Members of council. Ladies and gentlemen. Clerk advises me that
it is now 07:00 so I will call this meeting
to order. And just before we get into some of.
The formalities this evening. Councilor Ijaz is attempting to connect
remotely. He's not with us yet, but. If he can't
connect. He'll be marked as with his regret, so he
may or may not be able to. Join us. And
as well, members of council, you'll know, since. We last
met. There's some new configuration around the council table and
of course, some new technology for everyone. That's sitting on
the floor. So things have changed just a little bit.
So with that, we are going to. Proceed. So when
I ask you to send and join me in a
moment of silent reflection, our national anthem and I will
read the traditional land acknowledgment.
Oh, can I die? Our home and native.
Land. True patriot. Love in all of us. Come and.
Cartombras. Tony Swaditi naple
failures. Deeply. God keep our land.
Glory. Us and free. All. Canada. We stand on guard.
For. The. We stand on? God.
For. The. We acknowledge that the land we gather
on is part of the treaty. Lands and territory of
the Mississaugas of the credit First Nation we recognize the
traditional territory of the here on one debt, and the
Hodney Shawnee people. We also acknowledge. First nation. May tea
and the Inuit people who live on these lands today.
We commit to working. Towards reconciliation. Thank you.
Madam Clerk, are there any agenda announcements? I just wanted
to note that later on in today's agenda, we have
two statutory, public meetings scheduled. The first one is regarding
Milton Education Village, the Conestoka College Institute of technology. And
advanced learning. Madamy Brightpoint homes and Madame Brownwidge homes. The
second public meeting is regarding a proposed zoning bylaw Amendment
by Robert Russell Planning Consultants, Inc. Applicable to lands known
municipally as 8465 Boston Church Road. During the course of
the live meeting, members of the public in attendance will
be given the opportunity to speak either. In person or
remotely. Those who wish to speak remotely can call our
dedicated phone number 186-511-0021 these instructions will be provided again
at the point in the agenda that we will be
holding the public meeting and information about how to connect
remotely. We'll be scrolling across the live stream video. Thank
you very much for that. Has any member of council
a disclosure. I'm not seeing any. So as our policy
dictates. Councilor bass will assume the chair. Very few brief
moments and we'll turn things around. And give us a
couple of minutes and we'll continue. This council meeting. Thank
you, councilor best.
Evening, ladies and gentlemen. We have consent. Items 5.1 to
5.3. Is there any? Questions on any of the items.
If not, it's been moved by councilor Chaullner. And second
by councilor move. That the items be approved. All those
in favor? Motions carried. Okay.
We are now going to. Be doing a public hearing
under the Development Charges Act. I'll have our finance director
do a brief introduction. Thank you. So this will be
a hearing under the education act as it pertains to.
A complaint related to the application of development charges under
that act and the bylaws of the two school boards.
To be clear, there are no implications here with respect
to the town's. Development charges or the Development charges Act.
However, as the education. Act requires local council to hear
DC complaints. We have convened this hearing. In the staff
report that is presented, you will find the positions of
each party being the property. Owner and the school boards.
They are provided as appendices in the hearing. You'll hear
have the opportunity to hear from each party. As is
required under the act. In the case of the two
school boards, Mr. Frederick Tebow will be presenting. He's the
general manager of planning for the Halton District School board.
In the case of the owner. It will be first,
the owner himself, Mr. Ali Moyer, as well as his
representative, Ms. Stephanie. Fleming. We also have virtually with us
as a resource for Council Constantine Estev Raccos from O'Connor,
McLeod, Hannah. He's in attendance at the request of the
town to provide. Any support council may need as assistant
legislative hearing process. After the submissions, you'll have the opportunity
as council to either dismiss the complaint or to rectify
any error that has been made in the application of
the bylaws of the school board. Note that the language
between the bylaws of the Halton District Catholic School Board
and the public school board is identical relatively in terms
of their bylaws. Therefore, the same decision can be applied
to each. As well. We've provided draft resolutions in the
body of the staff report, one related to dismissing the
complaint and another related to rectifying an error should council
identify one. Those would need to be moved, seconded and
approved by council following the delegations. So with that, if
there's any clarification that would be helpful, I'm. Happy to
provide it. Otherwise, through the chair, we can consider the
opportunity for the delegations. Thank you. Is there any questions
regarding the overview? If not, Mr. Moy could please step
forward. And. Do. He's all virtual.
We're just logging on here. Good evening. The honorable mayor
and members of council. My name is Stephanie Fleming. I'm
appearing. Today on behalf of Mr. Moair. I'm not sure
if Mr. Moer has spoken already. There's a bit of.
A pause there. No, we were just logging on. He
hasn't spoken. Thank you. Mr. Moira, I understood you wanted
to have a few words before we started. Sorry. No,
go ahead. Thank you so much. Thank you. The members
of council and honorable mayor. I'm appearing today on behalf
of Mr. Moayer. Who is the owner of 110 Hesslop
Road he's proposing to construct. A single, basically studio apartment
over top of a detached garage which is present on
his property. It is a residential property, and right now
it has a single family home and the garage. As
you know, as I'm sure you know, the province is
really incentivizing these types of developments. Under the Planning act,
you can have three units as of right on a
residential property there's. Development charges act have exempted these types
of developments. The only thing that hasn't really been clarified
is the Education Act. Under the Education Act. Certain properties
are exempted from these types of development from these types
of development charges. Under the goal of.
The reason these charges are collected, obviously, is to ensure
that. If any, development. If new people move into the
neighborhood. The board has enough money, obviously, to cover any
new students coming into the area. This aim is set
out at section 257 54, one of the Education act,
which states if there's residential development in the area of
jurisdiction of a board that would increase education land costs.
The board may pass bylaws for the imposition of education
development. Charges against land in its area of jurisdiction undergoing
residential or nonresidential development. In this case, apart from anything
else, just the practicality. I cannot see how a single
studio apartment would have any impact on the cost of.
New land for a school board. I've lived in studio
apartments. They are barely comfortable enough for one person to
be quite. Honest. And my client is seeking to build
this modest apartment. The charge against the development charge that
would be levied against him should it be constructed, would
be in total 11,385 dollarsforty $0.03. That?
$66,716.43 from the Halton District School board. And $4,669 from
the Holton Catholic District School board. Big difference in what
the Development Charges act says and what the Education act
says, which exempting types of residential development. Is set out
in a regulation known as Oreg 2098, section three and.
It's then reflected in the Holton District School board bylaws.
This. In our opinion, this proposal would fall under what
we call other residential developments or other residential buildings. They
have two other types of developments. One is. Single detached
residential. The second is semi detached residential. Obviously, as this
is a detached garage, it's. Slightly different. So therefore it
would be other residential buildings. It's our opinion that this
would be another residential building because a single detached garage,
obviously. Can't exist in and of itself. It's an accessory
structure to the main building. Being the single family home.
