[4:23] Members of council. Ladies and gentlemen. Clerk advises me that

[4:31] it is now 07:00 so I will call this meeting

[4:35] to order. And just before we get into some of.

[4:39] The formalities this evening. Councilor Ijaz is attempting to connect

[4:47] remotely. He's not with us yet, but. If he can't

[4:50] connect. He'll be marked as with his regret, so he

[4:55] may or may not be able to. Join us. And

[4:59] as well, members of council, you'll know, since. We last

[5:04] met. There's some new configuration around the council table and

[5:09] of course, some new technology for everyone. That's sitting on

[5:13] the floor. So things have changed just a little bit.

[5:18] So with that, we are going to. Proceed. So when

[5:24] I ask you to send and join me in a

[5:26] moment of silent reflection, our national anthem and I will

[5:30] read the traditional land acknowledgment.

[6:01] Oh, can I die? Our home and native.

[6:11] Land. True patriot. Love in all of us. Come and.

[6:21] Cartombras. Tony Swaditi naple

[6:31] failures. Deeply. God keep our land.

[6:44] Glory. Us and free. All. Canada. We stand on guard.

[6:54] For. The. We stand on? God.

[7:05] For. The. We acknowledge that the land we gather

[7:15] on is part of the treaty. Lands and territory of

[7:18] the Mississaugas of the credit First Nation we recognize the

[7:23] traditional territory of the here on one debt, and the

[7:27] Hodney Shawnee people. We also acknowledge. First nation. May tea

[7:34] and the Inuit people who live on these lands today.

[7:38] We commit to working. Towards reconciliation. Thank you.

[7:49] Madam Clerk, are there any agenda announcements? I just wanted

[7:57] to note that later on in today's agenda, we have

[8:00] two statutory, public meetings scheduled. The first one is regarding

[8:03] Milton Education Village, the Conestoka College Institute of technology. And

[8:07] advanced learning. Madamy Brightpoint homes and Madame Brownwidge homes. The

[8:13] second public meeting is regarding a proposed zoning bylaw Amendment

[8:16] by Robert Russell Planning Consultants, Inc. Applicable to lands known

[8:20] municipally as 8465 Boston Church Road. During the course of

[8:25] the live meeting, members of the public in attendance will

[8:28] be given the opportunity to speak either. In person or

[8:31] remotely. Those who wish to speak remotely can call our

[8:34] dedicated phone number 186-511-0021 these instructions will be provided again

[8:41] at the point in the agenda that we will be

[8:43] holding the public meeting and information about how to connect

[8:46] remotely. We'll be scrolling across the live stream video. Thank

[8:50] you very much for that. Has any member of council

[8:53] a disclosure. I'm not seeing any. So as our policy

[9:01] dictates. Councilor bass will assume the chair. Very few brief

[9:07] moments and we'll turn things around. And give us a

[9:10] couple of minutes and we'll continue. This council meeting. Thank

[9:14] you, councilor best.

[10:15] Evening, ladies and gentlemen. We have consent. Items 5.1 to

[10:18] 5.3. Is there any? Questions on any of the items.

[10:22] If not, it's been moved by councilor Chaullner. And second

[10:24] by councilor move. That the items be approved. All those

[10:27] in favor? Motions carried. Okay.

[10:38] We are now going to. Be doing a public hearing

[10:41] under the Development Charges Act. I'll have our finance director

[10:45] do a brief introduction. Thank you. So this will be

[10:49] a hearing under the education act as it pertains to.

[10:51] A complaint related to the application of development charges under

[10:55] that act and the bylaws of the two school boards.

[10:58] To be clear, there are no implications here with respect

[11:01] to the town's. Development charges or the Development charges Act.

[11:05] However, as the education. Act requires local council to hear

[11:09] DC complaints. We have convened this hearing. In the staff

[11:13] report that is presented, you will find the positions of

[11:16] each party being the property. Owner and the school boards.

[11:19] They are provided as appendices in the hearing. You'll hear

[11:22] have the opportunity to hear from each party. As is

[11:26] required under the act. In the case of the two

[11:29] school boards, Mr. Frederick Tebow will be presenting. He's the

[11:33] general manager of planning for the Halton District School board.

[11:37] In the case of the owner. It will be first,

[11:39] the owner himself, Mr. Ali Moyer, as well as his

[11:42] representative, Ms. Stephanie. Fleming. We also have virtually with us

[11:46] as a resource for Council Constantine Estev Raccos from O'Connor,

[11:51] McLeod, Hannah. He's in attendance at the request of the

[11:54] town to provide. Any support council may need as assistant

[11:56] legislative hearing process. After the submissions, you'll have the opportunity

[12:03] as council to either dismiss the complaint or to rectify

[12:07] any error that has been made in the application of

[12:09] the bylaws of the school board. Note that the language

[12:15] between the bylaws of the Halton District Catholic School Board

[12:18] and the public school board is identical relatively in terms

[12:20] of their bylaws. Therefore, the same decision can be applied

[12:24] to each. As well. We've provided draft resolutions in the

[12:28] body of the staff report, one related to dismissing the

[12:31] complaint and another related to rectifying an error should council

[12:35] identify one. Those would need to be moved, seconded and

[12:39] approved by council following the delegations. So with that, if

[12:43] there's any clarification that would be helpful, I'm. Happy to

[12:46] provide it. Otherwise, through the chair, we can consider the

[12:49] opportunity for the delegations. Thank you. Is there any questions

[12:53] regarding the overview? If not, Mr. Moy could please step

[12:57] forward. And. Do. He's all virtual.

[13:24] We're just logging on here. Good evening. The honorable mayor

[13:34] and members of council. My name is Stephanie Fleming. I'm

[13:37] appearing. Today on behalf of Mr. Moair. I'm not sure

[13:45] if Mr. Moer has spoken already. There's a bit of.

[13:48] A pause there. No, we were just logging on. He

[13:51] hasn't spoken. Thank you. Mr. Moira, I understood you wanted

[13:56] to have a few words before we started. Sorry. No,

[14:00] go ahead. Thank you so much. Thank you. The members

[14:06] of council and honorable mayor. I'm appearing today on behalf

[14:09] of Mr. Moayer. Who is the owner of 110 Hesslop

[14:12] Road he's proposing to construct. A single, basically studio apartment

[14:17] over top of a detached garage which is present on

[14:20] his property. It is a residential property, and right now

[14:23] it has a single family home and the garage. As

[14:27] you know, as I'm sure you know, the province is

[14:30] really incentivizing these types of developments. Under the Planning act,

[14:36] you can have three units as of right on a

[14:38] residential property there's. Development charges act have exempted these types

[14:43] of developments. The only thing that hasn't really been clarified

[14:47] is the Education Act. Under the Education Act. Certain properties

[14:53] are exempted from these types of development from these types

[14:55] of development charges. Under the goal of.

[15:06] The reason these charges are collected, obviously, is to ensure

[15:09] that. If any, development. If new people move into the

[15:17] neighborhood. The board has enough money, obviously, to cover any

[15:21] new students coming into the area. This aim is set

[15:25] out at section 257 54, one of the Education act,

[15:29] which states if there's residential development in the area of

[15:32] jurisdiction of a board that would increase education land costs.

[15:36] The board may pass bylaws for the imposition of education

[15:38] development. Charges against land in its area of jurisdiction undergoing

[15:42] residential or nonresidential development. In this case, apart from anything

[15:48] else, just the practicality. I cannot see how a single

[15:51] studio apartment would have any impact on the cost of.

[15:57] New land for a school board. I've lived in studio

[16:01] apartments. They are barely comfortable enough for one person to

[16:04] be quite. Honest. And my client is seeking to build

[16:09] this modest apartment. The charge against the development charge that

[16:14] would be levied against him should it be constructed, would

[16:16] be in total 11,385 dollarsforty $0.03. That?

[16:26] $66,716.43 from the Halton District School board. And $4,669 from

[16:34] the Holton Catholic District School board. Big difference in what

[16:40] the Development Charges act says and what the Education act

[16:44] says, which exempting types of residential development. Is set out

[16:52] in a regulation known as Oreg 2098, section three and.

[16:57] It's then reflected in the Holton District School board bylaws.

[17:02] This. In our opinion, this proposal would fall under what

[17:06] we call other residential developments or other residential buildings. They

[17:11] have two other types of developments. One is. Single detached

[17:15] residential. The second is semi detached residential. Obviously, as this

[17:20] is a detached garage, it's. Slightly different. So therefore it

[17:25] would be other residential buildings. It's our opinion that this

[17:30] would be another residential building because a single detached garage,

[17:34] obviously. Can't exist in and of itself. It's an accessory

[17:37] structure to the main building. Being the single family home.

