[2:10] All right.

[2:14] I started the meeting 2 minutes late yesterday and then ended it up 2 minutes

[2:18] late. So, we're not doing that again. I call the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.

[2:24] and welcome everybody to this special planning committee meeting.

[2:28] I can confirm that we have a quorum and all of our council are in the chamber.

[2:33] And we have senior staff and and planning staff are present. Public input

[2:38] on this application was uh

[2:43] was invited at the

[2:46] normal email address, which is planning at

[2:48] Muskoka Lakes. Today's meeting is being live streamed and recorded on the

[2:53] Township of Muskoka Lakes website and YouTube channel. By participating in

[2:57] this open public meeting today, you are consenting to your image, voice, and

[3:01] comments being recorded and posted online.

[3:06] Uh we have had supplementary agenda and

[3:12] for uh the Bala Legion, the returning case of

[3:17] the Bala Legion. We have Nick Jensen speaking

[3:21] on the interest of the Bala Legion and Lisa Gorgon Green is speaking on behalf

[3:26] of the resort Village Minett. Uh committee, do we have any members who

[3:32] have a uh uh disclosure of pecuniary interest?

[3:37] There's got to be another word for that. Um

[3:43] » [laughter] >> Right. So, we'll move on to the agenda

[3:46] now and we're going to start with our three delegations. First one being Mr.

[3:50] Jaglowitz. Then we will have Lisa Grogan Green and

[3:54] Mr. Jensen. Good morning, Mr. Jaglowitz.

[4:00] I think you're familiar with our protocol here, 5 minutes.

[4:04] » Yep. >> Does that work?

[4:06] » And I see I've got a a big sign here that says name and address, so

[4:10] » Yeah. >> I'll I'll I'll follow the rules. Good

[4:14] morning. My name is Frank Jaglowitz, 14 Indian Crescent, Port Carling.

[4:19] Um I'm here this morning to speak to you

[4:22] about the Cleveland's House proposal, which I'm sure you're all quite quite

[4:26] familiar with. And I'd like to give a great thank you

[4:30] to staff for the very detailed 58-page report,

[4:34] which I think might be a record that which outlines many aspects of the

[4:38] development and the staff's position on many of the issues.

[4:42] So, if I might might ask staff to display the first page. They're doing it

[4:46] already. Great. So, this is the first page of your

[4:50] report, which are which are the which are the recommendations. And as you

[4:53] know, this was prepared by Emily Crowder,

[4:55] who's the senior planner, was approved by Steve Stone, the manager of planning,

[5:00] and acknowledged by David Clink, the CEO.

[5:03] So, I understand this would be the official

[5:06] position of the township. Um under the heading recommendations,

[5:10] you'll see in paragraph one that recommends that the OPA submitted

[5:15] by the Goldhar Group be revised

[5:19] to retain section C1.5.3.7 of OPA 56, which essentially prohibits

[5:26] the development of new habitable buildings within the flood plain.

[5:31] In other words, staff is recommending there be no new habitable buildings in

[5:37] the flood plain. And this would essentially make the

[5:40] current proposal, in my view, not viable.

[5:44] » I request putting the light on for the people back there, on.

[5:56] Can people Can people hear? I apologize. Do you want me to start over?

[6:01] No. No. No. Please go on. Okay. Thanks, Paul.

[6:08] So, what I said was I I believe that I I I now can hear the difference. Thank

[6:12] you. In other words,

[6:15] the first paragraph of the recommendation

[6:18] is to recommend no new habitable buildings in the flood plain.

[6:24] And paragraph two then recommends adoption of the OPA after it's revised

[6:29] to not permit any new habitable buildings. Therefore, they're

[6:32] recommending approval of the proposal as long as there's no habitable

[6:38] buildings in the flood plain. However, paragraph three

[6:42] presents conditions to be added. And I'll quote, "Should committee adopt

[6:47] the amendments permitting new development within the flood plain, then

[6:53] there should be schedules to define specific locations

[6:56] where buildings are located, setbacks, and so on." So, in my view in this

[7:00] paragraph, staff are providing committee an option

[7:04] to move this application forward under certain conditions. And I seriously

[7:09] suggest that you consider this approach, the approach in paragraph three,

[7:13] which is to allow buildings in the flood plain and schedules be added to define

[7:18] the location, setbacks, and so on. So, it's not unlimited, but it's a it's a

[7:22] limited thing. But, the recommendation then goes on to

[7:27] deal in paragraph four with the zoning bylaw, which would be required, and it

[7:34] once again recommends approval of it in part

[7:37] subject to a number of conditions and suggests that staff not use the one

[7:42] submitted but prepare an implementing zoning bylaw amendment to implement the

[7:48] conditions at a future council meeting. And that there be a holding provision

[7:53] put on the land subject to a number of conditions.

[7:58] So in my opinion the course is

[8:01] is the committee should first deal with the official plan amendment because if

[8:05] that fails and there's no sense dealing with the zoning.

[8:09] And if it but if it's if the proposal is substantially approved as submitted then

[8:14] consider the zoning bylaw a second. That that's the way I see it.

[8:20] So then let's turn now to the district. I I ask you to go to page 49 of the

[8:25] staff report. And this contains the District of Muskoka's comments.

[8:31] Um So firstly paragraph one of the district

[8:35] comment district indicates district staff are unable to

[8:39] recommend approval of the applications as they do not conform with the

[8:43] district's MOP municipal Muskoka official plan or comply with the

[8:49] PPS. Mr. Jagger, you are coming up to 5 minutes.

[8:53] But please continue. I asked your indulgence. It's it's very

[8:57] brief. Um I had and I had an interruption.

[9:00] Basically because once again same reason buildings in the floodway.

[9:06] Also paragraph two provides an option should committee wish to approve the

[9:10] application and apply a holding symbol that can only be moved afterwards. So in

[9:13] other words the district have also provided that option. So in summary

[9:18] here's something to think about when the vote is called. Considering the past

[9:22] history of this site Cleveland's Cleveland's house is this

[9:27] proposal better than any other options that are available for this site? I

[9:31] believe it is and strongly encourage you support it. Also remember the district

[9:36] is the final decision-maker and a split vote at the at the Township Council will

[9:42] give district counselors the opening to turn it down for the reason that even

[9:46] the Township's not fully supportive. So, if you are not fully in support of

[9:50] this application, I ask you reconsider and move this forward to the district

[9:55] with a strong vote. Thank you for your time. I'm happy to answer any

[9:59] questions. >> Minnie, do we have any questions for Mr.

[10:02] Jaglowitz? >> Thank you.

[10:05] » Thank you very much. Our next delegate is Ms. Grogan-Green.

[10:12] Is she in the waiting room? If we could If we could bring her in. Thank you.

[10:36] » Hello. Uh thank you. Sorry about that. Uh

[10:39] » Good morning. >> Good morning.

[10:41] » If you could start with your name and address and you have 5 minutes.

[10:44] » Okay, thank you. Uh my name is Lisa Grogan-Green.

[10:48] My permanent residence is at 133 Muldrew Lake Road, North York, I'm 4N3H4.

[10:56] Our family cottage on Campbell's Road has made Minett a second home for a lot

[11:01] of us. Over the years, I've been a frequent

[11:03] patron of Cleves, the Rock, uh the local marinas, the Minett Mall,

[11:08] and the Rosso Hotel. I've watched Cleves evolve since I was a child. From the

[11:13] addition of the golf course along Juddhaven to the various expansions

[11:17] required to accommodate a growing resort population.

[11:21] In preparation for today, I reviewed the Township's report, the Azimuth EIS and

[11:26] peer review, the wetland compensation plans,

[11:29] and the SLR peer review. I recognize the immense time,

[11:34] professional analysis, and financial investment that have gone into these

[11:38] documents. I also want to acknowledge the dedicated effort of various councils

[11:43] since 2018 to ensure this development and others are responsible and

[11:48] successful. There appears to be a consensus among

[11:52] the consultants that the proposed open water marsh and compensatory measures

[11:57] are a net benefit. By enhancing adjacent wetlands and

[12:01] improving connection points, the developer is creating a landscape that

[12:05] is ecologically superior to what exists today.