You cannot have a detached garage just exist in and
of itself. On a residential property. As such, any sort
of Adu must. Be as such, it falls under. We
believe it falls into this category. There are certain restrictions
in this one is that. The additional dwelling unit must
be smaller than any other residential dwelling unit. This is
a studio apartment. The existing dwelling unit is a single
family home. It's going to be much smaller, I would
assume, than the single family home. I'd also note that
the town actually encourages these types of adus on its
own. Website. It mentions them specifically as a good location
for them. The board has raised certain points rejecting our
position. Obviously. They've said, first of all, that the garage
does not exist. My client can assure you. The garage
is in existence now. This is just going to be.
The building permit obviously would require certain changes to that
garage, but. It is currently in existence. And secondly, it
goes back to our position on the garage being an
accessory use to the building. So we do not believe
that. This does fall within this exemption as such. We
respectfully request that the town confirm that this proposal is
exempt. From the education development charges requested or in the
alternative, reconsider the calculations for the property. Thank you very
much for your time tonight, and if you have any
questions, please let us know. Thank you. Presentation. Is there
any questions of the delegation? If not. Thank you, Mr.
Moyer, would you like to make a presentation now? Not.
You know what? He just cover everything? And as she
mentioned, According to the appendix four on page four. Page
four, appendix two. Sorry. You know what? In summary, they
mentioned two main reasons that reject. What exemption? The first
one. They assume the Adu. Will be constructed above the
detached garage. Doesn't qualify as a residential building. And the
second they mentioned, the garage does not exist. Both is
respectfully it secretary, the first one. You know what? As
the all applications submitted to the town of Milton. As
zoning bylaw, pass everything and. The last step, I have
to pay. And you know what the pyramid will issue.
We just submit all drawing and everything, and I'm following.
You know what? The all residential building requirements to have
that, you know, what is sleeping sanitary, cooking facilities and
also following the fire department, fire safety and all building
codes. And also, as you know, that I have to
register the ARU in Milton as well as recently passed.
I'm following. All of them and everything submitted to Tanaf
Milton. And I am exempt from. These development charges by
town of Milton. Technically, this is the residential building. And
the second one, as she mentioned. What the garage is
exist. Why I'm not building the new garage and whatever.
I'm asking for the exemption. Is not for garage. It's
for the Aru on top of that. That's. All our
explanation. Basically. Thank you so much for your time. Thank
you. Presentation. Any questions of Mr. Moya. If not, thank
your presentation and go to the third delegation. Mr. Fred
deebolt from the school board. I understand he's also remote.
Evening, counselors. Can you hear me all right? Yes, you're
fine, thank you. All right. Perfect. Thank you. And thanks
for accommodating us this evening. Virtually a little bit unexpected.
With the snowstorm we got, so I hope you all
made it to council chambers tonight without too much of
an issue. So. I won't take up too much of
your time this evening, and I'll just. Maybe speak to
some of the points that were raised in terms of
why the board had to proceed with the charge as
per. The requirements of as bylaw for both us and
the Hulk and Catholic District School board. So maybe what
I can start with, first and foremost is. Admittedly, there
is a disconnect, I would say, between. The Development Charges
act and the Education act. In terms of the new
legislation that was brought forward by the Province of Ontario
in terms of encouraging intensification. So in 2022, changes were
definitely made to the DC act, which would exempt these
types of units. Unfortunately, The ministry of the province had
yet to proceed with making the necessary changes to the
Education act. Which. Would align. Or. Be in alignment with
the current DC act, so we're hopeful that that will
happen in due course. But at present, where we are
today is where we were pre 2022. So maybe a
few points of clarification on this matter with regards to
the garage and the arguments that are being made. What
I would say is that the intent of the bylaws
that was written and intensive. The legislation as it was
passed back. When. First brought into force was that this
intensification was meant to be applicable to existing residential units.
So an existing residential units, as per the bylaws defined
as a few things we have our single family dwellings
that are detached from other homes. We have our semi
detached or our townhouse. Units, which. Are also considered, and
then other residential buildings, which I think is the argument
that's being made this evening. Those are definitely for different
classification of buildings, such as apartment dwellings. Stack towns. Those
types of units where it's a lot more multifamily or
multi units. That's what was needed to be captured. So
it wasn't meant to be a bylaw that captured all
of those different types of units as more to provide
three different classifications. In order. To be able to easily
prescribe how the charge is to be administered. So for
a single family dwelling in our bylaw. You're allowed to
have up to two units insofar as it's not. Larger
than the primary existing. Residential units, and that's a keyword.
It has to be an existing residential unit. If they're
built at the same time, then both would be chargeable.
But that's. Not the case this evening. And then for
townhouses, it's only one. And as long as it's smaller
than. The existing residential unit, then that would be exempt.
And then the other residential buildings were meant. To. Apply
to all these other types which need to be an
existing building that has existing residential units. Within it. So
that's the key differentiation, which I think. Is being argued
against. So the appellants, and looking at this, is saying
that the garage should be classified as another residential unit,
and I would submit that. Albeit it's an ancillary residential
build to a residential building. It's not an existing residential
units. So the intent of the bylaw is that if
that were, let's say, an existing garage that was detached
with a secondary suite on top. Of it. And there
were another one to be added to it. The now
one could be considered for an exemption. But seeing that
there is no existing residential unit on that detached garage,
Than a charge would be applicable. The other very important
piece in our bylaw is that it makes a distinction
as to. Where this. Additional accessory dwelling unit needs to
be located. So for the legislation which our bylaw is
in conformance with, it needs to be located. Within the
existing building so it can't be detached. Arguably, you can
maybe say that if it was an attached addition to
the building. As long as it's smaller, then it would
be applicable, but. It needs to be either within or
attached to the existing building in this case, because we're
looking at a detached garage which is being proposed to
have an additional unit placed on top. Of it. The
exemption wouldn't apply because technically there are zero existing units
within that detached garage. So maybe apologies on maybe our
misunderstanding. On whether or not the garage was existing at
the time, we were under the impression it would have
to be significantly. Either. We thought that had to be
demolished and then rebuilt to accommodate for the secondary unit,
but it seems like it's more of a major renovation,
but that still doesn't attract the fact that. The detached
garage is still not an existing residential units. A new
unit is being placed within it. And it's not being
counted against the whole of the lot. It's really specific.
To the building itself. So for those reasons above, I'd
submit that. We believe that. The board correctly administered the
charge. And that the complaint should be dismissed. Happy to
take any further questions or clarify any of my statements.
Thank you for your time. Thank you. Delegation, any questions
of the delegation? Council. Thank you so much for your
delegation. I believe you are the director for planning for
the school board. The general manager for the Holton District
School Board. Holden District School Board. Well, I know that.
The issue at hand relates to the school board. And
I appreciate you presenting today. My understanding is that you
do not consider a garage. A family unit, and that
is the premise on which. You are applying the DCs?