[17:41] You cannot have a detached garage just exist in and

[17:44] of itself. On a residential property. As such, any sort

[17:50] of Adu must. Be as such, it falls under. We

[17:54] believe it falls into this category. There are certain restrictions

[17:59] in this one is that. The additional dwelling unit must

[18:03] be smaller than any other residential dwelling unit. This is

[18:08] a studio apartment. The existing dwelling unit is a single

[18:12] family home. It's going to be much smaller, I would

[18:15] assume, than the single family home. I'd also note that

[18:19] the town actually encourages these types of adus on its

[18:23] own. Website. It mentions them specifically as a good location

[18:28] for them. The board has raised certain points rejecting our

[18:34] position. Obviously. They've said, first of all, that the garage

[18:41] does not exist. My client can assure you. The garage

[18:44] is in existence now. This is just going to be.

[18:48] The building permit obviously would require certain changes to that

[18:51] garage, but. It is currently in existence. And secondly, it

[18:57] goes back to our position on the garage being an

[19:01] accessory use to the building. So we do not believe

[19:05] that. This does fall within this exemption as such. We

[19:12] respectfully request that the town confirm that this proposal is

[19:16] exempt. From the education development charges requested or in the

[19:21] alternative, reconsider the calculations for the property. Thank you very

[19:26] much for your time tonight, and if you have any

[19:27] questions, please let us know. Thank you. Presentation. Is there

[19:31] any questions of the delegation? If not. Thank you, Mr.

[19:35] Moyer, would you like to make a presentation now? Not.

[19:39] You know what? He just cover everything? And as she

[19:45] mentioned, According to the appendix four on page four. Page

[19:51] four, appendix two. Sorry. You know what? In summary, they

[19:55] mentioned two main reasons that reject. What exemption? The first

[20:01] one. They assume the Adu. Will be constructed above the

[20:06] detached garage. Doesn't qualify as a residential building. And the

[20:11] second they mentioned, the garage does not exist. Both is

[20:15] respectfully it secretary, the first one. You know what? As

[20:19] the all applications submitted to the town of Milton. As

[20:24] zoning bylaw, pass everything and. The last step, I have

[20:29] to pay. And you know what the pyramid will issue.

[20:34] We just submit all drawing and everything, and I'm following.

[20:37] You know what? The all residential building requirements to have

[20:43] that, you know, what is sleeping sanitary, cooking facilities and

[20:47] also following the fire department, fire safety and all building

[20:51] codes. And also, as you know, that I have to

[20:55] register the ARU in Milton as well as recently passed.

[20:59] I'm following. All of them and everything submitted to Tanaf

[21:02] Milton. And I am exempt from. These development charges by

[21:06] town of Milton. Technically, this is the residential building. And

[21:11] the second one, as she mentioned. What the garage is

[21:14] exist. Why I'm not building the new garage and whatever.

[21:18] I'm asking for the exemption. Is not for garage. It's

[21:20] for the Aru on top of that. That's. All our

[21:27] explanation. Basically. Thank you so much for your time. Thank

[21:30] you. Presentation. Any questions of Mr. Moya. If not, thank

[21:34] your presentation and go to the third delegation. Mr. Fred

[21:38] deebolt from the school board. I understand he's also remote.

[22:09] Evening, counselors. Can you hear me all right? Yes, you're

[22:12] fine, thank you. All right. Perfect. Thank you. And thanks

[22:15] for accommodating us this evening. Virtually a little bit unexpected.

[22:19] With the snowstorm we got, so I hope you all

[22:21] made it to council chambers tonight without too much of

[22:24] an issue. So. I won't take up too much of

[22:29] your time this evening, and I'll just. Maybe speak to

[22:32] some of the points that were raised in terms of

[22:34] why the board had to proceed with the charge as

[22:38] per. The requirements of as bylaw for both us and

[22:42] the Hulk and Catholic District School board. So maybe what

[22:45] I can start with, first and foremost is. Admittedly, there

[22:49] is a disconnect, I would say, between. The Development Charges

[22:54] act and the Education act. In terms of the new

[22:57] legislation that was brought forward by the Province of Ontario

[22:59] in terms of encouraging intensification. So in 2022, changes were

[23:04] definitely made to the DC act, which would exempt these

[23:07] types of units. Unfortunately, The ministry of the province had

[23:11] yet to proceed with making the necessary changes to the

[23:15] Education act. Which. Would align. Or. Be in alignment with

[23:22] the current DC act, so we're hopeful that that will

[23:25] happen in due course. But at present, where we are

[23:28] today is where we were pre 2022. So maybe a

[23:32] few points of clarification on this matter with regards to

[23:35] the garage and the arguments that are being made. What

[23:39] I would say is that the intent of the bylaws

[23:41] that was written and intensive. The legislation as it was

[23:44] passed back. When. First brought into force was that this

[23:51] intensification was meant to be applicable to existing residential units.

[23:57] So an existing residential units, as per the bylaws defined

[24:01] as a few things we have our single family dwellings

[24:04] that are detached from other homes. We have our semi

[24:07] detached or our townhouse. Units, which. Are also considered, and

[24:12] then other residential buildings, which I think is the argument

[24:15] that's being made this evening. Those are definitely for different

[24:18] classification of buildings, such as apartment dwellings. Stack towns. Those

[24:25] types of units where it's a lot more multifamily or

[24:29] multi units. That's what was needed to be captured. So

[24:33] it wasn't meant to be a bylaw that captured all

[24:35] of those different types of units as more to provide

[24:38] three different classifications. In order. To be able to easily

[24:43] prescribe how the charge is to be administered. So for

[24:45] a single family dwelling in our bylaw. You're allowed to

[24:48] have up to two units insofar as it's not. Larger

[24:51] than the primary existing. Residential units, and that's a keyword.

[24:55] It has to be an existing residential unit. If they're

[24:58] built at the same time, then both would be chargeable.

[25:01] But that's. Not the case this evening. And then for

[25:04] townhouses, it's only one. And as long as it's smaller

[25:07] than. The existing residential unit, then that would be exempt.

[25:11] And then the other residential buildings were meant. To. Apply

[25:17] to all these other types which need to be an

[25:19] existing building that has existing residential units. Within it. So

[25:24] that's the key differentiation, which I think. Is being argued

[25:29] against. So the appellants, and looking at this, is saying

[25:33] that the garage should be classified as another residential unit,

[25:38] and I would submit that. Albeit it's an ancillary residential

[25:41] build to a residential building. It's not an existing residential

[25:46] units. So the intent of the bylaw is that if

[25:49] that were, let's say, an existing garage that was detached

[25:53] with a secondary suite on top. Of it. And there

[25:57] were another one to be added to it. The now

[25:59] one could be considered for an exemption. But seeing that

[26:01] there is no existing residential unit on that detached garage,

[26:06] Than a charge would be applicable. The other very important

[26:09] piece in our bylaw is that it makes a distinction

[26:11] as to. Where this. Additional accessory dwelling unit needs to

[26:16] be located. So for the legislation which our bylaw is

[26:20] in conformance with, it needs to be located. Within the

[26:24] existing building so it can't be detached. Arguably, you can

[26:28] maybe say that if it was an attached addition to

[26:31] the building. As long as it's smaller, then it would

[26:33] be applicable, but. It needs to be either within or

[26:37] attached to the existing building in this case, because we're

[26:40] looking at a detached garage which is being proposed to

[26:44] have an additional unit placed on top. Of it. The

[26:48] exemption wouldn't apply because technically there are zero existing units

[26:51] within that detached garage. So maybe apologies on maybe our

[26:56] misunderstanding. On whether or not the garage was existing at

[27:01] the time, we were under the impression it would have

[27:03] to be significantly. Either. We thought that had to be

[27:09] demolished and then rebuilt to accommodate for the secondary unit,

[27:11] but it seems like it's more of a major renovation,

[27:15] but that still doesn't attract the fact that. The detached

[27:19] garage is still not an existing residential units. A new

[27:22] unit is being placed within it. And it's not being

[27:25] counted against the whole of the lot. It's really specific.

[27:27] To the building itself. So for those reasons above, I'd

[27:31] submit that. We believe that. The board correctly administered the

[27:37] charge. And that the complaint should be dismissed. Happy to

[27:42] take any further questions or clarify any of my statements.

[27:45] Thank you for your time. Thank you. Delegation, any questions

[27:48] of the delegation? Council. Thank you so much for your

[27:54] delegation. I believe you are the director for planning for

[27:59] the school board. The general manager for the Holton District

[28:04] School Board. Holden District School Board. Well, I know that.

[28:10] The issue at hand relates to the school board. And

[28:16] I appreciate you presenting today. My understanding is that you

[28:22] do not consider a garage. A family unit, and that

[28:25] is the premise on which. You are applying the DCs?

[28:32] That's correct. We're saying that the detached garage. Is not

[28:38] classified as other residential buildings in our bylaw. It's just

[28:45] an ancillary use to the existing dwelling, so it doesn't.