[12:09] Improving water quality for Wallace Bay and providing an improved habitat for

[12:14] local floral flora and fauna. There's consideration paid to the

[12:19] careful treatment of endangered or threatened species.

[12:23] I'm here today to ask the planning committee to adopt the proposed

[12:27] amendments to section C1.5.3.7. Very specifically, I support permitting

[12:34] the five micro cabins suspended over the proposed open water marsh.

[12:39] It's important to note that development within these fringes is not a new

[12:43] concept. Many existing cabins, such as the Bayview Suites cabins 260 to 62, 280

[12:51] to 82, currently set at a near zero setback from the thicket swamp. If you

[12:57] look behind them today, as I did last week, there's either standing water

[13:01] behind some or a small rivulet adjacent to others which had directly into Lake

[13:06] Rossell. Similarly, the yoga studio at the marina is already suspended over the

[13:11] water, as is a well-trafficked boardwalk at the western outlet.

[13:17] The current proposal does not introduce development into a pristine untouched

[13:21] landscape. Rather, it thoughtfully replaces aging infrastructure with a

[13:27] design that respects the modern flood plane.

[13:31] The applicant Mitch Goldhar has consistently demonstrated a willingness

[13:35] to work with the Minett Steering Committee and other stakeholders.

[13:39] He's already made significant concessions to address community

[13:42] concerns. In fact, he bought the resort in 2019 to

[13:46] save us from the density granted to Fowler and the development plans of

[13:50] Peter Freed. Important facts should be taken into

[13:54] consideration today. Mitch has already demonstrated a

[13:58] commitment to responsible development by reducing the overall program from

[14:02] approximately 4,000 units to just under 2,000.

[14:06] He stated there's no current intention to pursue any time share development. He

[14:11] has no current intention of severing and selling portions of the land for forms

[14:15] of intensification. Nor does he have a current intention of

[14:18] developing mid-rise condos on the property.

[14:22] The above are all things that are permitted as of right and could be in

[14:26] front of this planning committee today. Instead, we are discussing a boutique

[14:30] 48-cabin village with an adjoining amphitheater.

[14:34] The site has been designed by a world-renowned architect with a

[14:37] thoughtful and intentional design approach focused on craftsmanship,

[14:42] natural materials, and placemaking. The application utilizes only 10% of the

[14:48] permitted density for the site. It respects the height, servicing, and

[14:52] architectural principles established by the steering committee

[14:56] while revitalizing an historic property that has contributed to the character of

[15:01] Muskoka for decades. The alternative to this proposal is

[15:05] uncertainty. We have an opportunity to secure the

[15:09] long-term success of Cleves as a world-class resort while enhancing its

[15:15] environmental condition. Currently, a generation of young people

[15:20] has missed the opportunity to work at Cleves and its restaurants, shops, and

[15:25] athletic facilities. The success of the Rock Golf Course,

[15:29] Abby's Bake House, the Marina shops, and the new addition of Pie

[15:34] give us a glimpse of the vibrancy that awaits us in Minett.

[15:38] It is time to embrace a vision that honors our history while investing in

[15:43] our future. I urge the committee to say yes today

[15:47] and allow this project to move forward. We've already lost yet another year.

[15:53] Thank you. >> Thank you very much, Ms. Grogan Green.

[15:57] Committee, do we have any questions for Ms. Grogan Green?

[16:02] All right. Thank you very much. >> Thank you.

[16:05] » And you were right on at 5 minutes.

[16:09] All right. Our next uh delegate is Mr. Jensen.

[16:17] » Uh Nick Jensen, uh 1003 Maple Avenue in Bala, Ontario.

[16:23] Uh P0C 1A0.

[16:27] » Thank you very much. And and uh you have 5 minutes.

[16:29] » Cool. Uh and uh this comes to like exactly 5 minutes, so sorry about that.

[16:34] Okay. Uh my wife and I own Birch Park, a gift

[16:38] shop on the corner of Maple Avenue and Highway 169 in Bala. Some might say I'm

[16:43] foolish to question 106 units of potential customers just steps away.

[16:48] However, I would like to voice my thoughts on the Legacy Manor in the most

[16:51] recent forms I've seen. I've lived [snorts] in various downtown

[16:54] Toronto locations for 17 years, and I'm no stranger to development. Frankly, I

[16:59] don't care what the building looks like, how tall it is, or where the trees are

[17:02] planted. I only care if it functionally makes sense in its location. What are

[17:06] the effects beyond its property lines? A few numbers to consider. There are

[17:10] approximately 1,400 combined full-time residents in Bala, Acton Island, most of

[17:15] Torrance, and surrounding as of 2021 according to Stats Canada. Bala proper

[17:20] certainly has less than under 1,000 full-time residents. Legion Manor will

[17:24] have 215 occupants, a number calculated based on the proponents values of 1.8

[17:29] persons in a one-bedroom and three persons in a two-bedroom. However, 81 of

[17:34] the 106 units have an office of 6 by 9 minimum size, which will realistically

[17:39] be used by some residents as a second or third bedroom. The number of occupants

[17:43] will likely be significantly higher than 215 in addition to visitors coming and

[17:48] going. There are 121 dedicated on-site parking

[17:51] spots. How are 121 parking spots sufficient for a bare minimum of 215

[17:57] people in a town with no public transit system? Bala is 20 minutes from

[18:01] Gravenhurst and 35 minutes from Bracebridge, where the submission where

[18:04] the greatest concentrations of employers and services in South Muskoka are

[18:07] located. Previous submissions assumed parking for

[18:11] only 56 vehicles. Given this figure has more than doubled, can we expect revised

[18:15] parking and transportation briefs? Public parking will be an issue,

[18:19] especially during the events at the arena community center and new Legion.

[18:22] Already during tournaments or special events, every public and private lot

[18:26] will often fill for most of the day. Vehicles routinely line the street top

[18:30] to bottom and along River Street and Victoria Street. And whether

[18:32] acknowledged or not, Legion Manor would require some amount of public parking.

[18:37] Please note the traffic at Maple Avenue and Highway 169 was measured in April

[18:41] during off-season. In the absence of further data, estimates were made using

[18:46] Grey Street summer volumes. However, Maple and Grey are not comparable. The

[18:50] high traffic destinations are on Maple Avenue. I also suggest there is no

[18:53] normal traffic volume on Maple Avenue as events do not happen on a regular

[18:58] schedule.

[19:01] Possible left turn lanes onto River Street and Maple Avenue from Highway 169

[19:04] were considered, and it was found that traffic 5 years beyond build-out does

[19:08] not warrant a left turn lane at either intersection. However, the predicted

[19:12] weekday PM values for both intersections come very close. So, what are the values

[19:17] 10 years beyond build out? What are the values given the parking has doubled

[19:20] since the April report? I am also concerned about jamming up the

[19:24] intersection on Maple Avenue blocking off vehicle access to our business. The

[19:28] proponents counts indicate this is not an issue. However, this is already

[19:32] sometimes a problem during the summer months. Even three or four cars waiting

[19:35] at the intersection blocks the parking in front of our shop and dissuades

[19:38] customers. Small changes in traffic have huge impacts for businesses.

[19:42] Those concerns aside, we should consider Bala as a whole. Placing minimum 215

[19:47] people plus visitors into a town of less than a thousand residents, a generous

[19:51] estimate, within a few short years will have consequences. The township's

[19:55] population grew by 1.3% per year between 2011 and 2021. Even using my numbers,

[20:02] Legion Manor would increase Bala's population by 21% in a few short years,

[20:06] realistically higher. That's nowhere near reasonable organic growth in a

[20:10] semi-rural town with no public transit and limited employment opportunities.

[20:15] One important point, if the plan is still to prioritize seniors in the units

[20:18] that are not affordable housing, research from the Canadian Journal of

[20:21] Emergency Medicine states that people 65+ need the greatest share of paramedic

[20:26] transports at 44%. With our strained emergency services and distance from

[20:31] hospitals, that may put these seniors at risk.

