that.
[2:04:29] Um I got to come back on the employment
[2:04:31] land piece a little bit um because I
[2:04:33] know there's been a lot of sort of
[2:04:34] commentary related to the deficit of 91
[2:04:37] growth sectors. Um first is that in the
[2:04:40] landing port more broadly where we have
[2:04:43] identified a deficit um part of the
[2:04:47] growth study did not look at options in
[2:04:50] terms of where to accommodate or how to
[2:04:52] address that deficit. So um we basically
[2:04:55] looked at here's the forecast land
[2:04:56] demand, here's your designated land
[2:04:59] supply. So basically lands that are
[2:05:00] currently designated for employment uses
[2:05:04] and um and with those adjustment what's
[2:05:07] the [clears throat] deficit and whether
[2:05:08] where those where that how how that
[2:05:10] deficit will be addressed through future
[2:05:13] locations. Our our work has not looked
[2:05:16] at that. So um that obviously is part of
[2:05:19] broader key work and planning work
[2:05:21] that's uh that's being undertaken. Um
[2:05:25] there was also um uh a comment on the
[2:05:29] need for more uh diverse diversity
[2:05:32] housing included smaller units. Um and
[2:05:34] certainly when we look at our housing
[2:05:37] mix for forecast housing growth and the
[2:05:39] the relatively high share for
[2:05:41] highdensity housing apartments of all
[2:05:43] types almost 50% of the housing growth
[2:05:46] most of those are going to be relatively
[2:05:48] small units whether they be one or two
[2:05:49] bedroom or maybe even studio units. So
[2:05:52] recognize the need and demand for more
[2:05:54] affordable housing especially for for
[2:05:57] smaller household types um going
[2:06:00] forward. Um
[2:06:04] the other aspect I think that I'm going
[2:06:06] to try and address here is that um
[2:06:11] there was quite a bit of commentary from
[2:06:13] uh regarding the land use assessment for
[2:06:15] the employment areas uh 91 gross sector
[2:06:19] deficit and the calculation of the
[2:06:21] assumptions that went into that. So
[2:06:22] maybe I'll just walk through a few
[2:06:24] comments on that. um want to have to do
[2:06:27] with uh the job density of 15 jobs per
[2:06:30] net hector versus using something higher
[2:06:33] such as 25 or 30 jobs per net hector. Um
[2:06:38] so 15 jobs per net hector is is
[2:06:42] representative of the types of industry
[2:06:44] sectors that we would expect to be
[2:06:46] accommodated with the employment areas
[2:06:48] uh in Stratford moving forward. So
[2:06:51] generates advanced manufacturing, food
[2:06:53] processing, uh construction um
[2:06:56] employment areas tend to have relatively
[2:06:58] low densities, employment densities
[2:07:00] compared to commercial or institutional
[2:07:02] sectors. So I think it's important to
[2:07:03] kind of understand or kind and recognize
[2:07:05] that um there may be some sectors that
[2:07:08] can achieve 25 or 30 jobs per net hector
[2:07:11] but on the whole looking at it on a
[2:07:13] weighted basis 15 drops per net hector
[2:07:15] is representative of what we believe
[2:07:17] with breeding the mold moving forward.
[2:07:20] Um the other aspect too which uh creates
[2:07:23] challenges with respect to job density
[2:07:25] in in industrial development is with
[2:07:27] increasing share of automation and more
[2:07:29] capital intensive type manufacturing. Uh
[2:07:33] it's difficult to get higher densities
[2:07:35] just because of the nature of work.
[2:07:37] Essentially you just need less people
[2:07:38] working in in factories of various
[2:07:41] types. um the 10% intensification
[2:07:44] assumption
[2:07:46] » For employment areas um uh with the
[2:07:49] comment that that seems low. Um one one
[2:07:52] thing is important to recognize is that
[2:07:54] the 10% intensification is based on
[2:07:56] employment not building GFA. So what we
[2:08:00] tend to find in studies is that um if a
[2:08:03] plant expands
[2:08:05] um let's say by a certain percentage
[2:08:07] they may hire some additional workers
[2:08:10] but it's not going to be sort of
[2:08:11] representative of the base relationship
[2:08:14] between jobs and the and the floor space
[2:08:17] of the existing plant. So you tend to
[2:08:18] get more TFA or more floor space but not
[2:08:21] necessarily as an equal amount of
[2:08:23] employment freedom. So while we do see
[2:08:26] obviously more opportunities for
[2:08:29] building additions u on many sites uh a
[2:08:32] 10% employment uh intensification
[2:08:35] assumption is is generally what we would
[2:08:38] consider reasonable within a market like
[2:08:40] Stratford especially when land values
[2:08:42] are are still relatively low compared to
[2:08:44] the GTA for example. So again like if
[2:08:48] there's a need to look at that um you
[2:08:50] know it becomes a little bit more of a a
[2:08:52] policy discussion uh in terms of you
[2:08:54] know is the hiring intensification rate
[2:08:57] uh something that we would want to
[2:08:58] consider uh but from a market lens
[2:09:01] perspective this is sort of a reasonable
[2:09:02] baseline. Um then there was also uh a
[2:09:07] couple comments related to the net to
[2:09:09] gross ratio of 20%. Um and the comment
[2:09:13] that 15% has been used previously. The
[2:09:17] 15% is probably reasonable when we're
[2:09:19] looking at rightway for roads and and
[2:09:22] those sorts of non-developable features.
[2:09:24] Um, but certainly there's also space
[2:09:26] needs for a storm water management
[2:09:29] facilities and those tend to be quite
[2:09:30] land expansive. And so in a in a you
[2:09:33] know a municipality like Stratford um
[2:09:36] you know an 80% net to gross ratio is
[2:09:38] standard practice and and while we would
[2:09:41] apply in any community similar urban
[2:09:44] type of Stratford um and then finally
[2:09:48] the the the vacancy adjustment uh 15%
[2:09:52] and then and the bump up u for future
[2:09:56] land needs of of an additional 20%. The
[2:09:59] vacancy adjustments um are basically
[2:10:02] there to off the market choice and it's
[2:10:05] important because new provincial
[2:10:08] planning direction gives municipalities
[2:10:10] more flexibility with respect to trying
[2:10:12] to ensure there's sufficient market
[2:10:14] choice to home future industry and
[2:10:15] business needs. Um so again like that
[2:10:19] may be a subject for discussion that's
[2:10:21] why even in the report it's kind of
[2:10:23] presented as what the net growth and
[2:10:25] what those gross numbers look like. uh
[2:10:28] but again based on industry practices
[2:10:31] that's you know how we presented that
[2:10:33] information but again that's subject to
[2:10:35] you know further refinement and
[2:10:37] discussion as well uh from our end um I
[2:10:40] think that's
[2:10:54] » Yes thanks 3D worship um so there's a
[2:10:56] lot of for Mr. Chair today. Thank you,
[2:10:58] Mr. Cardan, for responding to the
[2:11:00] comments raised from the public. Um,
[2:11:01] very insightful comments. I think what
[2:11:04] this is a public meeting, so I think
[2:11:05] what we can do is to provide a followup
[2:11:08] report to the comments tonight and what
[2:11:09] this looks like moving forward for the
[2:11:11] next steps of the official plan review.
[2:11:13] I know that we are I would like to let
[2:11:15] council know that we are actively
[2:11:16] working on the the revised updated
[2:11:19] effect of the official plan and then
[2:11:21] getting into the actual land use uh
[2:11:23] planning changes. So, the land use map.
[2:11:25] So um unless there's anything further to
[2:11:27] add here which I think what staff can do
[2:11:29] is work on a follow that will be
[2:11:31] presented to council based on all the
[2:11:32] information and comments we received
[2:11:34] tonight and what that looks like for
[2:11:36] council to move forward to next steps on
[2:11:37] the plan. Thank you Brad for that
[2:11:40] permission counc
[2:11:42] I just have a quick question so you
[2:11:44] mentioned about the storm water
[2:11:46] management like it takes up a lot of
[2:11:48] space
[2:11:49] » Um as you're going around things are you
[2:11:52] finding people are switching more over
[2:11:54] to LED
[2:11:58] » Oh no li sorry [laughter]
[2:12:03] that takes up the space
[2:12:05] » Right through through the
[2:12:06] » Or do you have any answer
[2:12:07] » I I don't have any specific insights on
[2:12:10] on those types of trends? I mean um you
[2:12:12] know again like these calculations are
[2:12:14] based on sort of general um you know
[2:12:16] best practices in terms of developable
[2:12:18] and non-develop features. Um you know
[2:12:21] perhaps you know that more an 80% net
[2:12:24] growth is actually u relatively modest.
[2:12:27] Uh there's some jurisdictions we may
[2:12:30] even do 75%. So that bump up would be
[2:12:32] even larger. So within a more urban
[2:12:34] context uh you know we're looking at
[2:12:36] more urban type employment areas 80% of
[2:12:40] the gross is is quite typical of urban
[2:12:43] settler
[2:13:00] questions. Thank you very much. Thank
[2:13:02] you.
[2:13:06] » So, as we bring the the meeting to a
[2:13:09] close, city council intends to consider
[2:13:11] the official plan at a future regular
[2:13:13] transfer meeting where members will have
[2:13:15] an opportunity for full discussion as
[2:13:18] the viewing comments received from the
[2:13:20] public. At this time, if anyone would
[2:13:22] like to receive further notice of this
[2:13:24] matter, please email clerks.ca.
[2:13:29] A video of this meeting will be posted
[2:13:31] to the city's website. This a public
[2:13:34] meeting it's adjourned and clerk uh as I
[2:13:37] hand the meeting back to you. I'm
[2:13:39] wondering if we can address the
[2:13:40] correspondence with this item and then
[2:13:43] perhaps entertain a short recess for
[2:13:46] your worship. Yes, that'd be great. So,
[2:13:48] as outlined on the agenda, there is um
[2:13:50] correspondence from Dav and McCulli on
[2:13:52] behalf of Armstrong and President. And
[2:13:54] there's a motion that the correspondence
[2:13:56] from Dav and McCulli be received.
[2:13:59] moved by council Henderson, second by
[2:14:01] council. Any discussion?
[2:14:04] Seeing none, call question. All in favor
[2:14:08] of any that's unless carry and I'm going
[2:14:10] to suggest we take a short
[2:14:13] max 10 minute break
[2:14:16] your
[2:14:18] direction.
[2:23:43] Thanks.
[2:24:14] Item seven, third day. Item 7.1 is a
[2:24:17] recommendation report for application
[2:24:19] for building bylaw amendment 04-15.
[2:24:23] Mrs. Bird lands on purpose way.
[2:24:27] The man of planning has a presentation.
[2:24:35] Thank you very
[2:24:46] good afternoon council members of the
[2:24:50] public. My name is Mark and Brock,
[2:24:52] manager of planning for the city of
[2:24:53] Strawber. I'm here to present an
[2:24:56] application for zoning file amendments
[2:24:58] 04-26
[2:25:00] for block 6371
[2:25:04] uh located on Ferguson way. Following my
[2:25:07] presentation, the uh theian Kristen
[2:25:10] Ferrisdale from GSP group, she's in
[2:25:13] attendance to also speak about this
[2:25:15] group.
[2:25:20] As shown on the map, the subject lands
[2:25:23] comprises uh nine separate lots
[2:25:26] situated on the east and west sides of
[2:25:29] Ferguson Way south of Callway and north
[2:25:33] of Britannia Street in the fairground
[2:25:35] subdivision. These lands are vacant
[2:25:39] except for one parcel that has a
[2:25:41] townhouse dwelling under construction.
[2:25:43] uh surrounding land uses are vacant and
[2:25:47] undeveloped um except for the following
[2:25:50] uh lands in the west contain uh
[2:25:53] residential uses in the form of single
[2:25:55] decoction dwellings
[2:25:58] as well as the south we have residential
[2:26:01] uses in the form of lowrise compartment
[2:26:04] buildings
[2:26:08] in terms of the subject application the
[2:26:10] request is to modify the zone the
[2:26:13] subject lands to allow additional zoning
[2:26:16] provisions to the current R4-26
[2:26:20] sight specific zone by decreasing the
[2:26:23] maximum block coverage which will
[2:26:24] facilitate uh the construction of street
[2:26:27] manifest dwellings.
[2:26:29] Um so for the main residential use
[2:26:33] uh permit an increased maximum lock
[2:26:35] coverage of 45%.
[2:26:38] Uh compared to the maximum requirement
[2:26:40] of 40%.
[2:26:42] And also to permit an increased maximum
[2:26:45] block coverage of 50% for all buildings
[2:26:48] and structures. So that would be the
[2:26:50] main um residential use and accessory
[2:26:53] structures whereas the current provision
[2:26:56] allows for a maximum of 45%.
[2:26:59] It's important to note that all other um
[2:27:02] zoning provisions are capable of being
[2:27:04] satisfied including the minimum rear
[2:27:07] yard depth and the minimum landscape
[2:27:10] open space for all. [clears throat]
[2:27:15] Um the subject application was
[2:27:18] circulated to require agencies with
[2:27:20] comments received from the agencies
[2:27:22] listed on the screen to which no uh
[2:27:25] concerns or objections were raised.
[2:27:31] Uh in terms of public comments, uh no
[2:27:34] written submissions were received at the
[2:27:37] public meeting of city council. uh the
[2:27:39] world's submissions were vague with
[2:27:41] respect to concerns raised about
[2:27:43] drainage and those concerns were
[2:27:46] reviewed comprehensively and
[2:27:48] appropriately addressed in the staff of
[2:27:51] the work. Um there were also some
[2:27:53] concerns raised by the public regarding
[2:27:56] the need for weak removal uh to which
[2:27:59] the developer is taking remedial steps
[2:28:02] uh to address the issue. um
[2:28:05] notwithstanding facing some logistical
[2:28:07] challenges with uh there's existing
[2:28:10] surface wiring um from utilities on the
[2:28:14] site. So the developer is trying to
[2:28:17] ascertain a who owns that utility
[2:28:21] wiring. Is it Bell or is it Rogers? And
[2:28:25] secondly, is the wiring active or is it
[2:28:28] dormant?
[2:28:29] Um ultimately your worship the developer
[2:28:32] is committed to um once the wiring issue
[2:28:36] has been resolved in terms of grading
[2:28:39] the site along the mutual uh rear lot
[2:28:42] line in advance of construction of
[2:28:44] dwellings uh to mitigate visual impact
[2:28:48] through the erection of the board
[2:28:49] privacy fence. So based on that
[2:28:52] commitment and subject to monitoring
[2:28:56] from staff, I'm satisfied that that
[2:28:59] matter has been um will be appropriately
[2:29:01] addressed
[2:29:06] as outlined in my planning report.
[2:29:09] The subject application is consistent
[2:29:11] with the provincial planning statement.
[2:29:13] Um considering uh the uh proposal is
[2:29:17] situated within
[2:29:19] city of Stratford being a designated
[2:29:22] settlement area. Uh this proposal makes
[2:29:24] use of existing uh municipal
[2:29:26] infrastructure. It's approximate to
[2:29:29] existing transit services and active
[2:29:33] transportation opportunities thereby
[2:29:35] supporting the city's strategic growth
[2:29:38] uh framework.
[2:29:40] Um, in addition, this proposal also
[2:29:42] satisfies uh the city's official plan by
[2:29:46] allowing or sorry, by aligning with the
[2:29:50] goals and objectives under the
[2:29:52] residential area designation and also it
[2:29:55] satisfies the evaluation criteria for
[2:29:58] developing in new residential areas.
[2:30:05] All right, your worship. It is city
[2:30:07] planning's recommendation that the
[2:30:08] subject application be approved
[2:30:10] considering the request is consistent
[2:30:12] with the provincial planning statement.
[2:30:14] It aligns with the city's official plan.
[2:30:17] It constitutes satellite use planning
[2:30:19] and that public comments received have
[2:30:21] been reviewed uh comprehensively
[2:30:24] considered and appropriately addressed.
[2:30:30] Uh that concludes my presentation your
[2:30:32] worship. not available to answer any
[2:30:34] questions I do. Thank you for your
[2:30:36] presentation. Questions from council at
[2:30:39] this time.
[2:30:44] » See, I will invite the agent forward.
[2:31:04] Thank you. Now you're ready.
[2:31:10] » Uh thank you members of the council. My
[2:31:12] name is Kristen Barisil. I'm from the
[2:31:14] speaker. I did want to note that Gary
[2:31:16] Bberg of Brberg Holmes was intending to
[2:31:18] attend this meeting this evening. um at
[2:31:20] the last minute he had to cancel and
[2:31:22] send his regrets but um we had some
[2:31:24] extensive conversations about some of
[2:31:26] the issues and concerns particularly
[2:31:27] surrounding property maintenance and
[2:31:29] needs that I'll touch on as part of my
[2:31:31] presentation.