[28:49] Fall under those classifications of where there would be exemptions,

[28:52] apply for additional units. And even if it were to

[28:57] be, then the second question is. Well, the existing units

[29:02] or, sorry, the new unit needs to be smaller than

[29:04] the existing unit within. That building, not the property, the

[29:07] building itself, which would be the garage. And seeing that

[29:09] the garage has no residential unit to it. It's, in

[29:12] fact, larger than anything that's there. Therefore, the charge again

[29:15] would apply. So in both cases, I would argue it's

[29:19] still applicable. Okay. Thank you. I do see there's a

[29:22] technicality here that's in place. That is definitely being used

[29:27] as a reason for this. EDC, I get it. But

[29:32] the town as you know. Does not charge a DC

[29:35] is on ARU, so it is something that is exclusive

[29:39] to the school board. Thank you. Any further questions? The

[29:44] delegation. If not, thank you, sir. And I turn it

[29:50] back to our director of finance to highlight the options.

[29:55] Thank you. So happy to provide any further clarification or

[29:59] commentary if it's helpful to council. On page three of

[30:02] the staff report, which is also page 67 in your

[30:05] overall agenda. There are two. Different resolutions outlined for council.

[30:11] The first, if moved and passed by council, would dismiss

[30:14] the complaint in accordance with the act. The second would

[30:18] identify that, in council's opinion, an error was made in

[30:21] the determination and it's a two part resolution, but it

[30:26] would then identify that the development charge is payable. For

[30:29] the proposed would be zero. And that language is in

[30:33] the report for you to review. So again, happy to

[30:35] provide further clarification as it may be helpful. Councilor Chauner.

[30:43] Mayor Crannz. Sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This may have

[30:49] been for the first presenter. She requested, I believe. Two

[30:55] alternatives there it was the second one that I wanted

[31:00] to question. As to. Really what that really did mean.

[31:06] First, when I understand very clearly, but the second request

[31:09] is the one that I'd like a little more clarity

[31:11] on. Director. I think the mayor may be referring, and

[31:16] I don't want to necessarily paraphrase but there was an

[31:20] indication that council would either determine an error or otherwise

[31:24] remedy something along those lines. Council's role in the hearing

[31:28] process is. To determine if there was an error in

[31:32] the application of the existing bylaw. If helpful, for counsel

[31:36] to get additional clarity directly from the lawyer for the

[31:40] owner on that point. But depending on the response, it

[31:45] may be something that we may need Constantine to weigh

[31:47] in on. As to council's abilities because it is fairly

[31:51] restrictive in the context of a DC hearing. Any further

[31:55] merit press? No. Thank you, Councilor Scholner. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

[32:00] I'm going to move. Dismissal of the appeal. And. We

[32:06] really don't have any choice in this matter. If it

[32:09] were to be appealed. The provincial, existing provincial legislation is

[32:14] quite clear. And it's very clear in that regard what

[32:19] council has to do. However. I have a great deal

[32:25] of sympathy for the applicant. It's unfortunate the Education act

[32:29] was not updated to reflect. The changes that were made

[32:33] to the DC act provincially. And so I'm going to

[32:37] give the clerk a copy of an amended or second

[32:43] motion. With respect to the matter. The first motion that

[32:47] has been put forward by staff and their report is

[32:50] dismissal of the appeal. And I will move that. But

[32:54] I also think that, quite frankly, this council has a

[32:57] responsibility to reach out to the premier, the Minister of

[33:00] Finance and the Minister of Education. To request that they

[33:06] update the Education act to reflect. The changes that have

[33:10] been made to education dcs in the Development Charges act

[33:14] itself, and that would be sent. By copy to Zhamed,

[33:20] who is our MPP for Milton, as well as the

[33:23] director. Of education for the Halton District School Board and

[33:25] the director of education for the Halton Catholic District school

[33:28] board because at the end of the day, there's only

[33:30] one place for this matter can be resolved. And that's

[33:34] at the legislature at Queens Park. It's unfortunate. Might this

[33:39] person have the opportunity, if the education has passed quickly,

[33:43] to seek some sort of financial support. For this decision.

[33:49] It's possible. I don't know. But I don't think we

[33:53] have much choices to counsel. I think it's fairly clear.

[33:55] But I think we also have the opportunity to make

[33:58] the province aware that this is an issue. Especially. Given.

[34:05] Its interest in accelerating growth. This won't be the first

[34:08] time this happens in future. There will be other opportunities

[34:11] that come forward as well. That may be a problem.

[34:14] It has to be resolved. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

[34:18] I've got a motion that I'll be reading out. Later,

[34:21] Councilor Marshall. I'm generally aligned with what councilor Chaliner has

[34:27] said. I would just also suggest that we add something

[34:30] to ask the province to consider making any changes retroactive

[34:35] to the date. Of the corresponding legislation. That's from the

[34:40] Development Charge Act. Thank you. Any other speakers on this

[34:44] item? If not, I do have a motion moved by

[34:49] councilor Alley, second by councilor Raquel. Key. It's the item

[34:52] b and the prevalent motion is and that the education

[34:56] development charge is payable for the proposed additional residential unit

[34:59] to be constructed over the detached garage at 110 hesslap

[35:04] road in the town of Milton should be zero. We

[35:07] do have a proposed amendment by councilor Chowner to the

[35:10] mover and secondary is this something that we take as

[35:13] a friendly amendment. Director. Sorry. Apologies. Can you just repeat

[35:21] that last part? I want to make sure we're using

[35:23] the correct motion here. And I thought I heard a

[35:24] reference to that. The DC should be zero. This is

[35:28] the written one we have is basically. Item b. Basically,

[35:33] the education development charge is payable for the proposed additional

[35:37] dwelling unit to be constructed over the detached garage at

[35:40] 110 Hesselop Road in the town of Milton should be

[35:43] zero. So, to clarify, I believe the mover was identifying

[35:47] that we were dismissing the complaint, which would be the

[35:49] first motion on page three. Those latter two motions, including

[35:54] what you just read, that's actually if council were to

[35:56] determine that there was an error made in the application,

[35:59] so I just want to make sure we're. Working with

[36:01] the right resolution. Well, I have the first motion that's

[36:05] on my desk. That the second motion, as councilor Chowner

[36:08] mentioned, hasn't been seconded yet, so. I'm dealing with one

[36:10] motion at a time, Councilor Calke. Calkey. Yeah, Mr. Chair,

[36:13] if I could just provide clarity there. While the discussion

[36:15] was ongoing over here. We did provide that motion first

[36:17] there. So if we could deal with that on its

[36:19] merits. As listed in the report. Then we can proceed

[36:22] based on how it results in the vote and we'll

[36:23] make our arguments as to why we believe that's the

[36:25] correct motion to proceed with. Thanks, Mr. Chair. With the

[36:29] clerk just because there is a motion that was on

[36:31] the floor. I thought.

[36:58] Councillor Ellie. Thank you. As the mover of the First

[37:00] Amendment, I would like to speak to that amendment, Mr.

[37:04] Chair. I've heard both sides of the argument in this

[37:08] meeting. Also the argument that. There is nothing we can

[37:12] do. And the solution is with the province. Fact of

[37:15] the matter is. The report is in front of us

[37:18] right now. The complaint is in front of council right

[37:21] now. So there is something we can do. We have

[37:23] two options. Either we dismiss it. Or we do the

[37:27] right thing. And. Make it easy for our residents to

[37:34] build. Ar youth. We are a housing supportive council. We

[37:39] support Aru's and we have gone. To great lengths to

[37:43] finesse our ArU policy and to that end, to support

[37:47] housing in our community to support Aru. Without. Affecting. More

[37:54] green fields. I think this is a great opportunity for

[37:57] council to reiterate its commitment. To affordable housing, and with

[38:04] that, I heard the lawyer of the complainant. The lawyer

[38:09] made complete sense. How can a garage not. Be part

[38:14] of a house. All of that is just technicalities, and

[38:18] I see that as a hindrance to anybody wanting to

[38:22] build an Aru. And when you look at that area,

[38:26] Hesslop wrote, everything is built out. This is the only

[38:29] way we can add more affordable units there. And so

[38:33] with that, I have put forward this amendment. I think

[38:36] the edc being proposed. On this resident is unfair. It

[38:42] is using a technicality to charge him unfairly because the

[38:46] town is not collecting any dcs on ARu to begin

[38:49] with. And the financial part implications of this report tells

[38:54] me that there are no financial implications to the town

[38:57] of Milton either ways, and so with that. I would

[39:02] definitely side with the resident who I do believe has

[39:05] been charged erroneously. Thank you. Councilor calcut is the second.

[39:10] Thanks, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair. I just want to reference

[39:14] to council that all of the work that council has

[39:16] been doing in relation to Aru's and one of the

[39:19] examples that was depicted in staff's work on the ARU

[39:22] file includes detached error use air use that are constructed,

[39:27] permitted, approved by the town that are not attached to

[39:30] a residential unit, a granny suite, for example. Or built

[39:34] as their own independent unit without being physically attached. So

[39:38] in the case made by the education board in relation

[39:41] to this, not qualifying as that. That actually contradicts what

[39:44] our ARU policies in Milton actually stipulate. So an ARU

[39:50] in Milton can be an independent unit that's not attached.

[39:54] Physically. To a residence as indicated by. The education board.