That's correct. We're saying that the detached garage. Is not
classified as other residential buildings in our bylaw. It's just
an ancillary use to the existing dwelling, so it doesn't.
Fall under those classifications of where there would be exemptions,
apply for additional units. And even if it were to
be, then the second question is. Well, the existing units
or, sorry, the new unit needs to be smaller than
the existing unit within. That building, not the property, the
building itself, which would be the garage. And seeing that
the garage has no residential unit to it. It's, in
fact, larger than anything that's there. Therefore, the charge again
would apply. So in both cases, I would argue it's
still applicable. Okay. Thank you. I do see there's a
technicality here that's in place. That is definitely being used
as a reason for this. EDC, I get it. But
the town as you know. Does not charge a DC
is on ARU, so it is something that is exclusive
to the school board. Thank you. Any further questions? The
delegation. If not, thank you, sir. And I turn it
back to our director of finance to highlight the options.
Thank you. So happy to provide any further clarification or
commentary if it's helpful to council. On page three of
the staff report, which is also page 67 in your
overall agenda. There are two. Different resolutions outlined for council.
The first, if moved and passed by council, would dismiss
the complaint in accordance with the act. The second would
identify that, in council's opinion, an error was made in
the determination and it's a two part resolution, but it
would then identify that the development charge is payable. For
the proposed would be zero. And that language is in
the report for you to review. So again, happy to
provide further clarification as it may be helpful. Councilor Chauner.
Mayor Crannz. Sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This may have
been for the first presenter. She requested, I believe. Two
alternatives there it was the second one that I wanted
to question. As to. Really what that really did mean.
First, when I understand very clearly, but the second request
is the one that I'd like a little more clarity
on. Director. I think the mayor may be referring, and
I don't want to necessarily paraphrase but there was an
indication that council would either determine an error or otherwise
remedy something along those lines. Council's role in the hearing
process is. To determine if there was an error in
the application of the existing bylaw. If helpful, for counsel
to get additional clarity directly from the lawyer for the
owner on that point. But depending on the response, it
may be something that we may need Constantine to weigh
in on. As to council's abilities because it is fairly
restrictive in the context of a DC hearing. Any further
merit press? No. Thank you, Councilor Scholner. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
I'm going to move. Dismissal of the appeal. And. We
really don't have any choice in this matter. If it
were to be appealed. The provincial, existing provincial legislation is
quite clear. And it's very clear in that regard what
council has to do. However. I have a great deal
of sympathy for the applicant. It's unfortunate the Education act
was not updated to reflect. The changes that were made
to the DC act provincially. And so I'm going to
give the clerk a copy of an amended or second
motion. With respect to the matter. The first motion that
has been put forward by staff and their report is
dismissal of the appeal. And I will move that. But
I also think that, quite frankly, this council has a
responsibility to reach out to the premier, the Minister of
Finance and the Minister of Education. To request that they
update the Education act to reflect. The changes that have
been made to education dcs in the Development Charges act
itself, and that would be sent. By copy to Zhamed,
who is our MPP for Milton, as well as the
director. Of education for the Halton District School Board and
the director of education for the Halton Catholic District school
board because at the end of the day, there's only
one place for this matter can be resolved. And that's
at the legislature at Queens Park. It's unfortunate. Might this
person have the opportunity, if the education has passed quickly,
to seek some sort of financial support. For this decision.
It's possible. I don't know. But I don't think we
have much choices to counsel. I think it's fairly clear.
But I think we also have the opportunity to make
the province aware that this is an issue. Especially. Given.
Its interest in accelerating growth. This won't be the first
time this happens in future. There will be other opportunities
that come forward as well. That may be a problem.
It has to be resolved. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
I've got a motion that I'll be reading out. Later,
Councilor Marshall. I'm generally aligned with what councilor Chaliner has
said. I would just also suggest that we add something
to ask the province to consider making any changes retroactive
to the date. Of the corresponding legislation. That's from the
Development Charge Act. Thank you. Any other speakers on this
item? If not, I do have a motion moved by
councilor Alley, second by councilor Raquel. Key. It's the item
b and the prevalent motion is and that the education
development charge is payable for the proposed additional residential unit
to be constructed over the detached garage at 110 hesslap
road in the town of Milton should be zero. We
do have a proposed amendment by councilor Chowner to the
mover and secondary is this something that we take as
a friendly amendment. Director. Sorry. Apologies. Can you just repeat
that last part? I want to make sure we're using
the correct motion here. And I thought I heard a
reference to that. The DC should be zero. This is
the written one we have is basically. Item b. Basically,
the education development charge is payable for the proposed additional
dwelling unit to be constructed over the detached garage at
110 Hesselop Road in the town of Milton should be
zero. So, to clarify, I believe the mover was identifying
that we were dismissing the complaint, which would be the
first motion on page three. Those latter two motions, including
what you just read, that's actually if council were to
determine that there was an error made in the application,
so I just want to make sure we're. Working with
the right resolution. Well, I have the first motion that's
on my desk. That the second motion, as councilor Chowner
mentioned, hasn't been seconded yet, so. I'm dealing with one
motion at a time, Councilor Calke. Calkey. Yeah, Mr. Chair,
if I could just provide clarity there. While the discussion
was ongoing over here. We did provide that motion first
there. So if we could deal with that on its
merits. As listed in the report. Then we can proceed
based on how it results in the vote and we'll
make our arguments as to why we believe that's the
correct motion to proceed with. Thanks, Mr. Chair. With the
clerk just because there is a motion that was on
the floor. I thought.
Councillor Ellie. Thank you. As the mover of the First
Amendment, I would like to speak to that amendment, Mr.
Chair. I've heard both sides of the argument in this
meeting. Also the argument that. There is nothing we can
do. And the solution is with the province. Fact of
the matter is. The report is in front of us
right now. The complaint is in front of council right
now. So there is something we can do. We have
two options. Either we dismiss it. Or we do the
right thing. And. Make it easy for our residents to
build. Ar youth. We are a housing supportive council. We
support Aru's and we have gone. To great lengths to
finesse our ArU policy and to that end, to support
housing in our community to support Aru. Without. Affecting. More
green fields. I think this is a great opportunity for
council to reiterate its commitment. To affordable housing, and with
that, I heard the lawyer of the complainant. The lawyer
made complete sense. How can a garage not. Be part
of a house. All of that is just technicalities, and
I see that as a hindrance to anybody wanting to
build an Aru. And when you look at that area,
Hesslop wrote, everything is built out. This is the only
way we can add more affordable units there. And so
with that, I have put forward this amendment. I think
the edc being proposed. On this resident is unfair. It
is using a technicality to charge him unfairly because the
town is not collecting any dcs on ARu to begin
with. And the financial part implications of this report tells
me that there are no financial implications to the town
of Milton either ways, and so with that. I would
definitely side with the resident who I do believe has
been charged erroneously. Thank you. Councilor calcut is the second.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair. I just want to reference
to council that all of the work that council has
been doing in relation to Aru's and one of the
examples that was depicted in staff's work on the ARU
file includes detached error use air use that are constructed,
permitted, approved by the town that are not attached to
a residential unit, a granny suite, for example. Or built
as their own independent unit without being physically attached. So
in the case made by the education board in relation
to this, not qualifying as that. That actually contradicts what
our ARU policies in Milton actually stipulate. So an ARU
in Milton can be an independent unit that's not attached.