[2:31:34] So I won't spend much time on this. Mr.
[2:31:36] Vangro did a great job of explaining
[2:31:38] where the site is. I'm sure as you're
[2:31:40] all aware is part of the larger
[2:31:42] fairgrounds track plan subdivision um
[2:31:44] which is currently starting to be under
[2:31:46] construction in terms of earth works as
[2:31:48] well as some of the residential units
[2:31:50] starting to be constructed on site and
[2:31:52] Mr. Grand Hon, the intent of this
[2:31:54] application only applies to the streets
[2:31:57] townhouse blocks as part of the initial
[2:31:59] or original draft M subdivision. So
[2:32:01] those the areas that are highlighted in
[2:32:03] red both on the north and south side of
[2:32:05] Ferguson A. Um the townhouse blocks on
[2:32:09] the south side of Ferguson A are fully
[2:32:11] within the draft line subdivision.
[2:32:12] Townhouse blocks in the north side of
[2:32:14] Ferguson a with the existing uh load
[2:32:17] attached low attach uh existing
[2:32:20] residential uses on prior drive.
[2:32:25] Uh as Mr. Bankov noted, we are um asking
[2:32:27] for an additional exemption or
[2:32:29] additional request to the zoning bylaw
[2:32:31] amendment um to permit a maximum law
[2:32:33] coverage of 45% for the primary uh
[2:32:36] residents controlling units. Whereas the
[2:32:38] current bylaw permits 40 and to permit a
[2:32:41] maximum of um 50% excuse me 45% for
[2:32:45] permits 40 and to permit 50% without
[2:32:47] coverage for the main building as well
[2:32:49] as the accessory structure with the
[2:32:51] current bylaw permits of 45. Um the
[2:32:53] difference in this number is would
[2:32:55] account for sheds um if people are
[2:32:57] putting beds in their backyard or any
[2:32:59] kind of secondary accessory structure
[2:33:00] that you would typically see in the
[2:33:02] backyard. Um if Mr. Bangkok touched on
[2:33:04] not they'll need to change any of the
[2:33:06] provisions other provisions of the
[2:33:07] bylaw. Um so the setbacks requirements
[2:33:11] threeear setbacks side step setback
[2:33:13] requirements minimum landscape area
[2:33:15] requirements are all going to remain the
[2:33:17] same. Um in addition there's no real
[2:33:19] changes to the mass scare or
[2:33:20] characteristics if you will or design
[2:33:22] style of townhouse units. Um these
[2:33:25] blocks and its area subdivision was
[2:33:27] originally approved for street town
[2:33:28] houses and will continue to be used for
[2:33:30] street town houses.
[2:33:33] uh what we heard at the public meeting
[2:33:34] the last public meeting there were
[2:33:36] concerns with regards to fencing and
[2:33:38] privacy I believe it's touched on the
[2:33:40] staff report that there are conditions
[2:33:42] of draft approval associated with the
[2:33:44] draft plan subdivisions that do require
[2:33:46] um the installation and erection of a
[2:33:48] wood fence along the perimeter of the
[2:33:49] property uh to provide for additional
[2:33:52] screening and buffering from those
[2:33:53] surrounding existing residential uses.
[2:33:55] Uh there were some issues concerns
[2:33:58] raised with regards to maintenance and
[2:33:59] deeds along shared property lines. In
[2:34:01] addition, I believe that there was some
[2:34:03] followup concerns comments passed along
[2:34:05] to the planning division with regards to
[2:34:07] those issues. Um, Robert Palms was out
[2:34:10] on site in early August to try to
[2:34:12] rectify remove the weeds as well as
[2:34:14] install the fence to start to install
[2:34:16] the fence and do the preliminary grading
[2:34:17] as Mr. Vanro touched on and there was
[2:34:20] this unexpected discovery of some wires
[2:34:22] that are along the property line that
[2:34:24] are not associated with any and were not
[2:34:27] known to be on property. saving a bit of
[2:34:29] time to figure out who those services
[2:34:31] belong to, whether or not they are
[2:34:33] active and whether or not we need to
[2:34:35] relocate them, whether to bury them, and
[2:34:36] we need to put these things in place.
[2:34:38] So, they they continue to try to rectify
[2:34:40] that issue. But the intent is that once
[2:34:41] we get that sorted out, and we know who
[2:34:44] the services belong to and that they're
[2:34:45] protected, then they'll continue with
[2:34:47] the grading that needs to happen, the
[2:34:49] weed removal as well as installation.
[2:34:52] I believe there was some concern express
[2:34:55] with regards to some of the existing
[2:34:57] draining issues that surround the front
[2:34:59] of the site. Some water that's not
[2:35:00] moving in sign that's staying in place.
[2:35:03] Um again there are conditions under
[2:35:04] draft approval for the subdivision that
[2:35:06] require the overall site to be developed
[2:35:09] um and constructed in accordance with
[2:35:10] the city standards. Um I would leager
[2:35:13] guess that hopefully through this
[2:35:14] construction will improve some of the
[2:35:16] grading challenges on the site. uh the
[2:35:18] site is expected to drain and provide
[2:35:20] for function on its own site and not
[2:35:22] allow drainage of all site. And then
[2:35:24] finally I believe there were comments
[2:35:26] with regards to suitability suitability
[2:35:28] character and compatibility with
[2:35:30] surrounding us. Again uh these clocks
[2:35:33] were always intended to accommodate
[2:35:34] these town houses. We're just looking
[2:35:36] for a slight variation and the coverage
[2:35:38] and terms to provide for a more
[2:35:40] wholesome coverage of the lock of these
[2:35:42] townhouse units.
[2:35:45] In my conclusion, um it's uh our
[2:35:47] planning report touched on this and I
[2:35:48] reiterate that uh the proposed zoning
[2:35:50] bylaw amendment is consistent with the
[2:35:52] PPS with the surrounding residential
[2:35:55] uses and makes use of existing or
[2:35:57] planned services of the community forms
[2:36:00] with the official plan as it complies
[2:36:02] with the policy objectives and
[2:36:03] development criteria for new development
[2:36:05] as well as the specific policy
[2:36:07] objectives with regards to special
[2:36:08] policy area 16. It complies with the
[2:36:11] zoning bylaw as it provides residents
[2:36:13] residential uses that are consistent in
[2:36:15] size, scale, and masking to the
[2:36:17] surrounding residential uses and in our
[2:36:19] opinion is appropriate in terms of
[2:36:21] suitability and context. I'd be happy to
[2:36:24] answer any questions that you may have.
[2:36:26] » Thank you for your consentation,
[2:36:27] Councelor Harris.
[2:36:29] » You the mayor. I'm just concerned that
[2:36:32] we had a public meeting July 15 and it's
[2:36:35] September 14th and nobody could go out
[2:36:38] with the weed eater and um cut down the
[2:36:40] weeds and then we have an issue with
[2:36:42] water. So if something like this was
[2:36:45] taking so long um I'm just worried about
[2:36:48] the water setting
[2:36:51] » For you Mr. Mayor. So in response to the
[2:36:54] comments that we received and then the
[2:36:55] feedback that we received from city
[2:36:57] staff, the developer had sent out to
[2:36:58] landscape and state contractors got on
[2:37:01] site, they refused to do any of the
[2:37:03] removal of the leads, either tiny weed
[2:37:05] whackers or machineries both for the
[2:37:07] removal of the leads as well as doing
[2:37:09] post installation until they know what
[2:37:11] is going on with those wires until they
[2:37:13] know that they're not live. Wires are
[2:37:14] alive for them. Um I as a followup to
[2:37:18] that we unfortunately can't do that much
[2:37:20] grading and changing of the works back
[2:37:22] there again because of these wires. It
[2:37:24] has been taking a long time to figure
[2:37:25] out I suspect that they're not anyone's
[2:37:28] system or someone has overlooked it. The
[2:37:30] fact that there was no existing ement or
[2:37:32] even drawings have indicated that those
[2:37:35] lines were there. Um, it's taking a bit
[2:37:37] of time to figure out who they belong to
[2:37:39] and how we can How on earth were they
[2:37:41] able to take the trees out then they
[2:37:44] can't take little weeds out. I just
[2:37:46] don't understand it. Doesn't make sense
[2:37:48] to me. I'm sorry. I I'm just feeling
[2:37:50] irritated about it because I think
[2:37:53] something that can be very irritating to
[2:37:55] our residents walking out their backyard
[2:37:57] and you it's all under construction when
[2:37:59] you've got these sweets and stuff and um
[2:38:02] I'm sure if there was a fire or
[2:38:04] something fire department would know it
[2:38:05] the next day or that night. So I just
[2:38:07] don't understand
[2:38:11] director
[2:38:13] during you and your worship. I I know in
[2:38:16] prior years we've been communicating
[2:38:18] with the developers in regards to that
[2:38:20] she so between myself and the man we
[2:38:22] will continue to work with Miss Bar and
[2:38:24] the property owner to actively
[2:38:26] [clears throat] manage and deal with
[2:38:28] those
[2:38:30] other comments or questions at this
[2:38:32] time.
[2:38:39] of the council. Do you have any starting
[2:38:42] how many
[2:38:44] starting
[2:38:46] » Mr. Mayor? They're saying, like I said,
[2:38:48] they indicated that they're starting to
[2:38:50] do rules on the site. They're starting
[2:38:52] to do preliminary grading. I believe
[2:38:53] that there's instruction that's starting
[2:38:55] on the town houses.
[2:38:57] They'd like to get started as soon as
[2:38:59] possible. Um, putting up a fence was
[2:39:01] kind of the next step in terms of
[2:39:02] ensuring that we're providing additional
[2:39:04] screening and privacy. screen those
[2:39:06] cases of residential uses from
[2:39:11] » So
[2:39:13] people think it's are you working with
[2:39:15] the city or you is that even
[2:39:19] » Uh for you Mr. Mayor yes absolutely the
[2:39:22] city is aware of the issues and we're
[2:39:24] all trying to collectively work together
[2:39:25] to figure out who these wires belong to
[2:39:27] and how they're going to fix the
[2:39:28] situation.
[2:39:30] Just the last question
[2:39:34] about what about the parking and and
[2:39:37] with the playground
[2:39:40] that uh
[2:39:43] I think I think I just talked to this
[2:39:46] question before do we have any
[2:39:48] playground there
[2:39:51] » Approve you Mr. There is no playground
[2:39:53] that's provided as part of the proposed
[2:39:55] draft decision or approved excuse me
[2:39:57] approved draft.
[2:39:58] » Not yet.
[2:40:01] » Sorry.
[2:40:01] » No.
[2:40:05] I mean
[2:40:06] » Sorry the draft plan subdivision has
[2:40:07] already been approved.
[2:40:08] » Yes.
[2:40:09] » So there was no park space provided as
[2:40:10] part of the drop plan subdivision.
[2:40:13] » Okay. Uh so sh I have a question for
[2:40:16] director. Do you have any unexplaining
[2:40:18] more information? Please
[2:40:21] » Can you repeat the question?
[2:40:22] » Can you repeat the question
[2:40:23] » About the playground?
[2:40:26] » So, as Mendelle stated, there's no
[2:40:28] playground planned or itself with the
[2:40:30] misplanned subdivision. There's area
[2:40:32] parks. There's the countryside parking
[2:40:34] plans to the west or north of the Rotary
[2:40:37] complex to which this development will
[2:40:39] have access to. So, some developments
[2:40:41] either have physical parkland in their
[2:40:43] subdivision. Others pay cash in loom.
[2:40:47] » So they all have to contribute to
[2:40:48] parkland either physically by installing
[2:40:50] a park for parkets etc or by giving um
[2:40:54] cash and lination.
[2:40:57] Anything further?
[2:41:00] » Anything further from council this
[2:41:02] month?
[2:41:04] » Thank you.
[2:41:04] » Thank you.
[2:41:13] So your worship as outlined on the
[2:41:15] agenda. There is a staff recommendation
[2:41:17] that application be approved for the
[2:41:19] reasons noted.
[2:41:23] Moved by council, second by councelor B.
[2:41:26] Any further discussion?
[2:41:29] Seeing none all in favor
[2:41:32] on opposed
[2:41:37] item 7.2 is the draft use municipal
[2:41:40] accommodation tax policy. Um and it's my
[2:41:42] understanding that councelor Burbach as
[2:41:44] chair of the adoc committee is going to
[2:41:46] provide a brief overview um followed by
[2:41:49] a motion to hear the delegations.
[2:41:51] » Thank you Burback. Go ahead
[2:41:52] » To the chair. Um yeah so I was the chair
[2:41:56] of this um ad hoc committee. So,
[2:41:59] municipal accommodation tax we've been
[2:42:01] collecting for about four years and uh
[2:42:04] the province has a general framework to
[2:42:08] tell us how we can spend this money. And
[2:42:11] there were um several people in the
[2:42:14] community in the um tourism sector that
[2:42:17] would that had ideas about how we could
[2:42:20] more do some more focused spending uh in
[2:42:25] order to use that money to advance
[2:42:28] tourism in our area. So we had a lot of
[2:42:31] really wide ranging and good discussion
[2:42:34] um about effective ways to encourage
[2:42:36] tourism um specifically overnight stays
[2:42:39] and seasonal tourism. So seasonal being
[2:42:43] what we've been calling shoulder season
[2:42:45] or offseason tourism. Um, so we came up
[2:42:48] with uh a draft policy that would
[2:42:51] support events and experiences gen
[2:42:54] specifically generating overnight
[2:42:56] opportunities for the local tourism
[2:42:58] sector. So this would generate overnight
[2:43:03] stays and then that in um in succession
[2:43:07] would then have tourism tourists come
[2:43:11] and spend money in other areas in our
[2:43:14] city. So we know that people if they
[2:43:15] come for an overnight stay, they're very
[2:43:18] likely to be eating in our area and
[2:43:20] shopping and taking in other
[2:43:23] experiences. So um we've come up with
[2:43:26] actually with a a quite a um I'm quite
[2:43:30] proud of the policy that we've come up
[2:43:32] with to create a criteria based grant
[2:43:35] program to support and encourage larger
[2:43:37] events in Stratford. So, we don't
[2:43:40] actually have a grant program that
[2:43:43] focuses so specifically on this. So, um
[2:43:46] we prepared this for council's
[2:43:48] consideration. There are a few elements
[2:43:50] maybe that need to be smoothed out, but
[2:43:52] I think in general I highly recommend
[2:43:55] this policy as being a good way forward
[2:43:57] to spend some of our math funding.
[2:44:01] » Thank you.
[2:44:06] the cler I believe we have any items on
[2:44:09] the agenda
[2:44:11] » Through your worship. Yes, that is
[2:44:13] correct. So turning to your addendum. Um
[2:44:16] there is a motion that the
[2:44:17] correspondence received from Teresa
[2:44:19] Albert and Elena Pastor you received and
[2:44:23] that Jennifer Birmingham and Barbara Shi
[2:44:25] be heard.
[2:44:27] by councelor Bristo seconded by
[2:44:29] councelor
[2:44:31] in discussion with see all there was
[2:44:36] unanimous and car so at this time why
[2:44:40] don't you invite
[2:44:43] a shot
[2:44:54] » Oh I'm sorry are you both at the same
[2:44:57] Okay.
[2:45:17] » Thank you. Thank you, [clears throat]
[2:45:18] Mr. Mayor and and Council. Um, I'm here
[2:45:21] today uh representing the Inkeepers
[2:45:24] Collective. I delegated at the first ad
[2:45:26] hoc committee in January and attended a
[2:45:30] couple of the others. Uh the report uh
[2:45:33] to the newly formed committee did not
[2:45:35] actually provide Larry McKate's motion
[2:45:38] um about added consultation. I mean it
[2:45:41] had been forgotten by staff and the
[2:45:42] chair. We rectified that because I know
[2:45:46] it was a unanimous unanimous support. Um
[2:45:50] I did support the idea of the survey if
[2:45:52] the committee was not consulted in the
[2:45:54] creation of it and it could have been
[2:45:56] perceived as their work. There are
[2:45:59] better ways in my opinion to engage the
[2:46:02] public and most people have no
[2:46:05] understanding um about that or the
[2:46:08] tourism industry.
[2:46:10] Everyone seems to think there's a pot of
[2:46:13] gold. Well, I can tell you there's no
[2:46:15] pot of gold. And um I think what I want
[2:46:20] to say is um I would also like to remind
[2:46:24] you that many of us as accommodators
[2:46:29] actually pay the 4% of our staff. We
[2:46:33] don't charge it to our guests. Um and as
[2:46:36] you may or may not know, day tourism,
[2:46:38] they come and go and there's no there's
[2:46:41] no money for there.