[40:01] What I also want to say here is that the

[40:03] public hearing today is an opportunity. If an error was

[40:06] made for us to decide as counsel what the right

[40:08] thing to do is, and I think a reasonable inference

[40:11] can be made here. That if the town of Milton,

[40:14] we already know the legislation provincially tells us that we

[40:17] cannot. Apply dcs at the town level to air use.

[40:20] The inference that can be made is that when the

[40:22] province comes down to making the necessary changes in the

[40:25] Education act that they're probably going to align with what

[40:28] municipalities are required or not required charge in this case

[40:32] as well. So. What I'm trying to say is that

[40:35] the Education act is likely going to be amended. At

[40:37] a future time to match what the planning act says

[40:39] in terms of collection of dcs and I do think

[40:42] that in this case, That's a lot of money that's

[40:45] going to be charged to this resident if that were

[40:47] to be approved, which we can probably all likely infer

[40:49] that at some point down the line. Those fees aren't

[40:53] going to be in place for this type of situation

[40:55] that the resident is in. And it's on town and

[40:58] Milton website. Like I said, a detached Aru doesn't. Necessarily

[41:02] need to be attached to a residence. It's in the

[41:05] name itself. It can be a granny suite. It can

[41:07] be something that's not physically conjoined to the residential property

[41:11] therefore qualifies as an Aru or an adu therefore exempt

[41:15] from dcs. At the town level, and in this case,

[41:18] because. The Education act hasn't been updated yet. It isn't

[41:22] applicable at that level, but it will be at a

[41:24] future time, most likely. Is what I believe. So I

[41:26] do believe that. This complaint should be dismissed and dismissed

[41:33] in the sense that there shouldn't be any charges. Applied

[41:35] to the resident that's making the complaint in this matter.

[41:38] Thanks, Mr. Chair. Councilor Chowner. It's very clear. This is

[41:47] a technical legal point. That's why we're here. I don't.

[41:50] Disagree with the comments that have been made. About. What

[41:55] the town's policy is and what the development charges policy

[41:58] is today. That's all very true, but if this goes

[42:02] before the Ontario Land Tribunal, Then the education system is

[42:08] going to carry the day, because that's what the act

[42:11] says. And the land tribunal will obviously have to follow

[42:14] what is provincial legislation today. We don't. Have any idea

[42:18] if the Education act is going to be revised as

[42:21] it should be there's? Been no indication of that. That's

[42:24] why. I've brought forward a separate motion to deal with

[42:27] that, and I, by the way, agree. With councilor Marshall's

[42:32] addition of making the situation retroactive, I think that's. A

[42:36] smart thing to do. But as much as I have

[42:40] great sympathy for the applicant, We can't move forward. With

[42:47] the decision we'd like to make because. It's not. Really

[42:51] legal. The education act says today what it says. We

[42:55] all know what it says. And it unfortunately hasn't been

[42:59] updated. It needs to be, and until such time. We

[43:04] have to follow what it states. That is the law

[43:07] today. Thank you, Councilor Marshall. My comments are very similar

[43:12] to what councilor Chauner has just said. I do have

[43:14] a lot of sympathy for the position that the complainant

[43:17] is in. I think trying to get something retroactive in

[43:21] effect. Is their best way. To try and get compensated

[43:29] for being caught in a bad spot. With respect to

[43:32] these development charges. But on my reading and my understanding

[43:36] of what we're able to do, we can look to

[43:39] see if there's an error in the application. And so

[43:43] that language is very clear. It's not an error in

[43:47] the sense that we don't like what's happening because of

[43:50] our own town bylaws. And what? We understand the direction

[43:54] from the province to be. We have to look at

[43:56] the language that is in the applicable bylaw and legislation,

[44:02] and we need to. Apply the facts to those bylaws

[44:06] and legislation. And unfortunately, I don't see how we can

[44:11] raise compassionate grounds as I would love to. In this

[44:15] instance, it's simply just not. There. Thank you. Is there

[44:19] any other speakers on this motion? Councilor Kelkie and Mr.

[44:23] Cheryl. Just add before the votes called here, that if

[44:26] the prerogative of the school board is to take it

[44:28] to the Ontario Land Tribunal for further consideration, then that's

[44:31] on them to do. Maybe that'll help them at the

[44:34] provincial level, understand? Where the challenge lies. Here, too, we

[44:37] can do the advocacy piece like councilor Chowder mentioned. Earlier

[44:39] as well when he spoke. But again, I think the

[44:43] logical inference that can be made here is that eventually

[44:47] the education act will be amended to reflect the consistency

[44:50] we see at the municipal level, at the provincial level,

[44:53] under the planning Act. So it may not necessarily be

[44:56] an error in terms of what it is, and that's

[44:58] just semantics, in my opinion. There, in the wording of

[45:02] that resolution. But at the end of the day, the

[45:06] likelihood of this being amended provincially under the education act

[45:09] to reflect what we do municipally is going to be

[45:12] identical at some point down the future. It's $11,000 for

[45:15] a resident who's trying to help trade. Housing in our

[45:17] community. I think that also needs to be considered on

[45:19] its merits as well. Let the education board. Go to

[45:22] the OLT is what I'm trying to say. They can

[45:24] deal with that at that point. So I'll just conclude

[45:27] there. Thanks. Thank you. And just getting clarification on councilor

[45:33] Chowner's proposed amendment to the mover. And secretary, will you

[45:37] be willing to accept this as a friendly amendment, or

[45:38] do you want to vote on it separately. We will

[45:41] vote on it separately because that amendment actually cancels out

[45:45] the other option that we are going with. Okay, I'll

[45:49] get the clerk's advice on this. Justice Councilor Chowner, on

[45:59] this amendment that you proposed, did you want this and

[46:02] included with councilor Ali's and Kelsey's, or do you want

[46:05] us a separate? No, it's separate. It goes with the

[46:07] dismissal. We're voting strictly on what they're proposing, and then

[46:17] when we vote, On the dismissal of the appeal, then

[46:21] we can add that to that, and it'll need to

[46:25] be revised to reflect councilor Marshall's quite valid suggestion that.

[46:30] The Education act, when it is revised, be retroactive to

[46:33] the changes that were made in the Development charges act

[46:35] with respect to ad use. Thanks. Thank you. To the

[46:41] work clerks. Are you clear on that now? Okay. The

[46:49] motion again. Just verbally. Information is in your package. It's

[46:53] been moved by councilor. Ali, seconded by councilor Kelkey. I'm

[46:56] not going to read the whole thing. As main thing.

[46:58] Point is that the fee should be zero. Any questions?

[47:02] The motion I've been requested a recorded vote by councilor

[47:06] Ali. All those in favor, please stand. Thank you. I'm

[47:11] noting councilor Ali and councilor Culky in favor. All those

[47:18] opposed? I'm noting mayor Krantz, councilor

[47:28] Chowner, councilor Marshall, councilor Malbuff. Councilor Menococcus and councilor best.

[47:36] Okay, getting to the second motion, which. Was item a

[47:40] under items there. That's moved by councilor chauner. I need.

[47:44] A seconder on this item, Councilor Marshall. And for

[47:53] everybody's information, that the motion is that after consideration, the

[47:56] submissions of the parties in relation to complaint pertaining to

[47:59] the education development. Charges are 110 La Hesselop Road. The

[48:03] Council of Corporation of the town of Milton hereby dismisses

[48:06] the complaint. In accordance the Education Act RSO 1990 e

[48:09] two. And councilor Shawner. You want that addition to the

[48:15] amended to it? Yeah, it could be. The second paragraph.

[48:19] Unless. The treasurer would like to have that as a

[48:22] separate motion. It's up to him. They can go together.

[48:27] There's no concern from staff perspective on that. I asked

[48:32] the clerk to read out the amendment. Thank you. That

[48:36] the mayor be directed to correspond. With the premier, the

[48:38] Minister of Education, the Minister of Finance to update the

[48:42] Education Act. To reflect the development. Charges acts need for

[48:49] update regarding. Development charges payable and that this motion. Be

[48:57] forwarded. To mpp z. Hamid, the director of education for

[49:03] the holton district school board. The director of the halton

[49:07] catholic district school board. And then if I could just

[49:11] get clarification on the additional paragraph. Yeah. So the only

[49:16] thing I would add to that is council Marshall raised

[49:18] an important point about it being retroactive? And so. It's

[49:24] the education related dcs and the Development Charges act that

[49:28] have to be updated. So the Education Act. And that

[49:35] should be retroactive. To. The. Day that the Development Charges

[49:43] act was revised to reflect. Adu aru legislation. So that

[49:53] would enable this individual to seek remedy. At some point

[50:00] in the future if he decides to go ahead with

[50:02] his application. Okay? Are you clear on that? Any questions

[50:07] to the amendment? Councilor Calkey. Yeah, Mr. Chair, I do

[50:12] agree with that part of that amendment that was added

[50:14] there. I don't know what that looks like for voting,

[50:17] but is there a way to separate that because I'm

[50:19] supportive of that. Yeah, we can separate the main motion

[50:23] from the amendment. So on the amendment first, all those

[50:25] in favor. Motions carried on the main motion. All those

[50:30] in favor? Those opposed secured. And that's included the addition

[50:39] of councilor chowdering, Councilor Marshall. Okay, moving on. Item 7.1,

[50:45] public meeting. Initial report. Do you want to highlight this

[50:50] clerk? Okay, so this public meeting is with

[51:00] regard to the Milton Education Village, the Conestoga college. Institute

[51:04] of Technology and Advanced Learning. Madamie Brightpoint Homes and Madame