Physically. To a residence as indicated by. The education board.
What I also want to say here is that the
public hearing today is an opportunity. If an error was
made for us to decide as counsel what the right
thing to do is, and I think a reasonable inference
can be made here. That if the town of Milton,
we already know the legislation provincially tells us that we
cannot. Apply dcs at the town level to air use.
The inference that can be made is that when the
province comes down to making the necessary changes in the
Education act that they're probably going to align with what
municipalities are required or not required charge in this case
as well. So. What I'm trying to say is that
the Education act is likely going to be amended. At
a future time to match what the planning act says
in terms of collection of dcs and I do think
that in this case, That's a lot of money that's
going to be charged to this resident if that were
to be approved, which we can probably all likely infer
that at some point down the line. Those fees aren't
going to be in place for this type of situation
that the resident is in. And it's on town and
Milton website. Like I said, a detached Aru doesn't. Necessarily
need to be attached to a residence. It's in the
name itself. It can be a granny suite. It can
be something that's not physically conjoined to the residential property
therefore qualifies as an Aru or an adu therefore exempt
from dcs. At the town level, and in this case,
because. The Education act hasn't been updated yet. It isn't
applicable at that level, but it will be at a
future time, most likely. Is what I believe. So I
do believe that. This complaint should be dismissed and dismissed
in the sense that there shouldn't be any charges. Applied
to the resident that's making the complaint in this matter.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Councilor Chowner. It's very clear. This is
a technical legal point. That's why we're here. I don't.
Disagree with the comments that have been made. About. What
the town's policy is and what the development charges policy
is today. That's all very true, but if this goes
before the Ontario Land Tribunal, Then the education system is
going to carry the day, because that's what the act
says. And the land tribunal will obviously have to follow
what is provincial legislation today. We don't. Have any idea
if the Education act is going to be revised as
it should be there's? Been no indication of that. That's
why. I've brought forward a separate motion to deal with
that, and I, by the way, agree. With councilor Marshall's
addition of making the situation retroactive, I think that's. A
smart thing to do. But as much as I have
great sympathy for the applicant, We can't move forward. With
the decision we'd like to make because. It's not. Really
legal. The education act says today what it says. We
all know what it says. And it unfortunately hasn't been
updated. It needs to be, and until such time. We
have to follow what it states. That is the law
today. Thank you, Councilor Marshall. My comments are very similar
to what councilor Chauner has just said. I do have
a lot of sympathy for the position that the complainant
is in. I think trying to get something retroactive in
effect. Is their best way. To try and get compensated
for being caught in a bad spot. With respect to
these development charges. But on my reading and my understanding
of what we're able to do, we can look to
see if there's an error in the application. And so
that language is very clear. It's not an error in
the sense that we don't like what's happening because of
our own town bylaws. And what? We understand the direction
from the province to be. We have to look at
the language that is in the applicable bylaw and legislation,
and we need to. Apply the facts to those bylaws
and legislation. And unfortunately, I don't see how we can
raise compassionate grounds as I would love to. In this
instance, it's simply just not. There. Thank you. Is there
any other speakers on this motion? Councilor Kelkie and Mr.
Cheryl. Just add before the votes called here, that if
the prerogative of the school board is to take it
to the Ontario Land Tribunal for further consideration, then that's
on them to do. Maybe that'll help them at the
provincial level, understand? Where the challenge lies. Here, too, we
can do the advocacy piece like councilor Chowder mentioned. Earlier
as well when he spoke. But again, I think the
logical inference that can be made here is that eventually
the education act will be amended to reflect the consistency
we see at the municipal level, at the provincial level,
under the planning Act. So it may not necessarily be
an error in terms of what it is, and that's
just semantics, in my opinion. There, in the wording of
that resolution. But at the end of the day, the
likelihood of this being amended provincially under the education act
to reflect what we do municipally is going to be
identical at some point down the future. It's $11,000 for
a resident who's trying to help trade. Housing in our
community. I think that also needs to be considered on
its merits as well. Let the education board. Go to
the OLT is what I'm trying to say. They can
deal with that at that point. So I'll just conclude
there. Thanks. Thank you. And just getting clarification on councilor
Chowner's proposed amendment to the mover. And secretary, will you
be willing to accept this as a friendly amendment, or
do you want to vote on it separately. We will
vote on it separately because that amendment actually cancels out
the other option that we are going with. Okay, I'll
get the clerk's advice on this. Justice Councilor Chowner, on
this amendment that you proposed, did you want this and
included with councilor Ali's and Kelsey's, or do you want
us a separate? No, it's separate. It goes with the
dismissal. We're voting strictly on what they're proposing, and then
when we vote, On the dismissal of the appeal, then
we can add that to that, and it'll need to
be revised to reflect councilor Marshall's quite valid suggestion that.
The Education act, when it is revised, be retroactive to
the changes that were made in the Development charges act
with respect to ad use. Thanks. Thank you. To the
work clerks. Are you clear on that now? Okay. The
motion again. Just verbally. Information is in your package. It's
been moved by councilor. Ali, seconded by councilor Kelkey. I'm
not going to read the whole thing. As main thing.
Point is that the fee should be zero. Any questions?
The motion I've been requested a recorded vote by councilor
Ali. All those in favor, please stand. Thank you. I'm
noting councilor Ali and councilor Culky in favor. All those
opposed? I'm noting mayor Krantz, councilor
Chowner, councilor Marshall, councilor Malbuff. Councilor Menococcus and councilor best.
Okay, getting to the second motion, which. Was item a
under items there. That's moved by councilor chauner. I need.
A seconder on this item, Councilor Marshall. And for
everybody's information, that the motion is that after consideration, the
submissions of the parties in relation to complaint pertaining to
the education development. Charges are 110 La Hesselop Road. The
Council of Corporation of the town of Milton hereby dismisses
the complaint. In accordance the Education Act RSO 1990 e
two. And councilor Shawner. You want that addition to the
amended to it? Yeah, it could be. The second paragraph.
Unless. The treasurer would like to have that as a
separate motion. It's up to him. They can go together.