[20:33] In the parking study, the proponents used proxy sites from Lindsay, Orillia,

[20:37] and Barrie for comparison. In Lindsay, population 22,000, and Orillia,

[20:42] population 33,000, it's interesting that seven of the nine proxy sites selected

[20:47] contained fewer units than Legion Manor, despite those towns having 20 to 30

[20:52] times the population and their own municipal transit systems. It seems like

[20:56] Legion Manor is too large for the tiny town of Bala. Crushing its size bit by

[21:01] bit is an indication that it just doesn't belong here at this scale. Other

[21:05] Legion housing projects in Sault Ste. Marie and Coburg are not comparable for

[21:08] reasons similar to Lindsay, Orillia, and Barrie. I say respectfully to those who

[21:13] support this project in its current form. This is an experiment that has the

[21:18] potential to permanently change the character of the town. For better or

[21:21] worse, once it's done, it's done. Thank you.

[21:26] » Thank you very much, Mr. Jensen, and you are right. Um committee, do we have any

[21:31] questions for Mr. Jensen? Mr. Jensen, we will take your comments

[21:37] to heart when we get to the application, which may not be until sometime this

[21:42] afternoon, but thank you very much.

[21:46] You can you exactly probably if you've got things to do

[21:50] watch on YouTube. >> All right.

[21:56] » All right, committee, we are moving on to

[21:59] uh the next item of business, which is

[22:03] OPA 62 uh

[22:07] and uh or the adjustment of OPA 62 with the OP 64 and zoning bylaw amendment

[22:12] 22/23. And I will ask Ms. Crowder to come up

[22:17] and give us her report.

[22:29] » All right. Uh good morning, uh Chair Bosma and members of committee.

[22:34] The applications before you today are for consideration of amendment 64 to the

[22:39] Township of Muskoka Lakes official plan, as well as zoning bylaw amendment

[22:42] application ZBA 22/23, respecting updates to the resort village

[22:48] of Minett. The subject lands are known municipally

[22:51] as 1048 and 1112 Juddhaven Road, and a portion of the lands do not have a

[22:56] municipally assigned address. The lands are most commonly referred to

[23:01] as the lands associated with the Cleveland's House Resort within the

[23:04] resort village of Minett. As committee may recall, reports on

[23:08] these applications were previously brought forward to committee on November

[23:11] 25th, 2025 and March 12th, 2026, which was a joint public meeting held with the

[23:17] District of Muskoka. Further, as the members of committee and

[23:21] the public may know, Minett has an extensive planning history that is

[23:24] detailed in the previous staff reports that are linked in the report before you

[23:28] today. Next slide, please.

[23:32] The subject lands are currently developed with cabins associated with

[23:36] Cleveland's House Resort, a marina, commercial areas including a yoga

[23:40] studio, and have frontage on Lake Rosseau.

[23:43] The site has an undulating topography, beach areas, and is vegetated with

[23:47] mature trees amongst the developed areas.

[23:50] The subject lands contain a wetland, which is situated at the northern reach

[23:54] of Wallace Bay. Muskoka Road 28, known as Juddhaven

[23:57] Road, is a Class B District Road and is located to the west of the site, and a

[24:02] privately owned section of Juddhaven Road bisects the lot east to west.

[24:07] This area The area around the site contains tourism, residential,

[24:11] commercial, and recreational uses. More specifically, fire station five, a

[24:16] golf course, and residential uses are located to the north of the subject

[24:19] lands. The JW Marriott and residential uses are located to the east of the

[24:24] subject lands. Other ands Other lands owned by the

[24:27] applicant, residential uses as well as an unrelated draft approved phased

[24:32] standard condominium containing 43 resort commercial accommodation units,

[24:37] are located to the south of the subject lands.

[24:39] Next slide, please. The applicant is proposing a resort

[24:43] development consisting of a wellness center including three in indoor sport

[24:47] courts, a gym, a spa, a yoga studio, exhibition rooms, eight retail spaces,

[24:54] restaurant food and beverage facilities, and five office spaces, a marina, 17

[25:00] outdoor sport courts, a tennis pavilion, a viewing tower, 48 rental cabins,

[25:06] private beaches, stormwater facilities, and a water and wastewater treatment

[25:10] plant. Though staff would note that the lands where the treatment plant is

[25:14] proposed is not currently included in this phase of the development.

[25:18] Next slide, please. The requests to amend OPA 56 are

[25:22] detailed in the staff report for today's meeting, the previous staff reports, and

[25:27] are summarized as shown on the screen. This is a substantial application for

[25:31] the township, and for the sake of time, I'm going to focus my presentation on

[25:35] the key components that require careful consideration by committee today.

[25:39] These items include, next slide, please. Development within the flood plain,

[25:44] development within and adjacent to the wetland, front yard setbacks and

[25:48] vegetative buffers, development concurrent with the water and wastewater

[25:52] treatment plant, and the master development agreement.

[25:56] Next slide, please. As part of the proposal, accommodation

[26:00] units with accessory structures, a spa, sport courts, an amphitheater, and

[26:06] buildings associated with the wellness center are located in part or in whole

[26:10] within the flood plain of Lake Rosso. Further, the proposal also seeks to

[26:14] introduce approximately 10,000 cubic meters of fill into the identified flood

[26:19] plain. The applicant has applied to amend the

[26:22] section of OPA 56, which states that new habitable buildings are not permitted

[26:27] within the flood plain. The provincial planning statement

[26:30] includes policy, which states that development shall be directed away from

[26:34] areas of natural or human-made hazards where there is an unacceptable risk to

[26:38] public health and safety, or of property damage, and not creating new or

[26:43] aggravating existing hazards. Staff have carefully considered section

[26:47] 5 of the PPS in its entirety. Ultimately, the PPS states that

[26:51] development and site alteration shall not be permitted within a floodway

[26:55] regardless of whether the area of inundation contains high points of land

[26:59] not subject to flooding. Where a one-zone concept applies, such

[27:03] as Lake Rosso, the floodway is the entire contiguous floodplain.

[27:08] The exception criteria included within the PPS do not apply at to the situation

[27:13] at hand. Staff have consulted our legal

[27:15] solicitor, other professional planners in the area, and the District of

[27:19] Muskoka, all of whom share staff's conclusion on this matter.

[27:23] Next slide, please.

[27:26] The provincial policy direction has been carried forward into the Muskoka

[27:30] official plan and the Township's official plan. Given this very clear

[27:34] policy direction, staff are unable to support approval of development and site

[27:38] alteration within the floodplain. Staff are concerned that approval of

[27:42] development within the floodplain would exacerbate the increasing concerns

[27:45] associated with flooding in the Township, and would set a precedent for

[27:49] applications to develop within the floodplain moving forward.

[27:53] Site-specific approvals can cumulatively have a significant impact, and as stated

[27:57] in the Township's official plan, the cumulative impact of amendments on this

[28:01] and other lands will be considered to have greater weight than a site-specific

[28:05] considerations. For these reasons, it is staff's opinion

[28:09] that approving the amendment to permit development within the floodplain does

[28:12] not represent good planning. Committee's decision to either approve

[28:17] or prohibit development within the floodplain will have significant impacts

[28:21] on the remainder of the proposal, such as the requested development within

[28:25] and adjacent to the wetland, and the requested reduced front yard setbacks

[28:29] and vegetative buffers, as all of these requests would place development and

[28:33] site alteration within the floodplain. Accordingly, it makes sense to deal with

[28:37] the matter of flooding first. Next slide, please.

[28:41] The application also seeks to permit development and site alteration within

[28:45] and adjacent to an identified wetland. The proposal seeks to permit the

[28:49] development of resort commercial accommodation uses, recreation uses,

[28:53] resort commercial uses, including sport courts, and trails and boardwalks within

[28:58] the identified wetland feature. As previously indicated, staff are

[29:02] unable to support development within the flood plain, which encompasses the

[29:06] entirety of the wetland feature. With that in mind, staff have carefully

[29:10] considered the request to develop within and adjacent to the wetland based on the

[29:14] remaining applicable policies, acknowledging that committee may

[29:17] recommend approval of development within the flood plain.