[51:08] Brownridge Homes Council will consider related bylaws later in this

[51:11] evening's agenda if you should be notified of the decision

[51:14] of this application, you must sign the. Attendance sheet here

[51:18] at the back table of council chambers. Or you can

[51:21] make a written request to the town clerk at 150

[51:23] Mary Street, Milton. Following a presentation from the applicant, there

[51:26] will be an opportunity for public comments from in person

[51:30] and remote meeting participants. As a reminder, the number is

[51:33] 186-511-1021 for anyone who wants to. Connect remotely for this

[51:38] public meeting. Thank you. Thank you. And our applicant already

[51:43] standing there. If I could come forward and turn on

[51:45] the microphone. Good evening, Mr. Chair. Members of council and

[51:51] staff, as well as residents that dug themselves out in

[51:54] those cozy at home. I'm Constance rattel from cortiac urban

[51:57] planning here on behalf of Madame Holmes to discuss the

[52:00] proposed site specific official plan and zoning bylaw amendments in

[52:04] the Milton Education village. This application relates to the Madamian

[52:09] Conestoga lands about 96 acres west of Tremaine. Straddling Louis

[52:14] St. Laurent. I'm going to breathe through the next few

[52:20] slides as a real action happens at the secondary plan

[52:23] level. These lands are designated urban area in the Halton

[52:27] official plan. And sustainable Halton plan growth area in the

[52:32] town of Milton. Official plan which lands them in the

[52:35] Milton Education Village secondary plan area. Minister's zoning order is

[52:40] in effect for the area shown, meaning that this area

[52:44] has its own. Milton Education village specific zones in place.

[52:51] Those are high density residential, two innovation district institutional campus

[52:55] and medium density residential, two. The mzoto has been in

[53:00] place for five years and. Now that the applicants develop

[53:06] concepts for the blocks, we know a little bit more

[53:08] about them than in 2021. Medium and high residential developments

[53:13] are proposed within those medium and high density zones and

[53:17] institutional campus. The innovation district, mixed use continues to be

[53:22] proposed for a dense mix of uses along Louis St.

[53:24] Laurent. The secondary plan designates the area's innovation neighborhood, innovation

[53:30] hub, village center, landmark gateway high density residential and medium

[53:34] density residential. Two. The proposed amendments raise the limits on

[53:42] rear lane and back to back townhost dwellings in the

[53:45] medium and high density designations to 50% of the unit

[53:49] count, while those designations still maintain their minimum density requirements.

[53:55] It also broadens the nonresidential opportunities here. In line with

[54:00] those recent changes. The province made to redefine employment area.

[54:07] It replaces employment with office, retail and commercial. Within those

[54:12] policies, We are adding in permissions for a standalone grocery

[54:17] store to serve the first phases of development. While that

[54:19] village center corps builds out. Staff also suggested some active

[54:24] frontage protections for Louis St. Laurent to ensure the mixed

[54:29] use nature carries through to development. The MZO zones are

[54:35] likewise being revised to accommodate the same changes and some

[54:38] provisions to align. With recent housekeeping amendments. The proposed changes

[54:44] are consistent with the provincial mandate, continue to generally conform

[54:47] with the designations with the modifications, of course, that we've

[54:50] proposed. To allow for the proposed development. The changes expand

[54:57] the flexibility for attached dwelling types outside of the core

[55:01] and nonresidential opportunities within it. I've noted here our contact

[55:05] information if any questions arise following the meeting. But I

[55:09] look forward to hearing any comments from the residents here

[55:12] tonight or online. Thank you very much. Do you have

[55:17] some questions for you, Councilor Ali? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[55:21] Through you. Thank you. For your presentation. Obviously, this makes

[55:24] all of us who live around that area very excited.

[55:27] Finally, we're seeing a site plan in place. We are

[55:30] seeing what it's going to look like. I'm sure down

[55:33] the line you might be able to provide us some

[55:35] 3d renditions. Of that area, if that's possible at all.

[55:40] But one question I had, and this is because the

[55:42] community is really excited to see the word standalone grocery

[55:46] store. Any idea. What that would look like. Would you

[55:50] be able to share some more details? We don't have

[55:54] details yet, unfortunately, but with staff, we're looking at making

[55:58] sure that. There's some design guidelines in place to make

[56:02] sure it's still somewhat of an urban format. Working with

[56:06] that area. So it might look a little different than

[56:10] a typical one. To fit that context. But it's also

[56:16] really exciting looking at a map of where the next

[56:18] nearest grocery store is this would be really important to

[56:20] the future residents. Absolutely. There's nothing in that area. And

[56:24] so something that we are very excited to welcome in

[56:26] our community. And so on that note, when can we

[56:30] expect shovels in the ground? The community is waiting. With

[56:33] a baited breath there. So there's a few moving parts

[56:36] right now, of course. So. We're looking forward to having

[56:43] this zoning and Opa approved. Ideally in June. And then

[56:48] following that, we're going to have site plan applications for

[56:52] sales. Office for those initial residential blocks. Likely late summer,

[56:57] early fall for those site plans to come in, they're

[57:00] looking at starting construction in October. 2000 and 827 for

[57:05] first occupancy is in April. 2028, I believe. Perfect. Thank

[57:10] you, councilor chowner. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Through you to the.

[57:16] Delegate. I noticed going through the report. The footprint. Are

[57:22] smaller for the units as well as for common space.

[57:26] Than what is currently. Permitted. What's the reason for that?

[57:34] The 4 meters squared. I presume you're talking about there

[57:37] for the amenity area. That's to be consistent with what

[57:40] is required currently by. The Milton zoning bylaw for the

[57:46] mixed use zones. That requirement is there for 4 m²,

[57:49] so it's to bring it into sort of consistency with

[57:52] the rest of the developments that are going on in

[57:55] Milton for a mixed use format. What about the units

[57:58] themselves? I'm not familiar exactly. With the provision for that.

[58:08] Let me just catch myself up here.

[58:22] Oh, so that's a unit count proportion basis. For the

[58:31] blocks, so that's just raising. The maximum cap on that

[58:37] ground related attached product in the blocks is that the

[58:40] provision that 50% is at the. Okay, so. It doesn't

[58:46] relate to unit sizes. It's on those medium density blocks.

[58:50] Up to 50% of the unit count would be. Permitted

[58:52] to be multiple attached dwelling form rather than apartments, whereas

[58:57] right now the Mzoto allows for 30%. We're raising that

[59:02] to 50% to allow for more flexibility. For those. Sorry,

[59:06] that's my usual timer to turn my kids screen time

[59:09] off. So, yeah, we're looking to just provide more flexibility.

[59:17] For family size dwellings. In those, in those walks. And

[59:22] again, those are outside of that village center core. Those

[59:26] relate. To the medium and high density blocks to the

[59:30] north and south of that. Okay, thank you. Any other

[59:34] questions of the delegation. Councilli. Second time speaker. I'm so

[59:38] sorry. I should have included. My first question by councilor

[59:40] Chalner's question actually reminded me that this is something I

[59:43] wanted to talk about. I do see that you have

[59:46] a block 14. Which is a park, and it is

[59:50] zero point 46. And however, block 15 is zero point

[59:56] 91. Ha. So double in size. What is the reason

[1:00:00] for this. Why aren't they equal? So that is part

[1:00:05] of the draft plan application. So not specifically this rezoning

[1:00:09] and OPA. We can definitely address that with staff through

[1:00:14] processing that draft plan of subdivision, but there's been lots

[1:00:18] of work. With the park staff to arrange sort of

[1:00:22] a variety of open spaces through the MEV. A hierarchy.

[1:00:28] And. Just some. Connected green spaces of different sizes. So.

[1:00:35] They'll be able to explore that more of the draft

[1:00:36] plan level and happy to continue. That conversation with them.

[1:00:40] Perfect. I mean, as the area councilor, myself, councilor Marshall,

[1:00:44] and of course, our mayor Krantz. We'd like to be

[1:00:46] involved in discussion on how we definitely see the built

[1:00:49] out picture of this area. We're hoping to welcome a

[1:00:53] lot of students in that area, so it needs to

[1:00:55] be very walkable. There needs to be green spaces where

[1:00:58] students can sit down and gather. And many more things,

[1:01:02] many ideas. As a mother of young children who go

[1:01:05] to universities myself, I have so many ideas for you,

[1:01:09] and so does my colleague, Councilor Marshall. And we'd love

[1:01:13] to stay connected with you. Thank you. Thanks very much.