[2:46:44] Um and most people don't know that
[2:46:47] tourism here in Stratford is fragile.
[2:46:50] You first had co then you have Trump
[2:46:54] and then there has not been enough
[2:46:57] creation of events that actually
[2:47:00] encourage overnight states.
[2:47:03] Um,
[2:47:05] nor do people understand
[2:47:08] that tourism is a huge economic driver
[2:47:12] that actually sustained the downtown
[2:47:15] core. And without it, our restaurants
[2:47:18] would not survive, nor would our retail.
[2:47:22] Overnight stays must increase if we want
[2:47:26] to be strong. When guests stay over,
[2:47:29] like was said, they buy lunches, they go
[2:47:33] shopping, uh they do other events. Um
[2:47:37] and we thrive because of that. Um
[2:47:42] accommodators,
[2:47:44] us as accommodators encourage people to
[2:47:47] stay over on Sundays and Mondays so
[2:47:51] guests have more time to spend in our
[2:47:53] city. I want you to understand that the
[2:47:56] accommodators are your ambassadors.
[2:47:59] We are the ones that have the knowledge
[2:48:02] and we are the ones that are the first
[2:48:04] point of contact contact of people
[2:48:07] coming to our city council. You had
[2:48:11] several applications to be members on
[2:48:14] the ad hoc committee. You must have
[2:48:16] picked the very best people who
[2:48:19] volunteered their time. They were
[2:48:22] charged. It was not just five meetings,
[2:48:25] but all the reading and research, and
[2:48:27] there was a ton of it, that they did
[2:48:30] ahead and during. I know the
[2:48:32] accommodators you chose truly were and
[2:48:36] are the best with the most knowledge and
[2:48:39] the most experience of anyone dedicated
[2:48:43] to doing what is right for Stratford.
[2:48:46] [clears throat]
[2:48:47] They know if we encourage over next days
[2:48:50] and build the shoulder season, the city
[2:48:54] benefits economically.
[2:48:57] Inkeepers researched other
[2:48:59] municipalities methods on how to spend
[2:49:02] the M wisely and fairly for the most
[2:49:06] benefit. We provided the city with
[2:49:08] Niagara on the lake. what diver the lake
[2:49:11] created which is a merit-based system as
[2:49:14] this committee does make that
[2:49:16] recommendation I remember staff being
[2:49:19] impressed with Niagara and what they
[2:49:23] have done most of the cities we
[2:49:26] researched
[2:49:27] supported increasing overnight states in
[2:49:30] their mission statements they all
[2:49:33] believed if people stay longer then it's
[2:49:36] a good thing for the city economically
[2:49:40] It just makes sense. Having merit-based
[2:49:45] point system is what Nyra does and
[2:49:48] others and your ad hoc committee
[2:49:51] approved by council supported it in the
[2:49:55] draft policy. It creates consistency in
[2:49:59] evaluating applications
[2:50:02] and the investments are strategic and
[2:50:05] can be replicated from one application
[2:50:09] to the next. The process is transparent
[2:50:14] and accountable.
[2:50:16] » [clears throat]
[2:50:16] » The committee recommended a standing
[2:50:18] committee of volunteers to review
[2:50:21] applications and evaluate them using the
[2:50:24] point system and other criteria. This
[2:50:28] committee would be made up of residents
[2:50:30] not council to eliminate any political
[2:50:33] influence and add fairness to the
[2:50:36] process. Council would as always pass
[2:50:40] the final say as they have the approval
[2:50:44] authority on all reports.
[2:50:48] Recommendation as staff was to receive
[2:50:50] it and then there was some options.
[2:50:56] I thoroughly read the report and I'm
[2:50:58] going to say I was disappointed. Um, I
[2:51:00] feel that the report that was provided
[2:51:03] was biased
[2:51:05] and I was one
[2:51:08] and if I were one Dorian of your
[2:51:11] selected volunteers who worked their
[2:51:13] butt off for you, I'd be insulted.
[2:51:18] Why would anyone want to volunteer on a
[2:51:22] council committee if it's just all the
[2:51:25] work is going to be ignorant? So let's
[2:51:29] keep the ad hoc committee
[2:51:31] recommendations
[2:51:33] moving forward to eliminate delays.
[2:51:37] Write the terms of reference and the
[2:51:40] next council can approve them instead of
[2:51:43] waiting.
[2:51:44] Council, you have a choice.
[2:51:47] Listen to staff who are under these
[2:51:50] particular circumstances aren't the
[2:51:52] experts or support your expert
[2:51:56] volunteers that you chose by voting for
[2:51:59] option one. The map ad hoc committee
[2:52:03] recommends that the use of municipal
[2:52:05] accommodation tax policy be adopted as a
[2:52:08] guide to use the city's portions of the
[2:52:11] municipal accommodation tax collection
[2:52:13] to grow the city of Stratford's visitor
[2:52:16] economy through strategic investments in
[2:52:20] tourism and destination development with
[2:52:24] a focus on increased overnight visits.
[2:52:29] And in a few years you can do some data
[2:52:32] collecting, you can do some assessment
[2:52:35] and if you need to make approvements,
[2:52:37] there's nothing wrong with looking at it
[2:52:40] then. But right now, support option one,
[2:52:43] please. And I thank you for your time
[2:52:46] and if you have any questions, I'm happy
[2:52:49] to try and answer the questions of this.
[2:52:55] That's fine. Thank you.
[2:53:09] Good evening.
[2:53:11] My name is J Bingham. I am on the map
[2:53:14] adop committee representing larger
[2:53:16] properties as the owner of the first
[2:53:18] tub. For those in the um public area
[2:53:23] that may be unaware, the committee was
[2:53:25] made up were citizens. Two
[2:53:27] accommodators, a business owner and a
[2:53:30] resident.
[2:53:32] The committee was chaired in meetings by
[2:53:34] councelor Jodie Burbach. Please know
[2:53:37] that I have not gauged other committee
[2:53:39] members response to the management
[2:53:41] report. I now speak only for myself.
[2:53:47] I had hoped the hours dedicated to
[2:53:49] preparing for and attending ad hoc
[2:53:51] meetings practice policy would have been
[2:53:54] enough. I had hoped our open
[2:53:56] conversation and respectful debate
[2:53:58] during those meetings would have been
[2:54:00] enough.
[2:54:02] I had hoped that unanimous support of
[2:54:04] this policy by the committee would have
[2:54:07] been enough.
[2:54:09] But while the policy is here as
[2:54:11] expected, I fear the accounting
[2:54:13] management report undermines the work
[2:54:15] that we did. And this is why I'm here
[2:54:18] tonight.
[2:54:20] I want to speak on two points. The
[2:54:23] policy's emphasis on overnight stays and
[2:54:25] the recommendation of an independent
[2:54:27] committee to assess the applications.
[2:54:31] I said at the beginning of the first
[2:54:33] committee meeting and I will repeat it
[2:54:35] here to the city. The money from the net
[2:54:39] is passive income. To those of us that
[2:54:42] generate it, it is anything but. We work
[2:54:46] really hard to host the people who visit
[2:54:49] our city.
[2:54:51] But our hard work is not why the policy
[2:54:54] focuses on overnight stays.
[2:54:58] As everyone present already understands,
[2:55:01] there is a direct correlation between
[2:55:03] the success of accommodation businesses
[2:55:06] and the net revenue.
[2:55:08] Every single dollar the city receives is
[2:55:12] because of the room nights be sold. If
[2:55:15] our revenue drops, so did the transfers
[2:55:18] to the city.
[2:55:20] But this is not the sole reason why we
[2:55:22] focused on overnights. It is also and I
[2:55:26] would argue primarily about the health
[2:55:29] of the broader tourism community.
[2:55:32] Tourism data shows that overnight stays
[2:55:34] never stand on their own. They are the
[2:55:37] economic drivers and our key metric in
[2:55:39] considering the overall health of a
[2:55:41] tourism region.
[2:55:43] I would like you to put a hint in the
[2:55:46] last part of that sentence because I'll
[2:55:48] be returning to it.
[2:55:50] In 2016, Destination Stratford pointed
[2:55:54] out that above overnight stays by 15%
[2:55:57] would result in an increase of 23.5
[2:56:01] million in visitor receipts.
[2:56:04] That's 2016 money. In 2026 money, that
[2:56:09] equals $31 million.
[2:56:12] That number becomes especially
[2:56:14] interesting when you consider only 30%
[2:56:17] of tourism spending is on accommodation.
[2:56:20] That leaves a whopping 22 billion
[2:56:23] divided among sectors like restaurant,
[2:56:26] entertainment, and retail.
[2:56:29] 15% increase in Brunai sold equals $31
[2:56:33] million to this community.
[2:56:36] And here's where I'll bring back the
[2:56:39] sentence from a moment ago. I'll refresh
[2:56:41] everyone's memory. Overnight stays are a
[2:56:44] key metric in considering the overall
[2:56:47] health of a tourism region.
[2:56:50] In that report by destination Stratford,
[2:56:53] it also pointed out that increasing
[2:56:55] overnight stays by 15% would bring us
[2:56:58] closer to the provincial average.
[2:57:03] An increase of 15% would bring us closer
[2:57:06] to the provincial average.
[2:57:09] » [clears throat]
[2:57:09] » For anyone that thought the city of
[2:57:11] Stratford was a leader in tourism, the
[2:57:13] data shows that is simply not the case.
[2:57:16] It wasn't in 2016 and it certainly isn't
[2:57:19] today. In fact, in 2025, room nights lag
[2:57:24] 34%
[2:57:26] behind the provincial average.
[2:57:28] I'm sure that number surprises many in
[2:57:31] the room. Which brings me to point two.
[2:57:35] I believe that everyone counselors,
[2:57:37] taxpayers, and stakeholders alike would
[2:57:39] agree that it is important that the
[2:57:41] money be distributed fairly,
[2:57:43] responsibly, and with the best return on
[2:57:46] investment possible. That funded insight
[2:57:49] takes the guidance of people who know
[2:57:51] the industry.
[2:57:53] And it is those in the room who knew
[2:57:55] that the city trails are industry peers
[2:57:58] who are the most valuable in assessing
[2:58:00] and recommending applications to
[2:58:02] council.
[2:58:04] They know not only what makes their
[2:58:06] businesses successful, but what would
[2:58:08] make the city successful as well.
[2:58:12] During committee meetings where we were
[2:58:14] told time and time and time again that
[2:58:17] council gets to make the final decision
[2:58:20] on this policy and on every decision to
[2:58:23] distribute that money. I understand
[2:58:26] that. I do.
[2:58:29] But I also like to believe that I live
[2:58:31] in a community where the work of a
[2:58:33] committee whose members were chosen by
[2:58:34] this council would be supported.
[2:58:38] That work that ensures funds be
[2:58:41] distributed fairly, responsibly and with
[2:58:43] the best return on investment possible
[2:58:46] would be supported
[2:58:48] and that the work and that work that is
[2:58:50] informed by expertise and a true desire
[2:58:53] to see tourism thrive would be
[2:58:56] supported.
[2:58:57] Thank you. Any
[2:59:01] questions for the present
[2:59:06] for your time with the community
[2:59:21] as noted on the agenda there is a staff
[2:59:22] recommendation that the report title
[2:59:24] draft use of municipal comp tax policy
[2:59:27] be received for information and that
[2:59:29] council provide to staff private
[2:59:31] direction staff on next step. So we are
[2:59:33] looking for direction from council
[2:59:38] » Uh through the mayor. First of all I'd
[2:59:40] like to thank everybody who participated
[2:59:43] in the alcohol committee and the
[2:59:46] discussions around it. I certainly agree
[2:59:49] with the idea that overnight foundation
[2:59:51] should be a piece of our strategy at the
[2:59:54] city of Straford. uh and the data backs
[2:59:57] that up in a general sense in what we do
[3:00:00] and that the um uh shoulder season is
[3:00:05] particularly a place where that should
[3:00:06] be focused on. Uh but I don't know
[3:00:10] necessarily that I agree with the um
[3:00:13] with all of the funings and I think
[3:00:15] there's things that have to be worked
[3:00:16] through there. We do have a destination
[3:00:19] marketing organization
[3:00:21] uh [clears throat] that is really
[3:00:23] responsible for marketing and uh uh and
[3:00:27] coming up with programs for this for us.
[3:00:31] Uh I understand that we are working on a
[3:00:33] memorandum of understanding a service
[3:00:35] agreement with them. Uh it seems to me
[3:00:38] that that would be the right place for
[3:00:40] that. In previous versions of
[3:00:43] destination Stratford, which I was at
[3:00:45] one point the chair of, there was a
[3:00:48] committee that was led by who
[3:00:52] recommended the um the tourism uh
[3:00:56] marketing budget and released funds to
[3:00:58] it. Um and things have gotten you know
[3:01:03] mixed up over the years through co and
[3:01:05] other ways that that hasn't sort of
[3:01:08] transferred but there are other things
[3:01:11] that tourism dollars can be afforded to.
[3:01:14] We do live in a community in which not
[3:01:16] everybody is feels that they are
[3:01:18] supported by the tourism economy and we
[3:01:20] have to be aware that they don't
[3:01:23] necessarily like the flowers that we
[3:01:25] that we uh that we plan to make the city
[3:01:28] beautiful and they don't represent but
[3:01:30] we make them pay for it and there is no
[3:01:33] reason why under the legislation things
[3:01:35] like that infrastructure pieces could
[3:01:37] not be also funded with the city's
[3:01:40] portion of M dollars. Uh so I I
[3:01:44] understand the the focus of the
[3:01:46] committee and and agree with the general
[3:01:48] finding that we need to be focusing on
[3:01:51] overnight accommodations. They spend
[3:01:52] more money. They spend more time in our
[3:01:54] community and they become part of a
[3:01:56] community. Uh I think that there still
[3:01:59] needs to be some work done on exactly
[3:02:02] how that looks and it's managed by
[3:02:04] council. I think that there's a
[3:02:06] recommendation in there that uh that
[3:02:09] that committee would would be
[3:02:11] responsible for setting the math tax
[3:02:13] rate. I don't think that that makes a
[3:02:15] lot of sense that it takes it out of the
[3:02:16] hands of council. Uh which ultimately
[3:02:20] the people of Straford will want us to
[3:02:22] be responsible for. So I think that
[3:02:24] there's lots of good work that has been
[3:02:26] done here. Uh, and I just wonder if in
[3:02:29] this process Destination Sher was
[3:02:32] formally brought into the discussions at
[3:02:35] all.
[3:02:38] » Thank you.
[3:02:42] » Jerry, did you want to respond to that?
[3:02:43] » Sure. Um, through the chair. Uh, no. We
[3:02:46] did not talk directly to Destination
[3:02:48] Stratford. I do know that they followed
[3:02:50] closely and you know looking at the
[3:02:53] grant program when I talked about it
[3:02:56] with destination track folks um they
[3:03:00] don't have a problem with it their goal
[3:03:01] is the same to um increase tourism
[3:03:05] overall and increasing overnight states
[3:03:08] is definitely a way to do that so when I
[3:03:11] look at the options um I do want the
[3:03:15] policy
[3:03:17] adopted
[3:03:19] The only parts of it that I might have
[3:03:21] some misgivings with are the the
[3:03:23] percentage. So the recommendation that
[3:03:26] the committee made was that the full
[3:03:28] amount of the city portion of the MAT
[3:03:31] tax would go towards this grant program.
[3:03:33] And I think there's a world in which we
[3:03:35] can have the grant program and we have
[3:03:38] some money set aside so that council can
[3:03:41] use that money within the parameters
[3:03:43] province gives. And like you're saying,
[3:03:45] Councelor McCabe, perhaps supporting
[3:03:48] tourism in some other ways that could
[3:03:50] take the burden off the the taxpayer in
[3:03:53] general. So I I'm not sure exactly what
[3:03:57] that looks like. I was thinking that it
[3:03:59] would be the total amount of Matt tax
[3:04:02] right now, it's about $350,000.
[3:04:06] So let's say we divide that into thirds.
[3:04:09] We're going to round up. um maybe we
[3:04:12] could have, you know, twothirds going
[3:04:15] towards this grant program and a third
[3:04:19] going towards
[3:04:21] uh our reserve fund in where that
[3:04:24] council can have a little bit more
[3:04:25] flexibility. Um so going forward, I
[3:04:28] would like to see something like that.