[29:20] Section 4.1 of the provincial planning statement speaks to natural heritage,

[29:25] stating that natural features and areas shall be protected for the long term.

[29:29] Further, the PPS states that development and site alteration shall not be

[29:33] permitted within significant wildlife habitat, which has been identified

[29:36] within this wetland, unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no

[29:40] negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions.

[29:44] This policy is carried forward through the Muskoka official plan and the

[29:47] Township's official plan. As committee is aware, a peer review

[29:51] process has been ongoing involving an environmental impact study and more

[29:55] recently a wetland compensation and net environmental benefit and enhancement

[29:59] report. It was the request of the agent applicant that the peer review process

[30:03] be brought to a close. Accordingly, SLR, the consultant who

[30:07] conducted the peer review, provided a final review of these documents. SLR

[30:12] concluded that they continue to raise concerns with the extent of the proposed

[30:15] alteration of the existing natural swamp communities.

[30:19] SLR recommends that a number of measures be taken to ensure that the proposal

[30:23] results in a net enhancement. If these recommendations are

[30:26] implemented, SLR states that the proposal may be environmentally

[30:30] feasible, subject to consultation and approval with federal and provincial

[30:34] agencies. Accordingly, staff's recommendation that

[30:38] the proposal may be consistent with the PPS, the MOP, and the TMLOP is

[30:43] contingent upon the implementation of the recommendations put forward by SLR.

[30:48] Further, the compensation plan includes utilization of ponds five, six, and

[30:52] seven for compensation purposes. However, the submitted engineering

[30:56] documents speak to these ponds being utilized for stormwater purposes.

[31:00] Clarification on which is correct is required, and if used for stormwater,

[31:04] additional compensation will be needed will need to be explored as stated by

[31:09] SLR. The recommendations put forward by SLR

[31:12] include first, maximize coverage of the western

[31:16] shallow inlet by shallow wetland communities, meaning less than 2 m in

[31:20] depth, rather than open water. This will support the aquatic plant establishment

[31:25] and enhance ecological function. To demonstrate a net benefit,

[31:29] compensatory wetland creation should exceed the 86,800,

[31:35] sorry, 618 square feet that is proposed to be dredged.

[31:39] Second, a riparian restoration plan should be implemented to ensure a strong

[31:43] riparian area is established. Third, for compensatory critical fish

[31:48] habitat, meaning habitat that provides spawning, rearing, and nursing

[31:52] functions, new critical fish habitat should exceed the identified 88,264

[31:59] square feet currently providing spawning function as identified by Azimuth.

[32:05] And fourth, restrict guest access to the new wetland area to ensure disturbance

[32:09] to this area is minimized. To this end, no motorized access should be allowed,

[32:14] and fishing activity in the new wetland area needs to be strictly controlled

[32:18] during all times of the year. Staff are aware that a request was sent

[32:22] to the members of committee from the agent requesting that the resolution be

[32:26] amended to reflect the permission of an open water marsh and dredging up to 3 m

[32:31] in depth. Staff do not support this request based

[32:34] on SLR's peer review, which stresses the importance of a shallow marsh approach

[32:39] rather than an open water approach, and a maximum dredging depth of 2 m to

[32:43] support aquatic plant establishment. Staff would also caution that approval

[32:47] of development within a wetland, particularly if it does not result in a

[32:51] net improvement, would set a precedent for development moving forward.

[32:56] Next slide, please. As stated previously, staff are unable

[33:00] to support development and site alteration within the floodplain.

[33:03] The request to permit a reduced front yard setback would place buildings and

[33:06] structures within the floodplain. Accordingly, if committee is not

[33:09] supportive of development within the floodplain, these requests become moot.

[33:13] However, if committee is considering approval of development and site

[33:16] alteration within the floodplain, staff have conducted an an analysis on the

[33:20] basis of the remaining applicable policies.

[33:23] In the photo shown on the screen, the required 66-ft setback is shown hatched

[33:28] in pink, and the required at 50-ft vegetative buffer is shown hatched in

[33:32] green. The submitted environmental reports have

[33:36] considered the proposed setbacks of development and include recommendations

[33:40] to attempt to mitigate impacts of deficient setbacks and buffers, namely

[33:44] that a robust robust revegetation plan be implemented.

[33:49] Further, the District of Muskoka official plan requires that vegetative

[33:52] buffers be present 50 ft in depth for 75% of the subject land's shoreline,

[33:57] which differs from the township's official plan.

[34:00] It is important to note that the township's policy, which dictates the

[34:03] extent of vegetative buffers being 50 ft in depth and 100% of the shoreline, is

[34:08] absent from OPA 56. Accordingly, staff rely on the district

[34:12] policy, which specifies 75%. Staff have further considered existing

[34:16] development within the required setbacks and buffers, and legal non-complying

[34:21] rights. Staff would note that the proposed

[34:23] amphitheater was not included in the applicant's request for relief. However,

[34:27] it would require such. Next slide, please.

[34:32] Next is development concurrent with treatment plant construction, and the

[34:36] applicant agent has requested that the construction of the water and sewer

[34:39] treatment plant be permitted to occur concurrently with the overall site. The

[34:44] District of Muskoka has recommended a holding provision be included in the

[34:47] zoning bylaw where provincial environmental compliance approvals for

[34:51] all water treatment, water distribution, wastewater treatment, and wastewater

[34:56] collection infrastructure be obtained and agreements with the district be

[34:59] entered into amongst other conditions prior to its lifting.

[35:04] While this would allow construction of servicing infrastructure concurrently

[35:07] with development with multiple safeguards in place

[35:10] committee should be aware of the potential human health and environmental

[35:14] risks in the case develop development is finalized and services are not completed

[35:19] or operational. Although occupancy of units would be

[35:23] prohibited, enforcement thereof can pose challenges.

[35:26] Township staff defer to the district for consideration of water and sewer

[35:30] services and their appropriate build-out.

[35:33] Next slide, please. Per section C172 through to C177 of OPA

[35:39] 56 it is intended that development shall

[35:42] occur in accordance with the provisions of a master development agreement that

[35:46] shall be supported to the satisfaction of the Township and district.

[35:51] Section C172 of OPA 56 states in part that approval of a master development

[35:56] agreement by council shall only be Sorry, shall only occur after all of the

[36:02] requirements of section C17 have been met and shall occur before any lands in

[36:06] the Minett Resort Village are zoned to implement this plan.

[36:10] The master development agreement is intended to include a development

[36:13] phasing plan, a master heights plan, a master servicing plan, a master parks

[36:18] plan, an integrated transportation plan, a traffic impact study, a financial

[36:23] impact assessment, urban design and architectural guidelines, a fire safety

[36:28] plan or life safety plan, and other matters as deemed appropriate

[36:31] by the Township and the district as it relates to the services it provides in

[36:35] order to ensure identification and integration of uses, facilities, and

[36:39] infrastructure. While an MDA

[36:43] master development agreement has been drafted and discussions with the

[36:46] applicant are ongoing, it has not yet been finalized. Therefore, staff

[36:50] recommend that the lands be subject to a hold until this item is completed to the

[36:54] satisfaction of the Township and the district.

[36:58] As noted in the staff report, several specific items should be addressed and

[37:01] included in the MDA such as emergency services comments,

[37:06] a provision to restrict activities within the wetland,

[37:10] a provision wherein the applicant agent commits to advancing plans for a

[37:14] permanent staff facility to be submitted for consideration at a further date, and

[37:19] a provision wherein the owner agrees to compensate in some capacity for the

[37:23] deficiency of parking by providing parking on their adjacent lands.

[37:28] Next slide, please.

[37:34] The staff have prepared a detailed report for committee's consideration

[37:37] today. Um staff have broken the recommendations down into the official

[37:42] plan amendment and the zoning bylaw amendment. Staff um

[37:46] well, Mr. Jaglowitz went through the recommendation earlier, but I'll just

[37:49] summarize briefly. Um that official plan amendment OPA 64 be revised to retain

[37:55] section C1537 which prohibits the development of new habitable buildings

[37:59] in the flood plain, and that any affected proposed amendments be retained

[38:03] or revised accordingly. And that the revised OPA be adopted by the Township

[38:07] and the record forwarded to the District of Muskoka for approval.