[1:01:16] Any other questions? Delegation. If not, thank you for your

[1:01:20] presentation. Now open it to the public. Are there anyone

[1:01:24] in? The audience wishing to speak to this item. Going

[1:01:27] a second time. Anyone online? No. For a third time.

[1:01:34] Is anyone wishing to speak on this item? Going? Gone.

[1:01:38] I read the motion here. It's moved by councilor Chalner,

[1:01:41] second. By councilor Malbouth. The development services report DS 626

[1:01:45] be received for information and he questions the motion. If

[1:01:49] not, all those in favor? All those opposed motions carried.

[1:01:54] Moving on to item number 7.2, public meeting and initial

[1:01:57] report. For the Robert Russell planning consultants. And also we

[1:02:05] have the applicant to present. Sir. Just been reminded by

[1:02:14] the clerk. If you just have your identification and contact

[1:02:18] information.

[1:02:28] Thank you. Have you want to present.

[1:02:40] Yeah. I'm the authorized agent on behalf of Ar land

[1:02:47] holdings for the proposed zoning bylaw. Amendment Z 20. Five.

[1:02:52] Next slide, please. I have the control. I forgot to

[1:02:58] put that. I'll keep this presentation brief. It's a fairly

[1:03:02] simple application. Here's the site context highlighted in the Magenta

[1:03:06] right in the middle there within the 401 industrial employment

[1:03:10] area. Business park. I don't have the actual official plan

[1:03:14] designation I'll put on my screen right? Now. So excuse

[1:03:17] the mislabeling of it, but you can see this area,

[1:03:21] as you know. Is already heavily developed for employment uses,

[1:03:25] and this property is really right in the middle of

[1:03:27] the secondary plan area. A close up aerial view showing.

[1:03:32] The site. This used to be the Salvation Army Community

[1:03:35] church. It was sold then to my client. My client

[1:03:38] also operates a trucking company on the adjacent property to.

[1:03:43] The south east of that. And you can see that

[1:03:44] on the screen right there. The conceptual site plan is

[1:03:48] here. They're proposing to retain the existing building. They're going

[1:03:55] to use it for administration. Type purposes and then construct

[1:03:58] truck parking area for their transportation terminal at the back.

[1:04:02] The site is about 1.93. Ha. The current concept plan.

[1:04:09] Shows room for 75 trailers. It includes that we'll have

[1:04:13] landscape open space of. More than 15%, which greatly exceeds

[1:04:18] what the bylaw requires in the m two zone. Still

[1:04:22] will have parking for approximately 40 to 45 vehicles. This

[1:04:24] is still something that's in flux in the site plan

[1:04:28] as we work with transportation staff to. Create. A site

[1:04:33] entrance that flows well for truck traffic and returning movements,

[1:04:37] so. We're not sure yet exactly where we'll land with

[1:04:41] our final park vehicle parking. Tally, and we may or

[1:04:45] may not have a specific amendment in that regard. That

[1:04:49] will be determined. All of the other site specific amendments

[1:04:51] that we're looking for, right? Now listed there are to

[1:04:54] deal with what's existing there. The client, other than wanting

[1:04:57] to put in a parking lot for trucks. Doesn't want

[1:05:00] to change anything else on the site. And the emergency

[1:05:03] generators in the front yard. It's there now, but it's

[1:05:06] not. Permitted by the bylaw to be there. Minimum lock

[1:05:09] coverage for a truck terminal. The m two zone is

[1:05:12] 40%, but that existing building sorry, 25%. But that existing

[1:05:16] building is only 4.8%. They don't want. To build more

[1:05:19] building just to park trucks. There also isn't a loading

[1:05:23] space currently, but because, again, this is administrative, and there

[1:05:26] are 75 truck parking spots. I don't think that is

[1:05:29] really that necessary. The only other thing I just wanted

[1:05:33] to confirm is that the zoning we're looking for. Is

[1:05:35] m two. Every other property in this area is zoned

[1:05:39] the m two permits, truck parking. So this is just.

[1:05:42] We're trying to bring this property. And to be consistent

[1:05:46] with the existing official plan designation, to be consistent with

[1:05:49] the surrounding community and the only other exceptions to the

[1:05:53] bylaw are really to deal with the existing condition and

[1:05:56] with that. That concludes my presentation, and I'd be happy

[1:05:59] to answer any questions. Thank you for your presentation. Any

[1:06:02] questions? If not, you made excellent presentation. Thank you. And

[1:06:09] also to the clerk. Is there any online delegations? Is

[1:06:12] there anyone the audience that wishes to speak to this

[1:06:14] item. This is regarding. Boston Church Road. Second time, third

[1:06:21] time. Okay, I'm just going to read the motion here.

[1:06:27] It's been moved by councilor. Chauner. Second, by Councilor Melwood.

[1:06:29] The development services report DS 126 be received. For information.

[1:06:35] Any questions to motion? If not all those in favor?

[1:06:39] Opposed, motions carried. That ends our public meeting portion of

[1:06:44] the meeting. Now move on to item 10.1, the items

[1:06:49] for consideration. As the technical reports official plan zoning bylaw

[1:06:56] amendments additional residential units in the rural area. Plus we

[1:07:01] can have an overview from our development commissioner. Through the

[1:07:05] chair. This report recommends the approval of an official plan

[1:07:08] amendment and a zoning bylaw. Amendment to permit Aru's or

[1:07:12] additional residential units within the town's rural area. Now, these

[1:07:16] proposed amendments, they implement the policies of all of the

[1:07:19] higher level provincial plan. Plans, including the Niagara Scarman plan,

[1:07:27] the Green Belt plan and the provincial planning statement. There's

[1:07:31] various permissions being recommended in this report, depending on the

[1:07:36] designation. Within the rural area. Staff are recommending approval to

[1:07:42] permit Aru's in the rural area as outlined in the

[1:07:46] report. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any questions to

[1:07:50] the report? It's been moved by councilor Chauner, second by

[1:07:54] councilor Melbo. If you have the staff report in front

[1:07:57] of you. All those in favor? All opposed? Motions carried.

[1:08:02] Item 10.2 Technical Report Zoning bylaw amendments for additional US

[1:08:06] and issues in urban area with no municipal water or

[1:08:09] sewer services to have an overview. Through the chair. This

[1:08:14] is a similar report to the previous report. It is

[1:08:18] a technical report recommending. Certain provisions to permit additional residential

[1:08:24] units on lots within the urban area that don't have

[1:08:28] municipal water or municipal sewer. There are a few of

[1:08:32] these lots in existence, and these new zoning regulations would

[1:08:37] allow the flexibility to include an ARU. Any questions regarding

[1:08:42] report? If not, I have one. How many lots are

[1:08:46] we actually talking about here? Because I really can't identify

[1:08:48] too many. When we're talking about the areas that are

[1:08:53] just outside. Of land that was brought in through the

[1:08:57] urban boundary expansion. There's a number of properties in South

[1:09:01] Milton. That. Are on private services that could take advantage

[1:09:08] of this. I don't have an exact number. Of lots

[1:09:10] for you, but I can certainly point to the geography

[1:09:13] on a map, Councilor Ali. Seems to know more than

[1:09:16] you. Regarding Aru, would they also be encouraged to hook

[1:09:21] up to municipal water and sewers? They will once municipal

[1:09:27] water and sewer is present. Just clarify, because. As the

[1:09:34] mayor and councilor Chauna some of the properties that were

[1:09:37] there for decades before they were hooked up. So I

[1:09:39] just want to clarify that we have motion moved by

[1:09:41] councilor. Chowner second by councilor Malbout to approve the staff

[1:09:45] report. Any questions? Motion if not all those in favor?

[1:09:50] Options carried. Moving on to item 10.3, Grand river source

[1:09:54] protection plan, water quality policies, amendments. Any staff information. This

[1:10:00] report brings forward proposed amendments to the Grand River Source

[1:10:03] Protection Plan and its assessment report under the Clean Water

[1:10:07] act. Really, the primary objective is to align the policies

[1:10:10] applied in North Milton with the existing, in effect, water

[1:10:13] quantity policies used in Halton Hamilton source protection plans, which

[1:10:18] cover. The majority of Milton. Now, these updates extend from

[1:10:23] technical studies for water supply system outside of Milton. The

[1:10:27] management area for which extends into our municipality. So really

[1:10:32] what this means for staff is when we are reviewing

[1:10:35] applications within this geography, we're required to consult with the

[1:10:39] Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks for developments, and we're

[1:10:44] also encouraged to implement low impact development techniques there. Any

[1:10:50] questions to report. Councilor Shannon, since you are the chair

[1:10:54] of the Grand river conservation and by the way, Clinton,

[1:10:56] congratulations on your reelection. Would you like to speak to

[1:11:00] this? I'll move it, Mr. Chairman. We've already got you

[1:11:07] there. Second by councilor Malbout. Did he staff report any

[1:11:10] questions? The reports, if not all. Those in favor? Opposed?

[1:11:14] Motions carried. Want to give your equal time there. And

[1:11:19] item 10.4 of Milton Hydro 2026 Budget and borrowing authorization.