[3:04:31] Uh, as far as the the committee to
[3:04:34] recommend
[3:04:36] um how the money is spent, that one's a
[3:04:38] little trickier, I think, and I think we
[3:04:40] need to spend a little more time
[3:04:42] thinking about how we can do that. Um,
[3:04:45] we have brand programs already. We have
[3:04:48] the community grant program city which
[3:04:50] is administered by a a staff council
[3:04:55] group committee that works together.
[3:04:58] Um we have destination Stratford that
[3:05:00] also has a grant program. So there there
[3:05:03] are places where we are already running
[3:05:05] grant programs and this could be a
[3:05:09] possible possibly move to one of those
[3:05:12] areas wherever it's going to fit the
[3:05:14] best. um and could possibly also include
[3:05:18] people again from the public that
[3:05:22] experts as we heard from the people that
[3:05:24] are accommodators and that are in the
[3:05:27] tourism industry could also be a part of
[3:05:29] it. Um, so I guess my recommendation is
[3:05:34] option one with a few police.
[3:05:38] Um, I don't know. I maybe I'll leave it
[3:05:41] before I make that leave it to my
[3:05:42] colleagues to talk about some of the
[3:05:45] parts as I'm [clears throat]
[3:05:47] recommending it before I make motion.
[3:05:50] Council.
[3:05:51] » Uh, thank you to the mayor. Um, there's
[3:05:54] obviously a lot of work gone into this
[3:05:56] and and grateful for that. the um it it
[3:05:59] feels to me like it's starting to
[3:06:01] fragment a little and I think council
[3:06:04] McCabe kind of touched on that. It
[3:06:05] almost feels like we're creating a new
[3:06:07] destination Stratford and and and
[3:06:12] that's uh challenging enough, but we
[3:06:14] also have BIA that's trying to attract
[3:06:17] people to our downtown. And I wonder if
[3:06:20] there's a way we can kind of coordinate
[3:06:22] that a little better instead of because
[3:06:24] if we're duplicating work that's not
[3:06:27] efficient. Um I I I agree with with
[3:06:30] their goal of increasing overnight
[3:06:32] stays. I think it's really important
[3:06:34] that our accommodators be supported. Um
[3:06:37] and we depend on them in the summer. So
[3:06:40] allowing them to survive requires that
[3:06:42] we do more for them in the winter and
[3:06:45] the shoulder seasons. and anything
[3:06:47] that's going to boost that I'm in favor
[3:06:48] of. Um I I I just feel like there's
[3:06:52] there's more discussion required at this
[3:06:54] yet. And I was inclined to either defer
[3:06:58] it uh or to or to um get input from
[3:07:02] staff on how we might make this work
[3:07:04] better. But I would like the
[3:07:05] accommodators to definitely have a say
[3:07:07] in how the money is spent. Um and and
[3:07:12] you know have them u get an opportunity
[3:07:15] to recommend things that are going to
[3:07:17] boost those overnight stays. And I think
[3:07:20] that's what I was kind of expecting in
[3:07:21] this report was sort of a list of
[3:07:24] recommended uh things that could be
[3:07:26] done. Um and this this is just different
[3:07:29] that than that and I think it requires
[3:07:31] more uh thought and discussion still
[3:07:48] like
[3:07:50] does that any chance to
[3:07:53] » So through the chair if I understand
[3:07:55] your question correctly Are you are you
[3:07:57] asking if we can get grants to put
[3:08:01] towards this? Yes.
[3:08:02] » Um that's a good question from upper
[3:08:04] levels of government maybe. But this
[3:08:05] this one is specifically focused on the
[3:08:08] money that we're collecting, the revenue
[3:08:10] that we're collecting with this specific
[3:08:12] municipal accommodation tax. Um how we
[3:08:16] want to spend it. So it's that the
[3:08:18] proposal is to create a grant program to
[3:08:21] help anybody who would like to create an
[3:08:23] event that would draw more people to
[3:08:26] Stratford.
[3:08:28] » I'm not sure that we say like 300,000.
[3:08:34] » So 350,000 is the approximate annual
[3:08:37] revenue right now. So uh that's the
[3:08:40] city's portion of the Matt tax or the
[3:08:43] MAT revenue. um the other portion
[3:08:45] already goes to destination scrapford.
[3:08:47] So that money then my my recommendation
[3:08:51] was to maybe divide that again in parts
[3:08:55] one part going towards this grant
[3:08:58] structure and the other part being put
[3:09:01] into reserve.
[3:09:04] Other
[3:09:05] questions or comments?
[3:09:08] » Um to the chair and you know I think the
[3:09:11] ideas that we um well there's a couple
[3:09:14] concerns that I've had uh regarding
[3:09:17] spending 100% of this through this grant
[3:09:20] program. That leaves us with a position
[3:09:23] where in for example uh we just were
[3:09:27] about three years or we were uh shut
[3:09:29] down uh and we had terrific government
[3:09:32] support from other levels of government.
[3:09:34] There's no guarantee that that is going
[3:09:35] to happen in the future. uh and I think
[3:09:39] uh one of the mistakes that was made
[3:09:41] early in the organization years ago was
[3:09:45] not keeping that uh reserve fund uh
[3:09:49] flushed for a period of time when there
[3:09:51] were challenges that were set up. So
[3:09:53] that's one thing that I' I'd like to see
[3:09:55] happening here. uh as well as uh really
[3:10:00] understanding like the the uh what what
[3:10:05] exactly can't be supported by this. For
[3:10:09] example, let's say that we wanted to
[3:10:11] have a uh two nights accommodation get
[3:10:14] the third night free which is funded by
[3:10:17] this that is that anticipated within
[3:10:21] this policy or are we just talking about
[3:10:24] events as a specific thing? It's there
[3:10:28] there there just seems to be some
[3:10:29] questions in my mind regarding the
[3:10:33] flexibility in what we use the the
[3:10:35] funding for or or fund and being able to
[3:10:38] strategically act quickly on demand
[3:10:43] problems that we see in the um in the
[3:10:45] market.
[3:10:48] » Thank you. Other colleagues
[3:10:55] » To you the mayor. I just want a
[3:10:56] clarification. So we saying that we're
[3:10:58] getting 700,000
[3:11:00] and we get 350 and destination starts to
[3:11:04] get 350. That's right. Okay. Thank you.
[3:11:10] » Any other comments?
[3:11:12] » I guess I got a follow.
[3:11:14] » Yes sir.
[3:11:15] » Through the bar. Um I I think the
[3:11:18] policies were really good and
[3:11:23] because we're in the initial stages of
[3:11:25] this and we're just sort of finding our
[3:11:27] way.
[3:11:29] I mean I think the first year going on
[3:11:32] to the second year, you know, we're
[3:11:35] going to find different things that
[3:11:36] maybe we want we want to support or we
[3:11:39] don't want to support.
[3:11:42] And the brand idea is kind of a neat
[3:11:44] idea like like you were just talking
[3:11:45] about Larry about vote um you know two
[3:11:48] nights a day getting an excellent half
[3:11:50] price or something like I'm not sure how
[3:11:52] that was worked and I'm not sure if um
[3:11:57] other communities are doing things like
[3:11:59] that but like you know we supported the
[3:12:01] lights on stro because that was bringing
[3:12:04] all kinds of people in plus our local
[3:12:06] residents got to benefit from it right
[3:12:09] and so things like that um having hockey
[3:12:13] teams coming in for tournaments during
[3:12:15] the winter months that brings some
[3:12:17] people in and you know you got to try to
[3:12:19] figure out if you can have turn around a
[3:12:21] whole weekend so that that brings people
[3:12:22] in for a weekend right so those are the
[3:12:26] kind of things that I was thinking be
[3:12:29] spending spending on like trying to you
[3:12:32] know so the restaurants can be open in
[3:12:34] the winter time and um or even just some
[3:12:37] of them so they can start planning among
[3:12:39] themselves or
[3:12:41] some shut down on that. But I mean, um
[3:12:45] I'm wondering if we in my mind, option
[3:12:47] one is what we should be endorsing, but
[3:12:50] with some with a few changes. So, I'm
[3:12:53] not sure if that means we do option two
[3:12:55] and then suggest some ideas that see
[3:12:59] change and they'll be brought up.
[3:13:05] other comments or direction staff counc
[3:13:09] » Thank you to the chair I'm wondering if
[3:13:11] there's a middle ground that we can find
[3:13:13] where because I think a lot of times we
[3:13:15] learn more by by doing and by testing
[3:13:17] out a grant program and if there's a way
[3:13:19] to kind of transition to almost a pilot
[3:13:22] initiative but thinking a third quarter
[3:13:24] and we're coming off on a shoulder
[3:13:25] season to see what it looks like as
[3:13:29] there's a few tweaks needed to be made
[3:13:31] but essentially taking the great work of
[3:13:33] our committee and putting it through a
[3:13:35] shoulder season in a kind of um I was
[3:13:39] not 100% but in a smaller way to see one
[3:13:41] what is put forward um because that will
[3:13:44] drastically change.
[3:13:47] Some of us have ideas of what that could
[3:13:48] be like but there could be ideas that we
[3:13:50] never considered as well as what that uh
[3:13:53] process can look like and what the
[3:13:55] results can look like. It's obviously a
[3:13:57] much smaller version, but taking that as
[3:13:59] a smaller doing learning opportunity
[3:14:02] that then allows uh applicants to give
[3:14:05] feedback on the process. We can have
[3:14:06] feedback more on what the coordination
[3:14:08] mechanism looks like. But I think doing
[3:14:10] something and taking the great work and
[3:14:12] actioning it sooner than later um would
[3:14:14] allow for that. I just don't know if
[3:14:15] that's possible that you could speak to
[3:14:17] what
[3:14:19] setting aside a smaller version to or
[3:14:21] try out a small would look like.
[3:14:25] Thank you. Any other comments or
[3:14:28] direction? Counc.
[3:14:30] » Um, mayor. So,
[3:14:33] I kind of like the idea of having like a
[3:14:35] mini committee, but I think it should
[3:14:37] be, you know, maybe a couple off the
[3:14:39] original committee. Definitely. It
[3:14:42] sounds like destination shipping and
[3:14:46] that way they can work through
[3:14:49] you know finalizing these grant ideas
[3:14:51] and um but there's no such reinvent in
[3:14:55] the wheel of we've already had
[3:14:58] um gas station properties
[3:15:20] Burbach.
[3:15:21] » I just lost my train of thought there.
[3:15:23] But um
[3:15:25] so councelor Henderson, I think that
[3:15:28] this this proposal is quite different or
[3:15:31] we would draw a different type of event
[3:15:33] than perhaps destination Stratford has
[3:15:35] sort of looked at in the past. So, I
[3:15:37] think that's where it would make it
[3:15:39] different. Um, so I'm just going to make
[3:15:42] a proposal uh put forward a motion that
[3:15:46] we would um adopt the policy as
[3:15:50] presented.
[3:15:52] Well, not quite as presented to adopt
[3:15:54] the policy of the grant program that the
[3:15:58] ad hoc committee created.
[3:16:01] um and dedicate onethird
[3:16:06] of uh the city's portion of the MA
[3:16:08] revenue to that program. I like the idea
[3:16:12] of having it as a pilot program. So, I
[3:16:14] propose that it would be a one-year
[3:16:17] trial
[3:16:20] and yeah, that's those are all the
[3:16:22] details.
[3:16:24] » Is there a second for that? Counc will
[3:16:27] second that discussion. Counc
[3:16:30] » Uh just to clarify through the mayor. So
[3:16:32] the the remaining twothirds would be
[3:16:34] distributed
[3:16:35] » The remaining two/3s would go into the
[3:16:36] reserve fund as as they do currently and
[3:16:40] then so that money would be up to the
[3:16:42] discretion of of council within the
[3:16:44] provincial spending policy
[3:16:49] and just clarify was it oneird for the
[3:16:52] city reserve and two3 for the grant
[3:16:56] » One third for the grant committee and
[3:16:57] two/3s for the district
[3:17:01] I missed
[3:17:03] instead of the other
[3:17:11] one.
[3:17:12] » That's is there a second there for chair
[3:17:15] burbex?
[3:17:17] We'll second that.
[3:17:19] Other comments.
[3:17:21] [clears throat]
[3:17:23] » Let me clarify the mot.
[3:17:25] » Yes, I was going to suggest that just so
[3:17:28] that everybody's clear.
[3:17:31] Exam clerk, you read back.
[3:17:36] » My understanding that the motion moved
[3:17:39] by councelor Burbach and seconded by
[3:17:41] councelor Brisco is that the
[3:17:44] use of municipal accommodation tax
[3:17:46] policy
[3:17:48] be adopted
[3:17:51] uh and include the following amendments.
[3:17:53] that onethird of the city's portion uh
[3:17:57] be directed to the grant committee and
[3:17:59] that 2/3 be directed to the reserve.
[3:18:02] » Is that correct?
[3:18:04] » Sorry. On a one-year trial basis.
[3:18:07] » Yes. Yes.
[3:18:12] » Just for clarity, there's like when the
[3:18:15] when the revenues are reported for the
[3:18:17] city, 100% of the revenues go to the
[3:18:21] service. Then from there, onethird would
[3:18:24] be allocated to the grant program. Just
[3:18:27] language consistency and so that there's
[3:18:30] no um the way that it was previously
[3:18:32] worded sort of maybe thought that it
[3:18:34] seems like we would be cutting somebody
[3:18:36] a check for oneird right somewhere to
[3:18:40] administer. So that wouldn't necessarily
[3:18:42] happen.
[3:18:43] » Is that acceptable? Yeah, I appreciate
[3:18:45] that.
[3:18:47] » Crystal,
[3:18:49] » Other comments? Councelor Brock and then
[3:18:52] councelor
[3:18:52] » And I I just wanted to ask councelor 7
[3:18:56] um what your idea would be that the
[3:19:00] ideal say split of the money or or not
[3:19:03] no splitting. I'm just curious about the
[3:19:05] thoughts.
[3:19:10] Go ahead. No, thank you. I I liked the
[3:19:12] idea of twothirds being allocated for
[3:19:14] the committee grant potential um mainly
[3:19:18] because I think um in my opinion what's
[3:19:22] frustrated and those mate is that
[3:19:24] council has been very quick and find it
[3:19:28] very easy to spend that reserve and
[3:19:30] without sort of a framework in place and
[3:19:34] so I think if we have oneird
[3:19:37] city's reserve we could use that for
[3:19:41] using things for the tax base
[3:19:42] potentially. Um, but I don't have a
[3:19:45] specific malware in mind. I think
[3:19:47] possibly a minimum,
[3:19:49] but I feel like there is just not quite
[3:19:52] enough. So,
[3:19:55] [clears throat]
[3:19:56] that was very
[3:19:59] the mayor. Um,
[3:20:02] so, okay, so say this year we got
[3:20:04] $350,000.
[3:20:07] So, that's put into the reserves. So
[3:20:09] onethird of that could be used for
[3:20:12] grants. So
[3:20:14] if the city doesn't spend there, say
[3:20:18] there was nothing they can do that year.
[3:20:20] So the next year there's another well
[3:20:22] let's say 300,000 goes in there. So,
[3:20:26] could somebody come with a big project
[3:20:28] and get one/ird of say
[3:20:31] 500,000 out
[3:20:34] » Because if it starts to accumulate or
[3:20:37] whatever and or we going to have a time
[3:20:39] limit on each year that we have to use
[3:20:41] it up or we going to try to we need to
[3:20:43] really have some reserves in case
[3:20:44] something happens like that time when we
[3:20:46] did the all the
[3:20:50] things for the tourism and residents,
[3:20:52] right? have some direct um and somebody
[3:20:57] correct me if I'm mis they're on here
[3:20:59] but it's it's I think the intent with
[3:21:01] the policy is that whatever the portion
[3:21:04] is that's allocated to the grant program
[3:21:06] would be would if it wasn't granted out
[3:21:09] would be available for a subse
[3:21:20] 300 there'd be 500 available and that's
[3:21:23] in here. But that was kind of the
[3:21:24] intent. So similarly, if the amount is
[3:21:28] changed,
[3:21:29] » Then it would it would work the same way
[3:21:31] is what I I would expect. And that's the
[3:21:33] ability for the policy structure.
[3:21:36] » I just want clarification on this. So
[3:21:37] could they plan like a big event, say
[3:21:40] they know in two years they're going to
[3:21:41] have that much money, they could plan a
[3:21:43] big event that um maybe goes the whole
[3:21:45] weekend long with fans or somebody
[3:21:48] coming in and it brings the people in.
[3:21:50] could do something like that or is it
[3:21:53] directed?
[3:21:54] » Through the chair. So again, this is a
[3:21:56] grant program. So applicants would apply
[3:21:58] for the funding to run an event.