There's no concern from staff perspective on that. I asked
the clerk to read out the amendment. Thank you. That
the mayor be directed to correspond. With the premier, the
Minister of Education, the Minister of Finance to update the
Education Act. To reflect the development. Charges acts need for
update regarding. Development charges payable and that this motion. Be
forwarded. To mpp z. Hamid, the director of education for
the holton district school board. The director of the halton
catholic district school board. And then if I could just
get clarification on the additional paragraph. Yeah. So the only
thing I would add to that is council Marshall raised
an important point about it being retroactive? And so. It's
the education related dcs and the Development Charges act that
have to be updated. So the Education Act. And that
should be retroactive. To. The. Day that the Development Charges
act was revised to reflect. Adu aru legislation. So that
would enable this individual to seek remedy. At some point
in the future if he decides to go ahead with
his application. Okay? Are you clear on that? Any questions
to the amendment? Councilor Calkey. Yeah, Mr. Chair, I do
agree with that part of that amendment that was added
there. I don't know what that looks like for voting,
but is there a way to separate that because I'm
supportive of that. Yeah, we can separate the main motion
from the amendment. So on the amendment first, all those
in favor. Motions carried on the main motion. All those
in favor? Those opposed secured. And that's included the addition
of councilor chowdering, Councilor Marshall. Okay, moving on. Item 7.1,
public meeting. Initial report. Do you want to highlight this
clerk? Okay, so this public meeting is with
regard to the Milton Education Village, the Conestoga college. Institute
of Technology and Advanced Learning. Madamie Brightpoint Homes and Madame
Brownridge Homes Council will consider related bylaws later in this
evening's agenda if you should be notified of the decision
of this application, you must sign the. Attendance sheet here
at the back table of council chambers. Or you can
make a written request to the town clerk at 150
Mary Street, Milton. Following a presentation from the applicant, there
will be an opportunity for public comments from in person
and remote meeting participants. As a reminder, the number is
186-511-1021 for anyone who wants to. Connect remotely for this
public meeting. Thank you. Thank you. And our applicant already
standing there. If I could come forward and turn on
the microphone. Good evening, Mr. Chair. Members of council and
staff, as well as residents that dug themselves out in
those cozy at home. I'm Constance rattel from cortiac urban
planning here on behalf of Madame Holmes to discuss the
proposed site specific official plan and zoning bylaw amendments in
the Milton Education village. This application relates to the Madamian
Conestoga lands about 96 acres west of Tremaine. Straddling Louis
St. Laurent. I'm going to breathe through the next few
slides as a real action happens at the secondary plan
level. These lands are designated urban area in the Halton
official plan. And sustainable Halton plan growth area in the
town of Milton. Official plan which lands them in the
Milton Education Village secondary plan area. Minister's zoning order is
in effect for the area shown, meaning that this area
has its own. Milton Education village specific zones in place.
Those are high density residential, two innovation district institutional campus
and medium density residential, two. The mzoto has been in
place for five years and. Now that the applicants develop
concepts for the blocks, we know a little bit more
about them than in 2021. Medium and high residential developments
are proposed within those medium and high density zones and
institutional campus. The innovation district, mixed use continues to be
proposed for a dense mix of uses along Louis St.
Laurent. The secondary plan designates the area's innovation neighborhood, innovation
hub, village center, landmark gateway high density residential and medium
density residential. Two. The proposed amendments raise the limits on
rear lane and back to back townhost dwellings in the
medium and high density designations to 50% of the unit
count, while those designations still maintain their minimum density requirements.
It also broadens the nonresidential opportunities here. In line with
those recent changes. The province made to redefine employment area.
It replaces employment with office, retail and commercial. Within those
policies, We are adding in permissions for a standalone grocery
store to serve the first phases of development. While that
village center corps builds out. Staff also suggested some active
frontage protections for Louis St. Laurent to ensure the mixed
use nature carries through to development. The MZO zones are
likewise being revised to accommodate the same changes and some
provisions to align. With recent housekeeping amendments. The proposed changes
are consistent with the provincial mandate, continue to generally conform
with the designations with the modifications, of course, that we've
proposed. To allow for the proposed development. The changes expand
the flexibility for attached dwelling types outside of the core
and nonresidential opportunities within it. I've noted here our contact
information if any questions arise following the meeting. But I
look forward to hearing any comments from the residents here
tonight or online. Thank you very much. Do you have
some questions for you, Councilor Ali? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Through you. Thank you. For your presentation. Obviously, this makes
all of us who live around that area very excited.
Finally, we're seeing a site plan in place. We are
seeing what it's going to look like. I'm sure down
the line you might be able to provide us some
3d renditions. Of that area, if that's possible at all.
But one question I had, and this is because the
community is really excited to see the word standalone grocery
store. Any idea. What that would look like. Would you
be able to share some more details? We don't have
details yet, unfortunately, but with staff, we're looking at making
sure that. There's some design guidelines in place to make
sure it's still somewhat of an urban format. Working with
that area. So it might look a little different than
a typical one. To fit that context. But it's also
really exciting looking at a map of where the next
nearest grocery store is this would be really important to
the future residents. Absolutely. There's nothing in that area. And
so something that we are very excited to welcome in
our community. And so on that note, when can we
expect shovels in the ground? The community is waiting. With
a baited breath there. So there's a few moving parts
right now, of course. So. We're looking forward to having
this zoning and Opa approved. Ideally in June. And then
following that, we're going to have site plan applications for
sales. Office for those initial residential blocks. Likely late summer,
early fall for those site plans to come in, they're
looking at starting construction in October. 2000 and 827 for
first occupancy is in April. 2028, I believe. Perfect. Thank
you, councilor chowner. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Through you to the.
Delegate. I noticed going through the report. The footprint. Are
smaller for the units as well as for common space.
Than what is currently. Permitted. What's the reason for that?
The 4 meters squared. I presume you're talking about there
for the amenity area. That's to be consistent with what
is required currently by. The Milton zoning bylaw for the
mixed use zones. That requirement is there for 4 m²,
so it's to bring it into sort of consistency with
the rest of the developments that are going on in
Milton for a mixed use format. What about the units
themselves? I'm not familiar exactly. With the provision for that.
Let me just catch myself up here.
Oh, so that's a unit count proportion basis. For the
blocks, so that's just raising. The maximum cap on that
ground related attached product in the blocks is that the
provision that 50% is at the. Okay, so. It doesn't
relate to unit sizes. It's on those medium density blocks.
Up to 50% of the unit count would be. Permitted
to be multiple attached dwelling form rather than apartments, whereas
right now the Mzoto allows for 30%. We're raising that
to 50% to allow for more flexibility. For those. Sorry,
that's my usual timer to turn my kids screen time
off. So, yeah, we're looking to just provide more flexibility.
For family size dwellings. In those, in those walks. And
again, those are outside of that village center core. Those
relate. To the medium and high density blocks to the
north and south of that. Okay, thank you. Any other
questions of the delegation. Councilli. Second time speaker. I'm so
sorry. I should have included. My first question by councilor
Chalner's question actually reminded me that this is something I
wanted to talk about. I do see that you have
a block 14. Which is a park, and it is
zero point 46. And however, block 15 is zero point
91. Ha. So double in size. What is the reason
for this. Why aren't they equal? So that is part
of the draft plan application. So not specifically this rezoning
and OPA. We can definitely address that with staff through
processing that draft plan of subdivision, but there's been lots
of work. With the park staff to arrange sort of
a variety of open spaces through the MEV. A hierarchy.