[1:11:24] A finance staff are available here in case. Any questions?

[1:11:28] Councilor Chowner. Yes, thanks, Mr. Chairman. The report is a

[1:11:33] little bit concerning. In terms of. The various ratios and

[1:11:41] how close we're running or hydro is running. And I

[1:11:46] guess I'm kind of curious as to. How the treasurer

[1:11:50] views. The ability of hydro to get through this. Things

[1:11:58] that perhaps you're working on with management. Or the board

[1:12:01] is working on with management. We have a couple of

[1:12:03] board members here. To provide. Some financial sustainability in terms

[1:12:09] of debt capacity. And revenues. Current revenues? So I have

[1:12:16] two questions in that regard, and I would appreciate any

[1:12:19] other comments you've got glenn. But what do you see

[1:12:23] as their capacity to contribute to their reserves today? Can

[1:12:26] it be increased? Or does provincial legislation prohibit that in

[1:12:30] some way, shape or form? And then, of course, the

[1:12:34] opportunity to increase revenues itself. I know that. Is certainly

[1:12:38] subject to provincial legislation. But are there other things that

[1:12:42] perhaps in your discussions with their management. There's been discussion

[1:12:46] about to deal with this. Through the chair. The secondary

[1:12:53] recommendation in the resolutions about looking at a longer term.

[1:12:57] Financial impact analysis for Milton Hydro work and collaborating with

[1:13:00] them that will go exactly to the heart. Of exactly

[1:13:03] what you're speaking to right now. Their budget process is

[1:13:05] based on a five. Year, and as noted in the

[1:13:08] report, there are notable capital investments that have been identified

[1:13:11] through the most recent budget process. By looking at a

[1:13:14] slightly longer timing horizon, we can understand. Whether we've got

[1:13:18] a couple of years of intense capital investment in terms

[1:13:21] of growth of capacity or to what degree that sustains.

[1:13:24] And that will go a long way, I think, to

[1:13:26] informing exactly that. And from a sustainability perspective, from a

[1:13:30] revenue perspective, investment in the system is one way to

[1:13:33] generate and ensure future sustainable revenue growth. So the two

[1:13:37] things are. Related. So with that, and also looking at

[1:13:41] the way that not just what the capital spend looks

[1:13:44] like, but the way it's financed and understanding some of

[1:13:47] the practices of some of the larger utilities that have

[1:13:49] gone through this curve already. That's also one of the

[1:13:51] outcomes we've talked about with management of Hydro that will

[1:13:54] be assessed further. They've got a lot of familiarity there.

[1:13:57] To a degree, it's bringing some of that information. To

[1:13:59] council and providing an update to what we brought. I

[1:14:03] think it was a few September years ago, when we

[1:14:05] last looked at the debt borrowing levels at the time,

[1:14:08] the authorities we have in place now looked. Sufficient for

[1:14:12] the spending needs, and it looked to show a positive

[1:14:15] trend. With the new forecast, we just wanted to take

[1:14:19] a broader look at that again with council and. With

[1:14:22] the expertise of Milton Hydro informing that review. Thanks, Mr.

[1:14:27] Chairman. Any further questions? The motion, Councilor Urbanicakis. But this

[1:14:32] is a forecast. Right. And we don't know. They don't

[1:14:35] know. Based on my history with them. They don't really

[1:14:38] know if they're going to hit that forecast in terms

[1:14:41] of capacity and when they're going to need it, correct?

[1:14:47] Correct. The board each year only approves the first year.

[1:14:50] To that point, the rest is provided. As an estimate

[1:14:52] of what it could look like in the four years

[1:14:55] following. Any further questions? If not, we have a move

[1:15:01] by councilor Shauner, second by councilor Malbol for the staff

[1:15:03] report any questions in the motion? If not all those

[1:15:06] in favor? Approved. Moving on to next item 10.5. Halton

[1:15:13] Court services business plan. Staff are available for any questions.

[1:15:19] It's been moved by councilor Chauner, seconded by councilor Mill

[1:15:21] with. The 2026 business plan budget for the Halton court

[1:15:24] services. Including transfers to and from reserves as presented, be

[1:15:27] approved. Any questions? If not all those in favor? Opposed.

[1:15:33] Motion is carried. Long faster than expected. Item 10.6. Purchasing

[1:15:41] barriers. I'm not going to read this one. Staffer? No,

[1:15:44] definitely not. Any questions to the motion? It's been moved

[1:15:49] by councilor Chowner, second by councilor. Malbel for the staff

[1:15:52] report. All those in favor? Motions carried. They might even

[1:15:59] beat our estimated time here. 10.7 revised policy use of

[1:16:06] town corporate resources during an election. Staff are available for

[1:16:09] any questions. It's moved by councilor Chowner, second by councilor

[1:16:13] Malbouth, that the revised use of corporate resources during election.

[1:16:17] Policy attached to this report be approved? Any questions? If

[1:16:21] not all. Those in favor? Opposed? Motions carried. Okay. Now

[1:16:29] the exciting one. Item 10.8, vacant council member appointments to

[1:16:33] boards and committees. I'm just going to do

[1:16:43] one of them at a time here. Mobile councilor challer.

[1:16:46] Second by councilor Melbourne with the staff report core 126

[1:16:50] be received for information. All those in favor? Opposed, motions

[1:16:55] carried. Okay. We have a second one here. We have

[1:17:02] a motion here. I'll read it first before. I get

[1:17:05] the motion? It's been moved by Mayor Krantz, but I

[1:17:07] need a. Seconder and councilor Ali. At Councilor George Minicakis

[1:17:14] be appointed to the Milton Economic Development Advisory Committee. Medak

[1:17:17] Conservation Halton Board of directors and board of Management for

[1:17:20] the downtown business improvement area of DBIA any questions? The

[1:17:24] motion. If not. All those in favor? Welcome, Councilor McAllicus.

[1:17:30] You just doubled your workload.

[1:17:39] Okay, now, I could see more exciting here. It's item

[1:17:44] 10.9. Notice the motion to waive the rules procedure to

[1:17:46] put a notice of motion consideration at this council meeting

[1:17:50] at a procedural motion requires a two thirds of vote.

[1:17:53] And this has been moved by councilor Minocakus and second

[1:17:56] by councilor chowner. You have it in your agenda bundle.

[1:17:59] Any questions? The waiving. If not all those in favor?

[1:18:04] Motions carried. Okay. I'm definitely not reading this one. A

[1:18:11] motion to consider revising the town's procedural bylaw moved by

[1:18:15] Councilman Akakas and second by councilor Chowner. Councilor. Minneakis. You

[1:18:18] want to lead off? Thank you, Mr. Chair. This motion

[1:18:21] is being brought forward. To formally clarify and reinforce council's

[1:18:25] obligation to act within its legal authority as defined by

[1:18:28] the Municipal act and our. Procedural bylaws. Our role as

[1:18:31] council is the oversight of municipal services, policies, finances, and

[1:18:36] the overall well being of this community, many of us

[1:18:39] continue to hear from residents who remain concerned that council

[1:18:41] has. In incidents drifted away from its core responsibilities. The

[1:18:47] motion responds directly to those concerns by reaffirming the boundaries

[1:18:50] of council's authority and ensuring our focus remains on matters

[1:18:53] municipal within municipal direction. Accordingly, the motion introduces the term

[1:18:59] ultravirus into our procedural bylaw to clearly identify items or

[1:19:05] directions that fall beyond the council's legal power and authority.

[1:19:08] This clarification provides guidance and consistency in how such matters

[1:19:12] are addressed. This is approved and responsible. Step, particularly as

[1:19:18] we approach a future election, to provide residents with confidence

[1:19:21] that both this council and future council's remain focused on

[1:19:25] their lawful responsibilities and accountable to governance. Mr. Chair, I

[1:19:29] would like to request a recorded vote on this motion

[1:19:31] as well. Thank you. And secondary. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Councilor

[1:19:39] Minocakus has enunciated it well, and I just. Want to

[1:19:42] thank him for bringing forward this motion. And you, Mr.