[3:22:01] » So it would be up to like each year if
[3:22:05] there was available application then the
[3:22:07] committee could choose to award all of
[3:22:10] the money or some of the money or
[3:22:12] however it would be structured. So if
[3:22:14] there was a known event or a known
[3:22:16] application coming, I suppose the a
[3:22:19] committee could withhold or not award
[3:22:22] funds in a specific year, but that
[3:22:23] wasn't really how how that was
[3:22:25] » Content
[3:22:30] was just a one-year trial period with
[3:22:32] that third and I was third only given
[3:22:35] the shoulder amounts we've identified or
[3:22:37] four months or the year kind of
[3:22:40] evaluating it in that way. And I think
[3:22:41] part of it is just to see
[3:22:44] and when you start putting policy into
[3:22:46] action, you start seeing where the
[3:22:47] breakdowns are. And I think my concern
[3:22:49] is addressing what redundancies will pop
[3:22:52] up when we then compare this against the
[3:22:54] U destination structured uh program, the
[3:22:57] community grants program and then but we
[3:22:59] can't we can theory craft it or we can
[3:23:01] trial it and we've done such great work
[3:23:03] to trial it. um give us a starting point
[3:23:06] that I think we'll learn more from doing
[3:23:08] and see where that goes and then have a
[3:23:11] starting point launching in to the next
[3:23:13] year's shoulder season over summer to
[3:23:15] really look at all three programs and
[3:23:17] have a robust system then of what is
[3:23:19] each branch addressing what is each um
[3:23:23] kind of goal of each organization in
[3:23:25] driving forward and supporting our
[3:23:27] community through various ways but I
[3:23:29] think that allowing the great work to
[3:23:32] stand and just build on it from Um,
[3:23:35] that's where I was thinking that trial
[3:23:36] period. Uh, this shoulder seat would be
[3:23:38] benefic.
[3:23:43] » Uh, thank you through the mayor. I I'm
[3:23:45] supportive of of the motion and
[3:23:47] principle, but I I would like to see
[3:23:49] some better coordination. The other body
[3:23:51] we have is our sports tourism being run
[3:23:54] by community services. So, we've we've
[3:23:56] got three. This would create a third
[3:23:58] group to get people here. I would just
[3:24:01] like to see uh I was going to uh if if
[3:24:05] the motion fails, I would put forth a
[3:24:07] motion that we refer to staff to come up
[3:24:09] with a mechanism to coordinate all of
[3:24:11] these
[3:24:15] or
[3:24:17] » I just want to get it clear in my mind
[3:24:19] that these grants would only be allowed
[3:24:21] to events that are going to draw people
[3:24:22] in overnight, right? It would be
[3:24:26] [laughter]
[3:24:33] so
[3:24:41] there is a motion on the floor.
[3:24:48] This is this may
[3:24:51] » Um through your worship council
[3:24:54] a motion he was intending to put forward
[3:24:55] but there is already a motion on the
[3:24:56] floor.
[3:24:58] » Uh who is it?
[3:25:01] » The motion is on the floor moved by
[3:25:04] counc second by councelor Bristol. There
[3:25:07] is a motion on the floor.
[3:25:08] » Now the motion that 7.2
[3:25:14] » Did you bring that forward? I did.
[3:25:19] » No, I don't think we brought it forward.
[3:25:21] » No, no, I mean that I just submitted.
[3:25:25] » Yeah. Okay. It was submitted, but it's
[3:25:28] your responsibility to bring it forward.
[3:25:31] » That's what I'm doing.
[3:25:33] » Okay. But there is a motion on the
[3:25:34] floor.
[3:25:36] So, we'll have to address that motion
[3:25:39] and then if it's defeated, then we come
[3:25:42] back.
[3:25:42] » Okay.
[3:25:43] » To the that motion.
[3:25:45] magic game
[3:25:47] » Uh through the chair and following up on
[3:25:50] councelor contra's discussion about
[3:25:51] fragmentation I have a real concern
[3:25:54] about this we have we do we are
[3:25:57] basically not having an accountable
[3:25:59] organization or or
[3:26:03] uh to point at when we evaluate what a
[3:26:08] program is doing with tourism we do have
[3:26:11] we have something happening in sports
[3:26:14] touring we have something the community
[3:26:15] gang grants program. You can't also
[3:26:18] underestimate the time consuming nature
[3:26:21] of putting grant proposals together for
[3:26:23] the organizations that we're talking
[3:26:25] about and the evaluation of these
[3:26:27] programs by staff and then bringing
[3:26:30] those reports forward into council to
[3:26:34] continue to elaborate all of these does
[3:26:37] not make a lot of sense to me. We have
[3:26:40] we have an organization that has been
[3:26:43] functioning for a number of years and I
[3:26:44] think it's quite a successful
[3:26:45] organization. It [clears throat] just
[3:26:47] needs to have a more clear focus on
[3:26:50] overnight accommodations. And I
[3:26:52] certainly don't believe that you could
[3:26:55] supplement their existing uh stream by
[3:26:59] using more. But I can tell you that most
[3:27:02] organizations don't want to be going
[3:27:03] through another grant program and being
[3:27:06] unaware of where their funding is going
[3:27:08] to come or who is responsible for
[3:27:11] evaluating them. It causes a lot of time
[3:27:14] for these organizations.
[3:27:17] Thank you, council. Council seven.
[3:27:19] » Thank you. No, I I actually think it a
[3:27:22] positive to have an additional grant
[3:27:26] committee that could be available for
[3:27:29] sort of anybody grassroots events that
[3:27:32] are taking place. I think I don't think
[3:27:34] it is a positive if we have one sort of
[3:27:37] gatekeeper that is getting all the funds
[3:27:39] from the city to to distribute to any
[3:27:43] event. and and I think you know if
[3:27:45] you're not fitting one criteria for for
[3:27:48] one maybe you're fitting it better for
[3:27:49] another and so I think even if we have
[3:27:52] destination stra our existing grant
[3:27:55] committee and this new committee
[3:27:57] evaluating or available um we should be
[3:28:00] at least you know this is a one year we
[3:28:02] should at least try um because we know
[3:28:05] how effective having what we have is and
[3:28:09] we don't know what it would be to have
[3:28:11] this other
[3:28:13] committee available the grants available
[3:28:15] there's a very detailed framework laid
[3:28:17] out by the ad hoc committee I think um
[3:28:22] you know aside from my comments earlier
[3:28:24] about the ratios I think this will
[3:28:26] probably go to as close as I can get to
[3:28:28] what I am looking for so I I do support
[3:28:31] on the floor and I think it is a
[3:28:33] positive
[3:28:35] to do with one year I did just want to
[3:28:37] clarify though when the one year comes
[3:28:39] up that it won't just be just getting
[3:28:41] more back to where we are. It'd be sort
[3:28:43] of more that we' be present
[3:28:47] or we would just decide to continue it
[3:28:49] before it ends. Is that the intention
[3:28:54] if if we were successful rather than it
[3:28:56] ending and then having to restart it
[3:28:58] after one year?
[3:29:01] » I'll turn that to the CEO.
[3:29:04] » Uh thank So on that point, just trying
[3:29:07] to think through what that might look
[3:29:09] like. I would suggest [snorts] uh we do
[3:29:13] a pilot that is 6 to9 months then
[3:29:16] reassess bring a report to council that
[3:29:19] would then allow you to start forward or
[3:29:21] the following season uh property is one
[3:29:24] year breaks it up but would be tricky to
[3:29:27] bring something older back um because
[3:29:29] you're technically would have two
[3:29:30] seasons within the same same policy. Uh
[3:29:34] so if you do a 6 to9 month that allows
[3:29:37] new period there will be some many
[3:29:40] suggestions I'm sure from an
[3:29:42] administration perspective but also from
[3:29:44] just directly grant policy perspective
[3:29:45] these items go through really lots of
[3:29:47] changes before they tend to um provide a
[3:29:52] good base um but certainly on that
[3:29:55] timing perspective that's
[3:30:01] » Other comments questions amendments
[3:30:08] Seeing none, there is a motion on the
[3:30:10] floor and there's nothing further. I
[3:30:12] will call the question. All in favor
[3:30:25] » And that is
[3:30:29] yes. Yeah, we're not understand what you
[3:30:32] made. Did you claim what the commission
[3:30:35] was?
[3:30:38] » Uh so through your worship. So, uh,
[3:30:41] councelor Burbach and councelor Brisco
[3:30:43] put a motion on the floor. So, that
[3:30:45] superseded
[3:30:46] the intent
[3:30:49] because you didn't raise the motion on
[3:30:51] in the meeting. And now that motion has
[3:30:53] carried I'm just
[3:30:56] I'm looking my computer. I didn't see.
[3:31:02] So there was a So
[3:31:04] I know you had sent something into the
[3:31:07] clerk. It's your responsibility to bring
[3:31:10] that motion forward.
[3:31:21] I don't believe there's anything else on
[3:31:23] this matter. It's it's been uh motion
[3:31:26] has been moved second and passed.
[3:31:29] Call for the next item.
[3:31:32] The three worship item 7.3 is the
[3:31:34] feeding charges for 2027 and our
[3:31:37] discount recommendation that the 2027
[3:31:39] fees and charges by be approved as
[3:31:42] presented in report CO26-3
[3:31:45] with an effective date of January 1st 27
[3:31:48] that the fees and charges bylaw 125-2025
[3:31:52] as amended your repeal upon the new
[3:31:55] charge bylaw putting into effect in that
[3:31:57] direction we give it a state court to
[3:31:59] list the 2175
[3:32:01] law
[3:32:02] for consideration by
[3:32:06] » Councing
[3:32:12] the clock portion. I just noticed that
[3:32:14] there's increases in the fees but
[3:32:16] there's a decrease in the sponsors swim
[3:32:22] explanation as why the prices for users
[3:32:24] are going up but to sponsor
[3:32:27] you.
[3:32:28] » Yeah. Uh through the mayor. So the in
[3:32:31] looking at um fees that have went up for
[3:32:35] the public swim since 2023 when all the
[3:32:38] fees were consolidated pre203.
[3:32:43] um youth would uh youth admission was
[3:32:46] around dollars and adults were like 550.
[3:32:49] So this fee isn't
[3:32:53] is lower than that but it's starting to
[3:32:54] cover staff wages as well as the
[3:32:56] chemical increase and stuff like that.
[3:32:58] And then looking at industry standards
[3:33:00] and how other municipalities are looking
[3:33:03] at their sponsorship. We were a little
[3:33:06] bit higher when you look at the private
[3:33:07] rental rate and hourly rate. Our
[3:33:09] sponsorship rate was quite high
[3:33:11] comparatively. So we've just tried to
[3:33:13] make it more industrial standard
[3:33:15] matching and then also allow businesses
[3:33:18] to get their name out there through uh
[3:33:20] obviously sponsoring sponsoring swims
[3:33:22] and reducing barriers for people to be
[3:33:24] able to spend. So that that's my Thank
[3:33:27] you.
[3:33:30] Anything else?
[3:33:33] You're moving for this item
[3:33:36] will move second by councelor Niger.
[3:33:38] Further discussion
[3:33:40] see all in favor opposing that's
[3:33:45] unanimously car
[3:33:51] item 7.4 Four, the list of municipal
[3:33:54] assets for commercial landing rights
[3:33:55] under staff recommendation that policy
[3:33:58] C.16
[3:34:00] advertising small rights be amended to
[3:34:03] include appendix A list of municipal
[3:34:05] assets eligible for commercial land
[3:34:07] rights attached to the report.
[3:34:11] » Anything for
[3:34:13] » No, I'm good. Wait for some questions.
[3:34:15] Second
[3:34:18] » Mover for this item. Councelor Nigel
[3:34:21] signed by counc. Discussion counc.
[3:34:24] » Uh thank you. Just a comment that I I
[3:34:27] generally
[3:34:29] don't support the policy. Um to me it's
[3:34:33] just very similar to the bench
[3:34:34] advertising law across the city. uh I
[3:34:36] just see it as a very increase in
[3:34:38] commercialization in a lot of the cases
[3:34:41] and uh quite directly to me it just
[3:34:44] isn't it isn't worth it. So I just
[3:34:47] continue on with my position.
[3:34:51] » Thank you councelor go ahead please.
[3:34:54] » Thank you chair. I just want to thank m
[3:34:56] for the other list. I know it was one of
[3:34:58] the things I asked for just for clarity
[3:35:01] moving forward. So I did have a we
[3:35:04] question once we have these approved. Um
[3:35:07] what do you have an idea what the
[3:35:09] process would be for somebody who wanted
[3:35:12] to sponsor or have a name right? Um
[3:35:15] would it be an RFP or how would that
[3:35:18] work? Um just so that for fairness that
[3:35:21] we get everybody who wants an
[3:35:23] opportunity has has an opportunity.
[3:35:27] » Yes. Through through the mayor. Uh good
[3:35:29] question. Right now we're building out
[3:35:30] the the uh procedures for that and some
[3:35:34] of it is uh looking at other
[3:35:36] municipalities and what's going on. So
[3:35:39] there's a variety of what municipalities
[3:35:40] do. There is the expression of interest
[3:35:43] and there is RFPs. So we internally will
[3:35:46] discuss that and then they'll determine
[3:35:48] that. But the intent is to make sure
[3:35:50] that it's a fair process for everyone.
[3:35:52] And within the policy it does talk about
[3:35:54] in time and making sure that we follow
[3:35:55] the procurement process. So I I believe
[3:35:58] we don't have that process done. We are
[3:36:00] doing a slow walk in building that out.
[3:36:03] But I do think that is the the main part
[3:36:05] there is to understand what that process
[3:36:07] looks like by looking at municipalities
[3:36:09] that are successful in the program.
[3:36:11] Thank you.
[3:36:13] » Anything further?
[3:36:16] Seeing none, I will call the question.
[3:36:18] All in favor?
[3:36:21] One opposed car.
[3:36:25] Item 7.5 is the extension of B contract
[3:36:28] for non-eligible blue box collection and
[3:36:30] there is a staff recommendation that
[3:36:32] council authorize the extension of
[3:36:34] contract B-209-18
[3:36:37] for non-eligible blue box collection
[3:36:40] waste management for up to four months
[3:36:42] from November 1st 2026 to February 28
[3:36:45] 2027
[3:36:49] will move second by councelor Brisco
[3:36:52] discussion
[3:36:54] see none I'll fail post if any that you
[3:36:57] have.
[3:36:59] » Item 7.6 Six is the award of an RFP and
[3:37:02] there's a stack recommendation that the
[3:37:04] proposal RFP-2026-13
[3:37:07] for the processing for single stream and
[3:37:10] blue bos material non-eligible sources
[3:37:13] be awarded to bluewater recycling
[3:37:14] association for the quoted amount of
[3:37:17] $54,918
[3:37:19] in keeping with that the mayor clerk or
[3:37:22] their respective delegates authorized
[3:37:23] sign the contract agreement and that the
[3:37:25] director of infrastructure services
[3:37:27] authorized to extend the contract
[3:37:29] directly two addition one-year terms
[3:37:31] subject to successful contract
[3:37:33] performance and consumer price index
[3:37:35] increases
[3:37:36] moved by counc. Thank you. Second in
[3:37:39] mind councelor de discussion
[3:37:45] moted I'll call the question all in
[3:37:48] favor post if any that's unanimously
[3:37:52] carries item 7.7 is an amendment to the
[3:37:57] neighborhood area 30 kilometer per hour
[3:38:00] there staff recommendation that federal
[3:38:02] 14 higher and lower speed limits of the
[3:38:04] traffic and park feeding bylaw be
[3:38:06] amended by deleting the items on the
[3:38:09] agenda and that the same schedule be a
[3:38:12] met by adding the following items noted
[3:38:14] on the agenda and that's the pilot
[3:38:16] project end date be extended to December
[3:38:19] 31st 207
[3:38:22] for that council m second by councelor
[3:38:25] hunt discussion
[3:38:29] see all in favor posted unanimously
[3:38:33] Thank you.
[3:38:37] » Item second is the designation of 120
[3:38:40] St. Vincent Street North. And there's a
[3:38:42] staff recommendation that city council
[3:38:44] designate 120 St. Vincent Street North
[3:38:47] under the Ontario Heritage Act through
[3:38:48] the passing of a bylaw pertaining to the
[3:38:50] attributes noted on the agenda and that
[3:38:53] the commemorative plaque be installed on
[3:38:55] subject land with all cost formed by Har
[3:38:57] Straer.
[3:39:00] Council
[3:39:04] B. Thank you. Any discussion?
[3:39:09] Joy. It's a beautiful property. Amazing
[3:39:12] job. Just exceptional. So, I'll call the
[3:39:14] question. All in favor? Posted any
[3:39:17] that's unanimously.