[38:11] And that should committee adopt proposed amendments to section C1537 permitting

[38:16] new development within the flood plain, that a schedule to sections C1543,

[38:21] 1544, and 1545 be added, which demonstrates this is

[38:26] specific location and extent where buildings and structures are permitted

[38:30] within the front yard setback, and where the required 15-m

[38:34] shoreline vegetation buffer be permitted to be reduced.

[38:40] Staff also recommend that the zoning bylaw amendment application be approved

[38:44] in part, subject to approval of the official plan amendment, approval of the

[38:48] submitted amendment to the District of Muskoka official plan, and subject to

[38:52] the following: that a draft zoning bylaw submitted by the applicant not be

[38:57] adopted, and instead be replaced with a bylaw drafted by staff,

[39:02] which would contain the recommendations contained within the staff report before

[39:06] you today. That a holding provision be placed on

[39:09] the subject lands for a developer's group agreement,

[39:12] a master development agreement, issuance of provincial environmental

[39:17] compliance approvals, an agreement with the District of

[39:20] Muskoka respecting the water and wastewater treatment plant,

[39:24] the submission of wetland compensation and net benefit and environment

[39:27] enhancement report response memo to address the comments of the peer review

[39:31] prepared by SLR to the satisfaction of the Township and

[39:35] the District. That the subject lands be required to

[39:38] obtain site plan approval, and that a satisfactory site plan agreement is

[39:42] entered to into and registered on title along with securities

[39:46] for matters limit not limited, but including um the EIS and peer review

[39:52] responses and recommendations contained therein.

[39:56] And the submission of an updated traffic impact brief or stamped letter from

[40:00] professional engineer, which confirms that the proposed 0-m setback from

[40:03] Juddhaven Road will not present any operational or functional concerns from

[40:07] a transportation perspective, and confirms that the existing right-of-way

[40:11] along Juddhaven Road is 26 m in width, consistent with the requirements of the

[40:15] District of Muskoka official plan. I've no further comments, but I'm happy to

[40:19] answer any questions from committee. Thank you.

[40:22] » Uh thank you very much, Ms. Crowder. Ms. Bustard.

[40:30] » The sign? Thank you very much.

[40:33] » Ms. Bustard, um there was no time limit on you today.

[40:37] » Well, I will still try to be brief, but I appreciate that.

[40:40] » No. >> Uh thank you very much, and thank you to

[40:42] Emily for that very thorough presentation.

[40:44] Um uh Paula Bustard with Cleveland House

[40:47] Resort, and I thank you for your indulgence in hearing from me again. Um

[40:50] and we're really excited to be here today, and uh hopefully uh bring the

[40:54] zoning in the OP portion uh to conclusion. Uh presentation, if you

[40:58] don't mind, just going to the next slide. I will try to keep my comments

[41:01] brief, but uh I am here obviously to answer any questions that you may have.

[41:04] I have with me two of my colleagues, including Andrew Seymour, who heads up

[41:07] our construction team, and who will be overseeing construction of this should

[41:11] it be approved. Uh we also have online Aaz Smith, uh from our environmental

[41:15] engineers are online and able to answer any questions.

[41:18] Um I will not repeat what I have presented

[41:21] to you on numerous occasions, other than to say that uh the vision that we

[41:25] brought before you is something that we are fully committed to, but it is

[41:28] contingent on the plan as proposed being approved. Uh some of the modifications

[41:33] that would be necessitated by Sazer uh recommendations just make this unviable,

[41:37] and uh something that we could not proceed with. Next slide, please.

[41:42] Uh phase one, as you know, encompasses what is predominantly the Cleveland

[41:47] House Resort as it stands today, uh including some of the cabins, the old

[41:50] tennis, and the old golf course. As you can see from this aerial, this land, as

[41:55] has uh been stated by previous deputants, is not pristine. It is land

[41:59] that has been modified and altered many, many times in many different ways over

[42:03] the last 100 years. Cleveland House has a long, rich history going back 150

[42:07] years. This site has been altered by man and modified many times. What we are

[42:12] proposing to do today is to clean it up, to modify it, to restore it, and bring

[42:17] it back to life in a way that we think is viable and something that will make

[42:21] all of us proud in Muskoka. Next slide.

[42:26] Uh just some more imaging of obviously the site which many of you are familiar

[42:30] with. Next slide, please.

[42:34] Uh this is the marina. Next slide. This is our overall master plan. Uh what

[42:40] is here before you today is phase one. Uh even with the totality of the plan

[42:45] that we have proposed, it is quite modest in comparison to the density that

[42:48] was approved um through the OPA that we settled with the town and the district

[42:52] and the steering committee. Uh but phase one is what we're here to discuss today,

[42:56] so I'd like to get in a little bit more detail. Next slide, please.

[43:00] Uh and that obviously is phase one. Uh the total square footage that we're

[43:04] proposing is just under 200,000 square feet, 199,000.

[43:08] There's 48 cabins, a wellness center, tennis facility, uh retail uses,

[43:13] amphitheater, uh and a marina. Next slide.

[43:22] Uh just looking at phase one in a little bit more detail and what I'd like to

[43:24] focus on now is the flood plain and the I guess more contentious uses that have

[43:29] been identified by staff. Next slide. Uh this is just an aerial view. Before I

[43:35] go to the next slide, I just want to explain uh one last time why it is so

[43:39] important to us that the wetlands be restored. As it is right now, it is a

[43:44] very very dense thicket swamp as has been obviously discussed numerous times

[43:48] before you. Our hope and desire here is to create a

[43:52] place that the traveling public and the community adore. That people want to be

[43:55] there, that there's great porosity, there's great pedestrian access, that it

[43:59] is somewhere that people can take their boat and go do shopping, have dinner, go

[44:04] for a walk on the trails, explore the site. Someone rents a cabin with their

[44:08] family, the kids are playing, they go to the tennis academy, they go and play the

[44:12] wellness center. We want there to be a lot of flow, we want there to be a lot

[44:15] of beauty. We also want access to nature, and part of that is providing

[44:19] access to these wetlands. I need to say it one more time, we are not trying to

[44:24] take away any wetlands. We want to modify the wetlands from a dense thicket

[44:27] swamp to an open water marsh. We want there to be life, and aquatic life, and

[44:32] habitat, and environment sustainability, but we want it to be done in such a way

[44:36] that it's accessible to people. I've said this before, but when you walk

[44:40] about 80% of that wetland right now, you can't actually get down to the waterline

[44:45] unless you are crawling through the dense thicket. Your legs would be cut

[44:48] up, the ground is unstable, there there is such thick muck in there that if

[44:53] anyone fell in, I really do genuinely believe it would be a dangerous

[44:56] condition. That is not conducive to renting out to families and to

[45:00] facilitating an environment that people want to be.

[45:03] Uh so what we are proposing is to enhance, not to destroy, and I think

[45:07] that's a very, very important distinction. Next slide, please.

[45:13] Uh what I just want to show you right now quickly, which I haven't shown you

[45:15] previously, is a slide that before you right now every that is the existing

[45:19] aerial. That is Cleveland's house that has existed for 100 years. And what you

[45:23] see there, everything in yellow, is in the flood plain.

[45:27] So, that is over 30,000 square feet of built form that

[45:31] exists today in the flood plain. Uh next slide, please.

[45:37] So, what is on the right now is our proposed phase one. Everything in orange

[45:42] is what we're proposing to replace it with. It's almost identical, but in

[45:45] actual fact, it's less square footage. The proposed GFA in the flood plain is

[45:50] around 18,000 square feet. We are building less than what exists today.