[1:19:46] Chairman, had the opportunity to speak to the Municipal act

[1:19:49] on November 3, which was? Highly appreciated. And I think

[1:19:53] a reading of that is a fair reading of what

[1:19:56] our responsibilities are. And I'll leave it at that. And

[1:20:00] councilor. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, I want

[1:20:08] to thank councilors many cockers and chalana for bringing this

[1:20:11] motion forward. It's unfortunate that this motion is now necessary,

[1:20:16] and it's basically a direct response. To what occurred at

[1:20:19] our council meeting at November the third. Now, Mr. Chair,

[1:20:23] you know that I've been involved in municipaltics since 1996,

[1:20:27] when I. Was first elected as a milton's local and

[1:20:30] regional counselor. Over the 30 years, I've seen a lot

[1:20:34] of changes in our community. Most of them positive, but

[1:20:38] lately, not so much. I've never seen our community as

[1:20:42] divided as it is today. Now at that meeting. Of

[1:20:49] November 3, we had to deal with a motion that

[1:20:52] pitted one segment of our community against another. Emotion that

[1:20:56] was forced, that forced us to pick a side in

[1:20:59] a conflict that we had no jurisdiction or influence over

[1:21:03] a motion that should have never come forward. There was

[1:21:07] a reason municipal governments do not have a department of

[1:21:09] international Affairs. As elected officials, we have a responsibility to

[1:21:15] represent everyone equally. Unfortunately, that has not been the case

[1:21:19] lately. One of the longtime resident of Milton. I never

[1:21:24] thought that I would see our main street and businesses

[1:21:27] blocked by demonstrators, mostly from Toronto Mississauga, protesting what was

[1:21:33] occurring in a part of the world thousands of miles

[1:21:35] from Milton. I never would have

[1:21:44] thought that I would see, known and admitted supporters of

[1:21:48] a terrorist organization. Delegating before this council. Or that while

[1:21:55] sitting in this chair, I would be called a baby

[1:21:57] killer. Supporter of genocide? A racist or told I would

[1:22:00] burn on hell because of how I voted. Since that

[1:22:05] evening, I've received other counselors have as well numerous emails,

[1:22:09] voicemails. And people approaching me in public, all expressing their

[1:22:13] anger and frustration as to what happened that evening. I

[1:22:18] received more comments on this issue than I have received

[1:22:20] on any other issue over the last 30 years. I

[1:22:26] heard comments so filled with hate that even a red

[1:22:28] deck like myself found them disturbing. The militant of today

[1:22:33] is not the Milton my wife and I moved into

[1:22:35] 39 years ago and where we raised our children. The

[1:22:39] motion that had nothing to do with municipal affairs. That

[1:22:43] was brought before us November 3. And what occurred that

[1:22:46] evening has divided our community. We have a problem. A

[1:22:50] problem we didn't have three years ago. A problem we

[1:22:53] have brought upon ourselves, and I would ask members of

[1:22:55] this council to reflect and ask themselves what part they

[1:22:59] have played in that. Mr. Chair, do I think this

[1:23:02] motion would repair the damage done to our community on

[1:23:05] November the third? No, but hopefully it will stop things

[1:23:08] from getting worse. By ensuring that what occurred that evening

[1:23:12] doesn't happen again. Thank you. Any further speakers. Item, Councilor

[1:23:18] Ali. Sympathize with the previous speaker and the threats they

[1:23:24] received, that is never okay. Having said that. The previous

[1:23:30] speaker's comments are not helping. To solve the divisiveness and

[1:23:35] to solve the division that he speaks about. So I

[1:23:39] don't think. That was very smart for him to make

[1:23:41] these comments. And I understand where he's coming from. And

[1:23:45] as I said before, We all stand against violence. We

[1:23:48] all stand against division. What happened that night in the

[1:23:52] Chambers was. Not acceptable with the threats that were made

[1:23:55] by folks who I don't know from where. Showed up.

[1:23:59] Having said that, Attaching these comments to this motion. I

[1:24:02] don't think that was necessary. And it further adds fire

[1:24:06] to the division. The same speaker mentioned. Having said that,

[1:24:10] the intent of this motion. Is just a reminder and

[1:24:15] reiteration what we already have in place. And to that

[1:24:19] end, I don't see any problem with this motion. Thanks.

[1:24:23] Any further speakers on this item? We have a recorded

[1:24:26] vote requested. All those in favor, please stand. Thank you.

[1:24:31] In favor? I'm noting councilor Eli. Councilor Kolki, mayor Krantz.

[1:24:36] Councilor Shaliner, councilor Marshall, councilor Malbaf, councilor Minocakus. And councilor

[1:24:42] best. And that's carried. Motion has been passed. And move

[1:24:52] on to regional council update and regional account council. Thank

[1:24:56] you, Mr. Chair. I thought you were in the chair

[1:24:58] today, so I'll take over. For the regional council update

[1:25:00] and just wanted to share some happy news with our

[1:25:04] colleagues. And a few residents who are watching us live

[1:25:07] right now. We have approved 46 deeply affordable assisted rental

[1:25:12] homes. In 1001 Kennedy Circle. And 16.56 million investment was

[1:25:20] approved by regional council just last week. And these deeply

[1:25:24] affordable rental housing units will start from a low rent

[1:25:28] of $350. So something you should be very, very proud

[1:25:32] of. 350 per month, and the occupancy is expected summer

[1:25:37] of 2026, which is this. Year. So good news all

[1:25:41] around really quickly. Halton Regional Police Service has launched a

[1:25:45] new user friendly website to serve everybody better. I sit

[1:25:49] on the board, and one of the major concerns and

[1:25:51] complaints we got was about how clunky the website is

[1:25:55] and so very proud to share with the community that

[1:25:57] the website is now very user friendly. That is it,

[1:26:00] Mr. Chair. Not sure if it describes websites as clunky.

[1:26:06] That's a new one for me. Any other regional counselors

[1:26:09] any updates? If not, I do have an Amo update.

[1:26:14] We have our board meetings this Thursday and Friday. We

[1:26:17] are expecting a few more developments coming from the province,

[1:26:21] as the mayor is quite well aware of, possibly by

[1:26:23] the end of March. So stay. Tuned. Maybe some changes

[1:26:26] coming our way. And any statements by members. Mayor Crentz

[1:26:31] and councilor coach very quickly, Mr. Chairman, we're well aware

[1:26:35] of course. What's happened in the last. 24 48 hours

[1:26:40] with regards to. Whether I had brief conversation this morning.

[1:26:45] With Doug. I just want to recognize the work that

[1:26:48] he's done. In our public word crew. And of course,

[1:26:52] we both agreed that. Patience is the order of the

[1:26:57] day. And so far, so good. The biggest majority of

[1:27:01] people. Are reasonably happy with what we're doing. And again,

[1:27:08] I know I haven't heard from too many people. I

[1:27:10] know doug has heard. From a few individuals. But I

[1:27:15] just want to recognize that it was probably one of

[1:27:17] the worst storms we've had for the past. Number of

[1:27:22] years as well. So not only the town of mountain

[1:27:25] was affected dramatically. It said record. Number of. Inches or

[1:27:31] snowfall. In the Greater Toronto Niagara region. So streets are

[1:27:37] in pretty good shape. Now, the big thing is. Picking

[1:27:42] up and disposing of some of that snow. And I

[1:27:45] know Doug and his people. Are going to be working

[1:27:47] on that in the next few days, so I just

[1:27:49] want to share. The public code there that it's still

[1:27:52] a work in motion, probably for the next four or

[1:27:54] five days. And, Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure if Doug

[1:27:57] has an update, because I do know people. Will start.

[1:28:02] People will start to get impatient, not only patient. So

[1:28:05] maybe you could permit that to. Say a few words.

[1:28:08] Thank you, your worship. And Doug. Because the highlight of

[1:28:12] the day, because. The mayor is correct. It was a

[1:28:15] record, I believe. Is that broken 82 year old record.

[1:28:19] Through the chair. Thank you, your worship. I appreciate the

[1:28:22] comments and the sentiments. I'll be. Sure to pass those

[1:28:25] thoughts along to staff, and I accept those thanks on

[1:28:29] behalf of all the staff. That were out there working

[1:28:33] and contractors that we had boots on the ground. It

[1:28:36] was a very collaborative effort with our partners inside of

[1:28:39] Town hall, as well with our communications. Folks, our bylaw

[1:28:41] enforcement people. It truly was a team effort to get

[1:28:44] us through to this. Point so far. And as you

[1:28:47] mentioned, we will need a few more days to sort

[1:28:49] of wipe. Up some copies, bills, and get some things

[1:28:52] sorted out and get everything sorted back to normal, but.

[1:28:54] We'll get that done in the next few days. Thank

[1:28:57] you. Any further. Councilor calcut? Yeah. This is your chair.

[1:29:01] Mayor Cran. Stole my thunder there. But just was going

[1:29:03] to say the same thing. Commissioner already knows that his

[1:29:06] team is doing a great job, and I've expressed that

[1:29:08] to him as well. On behalf of residents in ward

[1:29:10] three. And I think we should change his title to

[1:29:12] commissioner of snow after this meeting. Okay. Any further statements

[1:29:17] or requests? If not, we do have a confidential session.

[1:29:21] Does anyone see the need to go into conference session.

[1:29:24] No. Okay. We have a motion by councilor chalner and

[1:29:28] second by councilor Malbo with. The recommendations staff report column.

[1:29:33] 26 be approved. All those in favor? Opposed, motions carried.

[1:29:39] And now bylaws moved by councilor Chalander and second by

[1:29:41] councilor Malbouth. That bylaws number 126 through and including 826

[1:29:47] B, red pass and numbered in the mayor and clerk

[1:29:49] be authorized to sign the Sid bylaws. Seal them with

[1:29:52] seal corporation. And be engrossed in the bylaw. Book any

[1:29:59] questions of bylaws? If not all. Those in favor? Opposed?

[1:30:03] Motions carried. And that's all, folks.

Council Meeting

Agenda

Transcript