And. Just some. Connected green spaces of different sizes. So.
They'll be able to explore that more of the draft
plan level and happy to continue. That conversation with them.
Perfect. I mean, as the area councilor, myself, councilor Marshall,
and of course, our mayor Krantz. We'd like to be
involved in discussion on how we definitely see the built
out picture of this area. We're hoping to welcome a
lot of students in that area, so it needs to
be very walkable. There needs to be green spaces where
students can sit down and gather. And many more things,
many ideas. As a mother of young children who go
to universities myself, I have so many ideas for you,
and so does my colleague, Councilor Marshall. And we'd love
to stay connected with you. Thank you. Thanks very much.
Any other questions? Delegation. If not, thank you for your
presentation. Now open it to the public. Are there anyone
in? The audience wishing to speak to this item. Going
a second time. Anyone online? No. For a third time.
Is anyone wishing to speak on this item? Going? Gone.
I read the motion here. It's moved by councilor Chalner,
second. By councilor Malbouth. The development services report DS 626
be received for information and he questions the motion. If
not, all those in favor? All those opposed motions carried.
Moving on to item number 7.2, public meeting and initial
report. For the Robert Russell planning consultants. And also we
have the applicant to present. Sir. Just been reminded by
the clerk. If you just have your identification and contact
information.
Thank you. Have you want to present.
Yeah. I'm the authorized agent on behalf of Ar land
holdings for the proposed zoning bylaw. Amendment Z 20. Five.
Next slide, please. I have the control. I forgot to
put that. I'll keep this presentation brief. It's a fairly
simple application. Here's the site context highlighted in the Magenta
right in the middle there within the 401 industrial employment
area. Business park. I don't have the actual official plan
designation I'll put on my screen right? Now. So excuse
the mislabeling of it, but you can see this area,
as you know. Is already heavily developed for employment uses,
and this property is really right in the middle of
the secondary plan area. A close up aerial view showing.
The site. This used to be the Salvation Army Community
church. It was sold then to my client. My client
also operates a trucking company on the adjacent property to.
The south east of that. And you can see that
on the screen right there. The conceptual site plan is
here. They're proposing to retain the existing building. They're going
to use it for administration. Type purposes and then construct
truck parking area for their transportation terminal at the back.
The site is about 1.93. Ha. The current concept plan.
Shows room for 75 trailers. It includes that we'll have
landscape open space of. More than 15%, which greatly exceeds
what the bylaw requires in the m two zone. Still
will have parking for approximately 40 to 45 vehicles. This
is still something that's in flux in the site plan
as we work with transportation staff to. Create. A site
entrance that flows well for truck traffic and returning movements,
so. We're not sure yet exactly where we'll land with
our final park vehicle parking. Tally, and we may or
may not have a specific amendment in that regard. That
will be determined. All of the other site specific amendments
that we're looking for, right? Now listed there are to
deal with what's existing there. The client, other than wanting
to put in a parking lot for trucks. Doesn't want
to change anything else on the site. And the emergency
generators in the front yard. It's there now, but it's
not. Permitted by the bylaw to be there. Minimum lock
coverage for a truck terminal. The m two zone is
40%, but that existing building sorry, 25%. But that existing
building is only 4.8%. They don't want. To build more
building just to park trucks. There also isn't a loading
space currently, but because, again, this is administrative, and there
are 75 truck parking spots. I don't think that is
really that necessary. The only other thing I just wanted
to confirm is that the zoning we're looking for. Is
m two. Every other property in this area is zoned
the m two permits, truck parking. So this is just.
We're trying to bring this property. And to be consistent
with the existing official plan designation, to be consistent with
the surrounding community and the only other exceptions to the
bylaw are really to deal with the existing condition and
with that. That concludes my presentation, and I'd be happy
to answer any questions. Thank you for your presentation. Any
questions? If not, you made excellent presentation. Thank you. And
also to the clerk. Is there any online delegations? Is
there anyone the audience that wishes to speak to this
item. This is regarding. Boston Church Road. Second time, third
time. Okay, I'm just going to read the motion here.
It's been moved by councilor. Chauner. Second, by Councilor Melwood.
The development services report DS 126 be received. For information.
Any questions to motion? If not all those in favor?
Opposed, motions carried. That ends our public meeting portion of
the meeting. Now move on to item 10.1, the items
for consideration. As the technical reports official plan zoning bylaw
amendments additional residential units in the rural area. Plus we
can have an overview from our development commissioner. Through the
chair. This report recommends the approval of an official plan
amendment and a zoning bylaw. Amendment to permit Aru's or
additional residential units within the town's rural area. Now, these
proposed amendments, they implement the policies of all of the
higher level provincial plan. Plans, including the Niagara Scarman plan,
the Green Belt plan and the provincial planning statement. There's
various permissions being recommended in this report, depending on the
designation. Within the rural area. Staff are recommending approval to
permit Aru's in the rural area as outlined in the
report. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any questions to
the report? It's been moved by councilor Chauner, second by
councilor Melbo. If you have the staff report in front
of you. All those in favor? All opposed? Motions carried.
Item 10.2 Technical Report Zoning bylaw amendments for additional US
and issues in urban area with no municipal water or
sewer services to have an overview. Through the chair. This
is a similar report to the previous report. It is
a technical report recommending. Certain provisions to permit additional residential
units on lots within the urban area that don't have
municipal water or municipal sewer. There are a few of
these lots in existence, and these new zoning regulations would
allow the flexibility to include an ARU. Any questions regarding
report? If not, I have one. How many lots are
we actually talking about here? Because I really can't identify
too many. When we're talking about the areas that are
just outside. Of land that was brought in through the
urban boundary expansion. There's a number of properties in South
Milton. That. Are on private services that could take advantage
of this. I don't have an exact number. Of lots
for you, but I can certainly point to the geography
on a map, Councilor Ali. Seems to know more than
you. Regarding Aru, would they also be encouraged to hook
up to municipal water and sewers? They will once municipal
water and sewer is present. Just clarify, because. As the
mayor and councilor Chauna some of the properties that were
there for decades before they were hooked up. So I
just want to clarify that we have motion moved by
councilor. Chowner second by councilor Malbout to approve the staff
report. Any questions? Motion if not all those in favor?