[45:55] Furthermore, we are proposing to build everything above the static flood

[45:58] elevation. One thing that was just said in staff's presentation is that when you

[46:02] look at the PPS, it the intent of it is to life safety and making sure that

[46:07] you're not creating dangerous situations. And one of the disagreements

[46:10] that we have and I I appreciate that there's professional disagreements on

[46:14] some interpretations of policies. I agree that there's some singular

[46:17] policies in the PPS when read in isolation, absolutely indicate that you

[46:22] can't do what we're proposing. But the intent of the PPS is to read in its

[46:25] entirety and look at the intent of the policies and look at the totality of the

[46:29] policies. We've provided legal opinions that when read in totality, that there

[46:33] absolutely is policy justification for this. Nonetheless, the decision is for

[46:37] council and council will have the ability to make that decision

[46:39] themselves. But we believe that the design is environmentally sound. We

[46:44] believe the design has obviously a lot of merits to it. And on top of that,

[46:48] there is absolutely no life or safety impact. Every single building will be

[46:53] above the static flood elevation, either through the grading of the site or

[46:56] through the cabins are stilted. The access and egress to all of these

[47:00] buildings are also outside of the static flood elevation. There is absolutely no

[47:04] life and safety issue here. Um

[47:08] so I just want us to look at this one more time in terms of what we are

[47:11] proposing versus what exists today. This is not a new condition. And I spoke at

[47:14] length about the wetland and why we want to clean it up and we want to remove

[47:18] obviously a lot of the thicket that is there now. Next slide.

[47:24] We've talked at length about the various studies that's been done. Asmith has

[47:27] been the consultant on this site for almost 20 years. We hired them

[47:32] and they have a long long history, but for us they started in 2018 and these

[47:36] are all the different studies they've done. Uh in my letter to you, although I

[47:40] highly respect the the peer review that was done by SLR, we do disagree with

[47:45] some of their analysis and some of their findings. I detailed it in my letter.

[47:48] I'm happy to go through it. We believe the largest one is the fish habitat

[47:52] 8,000 cubic meters has been overstated. That was uh the entire area of the

[47:57] thicket, but as as per MNR, only 1,500 has been identified as a fish habitat,

[48:03] although there is potential for more. So, the 8,000 per replacement we think

[48:07] is overstated. That being said, this process is not over, and as as uh staff

[48:11] have presented to you, if this is approved, we're going to be going

[48:14] through detailed design, and there'll be a litany of agreements facilitating the

[48:18] redevelopment of these lands, and the consultants continue to work through

[48:21] those design matters. There's a few other items that I stipulated in there

[48:25] that we think were um our consultant's report was not properly interpreted by

[48:29] the peer reviewer, but nonetheless, I'm not here to debate that other than to

[48:32] say that when we get into detailed design, they will be in the room, and

[48:35] we'll work through all those matters collaboratively.

[48:38] Next slide. Again, just showing you what the

[48:42] existing condition is and what we are trying to obviously uh

[48:45] improve upon. Uh I just want to touch very briefly on the depth, cuz I know

[48:49] that is a big issue. For the most part, we believe through

[48:54] our design we will be adhering roughly to the 2 m, but our consultants have

[48:58] consistently said, and we did respond to the SLR peer review that came out, uh

[49:03] which has not been identified in the staff report, but we did respond uh in

[49:06] June to that. There are a couple areas where it will

[49:10] be necessary to go up to 3 m. For us to achieve what we're trying to do here and

[49:14] to make sure that the overall vision is achieved, there's a couple areas that

[49:17] need to be a little bit deeper up to 3 m. Me asking for uh your endorsement to

[49:22] go up to 3 m is not us saying that the entirety of the thing is going to be

[49:26] dredged to 3 m, but if it's a hard fast 2 m, we are concerned that we're not

[49:30] going to be able to achieve this uh vision. The restoration of these

[49:34] wetlands alone are going to be in the range of $3 million. That's a huge

[49:37] investment uh in terms of dollars and and activities. We don't want to do it

[49:42] if we're it's not going to obviously uh do it properly. If it's not going to

[49:46] achieve the vision that we have, and that's why I ask for your consideration

[49:49] to stipulate that there will be portions open water up to 3 m. Again, that's not

[49:54] a blank check that we're just going to do everything to 3 m. We do believe the

[49:57] general range will be two, but it's important that we have the ability

[50:00] between two and three. Next slide, please.

[50:05] Uh next slide. And then just showing the vision of what we're trying to achieve

[50:08] in terms of the open water marsh with the cabins on stilts. Uh this is from

[50:12] the pedestrian bridge as you enter the village. Next slide.

[50:16] And this would be the view from the village looking across the wetland to

[50:19] the cabins. Next slide.

[50:24] Uh this is our restoration plan. So, the last thing I'll say about the wetlands

[50:28] uh is that there is obviously a lot of compensatory measures that we have put

[50:31] forward. Restoration, rehabilitation of habitat, replacement, enhancements, all

[50:37] of those are stipulated in our net benefit report, and we are uh fully

[50:40] committed to that. I know staff indicated that the ponds that are

[50:44] currently attached to the lagoons should not be considered. Ultimately, it's a

[50:48] multi-stage development for the wastewater facility, so those will be

[50:51] decommissioned at some point. Uh and we do believe it's still appropriate to

[50:54] consider them for compensation, but that is a matter that can be detailed through

[50:58] our agreements with staff, and there can be further discussion of whether that is

[51:01] appropriate. I don't think it has to be settled

[51:03] today. Next slide.

[51:07] Uh and these are obviously the further uh wetland restoration matters, not just

[51:11] among the pond. There's naturalization of the channel. Uh there's

[51:14] naturalization of other components and replantings on the other side of Jed

[51:18] Haven that will be occurring. I just want to very uh briefly touch upon the

[51:22] commentary too about the timing of development. The reason that we have

[51:25] asked staff both at the town and the district to allow development to happen

[51:28] to concurrently is just the the construction of the wastewater facility

[51:33] and the servicing associated with it will be significant. Uh if that was to

[51:37] happen and all of the commissioning had to happen before any building permits

[51:40] could be pulled, it would be the most inefficient construction on Earth. Uh

[51:45] Uh, we want to build simultaneously, obviously having full legal obligations

[51:49] and the the agreement with the district will hold our feet to the fire to make

[51:52] sure that we can't operate or do anything until such time that that plan

[51:55] is operating, but it would be completely inefficient both financially and just

[52:00] logically to build the entire facility and have the entire site sitting

[52:05] stagnant, nothing happening while that's happening. So, that is the reason for

[52:08] it, but we are not opposed to, you know, obviously the agreement and the legal

[52:13] maneuvers that would obviously make sure that that has to be completed before the

[52:16] site could be used in any way, shape or form.

[52:18] Uh, next slide, please.

[52:21] And lastly, you can just go through these next uh, six slides uh, just one

[52:25] at a time if you don't mind. Just the pretty pictures. I just want to remind

[52:28] everyone obviously what we're trying to achieve here, the craftsmanship, the

[52:32] respect for privacy, separation, tree preservation is a big thing of what

[52:36] we're proposing. We've meticulously mapped out all the trees through phase

[52:39] one uh, to ensure that we've actually moved cabins to to preserve as many

[52:43] trees as possible. The village we really see as being the heart and soul for the

[52:47] community both the traveling public and for the community at large. Uh, the

[52:51] bottom right picture or actually if you don't mind staying here, too. The tower

[52:54] feature was one thing that was identified as a potential concern from

[52:56] staff. It is 5 m by 5 m. It is very modest in size. So, although it does go

[53:02] up to uh, a higher elevation, uh, the OPA that was stipula- that was approved

[53:07] has the provisions to have moments that exceed heights for architectural

[53:10] moments. Uh, we do think that that tower feature is important. Obviously the

[53:15] lighting will be dealt with different uh, appropriately. And in my response

[53:19] letter, we also asked that uh, the measurement of that gets from

[53:22] established grade. It's the typical way of measuring height. The definition

[53:26] that's being proposed would be a bit more uh, difficult to kind of interpret

[53:31] and to implement because there's such grade changes on the site. So, uh,

[53:34] measuring height from established grade is is standard in the industry.

[53:39] Uh, next slide, please.