[3:39:20] Item 7.9 the festival hydro 2026
[3:39:23] financial update and there is static
[3:39:24] affirmation that the festival hydro inc
[3:39:27] financial results and commentary and the
[3:39:30] festival hydro services inc financial
[3:39:32] results and commentary commentary for
[3:39:34] this period ended June 30th 2026 be
[3:39:37] received for information
[3:39:39] by councelor B seconded by councelor
[3:39:42] any discussion
[3:39:45] noneed all in favor posted today
[3:39:49] unanimously. He cared.
[3:39:51] » Item 710 is a request for an exemption
[3:39:53] to the noise control bylaw and there is
[3:39:56] staff recommendation that direction be
[3:39:58] given on the noise control bylaw
[3:39:59] exemption requested from Wild Brain Edge
[3:40:02] Productions to Inc. from the noise
[3:40:04] control bylaw for filming starting on
[3:40:06] September 23rd uh through September 24th
[3:40:09] from the provisions noted. And as
[3:40:11] outlined, staff are looking for
[3:40:12] direction on the granting of the
[3:40:14] exemption or not.
[3:40:28] » I'll move that be approved.
[3:40:32] » Second discussion. Burbach will second.
[3:40:36] Any discussion? Counc.
[3:40:39] Um, thank you. I got some clarification.
[3:40:42] So, when I read the report, there's
[3:40:44] there's going to be no amplified sound,
[3:40:47] but just like the motors of the things
[3:40:50] and the people yelling and shouting and
[3:40:53] hooting. I asked to this if I agree that
[3:40:58] doing approach to Stratford Paul Air
[3:41:02] board wanting to do it the day before
[3:41:07] the evening before the actual opening of
[3:41:10] so it won't be noises that you either
[3:41:14] the Thursday night or Friday night the
[3:41:15] Saturday or the Sunday but it would just
[3:41:19] the idea is to make sure that residents
[3:41:21] you knew that there was no fair going on
[3:41:24] on Wednesday, that's when they're hoping
[3:41:25] to do the sheep.
[3:41:31] » Through the mayor, if I could just add
[3:41:32] to that, that is correct. And the actual
[3:41:35] um location manager has indicated that
[3:41:39] they would only be filmed until 2:30.
[3:41:41] So, there's not any loud, it's more just
[3:41:43] actors talking versus anything else. And
[3:41:46] as the mayor mentioned, that is correct.
[3:41:48] But they've actually shrunk it and they
[3:41:50] are going to go to the residents and
[3:41:52] talk. So if there is any residents that
[3:41:53] are concerned, they do have mitigating
[3:41:56] um
[3:41:59] items in place to to support residents
[3:42:01] if needed
[3:42:06] » And working with use.
[3:42:12] Questions on this item that's been moved
[3:42:14] and seconded seeing none I will call the
[3:42:16] question. All favored. Oppose. If any
[3:42:19] that's unanimously carried it 7-Eleven
[3:42:22] is a resignation from the strappers of
[3:42:24] the world advisory committee and there's
[3:42:25] a motion that the resignation of
[3:42:27] Jennifer Mitchell from the strappers of
[3:42:28] the world advisory committee be
[3:42:30] accepted.
[3:42:31] » Moved by
[3:42:33] Council
[3:42:35] Niger. Any discussion?
[3:42:38] Seeing not I'll call a question. All in
[3:42:40] favor? Most any
[3:42:43] car in hoping that a letter of
[3:42:46] acknowledgement uh what we said this
[3:42:50] work.
[3:42:53] Item 712 is a proclamation and there is
[3:42:55] a motion that Statford City Council
[3:42:57] hereby proclaim September 21st to 27th,
[3:43:00] 2026 as rail safety week in the city of
[3:43:03] Stratford to raise the critical
[3:43:04] awareness of rail safety, save lives and
[3:43:07] prevent injuries in communities
[3:43:08] including the city of Stratford. Thank
[3:43:11] for that item moved by councelor Hunter.
[3:43:14] Thank you. Second by ser any discussion
[3:43:19] noted all in favor posting that's
[3:43:22] unanimously carried item 713 is a
[3:43:25] proclamation request and there is a
[3:43:26] motion that Straford City Council hereby
[3:43:28] proclaims October 21st 2026 as the 26th
[3:43:32] annual child care worker and early
[3:43:34] childhood educator appreciation day in
[3:43:36] the city of Straford in recognition of
[3:43:38] the commitment skills and hard work of
[3:43:40] ECE and staff who work with young
[3:43:42] children in our community thanks
[3:43:44] moved by the council and seconded by
[3:43:46] counc
[3:43:48] discussion counc
[3:43:50] » I just wanted to take an opportunity to
[3:43:52] thank all of our amazing childcare
[3:43:54] providers we see in our community I was
[3:43:56] one of many parents this last week
[3:43:58] having their first kindergartener ever
[3:44:01] and it didn't matter which program we
[3:44:03] had attended all of us were chatting
[3:44:05] about whether they went to Avon co-op
[3:44:07] which has provided my children with an
[3:44:08] incredible start or circa or and halfway
[3:44:11] we all felt they were just giving off to
[3:44:13] an incredible start. They all walked in,
[3:44:15] perhaps teary, but very confident. Um,
[3:44:17] and it's thanks to all of those
[3:44:19] educators that we trust with our most
[3:44:22] precious little ones. [clears throat]
[3:44:24] Um, but it allows us to be part of our
[3:44:26] community in this capacity and others.
[3:44:28] And I wouldn't be here without them and
[3:44:29] just wanted to thank them for the
[3:44:31] service they give to my family and our
[3:44:33] community and the incredible service
[3:44:34] they're giving at.
[3:44:36] » Thank
[3:44:38] you. Well, I can't say it any better
[3:44:40] than that. But I also wanted to mention
[3:44:42] that um social services does have a um
[3:44:45] survey right now um about child care. So
[3:44:49] if anybody's still with us, watch them
[3:44:50] on the thing. Um there is a survey to be
[3:44:53] filled out to to find out more about
[3:44:55] childare needs.
[3:44:59] Any further on that item
[3:45:01] called the question on that? Yes.
[3:45:08] » No, not yet.
[3:45:12] » So, it's been moved and second question
[3:45:18] if the act
[3:45:25] say any better or we went through
[3:45:28] session human resources. Next item. 714
[3:45:33] is another proclamation. There's a
[3:45:34] motion that Stratford City Council
[3:45:36] hereby proclaim September 28th, 2026 as
[3:45:39] British home trial day of the city of
[3:45:40] Stratford.
[3:45:42] » Move by. Thank you, Councelor Burbach.
[3:45:45] Second of Bristol. Any comments or
[3:45:49] questions on this item? Seeing none, all
[3:45:51] in favor of any unanimous car. So
[3:45:56] worship uh before beginning with item 8
[3:45:59] um we are approaching 11 o'clock. So I'm
[3:46:02] wondering if we could do a motion to
[3:46:03] extend the meeting by 30 minute
[3:46:05] increment to 11:30 and then we get
[3:46:08] closer to 11:30 we'll do another
[3:46:11] thank you
[3:46:13] second
[3:46:15] favor
[3:46:17] that's unanimous and we go on to item
[3:46:20] 8.1. So item eight is business for three
[3:46:23] notes have been given and item 3.1 is a
[3:46:25] notice of motion from councelor B and a
[3:46:28] motion is listed on the agenda.
[3:46:32] Go ahead.
[3:46:32] » Thank you to the mayor. Um first of all
[3:46:34] I just wanted to say thank you to our
[3:46:35] staff and the social services
[3:46:37] department. They continually have this
[3:46:39] topic already top of mind. And um a
[3:46:42] brief overview from their departments is
[3:46:44] over the past several years through the
[3:46:46] social services department in the city
[3:46:48] of Stratford, the principal health has
[3:46:51] been intentionally embedded into program
[3:46:53] design and service delivery.
[3:46:55] Discretionary benefits have been
[3:46:56] expanded. Partnerships with community
[3:46:59] organizers have been strengthened to
[3:47:00] improve access to healthy food and
[3:47:03] grocery supports have been provided and
[3:47:05] barriers such as transportation have
[3:47:06] also been addressed. So these
[3:47:08] initiatives are already making a
[3:47:09] difference for many residents in our
[3:47:11] community. So my motion is not to take
[3:47:13] away from that or to reflect in any way
[3:47:16] on on their work they are doing. main
[3:47:18] reason that I would like to move this
[3:47:20] motion forward is to keep this issue top
[3:47:22] of mind with our provincial partners
[3:47:24] especially in regards to the um wages
[3:47:28] that people need to live have unofficial
[3:47:30] lives that are on effective assistance.
[3:47:32] So um and then secondly our our Perth
[3:47:36] public health unit is just it's an asset
[3:47:37] in our community and I wanted to show
[3:47:39] our support as a council for all of the
[3:47:42] work that they've put into this. So for
[3:47:43] those two reasons why I've made that
[3:47:47] » Council here moving that yes thank you
[3:47:50] second counc
[3:47:53] any discussion
[3:47:55] see none I will call the question all in
[3:47:57] favor post any unanimously carried thank
[3:48:01] you for that
[3:48:03] » Worship item 82 is a not motion from
[3:48:06] councelor burbach so we'd be looking for
[3:48:08] an overview from councelor burbach
[3:48:10] followed by a motion to hear the
[3:48:11] delegation
[3:48:14] Go ahead.
[3:48:15] » Very much. I think uh this motion was
[3:48:18] pretty self-explanatory. We um we hear a
[3:48:21] lot about data centers and AI data
[3:48:23] centers in the news. Um the world is
[3:48:27] rapidly changing and um there's both
[3:48:31] opportunities with that and there's
[3:48:32] risks. So, um, the intention of my
[3:48:35] motion is to give council or to give
[3:48:39] Stratford a better idea of what right
[3:48:43] size and what the right type of projects
[3:48:46] could be, what types of, um, again risks
[3:48:50] are we looking at and what type of
[3:48:52] opportunities. So, um, we know our
[3:48:55] resources are needed and
[3:48:59] since Jimmy has been brought up a few
[3:49:00] times tonight, I must bring it up again.
[3:49:02] When when that proposal came forward,
[3:49:06] uh, it was brought to the community and
[3:49:09] it it was felt that it wasn't the right
[3:49:11] size. So, it it did cause a lot of
[3:49:14] anxiety and consternation.
[3:49:17] Is there a way that we could avoid that
[3:49:19] by putting out putting some parameters
[3:49:21] and a framework around what is the right
[3:49:24] size of fit for these type of projects
[3:49:28] in Stratford. So it's not necessarily to
[3:49:32] block all opportunities but it is
[3:49:35] actually to
[3:49:37] give better direction to anybody who
[3:49:39] would like to bring some investment here
[3:49:42] to say this is the this is the right
[3:49:45] size. the parameters. These are the
[3:49:47] things that we're concerned about like
[3:49:49] how much electricity are we going to
[3:49:51] need, how much water are we going to
[3:49:53] need, how much land use, what are the
[3:49:56] overall benefits for our community. And
[3:49:58] I think thinking that through before
[3:50:01] proposals arrive out of the door is
[3:50:03] probably a really good idea. Um, and
[3:50:06] adding that into the official plan um
[3:50:08] would be a piece of that. So, uh, I will
[3:50:12] be I guess I can make a motion now, but
[3:50:14] I would like to make a slight amendment
[3:50:16] to it. Um, I'm just going to strike out
[3:50:19] the very first sentence that says
[3:50:21] whereas the province of Ontario has not
[3:50:22] established a dedicated regatory or
[3:50:24] planning framework for data center
[3:50:26] development. When I wrote this motion,
[3:50:28] they have not um they do have a playbook
[3:50:32] that they've made. It's not exactly a
[3:50:34] policy yet and they did some consulting
[3:50:36] on that which is not finished but it's a
[3:50:38] very broad framework. Uh it has some
[3:50:41] good stuff in it that uh electricity
[3:50:44] pricing and and things that are
[3:50:47] hopefully going to protect our
[3:50:48] communities but it doesn't go nearly far
[3:50:51] enough in my opinion to protect us from
[3:50:55] some of the risks. So um with that
[3:51:01] council bur perhaps we could hear from
[3:51:03] the delegation first so I get into the
[3:51:05] the motion
[3:51:07] if justifies that way.
[3:51:10] » Okay.
[3:51:11] » So I I to
[3:51:14] have a motion to hear.
[3:51:18] So as outlined on the agenda there is a
[3:51:20] vote that Sue Bailey Felicity Setcliff
[3:51:22] and Sheila Clark of the Canadian
[3:51:24] Federation of University Women Statford
[3:51:25] be her by second by
[3:51:30] all in favor
[3:51:32] that's unanimously carried. Thank you
[3:51:34] very much the waiting so long.
[3:51:56] Welcome to everybody.
[3:52:01] » Mayor Ryma, counselors, members of
[3:52:05] staff, and those in attendance. Thank
[3:52:07] you for this opportunity to speak. I'm
[3:52:10] Sue Bailey, and I'm here
[3:52:13] with Sheila Bart.
[3:52:16] CFW Straford and I will speak to what we
[3:52:20] have prepared together.
[3:52:22] Stra as CFW urgently request that
[3:52:27] Stratford City Council put guidelines in
[3:52:30] place around any development of data
[3:52:33] centers in our city. Ontario is
[3:52:36] experiencing rapid growth in demand for
[3:52:39] data center development primarily from
[3:52:43] large multinational corporations.
[3:52:46] However, large language models data
[3:52:48] centers create unsustainable demands for
[3:52:52] water and energy take valuable farmland
[3:52:55] out of production and create very good
[3:52:58] jobs. While operating, they produce
[3:53:01] sound light and air pollution on a large
[3:53:04] scale. It is important that Straford
[3:53:08] join with many municipalities
[3:53:10] sounded the alarm over the potential
[3:53:13] damages to our environment posed on
[3:53:16] large scale data centers. CFW is
[3:53:20] concerned that council may be rushed
[3:53:23] into decision making regarding the large
[3:53:26] scale data center in the absence of firm
[3:53:29] guidelines around such decisions. We
[3:53:33] urged city council to include guidelines
[3:53:36] for data centers to begin our updated
[3:53:39] official plan so that all potential
[3:53:41] developers must follow the same terms
[3:53:44] and conditions and city council will
[3:53:47] follow the same transparent process
[3:53:50] before approving any dam center. Many
[3:53:54] communities and organizations including
[3:53:56] the council of Canadians have called for
[3:53:59] a moratorum on development of hyperscale
[3:54:03] artificial intelligent staff centers and
[3:54:07] their associated infrastructure until
[3:54:10] the full impacts are known to the
[3:54:13] public. Missaga is one of them. At
[3:54:16] present there are there are major
[3:54:18] concern areas of concern. Power demands
[3:54:22] from proposed data centers are
[3:54:25] significant which may strain the grid
[3:54:28] and peak for supply and deepen fos
[3:54:31] fossil fuel or nuclear dependence in
[3:54:33] Ontario. Energy production and
[3:54:36] consumption will marketly increase which
[3:54:39] has negative implications for the
[3:54:42] environment, public health and climate
[3:54:45] change. data centers and any associated
[3:54:48] energy production and storage require
[3:54:52] large volumes of water. Even if a loop
[3:54:55] system of water cooling is used, that
[3:54:58] requires large amounts of water to begin
[3:55:00] with and has to have access to backup
[3:55:04] water. If and when the cooling system
[3:55:07] fails, if a large amount of water is
[3:55:10] required, whose needs will come first?
[3:55:12] Community or the data center? In
[3:55:15] addition, the loop systems require
[3:55:18] additional energy which may escalate
[3:55:21] fossil fuel emissions,
[3:55:23] something we can little afford.
[3:55:26] Research on existing data centers
[3:55:28] indicates that they reduce air and water
[3:55:31] quality, increase heat exposure and
[3:55:34] carbon [clears throat] emissions, cause
[3:55:36] noise pollution and result in the loss
[3:55:39] of public lands, natural spaces and
[3:55:42] agriculture areas.
[3:55:45] They have been made to flush large
[3:55:47] quantities of contaminated water into
[3:55:50] water sources. One proposed center in
[3:55:53] Golds, Alberta will require the same
[3:55:56] amount of energy as the entire city of
[3:55:59] Ed. Another in Wonder Valley will emit
[3:56:03] over 25 million tons of greenhouse
[3:56:06] gases, reversing all the progress made
[3:56:10] in Alberta since 2015. Our provincial
[3:56:14] government has recently written a data
[3:56:16] center playbook to manage data center
[3:56:19] development. We would like to see more
[3:56:21] clarity around the issues of companies
[3:56:24] providing their own electricity and
[3:56:27] plans when systems fail. There's very
[3:56:30] little in the data center playbook about
[3:56:33] the environment.