Options carried. Moving on to item 10.3, Grand river source
protection plan, water quality policies, amendments. Any staff information. This
report brings forward proposed amendments to the Grand River Source
Protection Plan and its assessment report under the Clean Water
act. Really, the primary objective is to align the policies
applied in North Milton with the existing, in effect, water
quantity policies used in Halton Hamilton source protection plans, which
cover. The majority of Milton. Now, these updates extend from
technical studies for water supply system outside of Milton. The
management area for which extends into our municipality. So really
what this means for staff is when we are reviewing
applications within this geography, we're required to consult with the
Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks for developments, and we're
also encouraged to implement low impact development techniques there. Any
questions to report. Councilor Shannon, since you are the chair
of the Grand river conservation and by the way, Clinton,
congratulations on your reelection. Would you like to speak to
this? I'll move it, Mr. Chairman. We've already got you
there. Second by councilor Malbout. Did he staff report any
questions? The reports, if not all. Those in favor? Opposed?
Motions carried. Want to give your equal time there. And
item 10.4 of Milton Hydro 2026 Budget and borrowing authorization.
A finance staff are available here in case. Any questions?
Councilor Chowner. Yes, thanks, Mr. Chairman. The report is a
little bit concerning. In terms of. The various ratios and
how close we're running or hydro is running. And I
guess I'm kind of curious as to. How the treasurer
views. The ability of hydro to get through this. Things
that perhaps you're working on with management. Or the board
is working on with management. We have a couple of
board members here. To provide. Some financial sustainability in terms
of debt capacity. And revenues. Current revenues? So I have
two questions in that regard, and I would appreciate any
other comments you've got glenn. But what do you see
as their capacity to contribute to their reserves today? Can
it be increased? Or does provincial legislation prohibit that in
some way, shape or form? And then, of course, the
opportunity to increase revenues itself. I know that. Is certainly
subject to provincial legislation. But are there other things that
perhaps in your discussions with their management. There's been discussion
about to deal with this. Through the chair. The secondary
recommendation in the resolutions about looking at a longer term.
Financial impact analysis for Milton Hydro work and collaborating with
them that will go exactly to the heart. Of exactly
what you're speaking to right now. Their budget process is
based on a five. Year, and as noted in the
report, there are notable capital investments that have been identified
through the most recent budget process. By looking at a
slightly longer timing horizon, we can understand. Whether we've got
a couple of years of intense capital investment in terms
of growth of capacity or to what degree that sustains.
And that will go a long way, I think, to
informing exactly that. And from a sustainability perspective, from a
revenue perspective, investment in the system is one way to
generate and ensure future sustainable revenue growth. So the two
things are. Related. So with that, and also looking at
the way that not just what the capital spend looks
like, but the way it's financed and understanding some of
the practices of some of the larger utilities that have
gone through this curve already. That's also one of the
outcomes we've talked about with management of Hydro that will
be assessed further. They've got a lot of familiarity there.
To a degree, it's bringing some of that information. To
council and providing an update to what we brought. I
think it was a few September years ago, when we
last looked at the debt borrowing levels at the time,
the authorities we have in place now looked. Sufficient for
the spending needs, and it looked to show a positive
trend. With the new forecast, we just wanted to take
a broader look at that again with council and. With
the expertise of Milton Hydro informing that review. Thanks, Mr.
Chairman. Any further questions? The motion, Councilor Urbanicakis. But this
is a forecast. Right. And we don't know. They don't
know. Based on my history with them. They don't really
know if they're going to hit that forecast in terms
of capacity and when they're going to need it, correct?
Correct. The board each year only approves the first year.
To that point, the rest is provided. As an estimate
of what it could look like in the four years
following. Any further questions? If not, we have a move
by councilor Shauner, second by councilor Malbol for the staff
report any questions in the motion? If not all those
in favor? Approved. Moving on to next item 10.5. Halton
Court services business plan. Staff are available for any questions.
It's been moved by councilor Chauner, seconded by councilor Mill
with. The 2026 business plan budget for the Halton court
services. Including transfers to and from reserves as presented, be
approved. Any questions? If not all those in favor? Opposed.
Motion is carried. Long faster than expected. Item 10.6. Purchasing
barriers. I'm not going to read this one. Staffer? No,
definitely not. Any questions to the motion? It's been moved
by councilor Chowner, second by councilor. Malbel for the staff
report. All those in favor? Motions carried. They might even
beat our estimated time here. 10.7 revised policy use of
town corporate resources during an election. Staff are available for
any questions. It's moved by councilor Chowner, second by councilor
Malbouth, that the revised use of corporate resources during election.
Policy attached to this report be approved? Any questions? If
not all. Those in favor? Opposed? Motions carried. Okay. Now
the exciting one. Item 10.8, vacant council member appointments to
boards and committees. I'm just going to do
one of them at a time here. Mobile councilor challer.
Second by councilor Melbourne with the staff report core 126
be received for information. All those in favor? Opposed, motions
carried. Okay. We have a second one here. We have
a motion here. I'll read it first before. I get
the motion? It's been moved by Mayor Krantz, but I
need a. Seconder and councilor Ali. At Councilor George Minicakis
be appointed to the Milton Economic Development Advisory Committee. Medak
Conservation Halton Board of directors and board of Management for
the downtown business improvement area of DBIA any questions? The
motion. If not. All those in favor? Welcome, Councilor McAllicus.
You just doubled your workload.
Okay, now, I could see more exciting here. It's item
10.9. Notice the motion to waive the rules procedure to
put a notice of motion consideration at this council meeting
at a procedural motion requires a two thirds of vote.
And this has been moved by councilor Minocakus and second
by councilor chowner. You have it in your agenda bundle.
Any questions? The waiving. If not all those in favor?
Motions carried. Okay. I'm definitely not reading this one. A
motion to consider revising the town's procedural bylaw moved by
Councilman Akakas and second by councilor Chowner. Councilor. Minneakis. You
want to lead off? Thank you, Mr. Chair. This motion
is being brought forward. To formally clarify and reinforce council's
obligation to act within its legal authority as defined by
the Municipal act and our. Procedural bylaws. Our role as
council is the oversight of municipal services, policies, finances, and
the overall well being of this community, many of us
continue to hear from residents who remain concerned that council
has. In incidents drifted away from its core responsibilities. The
motion responds directly to those concerns by reaffirming the boundaries
of council's authority and ensuring our focus remains on matters
municipal within municipal direction. Accordingly, the motion introduces the term
ultravirus into our procedural bylaw to clearly identify items or
directions that fall beyond the council's legal power and authority.
This clarification provides guidance and consistency in how such matters
are addressed. This is approved and responsible. Step, particularly as
we approach a future election, to provide residents with confidence
that both this council and future council's remain focused on
their lawful responsibilities and accountable to governance. Mr. Chair, I
would like to request a recorded vote on this motion
as well. Thank you. And secondary. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Councilor
Minocakus has enunciated it well, and I just. Want to
thank him for bringing forward this motion. And you, Mr.