[53:44] Next slide. I'll do That's just a height map just

[53:47] showing you again uh the tower feature. Uh that one is the chimney and then the

[53:51] next slide if you go to you'll see the tower feature.

[53:54] Uh and so those are the three points that exceed the heights but again it is

[53:57] permitted as per the OPA if it meets kind of architectural standards.

[54:05] I think I think I've covered all my talking points. I apologize but uh if

[54:10] there's any questions you have I'm happy to answer it. I would just like to

[54:13] specify the three modest modifications we are recommending to the

[54:17] recommendations and to the conditions. Staff did uh show us the conditions

[54:20] beforehand and we are generally supportive of all the holding

[54:23] provisions. We believe that they are fair and equitable and give obviously um

[54:27] comfort to both the city staff and to the district that these things will be

[54:30] done before the lit the H is lifted. However, there's three clarifications

[54:35] that I would ask. One, uh the timing for bringing the bylaw forward was very

[54:39] ambiguous. It said at some future council date. Obviously, this process is

[54:43] over 3 years at this point so we'd like some assurances that the bylaw is going

[54:47] to be brought forward um immediately upon uh the ability of staff to do so at

[54:52] the next council meeting. I know there's a district component to it but we are

[54:56] asking for a commitment that the bylaw be brought forward immediately. Um I

[54:59] know staff also spoke about modifying the zoning bylaw. We're absolutely fine

[55:03] with that. I think that's more of an administrative um the draft of the bylaw

[55:07] that we did was not using the zones that staff prefer which is absolutely fine.

[55:11] We've already seen a new version of it and we are working with staff on that so

[55:14] I have no issue with that but I don't like the ambiguity that it's just some

[55:17] future council date. I would hate to have endorsement today but the bylaw not

[55:22] be enacted for another 6 months. The more contentious one but I think

[55:26] it's important is we are asking in the condition pertaining to a planning site

[55:29] plan approval that a clarification that uh for the wetlands uh it's in state to

[55:35] stipulate that in order to create an open water wetland adapt of up to 3 m be

[55:40] permitted. That is an important um uh distinction for us and we're asking

[55:44] you to consider that. And lastly, this is not contentious at all. Uh

[55:48] uh Judd Haven, the condition that speaks to Judd Haven says uh confirming that

[55:52] it's at a width of 26 m. It's currently only at 20 m, so we just want to change

[55:56] the language to say confirming that it will uh be protected up to 26 m. It's

[56:01] only built to 20, so we'll protect for the 26, but we can't confirm something

[56:05] that doesn't exist right now. So with that, I thank you for your indulgence in

[56:09] listening to me, and me and my team are here to answer any questions you have.

[56:12] And thank you very much to staff. This has been a very, very long process, very

[56:16] technical process, and I commend them for all the work that they have done.

[56:19] Thank you.

[56:24] » Thank you very much, Ms. Bustard. Committee, we now begin the heavy work.

[56:30] We have questions for uh

[56:33] Ms. Bustard or Ms. Crowder.

[56:37] » I just have a quick question for Ms. Bus- Ms. Bustard if she could come back.

[56:42] Uh I just need a little help on one thing that you just mentioned and have

[56:46] mentioned earlier. The 3 m versus 2 m, uh you

[56:51] kind of vaguely call out that you're only going to need it in certain

[56:55] locations or certain circumstances. Can you identify those or approximately

[56:59] identify those so that we know that they're where they are and perhaps why

[57:03] they are necessary? >> There's obviously various depths through

[57:08] the the the restoration that's going to occur. We We haven't got into detail

[57:11] design, so we have rough estimations. There's extensive plantings. We've done

[57:15] the island. It really will be through the center of the channel, just making

[57:19] sure flow and water is happening. We don't want this to be stagnant. We don't

[57:22] want this to quickly grow back into the thicket that it was.

[57:25] Um I can't say with absolute certainty right now exactly where it'd be three,

[57:29] where it'd be two, but we just don't want to be in a situation where the

[57:32] approval caps it hard fast at two and that there's no there's no flexibility

[57:38] on that matter. That being said, everything that we are going to be doing

[57:42] with Azimuth and with our team is to the absolute highest standard. We are

[57:47] motivated more than anyone to make sure that this is beautiful and the habitat

[57:51] is thriving and it's an environment that people want to be.

[57:54] So you can be sure that we are absolutely aligned on that. So I can't

[57:57] tell you definitively where it would be, but we just need the ability in some

[58:00] locations for it to come up to three or to go down to three meters.

[58:03] » Thank you. >> You're welcome.

[58:05] » Mitty, just before we go to the next question, I just I'd like to outline how

[58:09] we will go through this. It's really not much different than we normally do. Uh

[58:13] so we will have questions so that we fully understand in our minds what what

[58:18] we're facing. Then I will read the resolution and then then we are going to

[58:23] go through the various items that there are differences and we will start with

[58:28] the flood plain. And if we require, we will have an

[58:31] amendment and adjust it as we have as we normally do. Then we will do uh

[58:37] development with the adjacent wetlands. Uh

[58:40] after that we can deal with front yard setbacks and vegetative buffer and we

[58:44] can go on through those things. So those are the items that are generally where

[58:47] there are differences in opinion and we need to make that decision. So that will

[58:51] be the process, but right now let's make sure we understand and have all of our

[58:54] questions answered. Councilor Nishikawa.

[58:59] » Thank you. Through you to um Mr. Pink.

[59:04] I am It's just sort of a general question

[59:08] about I think that the community would appreciate

[59:12] when um the Marriott was being built. Um

[59:18] we from my recollection

[59:22] a bylaw officer was designated that that was

[59:26] you know, they that was their only focus. They didn't have other projects.

[59:30] That was their only focus. From one of some of these conversations

[59:35] about the wetlands and things about how deep and how, you know, how much

[59:38] destruction or what all that.

[59:43] Who who checks? Like who, you know, how how how how are we knowing

[59:49] um you know,

[59:51] what happens on a job site for for instance within the wetlands?

[59:55] » CEO Pick, thank you uh through you the chair and

[59:58] good morning committee. Uh my recollection of the JW Marriott, I think

[1:00:02] you may have misspoke. I believe uh a dedicated building inspector, yes,

[1:00:07] uh was actually housed on site I think on a trailer and was dedicated

[1:00:10] exclusively to reviewing uh construction and various inspections under the

[1:00:15] building code for that entire development. At the time I believe uh we

[1:00:19] would have likely had one part-time bylaw officer. So, I think to answer

[1:00:23] your question uh council's put a lot of additional resources to bylaw

[1:00:27] enforcement. Uh we now have uh more of a robust bylaw enforcement team.

[1:00:31] Um I'm not I wouldn't commit uh right now to saying we're going to dedicate

[1:00:36] one of those bylaw officers exclusively to this development, but I think we

[1:00:39] certainly have the uh the resources and the capacity to

[1:00:43] address any issues uh should it arise through this

[1:00:45] construction similar to any other development in the

[1:00:49] municipality.

[1:00:52] » Thank you.

[1:00:56] » Committee, no further questions. Councillor Mason.

[1:00:59] » Uh thank you and through you. I think this was just one fact I was trying to

[1:01:02] capture because there's a lot of information.

[1:01:05] » Mhm. >> Uh so, I suspect it's probably in

[1:01:07] somebody's report somewhere. Uh the square footage that currently

[1:01:12] exists, I think Ms. Bustard put up a slide of what's currently in the flood

[1:01:18] plain versus what is being recommended. I think I said it I captured it right.

[1:01:22] but is it 30,000? Maybe you could just answer that question and then I

[1:01:25] » Miss Buskirk. >> Uh thank you. It's roughly 30,000. We

[1:01:29] don't have kind of detailed surveys of those buildings due to the age. So we've

[1:01:32] we've taken the area off. Our internal architect has kind of taken off the

[1:01:36] satellite images. So it's roughly 30,000 square feet and what we're proposing to

[1:01:39] replace it with is roughly 18,000 square feet.

[1:01:44] Okay, thank you.

[1:01:49] » Councillor Edwards. >> Yes, thank you. This would be to

[1:01:55] Miss Miss Buskirk.