[3:56:35] In the face of this situation, Straford
[3:56:38] CFPW supports councilor Burbach's motion
[3:56:42] to direct staff to prepare a report
[3:56:45] including all relevant information on
[3:56:48] data centers and to outline and analyze
[3:56:52] potential actions. This will enable
[3:56:55] council to make good decisions around
[3:56:57] any proposed data centers and also to
[3:57:00] include appropriate guidelines in our
[3:57:03] official plan.
[3:57:04] » [clears throat]
[3:57:05] » You can learn more about these issues
[3:57:07] issues from many sources including the
[3:57:11] Council of Canadians. Thank you very
[3:57:13] much for your attention.
[3:57:20] Council
[3:57:21] » Uh the mayor and possibly for
[3:57:25] director.
[3:57:27] uh are is is it reasonable to come up
[3:57:31] with a framework in relationship to our
[3:57:34] official plan and integrate it in there
[3:57:37] with what is happening around data
[3:57:39] centers. Are you seeing this happening
[3:57:43] in municipalities
[3:57:44] particularly at this size which you know
[3:57:47] I I don't see that hyperscalers are
[3:57:50] particularly going to be interested in
[3:57:52] this space we don't have enough land uh
[3:57:55] and as we found out uh it's you know it
[3:57:58] would heat up amount of our already um
[3:58:02] challenged land use policies fund uh
[3:58:05] could you speak to that
[3:58:07] » Director viewership So the planet
[3:58:11] community is actively monitoring what's
[3:58:14] happening across North America. It's
[3:58:16] it's evolving on a daily basis. We're
[3:58:19] we're certainly monitoring and
[3:58:20] irrespective if if council were to give
[3:58:22] direction or not. It's not to say that
[3:58:24] planners are are talking about this
[3:58:26] actively. So it's something we are
[3:58:29] paying attention to. Uh I think every
[3:58:32] week there's another municipality that's
[3:58:34] taking another step etc. We are at an
[3:58:36] opportune time where we are working on
[3:58:38] our official plan and we um can
[3:58:42] put forth some recommendations as far as
[3:58:44] that process um is kind of deemed
[3:58:47] appropriate. Now it it does remain to be
[3:58:49] seen what the province ultimately comes
[3:58:51] out with with the final um playbook. I
[3:58:55] believe that the playbook is largely
[3:58:56] focusing on the electricity and the in
[3:58:59] the um from that perspective for that
[3:59:02] component. Um but municipalities will
[3:59:05] still largely be left in charge of land
[3:59:07] use planning and infrastructure and
[3:59:09] servicing. So um it now is an
[3:59:12] opportunity time to look at at it but
[3:59:15] it's evolving daily and what the
[3:59:17] province comes out with what they are
[3:59:19] working on. um we could work on
[3:59:22] something in the province come out with
[3:59:24] something other through the provincial
[3:59:25] planning state or something else which
[3:59:28] may have some of the work changed either
[3:59:31] to what extent I don't know but um right
[3:59:33] now it's it's it's not to say that we're
[3:59:36] uh we're not looking at if if council
[3:59:39] doesn't we we are paying attention it's
[3:59:43] consuming the associations that plans to
[3:59:46] um so that
[3:59:48] » Yeah follow And just a a followup
[3:59:52] regarding that. Uh obviously one of the
[3:59:55] other aspects of this is that sovereign
[3:59:58] he comes up quite a bit. We are finding
[4:00:01] ourselves in a in a bit of a tip with
[4:00:05] our uh American friends regarding and
[4:00:09] they seem to they control a lot of our
[4:00:11] data. Uh so you know I'm I'm cognizant
[4:00:14] that also that silent thing where we we
[4:00:17] do not want to uh basically be dependent
[4:00:21] entirely on the United States for
[4:00:23] securing our data. Uh is that also being
[4:00:27] worked out in relationship to is that
[4:00:29] informing this
[4:00:32] I mean from I think from the
[4:00:35] correct
[4:00:37] » Or go ahead thank you Mr. Mayor. Uh
[4:00:40] yeah, you just uh mentioned the federal
[4:00:42] government's also looking at this fall.
[4:00:44] Uh there are already um many of the big
[4:00:48] uh companies cloud computers, cloud
[4:00:50] hosting, but there are already debt
[4:00:52] centers in Canada which which for
[4:00:55] example the city of Stratford will not
[4:00:57] allow everybody to be hosted anywhere
[4:00:59] but Canada at this point in time and
[4:01:00] there's opportunities to do that. Um but
[4:01:03] as that storage capacity goes as AR
[4:01:06] bigger certainly that need for expansion
[4:01:08] is important and right so I don't do is
[4:01:10] a big important piece of what's
[4:01:12] happening um in Canada right now to
[4:01:16] cyber security when it comes to
[4:01:18] information when it comes to private
[4:01:20] information DII uh so so that's a big
[4:01:23] piece that that is challenging for both
[4:01:25] that I think both federal and government
[4:01:27] are considering it's on their policy
[4:01:29] statement so I guess um there will be
[4:01:31] some pieces that we put forward into
[4:01:33] resolution should allow some flexibility
[4:01:35] for staff to bring forward some options
[4:01:37] as we move forward with the official
[4:01:39] plan and as we understand what the
[4:01:40] province and fed might be recommending
[4:01:42] or providing guidelines around. There
[4:01:44] are pieces of this that are outside of
[4:01:47] the planning regime and it will be
[4:01:49] council strategic decision for strategic
[4:01:52] when we get into strategic planning
[4:01:53] there may be some other decision around
[4:01:55] that aspects as well as this moves
[4:01:57] forward. Uh the other case we talked
[4:01:59] internally is not only data centers as
[4:02:02] well. Um what you'll see from us is is
[4:02:05] more just good solid tank. Um that um
[4:02:08] today
[4:02:10] more
[4:02:14] so
[4:02:16] I see right here.
[4:02:17] » Thank you. um perhaps a question to both
[4:02:19] council as well as uh obviously is the
[4:02:23] intentions a lot of communities have
[4:02:25] gone to mortoriiums while they've worked
[4:02:28] through some of these details and given
[4:02:30] we've already mentioned the planning
[4:02:31] statement we have marri powers we have
[4:02:33] the election we have put priority
[4:02:35] declarations that was like there's a lot
[4:02:37] of levers above us that could supersede
[4:02:39] our work unlikely given the kind of
[4:02:43] limitations council m already described
[4:02:45] um on what our community is but I'm
[4:02:47] wondering If adding in a line to say
[4:02:50] that um an amoratory wants said projects
[4:02:53] until this is established provides us
[4:02:55] that final layer of protection to not be
[4:02:57] superseded by some sort of upper level
[4:02:59] of government to allow a full wholesome
[4:03:02] review because it's not something to be
[4:03:03] rushed but again that may also not be
[4:03:05] necessary in this context.
[4:03:08] » Thank you.
[4:03:13] » Yeah. So on the moratorium piece, um
[4:03:16] that is something that we're cognizant
[4:03:18] that the Missaga has done and I think
[4:03:20] some others are looking at it. Um here
[4:03:22] in Straford, we we I think he spoken to
[4:03:26] we don't have any parcels of land that
[4:03:28] are as large enough that we would have
[4:03:30] something so large. Now now there are
[4:03:33] parcels that are technically large
[4:03:35] enough, but they aren't designated and
[4:03:37] or zoned to allow industrial uses. So if
[4:03:41] something was put forth on a person like
[4:03:42] that, it would have to come to the
[4:03:43] council. So um it it's not to say that
[4:03:46] something is zoned and would get site
[4:03:48] plan approval and and and council
[4:03:51] wouldn't see it. It would be a building
[4:03:52] permit. So we don't have we don't have a
[4:03:54] situation or a parcel of land that's
[4:03:56] appropriately zoned or size to have one
[4:03:59] of these hypers scale um uh data
[4:04:02] centers. So we have looked at whether
[4:04:05] nature control zone by that's the
[4:04:07] moratorum approach is the first draft
[4:04:09] now by means that's that's countless
[4:04:12] progress as to whether you want to
[4:04:13] consider that as a motion um I I don't
[4:04:16] know whether
[4:04:18] it's necessary but but I I do want to
[4:04:21] stress that that's a council decision
[4:04:22] and and what type of message it um would
[4:04:26] be by council putting a moratorum center
[4:04:30] we as planned will be looking at it from
[4:04:32] sort of a three perspective is there's
[4:04:33] the social perspective, what type of
[4:04:35] jobs they will be, what type of benefits
[4:04:37] they bring to the community, let's look
[4:04:39] at it from an economic development
[4:04:40] perspective and then obviously the the
[4:04:43] environment perspective. So it's not to
[4:04:44] say that we are looking at it in one
[4:04:46] lens. We'll be looking at it from lens
[4:04:48] and that's what all municipalities and
[4:04:50] planners are doing across the
[4:04:56] » Mayor
[4:04:57] data centers becomes a gray area right
[4:04:59] now. There's nothing new. They've been
[4:05:01] around the city mentioned u however
[4:05:04] they're just becoming more relevant more
[4:05:07] popping up in more areas because we're
[4:05:10] requiring a lot more computing power. Um
[4:05:14] the things with you know if we bring it
[4:05:16] up on ourselves and we try to look at
[4:05:17] this ourselves and come up with some
[4:05:18] framework
[4:05:20] as we've talked about it it's going to
[4:05:22] bring the difference of pro province
[4:05:24] framework federal uh framework we can
[4:05:27] spend the time in it but within the IT
[4:05:31] world you know you always want to kind
[4:05:32] of have a best practices in place you
[4:05:34] know standardizing strategy in place uh
[4:05:38] from the ground up because that becomes
[4:05:40] your foundation how you build the these
[4:05:42] less platforms and the approvals. So I
[4:05:45] would personally would suggest that we
[4:05:49] wait for the provincial in the federal
[4:05:51] framework and then we can if you need
[4:05:54] the modified or the broad.
[4:06:01] » Thank you for the mayor. Um that is the
[4:06:03] same data that I have. I feel that there
[4:06:06] are obvious issues around AI and data
[4:06:08] centers that we would have to address
[4:06:09] and we must that are serious like the
[4:06:12] electricity grid just even kind of
[4:06:14] structures in our city. Um my my concern
[4:06:17] is not with the objective of it. It's
[4:06:19] just with the timing of it. So since the
[4:06:21] province like literally the consult
[4:06:23] consultations just closed yesterday and
[4:06:26] um they will be developing the framework
[4:06:28] to address I feel like they're going to
[4:06:30] address a lot of these same issues.
[4:06:32] Maybe not to the degree that we hope
[4:06:34] them to be and then I feel like we could
[4:06:35] tweak. My concern is is it the best use
[4:06:38] of our staff time which in essence is
[4:06:41] taxpayer dollars to undertake the
[4:06:44] extensive policy work and zoning
[4:06:46] exercises now when the provincial
[4:06:48] direction and federal will be coming in
[4:06:50] and we may have to go back and revisit
[4:06:52] and rework all of that. So I feel like
[4:06:53] it's duplicating. So it's not I I hope
[4:06:56] it's understood. I fully believe that
[4:06:58] this is essential. It's just I mean if I
[4:07:01] could take what the motion and make an
[4:07:04] amendment to it, it would just be that
[4:07:05] we would first receive the provincial
[4:07:07] and federal framework before um we put
[4:07:10] the intensive work into it. So that
[4:07:13] that's where I'm with it.
[4:07:17] » Herson
[4:07:19] um excuse the mayor after hearing that I
[4:07:21] mean wouldn't it be simpler and easier
[4:07:23] just to care a moratorum right now and
[4:07:25] then until we hear from the we get the
[4:07:29] spinal things so that nothing could
[4:07:31] sneak in the back.
[4:07:35] » Yes,
[4:07:37] we're making but I I assume at some
[4:07:40] point there might be questions with the
[4:07:42] uh representatives
[4:07:46] but if there's nothing further um if you
[4:07:49] want to have a seat listen to the
[4:07:50] dialogue but thank you for your
[4:07:52] presentation. Thank you. Uh, Miss Oh,
[4:07:55] and I had counselor
[4:07:58] saying
[4:08:01] » Or
[4:08:06] thank you. There's Yeah, there's a lot
[4:08:09] of moving parts. I didn't suggest a
[4:08:12] moratorium initially because I figured
[4:08:15] much like council, there's nothing up
[4:08:16] and coming. We don't have any more land.
[4:08:18] I just thought that's kind of more
[4:08:21] extreme. Um I also don't want to send
[4:08:24] the message that Stra does not refer to
[4:08:27] business for the right size of of
[4:08:29] proposal. Um
[4:08:32] timing wise of course I made this motion
[4:08:34] before the province came out with any
[4:08:36] structure. Um I I do feel like they're
[4:08:40] not going to it's it's not going to be
[4:08:44] specific that it's going to be very
[4:08:46] broad and obviously the federal will be
[4:08:48] very broad and of course I'm all for the
[4:08:52] sovereignty of our data and like those
[4:08:54] directions. I don't think we can direct
[4:08:56] that with hello, but what I'm interested
[4:08:59] in too is just figuring out what what is
[4:09:04] our capacity and that that's not going
[4:09:07] to be um dealt with by the province for
[4:09:10] the feds, right? Because we don't know
[4:09:12] like
[4:09:14] I think our water usage is about 40% if
[4:09:17] I'm not mistaken, but you know, we have
[4:09:19] new developments, we have so there
[4:09:21] there's things to look at. um even if
[4:09:25] it's just a snapshot in time to say okay
[4:09:27] this is what our electrical capacity is
[4:09:29] this is what our water capacity like
[4:09:31] just just basic facts so that when
[4:09:35] proposals come to us we can say oh we
[4:09:37] already know that we have this we have
[4:09:39] that these are our limitation like this
[4:09:41] is how much we're willing to risk as far
[4:09:44] as you know if we want some 25% of our
[4:09:47] water capacity um that's huge risk so we
[4:09:50] we we can assess and discuss those
[4:09:52] things before those projects to invest.
[4:09:55] Um, and also I appreciate CEO's comments
[4:09:59] as well as as looking at other large
[4:10:03] proposals that would also, you know,
[4:10:06] maybe something beyond that. It may not
[4:10:08] even have to do with, you know, the the
[4:10:11] same type of structure, but also
[4:10:14] we seem to be moving a society towards
[4:10:16] these massive
[4:10:18] um projects that are that have
[4:10:22] questionable benefits for a community if
[4:10:24] it doesn't bring employment, if it
[4:10:26] doesn't, you know, if they're not
[4:10:27] actually part of our community, but just
[4:10:29] sort of a something that sucks all of
[4:10:32] our resources. So um for that reason um
[4:10:36] I'm putting this motion forward. Um and
[4:10:38] my only amendment would be to that the
[4:10:42] first whereas
[4:10:44] um yeah I think that would be another
[4:10:47] big where
[4:10:55] I I believe that the pros framework is
[4:10:59] still technically draft. Okay.
[4:11:01] » Which would I mean if you're looking to
[4:11:03] change the that first paragraph like I
[4:11:05] mean what it still makes sense.
[4:11:08] » Still makes sense. Okay. Well,
[4:11:11] » Second thank you discussion.
[4:11:16] Thank you. I do support the motion. I
[4:11:19] think just I just want to comment on
[4:11:21] that waiting on or you know waiting for
[4:11:24] the province framework. I I guess
[4:11:27] frankly I'm just not inclined to wait
[4:11:29] for the province uh to present something
[4:11:32] that is probably much less than
[4:11:34] satisfactory than we would like to have.
[4:11:36] And so that is why I think it's
[4:11:39] appropriate to just go ahead and when
[4:11:41] theirs comes out and it's disappointing
[4:11:43] we'll have our own networks already. So
[4:11:47] » Thank you very much
[4:11:50] » To the mayor. Um, I'm kind of
[4:11:52] questioning the timeline of this because
[4:11:54] staff has a lot of reports they're doing
[4:11:57] right now and there's a lot of things on
[4:11:59] the list and this will take time to do.
[4:12:02] So, like if we look in that coming back
[4:12:04] in the spring of 2027 or something or
[4:12:06] how how are we going to manage this?
[4:12:09] That's a lot of work.