Chairman, had the opportunity to speak to the Municipal act
on November 3, which was? Highly appreciated. And I think
a reading of that is a fair reading of what
our responsibilities are. And I'll leave it at that. And
councilor. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, I want
to thank councilors many cockers and chalana for bringing this
motion forward. It's unfortunate that this motion is now necessary,
and it's basically a direct response. To what occurred at
our council meeting at November the third. Now, Mr. Chair,
you know that I've been involved in municipaltics since 1996,
when I. Was first elected as a milton's local and
regional counselor. Over the 30 years, I've seen a lot
of changes in our community. Most of them positive, but
lately, not so much. I've never seen our community as
divided as it is today. Now at that meeting. Of
November 3, we had to deal with a motion that
pitted one segment of our community against another. Emotion that
was forced, that forced us to pick a side in
a conflict that we had no jurisdiction or influence over
a motion that should have never come forward. There was
a reason municipal governments do not have a department of
international Affairs. As elected officials, we have a responsibility to
represent everyone equally. Unfortunately, that has not been the case
lately. One of the longtime resident of Milton. I never
thought that I would see our main street and businesses
blocked by demonstrators, mostly from Toronto Mississauga, protesting what was
occurring in a part of the world thousands of miles
from Milton. I never would have
thought that I would see, known and admitted supporters of
a terrorist organization. Delegating before this council. Or that while
sitting in this chair, I would be called a baby
killer. Supporter of genocide? A racist or told I would
burn on hell because of how I voted. Since that
evening, I've received other counselors have as well numerous emails,
voicemails. And people approaching me in public, all expressing their
anger and frustration as to what happened that evening. I
received more comments on this issue than I have received
on any other issue over the last 30 years. I
heard comments so filled with hate that even a red
deck like myself found them disturbing. The militant of today
is not the Milton my wife and I moved into
39 years ago and where we raised our children. The
motion that had nothing to do with municipal affairs. That
was brought before us November 3. And what occurred that
evening has divided our community. We have a problem. A
problem we didn't have three years ago. A problem we
have brought upon ourselves, and I would ask members of
this council to reflect and ask themselves what part they
have played in that. Mr. Chair, do I think this
motion would repair the damage done to our community on
November the third? No, but hopefully it will stop things
from getting worse. By ensuring that what occurred that evening
doesn't happen again. Thank you. Any further speakers. Item, Councilor
Ali. Sympathize with the previous speaker and the threats they
received, that is never okay. Having said that. The previous
speaker's comments are not helping. To solve the divisiveness and
to solve the division that he speaks about. So I
don't think. That was very smart for him to make
these comments. And I understand where he's coming from. And
as I said before, We all stand against violence. We
all stand against division. What happened that night in the
Chambers was. Not acceptable with the threats that were made
by folks who I don't know from where. Showed up.
Having said that, Attaching these comments to this motion. I
don't think that was necessary. And it further adds fire
to the division. The same speaker mentioned. Having said that,
the intent of this motion. Is just a reminder and
reiteration what we already have in place. And to that
end, I don't see any problem with this motion. Thanks.
Any further speakers on this item? We have a recorded
vote requested. All those in favor, please stand. Thank you.
In favor? I'm noting councilor Eli. Councilor Kolki, mayor Krantz.
Councilor Shaliner, councilor Marshall, councilor Malbaf, councilor Minocakus. And councilor
best. And that's carried. Motion has been passed. And move
on to regional council update and regional account council. Thank
you, Mr. Chair. I thought you were in the chair
today, so I'll take over. For the regional council update
and just wanted to share some happy news with our
colleagues. And a few residents who are watching us live
right now. We have approved 46 deeply affordable assisted rental
homes. In 1001 Kennedy Circle. And 16.56 million investment was
approved by regional council just last week. And these deeply
affordable rental housing units will start from a low rent
of $350. So something you should be very, very proud
of. 350 per month, and the occupancy is expected summer
of 2026, which is this. Year. So good news all
around really quickly. Halton Regional Police Service has launched a
new user friendly website to serve everybody better. I sit
on the board, and one of the major concerns and
complaints we got was about how clunky the website is
and so very proud to share with the community that
the website is now very user friendly. That is it,
Mr. Chair. Not sure if it describes websites as clunky.
That's a new one for me. Any other regional counselors
any updates? If not, I do have an Amo update.
We have our board meetings this Thursday and Friday. We
are expecting a few more developments coming from the province,
as the mayor is quite well aware of, possibly by
the end of March. So stay. Tuned. Maybe some changes
coming our way. And any statements by members. Mayor Crentz
and councilor coach very quickly, Mr. Chairman, we're well aware
of course. What's happened in the last. 24 48 hours
with regards to. Whether I had brief conversation this morning.
With Doug. I just want to recognize the work that
he's done. In our public word crew. And of course,
we both agreed that. Patience is the order of the
day. And so far, so good. The biggest majority of
people. Are reasonably happy with what we're doing. And again,
I know I haven't heard from too many people. I
know doug has heard. From a few individuals. But I
just want to recognize that it was probably one of
the worst storms we've had for the past. Number of
years as well. So not only the town of mountain
was affected dramatically. It said record. Number of. Inches or
snowfall. In the Greater Toronto Niagara region. So streets are
in pretty good shape. Now, the big thing is. Picking
up and disposing of some of that snow. And I
know Doug and his people. Are going to be working
on that in the next few days, so I just
want to share. The public code there that it's still
a work in motion, probably for the next four or
five days. And, Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure if Doug
has an update, because I do know people. Will start.
People will start to get impatient, not only patient. So
maybe you could permit that to. Say a few words.
Thank you, your worship. And Doug. Because the highlight of
the day, because. The mayor is correct. It was a
record, I believe. Is that broken 82 year old record.
Through the chair. Thank you, your worship. I appreciate the
comments and the sentiments. I'll be. Sure to pass those
thoughts along to staff, and I accept those thanks on
behalf of all the staff. That were out there working
and contractors that we had boots on the ground. It
was a very collaborative effort with our partners inside of
Town hall, as well with our communications. Folks, our bylaw
enforcement people. It truly was a team effort to get
us through to this. Point so far. And as you
mentioned, we will need a few more days to sort
of wipe. Up some copies, bills, and get some things
sorted out and get everything sorted back to normal, but.
We'll get that done in the next few days. Thank
you. Any further. Councilor calcut? Yeah. This is your chair.
Mayor Cran. Stole my thunder there. But just was going
to say the same thing. Commissioner already knows that his
team is doing a great job, and I've expressed that
to him as well. On behalf of residents in ward
three. And I think we should change his title to
commissioner of snow after this meeting. Okay. Any further statements
or requests? If not, we do have a confidential session.
Does anyone see the need to go into conference session.
No. Okay. We have a motion by councilor chalner and
second by councilor Malbo with. The recommendations staff report column.
26 be approved. All those in favor? Opposed, motions carried.
And now bylaws moved by councilor Chalander and second by
councilor Malbouth. That bylaws number 126 through and including 826
B, red pass and numbered in the mayor and clerk
be authorized to sign the Sid bylaws. Seal them with
seal corporation. And be engrossed in the bylaw. Book any
questions of bylaws? If not all. Those in favor? Opposed?
Motions carried. And that's all, folks.