[4:12:13] uh through the mayor said I mean we
[4:12:15] certainly appreciate that certainly
[4:12:16] there's a lot happening we found at this
[4:12:18] point better working on defense etc. Um,
[4:12:21] having said that, as our director said,
[4:12:23] this is something we're paying attention
[4:12:24] to. We're going to have to we're going
[4:12:26] to have to do something one way or the
[4:12:27] other as we move forward. Um, as he
[4:12:30] still see a lot of work to do on the
[4:12:32] official plan itself that will come back
[4:12:33] to the city council. Um, so this is good
[4:12:38] timing for us whether or not it's fully
[4:12:41] complete when you're discussing the
[4:12:43] official plan and the pieces that we'll
[4:12:45] know. Uh, we're not necessarily going to
[4:12:47] go do all the work tomorrow. We're going
[4:12:49] to Again, we're going to be guided a
[4:12:51] little bit on what other municipalities
[4:12:53] are doing, what the province and feds
[4:12:55] are saying, uh the certain group, what
[4:12:58] application pursuing, what history we
[4:13:00] have. Um, but I think in the next uh 6
[4:13:05] months, we'll be in a much different
[4:13:06] position as they're providing vision
[4:13:08] plan documents and still working through
[4:13:10] some of these documents. At that point
[4:13:12] in time, the you may determination
[4:13:15] whether or not you have enough
[4:13:17] information to proceed. There's still
[4:13:18] more information to to be um to be
[4:13:21] deciphered through and again we'll have
[4:13:23] some information around what the
[4:13:26] frameworks look like and what those
[4:13:27] frameworks look like. Are they actual
[4:13:29] direction? Are they frameworks? Are they
[4:13:30] the incentives? um th this is going to
[4:13:33] move in much a couple of different
[4:13:35] directions uh as we see. Um but as well
[4:13:38] we're also probably not a municipality
[4:13:41] that is looking or that um investors of
[4:13:45] that type are looking at from a scale
[4:13:47] perspective. Uh we do most of the
[4:13:50] country do have data centers in city. Um
[4:13:55] so so again that's not this is not
[4:13:57] something we ever per small state but I
[4:14:02] think that answers your I think I think
[4:14:03] there's enough here
[4:14:05] but we will manage that accordingly we
[4:14:08] we will if it comes to a point where
[4:14:10] where they're not giving you all the
[4:14:11] information again that's where we'll be
[4:14:13] discussing what that process is
[4:14:19] through the mayor the yeah I was going
[4:14:21] to make a similar comment to the CEO
[4:14:23] that we have existing data centers that
[4:14:25] cause no problem. Um, in speaking with
[4:14:28] our CEO of Festival of Hydro, he said
[4:14:31] that a hypers scale uh data center, we
[4:14:34] have nowhere near enough power. So,
[4:14:36] there's a there's a built-in check to
[4:14:38] those already um I I support I support
[4:14:42] setting up the parameters, but I don't I
[4:14:44] don't think we need a moratorum.
[4:14:45] [clears throat]
[4:14:46] Um because the right size data center
[4:14:49] can be good. Um it's it's the really
[4:14:51] large ones that present the challenges.
[4:14:57] » Um thank you to the chair. I I would
[4:15:00] like to make an amendment to the motion
[4:15:02] that we direct staff to first review
[4:15:04] receive and review and consider the
[4:15:07] province of Ontario's fourth funding
[4:15:08] data center framework and then proceed
[4:15:10] with the rest of the motion.
[4:15:13] » Okay.
[4:15:15] a second for that and then
[4:15:19] also Niger that would you be inclined to
[4:15:22] include the federal government's work as
[4:15:24] well?
[4:15:25] » Yeah, I just didn't know if that was
[4:15:26] imminent. I just know the province is
[4:15:27] imminent. counc.
[4:15:32] » Yeah, just a question for the CAO to the
[4:15:34] mayor. I I thought I picked up in his
[4:15:37] last comments that it was going to take
[4:15:38] time for this anyway and they were
[4:15:40] already going to be looking at the
[4:15:42] federal and provincial
[4:15:44] uh guidance.
[4:15:46] Is that was that accurate or do we need
[4:15:48] the
[4:15:50] um
[4:15:53] certainly
[4:15:55] that gives us inner direction but that
[4:15:58] was collectively ready to be that was
[4:16:00] the way I was enter
[4:16:05] so it's on the floor you can withdraw it
[4:16:07] or move forward and add it and then it's
[4:16:10] there or direction so if there's nothing
[4:16:14] forward uh further what's call the
[4:16:16] question on the amendment. All in favor
[4:16:21] to oppose that car. So now we have a
[4:16:24] motion with the amended version and I
[4:16:30] will call question on that. All the post
[4:16:37] that's car
[4:16:40] that the saw on the wall
[4:16:44] I need at this time to extend the date
[4:16:47] » After you can certainly extend again.
[4:16:50] » Sure. So motion to extend the meeting by
[4:16:52] one half hour. Council
[4:16:56] Anderson will second. All in favor.
[4:17:06] Thank you so
[4:17:28] Item nine is reporting committee clear
[4:17:31] noted. Item 10 is not consent and again
[4:17:34] un noted. Moving to item 11 reading of
[4:17:36] the bylaws. There are seven bylaws
[4:17:38] listed as item 11 is to appoint
[4:17:42] controllers. 11.2 is to appoint the
[4:17:44] director of emergency fire chief. Item
[4:17:47] 11.3 is to award the RFP for the process
[4:17:51] of single screen material. Item 11.4
[4:17:54] four inheritance 15 or 11 street marks
[4:17:59] to amend traffic parking by law 14. Item
[4:18:03] 11.6 is to extend the contract for
[4:18:06] non-eligible blue box collection. Item
[4:18:09] 11.7 is the zoning file amendment
[4:18:11] application 04-26. These files have been
[4:18:15] taken collectively upon vote to council
[4:18:17] president.
[4:18:19] So your date collected moved by counc
[4:18:23] Anderson any discussion
[4:18:26] all in favor
[4:18:28] of any that's unanimously hearing any
[4:18:31] for first and second move by councelor
[4:18:34] Hunter second by councelor be any
[4:18:36] discussion see none all in post it car
[4:18:43] and move
[4:18:45] councelor dig no second by councelor bur
[4:18:48] Any discussion? Seeing none, all in
[4:18:51] favor? Most unanimous and carried.
[4:18:55] » Item 12 is the consent agenda. Are there
[4:18:57] any items listed on the consent agenda
[4:18:59] to be considered by council?
[4:19:01] » You also go ahead. CA26-110
[4:19:06] um is the resolution from the town of
[4:19:08] Paris. Um saying the province should
[4:19:11] establish a regulatory agreement for
[4:19:13] either. And I'm thinking this one should
[4:19:15] be endorsed by us because what a
[4:19:17] mismatch that'll be if some
[4:19:19] municipalities have this rule and you
[4:19:22] know say we have a rule and then say
[4:19:24] here's a different rule and everything.
[4:19:26] I mean they govern cars and trucks and
[4:19:28] everything they should be anything
[4:19:29] that's got an over on it they should be
[4:19:33] all the same across the province.
[4:19:34] » Thank you second there for that back
[4:19:38] further discussion.
[4:19:40] Seeing none, all in favor post if any.
[4:19:42] That's unanimous. There any other
[4:19:44] consent agenda items at this time?
[4:19:50] Noted. Next item.
[4:19:51] » Item 13 is new business. Is there any
[4:19:53] new business items?
[4:19:56] » Thank you. Um we had a correspondence
[4:19:59] from a resident that lives near the
[4:20:02] train crossing on Nile Street a while
[4:20:05] ago and I was just wondering if we could
[4:20:08] direct that I put a motion forward to
[4:20:11] direct staff to make request to CN to
[4:20:14] review the noise level at that
[4:20:16] intersection not on the street where the
[4:20:18] train crosses over train station.
[4:20:20] » Just for clarification, is that the
[4:20:22] morning
[4:20:25] horns or just the crossing itself?
[4:20:29] » They they identify the horn specifically
[4:20:31] and yes.
[4:20:34] » Yeah. So through your worship um maybe
[4:20:37] cancer for the question uh the question
[4:20:41] being uh looked at here is the N street
[4:20:45] crossing effectively it's just a stop
[4:20:47] sign currently that's the biggest
[4:20:49] limitation from um having the train horn
[4:20:53] which sometimes comes early morning 5:00
[4:20:56] in the morning it's required to blow it
[4:20:58] whistle under uh transport Canada
[4:21:00] regulations so
[4:21:02] um in order to even consider having it
[4:21:05] removed. The likelihood is they're going
[4:21:07] to install a gate arm type system at
[4:21:11] that location.
[4:21:13] A bit of a cost. Uh that's 100% of the
[4:21:15] city's cost for the whole process to go
[4:21:17] through the uh investigation design. And
[4:21:21] then we have to get approval through
[4:21:25] uh both the road railway as well as
[4:21:29] transport
[4:21:31] to be permitted. So uh I think uh based
[4:21:35] on the request council's desire um I
[4:21:38] bring back before
[4:21:41] in terms of uh work plan timelines and
[4:21:43] cost
[4:21:47] you made a motion. I don't
[4:21:49] » Know I well I don't but if I can make
[4:21:52] the motion to have a report back that
[4:21:54] would show the what step cost associated
[4:21:59] that would be my motion.
[4:22:00] » Thank you. Second for that
[4:22:04] will second any discussion
[4:22:09] with all favor
[4:22:16] and that is scary. I know I've been in
[4:22:18] conversation with Metro East and as you
[4:22:21] said
[4:22:23] I hear loud and clear at 4:06 in the
[4:22:25] morning here in the office. It's it's
[4:22:29] appreciate how
[4:22:31] great but
[4:22:34] it's nice to speak.
[4:22:36] » Anything else?
[4:22:38] » Thank you. Just based on some of my
[4:22:40] talks tonight and delegations. I just
[4:22:42] wanted to put forward or I just would
[4:22:45] like to refer to staff um for steps
[4:22:49] possibly early the annex M Z
[4:22:56] um just so we can have an idea if it's
[4:22:59] possible what steps you could take and
[4:23:01] then and what that would look like
[4:23:03] » If I can turn that to uh the CO
[4:23:07] » Uh to the next simulation to to that and
[4:23:10] what that might look like um my my
[4:23:14] recommendation is that you continue to
[4:23:16] work with the efficient plan process and
[4:23:18] that we will take a lifting um and what
[4:23:21] that process um might look like. Again,
[4:23:24] it's as council has gone through
[4:23:27] annexation in the past. It's not
[4:23:29] necessarily um a short process or an
[4:23:33] expensive one, but there's there's got
[4:23:35] to be certain rational
[4:23:37] issues both. In fact, it's probably um
[4:23:42] important to occur whether they
[4:23:46] typically sited by the value to gaining
[4:23:50] those lands. uh that the city offic
[4:24:03] Thank you. So, so it's sort of being
[4:24:07] looked at as part of the official plan
[4:24:10] or not as part of the official plan, but
[4:24:11] it's sort of something that's being
[4:24:14] might be referred to council sometime in
[4:24:16] the future.
[4:24:20] » Clarify. So it's not necessarily a
[4:24:21] picture plan item although as part of
[4:24:23] the official plan depending on where we
[4:24:24] end up with our recommendations and what
[4:24:27] growth looks like and then when we start
[4:24:28] documentations what future land needs
[4:24:32] might have uh from from that perspective
[4:24:34] will go into that decision for council
[4:24:37] in the future. So it makes sense to
[4:24:38] continue down planning process before
[4:24:41] you start to understand what new lands
[4:24:43] you might need or what old lands you
[4:24:44] might not need. Um so it's that any time
[4:24:48] uh through the state's office uh we will
[4:24:51] start to that process
[4:24:54] based on the fact that
[4:24:57] they have council meeting
[4:25:01] um directed to the CEO on that topic. Um
[4:25:04] since a lot of the members from council
[4:25:08] currently were not part of that that
[4:25:10] decision when it comes back with
[4:25:13] whatever options I I would just request
[4:25:16] that there would be like a history and
[4:25:17] then kind of how we got there what all
[4:25:19] what all that was because to make a
[4:25:22] proper decision in any way on that I
[4:25:24] would just know what like all of that as
[4:25:26] well in the in details.
[4:25:35] Yes, again that is a fairly
[4:25:38] comprehensive file in my understanding.
[4:25:40] Um, but we do certainly
[4:25:47] » Thank you. Um, and I'm sure there'll be
[4:25:50] an official announcement at our next
[4:25:52] meeting, but I did want to also
[4:25:53] congratulate Miss Trish with the library
[4:25:55] on her forthcoming retirement. and I
[4:25:57] wanted to bring it up now because her
[4:25:59] final whale of the tale story hour will
[4:26:01] be occurring at 6:30 uh right before our
[4:26:04] meeting. Uh and so for anyone that's
[4:26:07] enjoyed any of her children's
[4:26:09] programming over the years in the
[4:26:12] library in our daycare center as well,
[4:26:14] but um that's a great opportunity to go
[4:26:16] thank her and get one final reading with
[4:26:18] her uh in the middle and then maybe
[4:26:20] attend the council meeting after
[4:26:22] interest, but that will be 6:30 on the
[4:26:25] 20th. So, I just wanted to make people
[4:26:27] aware of that and I'm sure we'll have
[4:26:29] some thank you this time next meeting.
[4:26:34] » Anderson mayor, I just wanted to point
[4:26:37] out when the gentleman was speaking
[4:26:38] tonight, it sounded like a big industry
[4:26:42] was going to come and, you know, he said
[4:26:45] was going to have a thousand employees,
[4:26:47] he was really excited about that. So it
[4:26:50] actually closes the door on him and say
[4:26:52] something comes along in the future
[4:26:54] that's big and wants to negotiate with
[4:26:57] him
[4:26:59] cuz we did talk about a lot of the
[4:27:01] things. I don't remember what was in
[4:27:03] camera and what wasn't but about some of
[4:27:06] the things that he discussed. So like it
[4:27:09] kind of sound like it was something that
[4:27:11] would manifest and have a lot of work
[4:27:13] cuz he is interested but if it's just
[4:27:15] something small he's not interested. the
[4:27:18] salty good but yeah we have so it's sort
[4:27:21] of tricky and
[4:27:24] we have what five farms I think that
[4:27:26] ranch actually in the city something
[4:27:28] like that
[4:27:33] » Any other councelor
[4:27:35] » Just to respond to that because I have
[4:27:37] to say that that was not accurate I
[4:27:40] think it was four
[4:27:42] pretty sure it was not too fast
[4:27:44] it may have been 400 but I think it
[4:27:46] might
[4:27:47] Anyway, just clarity for
[4:27:51] um others
[4:27:53] of uh on the new
[4:27:57] I'll certainly take a moment to
[4:27:58] congratulate SLO for their exceptional
[4:28:01] aging with optimism event this past
[4:28:04] weekend at the Aglex. A huge thank you
[4:28:07] to President Trudy Johnson and her team
[4:28:10] of volunteers. That was an exceptional
[4:28:13] an exceptional event that
[4:28:17] all deserters.
[4:28:23] » I also wanted to congratulate on stage
[4:28:26] gymnastics for their official opening
[4:28:27] and bringing gymnastics to Stratford. Um
[4:28:31] I many families have been traveling
[4:28:32] water and Mitchell for many years. We
[4:28:34] now have it located right downtown and
[4:28:36] just congratulations that team can
[4:28:37] continue great youth programming for all
[4:28:40] of us.
[4:28:43] I think we should start.
[4:28:47] » Anything else?
[4:28:50] » I'm just wondering like No, we had a lot
[4:28:53] of audience participation tonight. I'm
[4:28:56] wondering because we don't always know
[4:28:58] ahead of time, but it would be nice to
[4:28:59] have the ones that are going to have
[4:29:01] presenters
[4:29:02] earlier on in the agenda to know what's
[4:29:06] faster going through, right? Maybe but
[4:29:10] of course we don't always know know that
[4:29:11] ahead of time right because people will
[4:29:13] read the agenda and then want to come in
[4:29:15] the city
[4:29:19] of that city
[4:29:22] » Or even council we could adjust the
[4:29:25] order
[4:29:29] » Right if there's nothing further then
[4:29:31] next item
[4:29:34] » There's no moving to item 15 reading of
[4:29:37] the confirmatory bylaw requires first
[4:29:39] and second reading and third and final
[4:29:40] reading.
[4:29:41] » Thank you. First and second council
[4:29:44] seconded by counc any discussion.
[4:29:48] See none. All in favor if any see
[4:29:51] carried and move for third and fin
[4:29:58] second discussion.
[4:30:00] All in favor if any that's carried
[4:30:06] before we adjourn. Thank you to our our
[4:30:08] lone
[4:30:10] media person.
[4:30:12] Thank you Conor. Thank you staff and
[4:30:14] public's not here anymore but for their
[4:30:16] energy committed and to of course cancel
[4:30:20] said that all I ask
[4:30:27] all
[4:30:29] today we are
[4:30:32] are everyone.
[4:30:33] » That's