[1:01:57] Uh Is there a bridge across there?

[1:02:04] » Uh yes, there's currently a pedestrian bridge that runs from the cabins, like

[1:02:08] the baby suites, across the wetlands to where the yoga studio is and that exists

[1:02:12] today. >> And it will be the same. So like

[1:02:15] » Yeah, we're proposing to obviously improve upon it, but yes, we are

[1:02:18] proposing that same kind of pedestrian linkage there.

[1:02:21] » I guess what my my question is so large boats couldn't go in there. I thought

[1:02:25] you had said before it was just for canoe, paddle boards and

[1:02:29] » Yes, absolutely. We are in other than the depth matter, which I know is a

[1:02:33] disagreement, we are we are in full agreement with the other recommendations

[1:02:37] of SLR, including no motorized vehicles in there whatsoever. Absolutely. And

[1:02:41] restricting access. Yeah.

[1:02:44] » I've seen and I think it was just an artist

[1:02:47] rendition of the uh cabins on stilts where they had stairs

[1:02:51] going down to the ground in the flood plane. I thought you had to

[1:02:55] have it so that you could get >> No, they actually the access and egress

[1:02:59] stays above it. So they're actually raised and you don't drop down until

[1:03:03] you're outside of the the elevation limit. Yeah, that's

[1:03:06] correct.

[1:03:09] » Councillor Zaps. >> Um thank you and through you to Paul if

[1:03:13] you would. So the word contentious, I mean I I find

[1:03:18] that disturbing after all these years, uh but thank you for that use. Uh I

[1:03:22] guess I would ask you the question, um

[1:03:26] if I could, uh other than that, other than the water depth issue, which is

[1:03:31] whether it's 2 m or 3 m, is there anything else, could you phrase to us

[1:03:36] any any other concerns you have that uh are to that level of uh contentious as a

[1:03:43] contentious issue, or is that is that the main niggling point now? Is that

[1:03:47] where we are with everything else, all the conditions and the H's and

[1:03:50] everything else, is that where where you are, where we are with that

[1:03:54] right now? >> I I think it's Cherry.

[1:03:56] I don't even like using the word contentious. I shouldn't have used that.

[1:03:58] I apologize. I I think there's been a really, really great collaborative

[1:04:01] approach. I think we just on the floodplain issue are agreeing to

[1:04:04] disagree. There's different ways of interpreting policy. We also are looking

[1:04:08] at kind of the the holistic and the broader view. And uh obviously, as the

[1:04:14] people who are going to own and operate these these lands, we feel really

[1:04:18] passionately that this is such a critical issue to the enjoyment of the

[1:04:22] site for for the public uh and for the community. Um so, it's that's why it's

[1:04:27] so absolutely essential to us and that we just don't feel that there's a path

[1:04:30] forward without it. Um but for the most part, the application, I think we are

[1:04:34] all fully aligned. Um I remember going back way back to 2018 when I had the

[1:04:39] pleasure of sitting on the Minut Steering Committee and hearing all the

[1:04:41] aspirations of the community. And you know, we really took that to heart and I

[1:04:45] think the plan does showcase that. I think the uh there's a couple comments

[1:04:49] in there about parking. I don't totally understand the notion of compensation

[1:04:53] for parking. We think the parking supply we've proposed is absolutely sufficient.

[1:04:56] We do have lots of land around there that if there's need for overflow, but

[1:05:00] that being said, our our our traffic consultant is very confident with the

[1:05:03] numbers we put forward at 171 stalls. Um so, I I think that was identified and

[1:05:07] the height was identified, but I think those are things that can get worked

[1:05:10] through at site plan. So, I don't think there's any fundamental issues other

[1:05:13] than the wetland Uh issue, which I understand the staff's position and and

[1:05:17] why they've taken it, and we're asking for your consideration.

[1:05:22] » Supplemental. >> Thank you, and through you, Paula.

[1:05:25] Another question then, as it relates to flood planning, I mean,

[1:05:28] we're we as a people are struggling with flood

[1:05:31] planning right now, given the most recent flood and and the ones prior.

[1:05:36] Um how committed are you to working with us

[1:05:40] on that? >> In what

[1:05:43] » Well, I guess, sorry, in in in the capacity that

[1:05:47] um I think it's just going to be a bit of a

[1:05:49] struggle to get to where we're all in agreement with the flood plain piece.

[1:05:54] And I just wonder, you know, what your uh overarching uh theory is on that, I

[1:05:59] suppose. >> Well, the the proposal we've put

[1:06:02] together, and obviously the technical studies that we've put forward, uh we

[1:06:06] think that there is a very very strong justification for what we've proposed,

[1:06:09] which is that 80,000 that does encroach into the flood plain, which really does

[1:06:13] replicate and to a lesser extent than what exists today. They will be built at

[1:06:17] a higher elevation. All life safety will be dealt with. Um without that

[1:06:21] component, we are not prepared to proceed with this this application.

[1:06:26] » Mayor Kelly.

[1:06:29] Uh thank you very much, and uh through you, not a question to anyone. In fact,

[1:06:33] I might talk a lot, so you may sit down. Um

[1:06:37] I I I just want to talk uh primarily to council. We or to council, to the

[1:06:42] committee. Um this you know, the counselor Zabitsky's questions raise

[1:06:47] some issues that we run into every once in a while.

[1:06:50] We seem to think we have to reach unanimity. We seem to think that

[1:06:54] we have to uh not offend. Um

[1:06:59] and frankly, there shouldn't be this notion that it's we're pitting one

[1:07:02] against the other here. Uh quite frankly, I I think both

[1:07:07] submissions uh are very very strong, exemplary. Um uh as as apologetic said,

[1:07:15] one outlines the sort of terms and conditions under which they're they're

[1:07:19] uh willing to proceed with an application. Uh our position, which is a

[1:07:23] very thorough uh review of the uh planning matters. Um and and I will say

[1:07:29] right now because we always forget till the end, uh our staff have done just an

[1:07:34] a remarkable job. They've done it under incredible time pressures. We have a uh

[1:07:39] small uh group back in the planning department.

[1:07:44] I won't say it, but thank goodness one of them is Emily.

[1:07:48] » [laughter] >> Uh it it is really really well done and

[1:07:51] represents the planning interest in a phenomenal way. I think we've heard

[1:07:56] from a couple of the uh uh comments that came in and I was going

[1:08:00] to repeat the comment as well. There's a path forward that is highlighted

[1:08:05] uh if count if committee I'm going to say council 100 times. If committee

[1:08:09] chooses uh a different path.

[1:08:13] I will not countenance anyone saying that we're going against planning. We're

[1:08:18] not going against planning. Planning is absolutely a huge factor in our

[1:08:22] consideration. Environmental impact is a huge factor in our uh consideration.

[1:08:28] But quite frankly, we have an obligation to the constituents of this township to

[1:08:32] step back three paces and consider a lot more than just the planning

[1:08:38] justification or the planning issues. We have to consider the economic

[1:08:41] development issues. We have to consider the uh we have to consider the uh the

[1:08:46] local impact issues. Uh we have to consider quite frankly, and this is one

[1:08:50] of those cases where I don't do this I don't bet. But we have to sometimes bet

[1:08:55] on the jockey, not the horse. Uh we have a we have a situation that's been lying

[1:09:00] dormant for so long. It's uh I was going to speak to Paul about cleaning the

[1:09:05] place up, please. It's a mess over there.

[1:09:08] We're It's time that we put, you know, we get somebody who's able to show, you

[1:09:13] know, a track record of of success in in closing on big

[1:09:17] uh construction projects and has a commitment to the community.

[1:09:22] Um that has to factor into the kinds of things that we're going to be putting in

[1:09:26] the front of our mind. Not to minimize any of the effort or impact or input

[1:09:31] from our planners, from CAO Pink, from the rest of the advisors we work from

[1:09:36] with, including our outside advisors and frankly including Azimuth and some of

[1:09:40] the other parties who participated in this as

[1:09:43] well. There's a There's a path forward or

[1:09:47] there isn't. No one need be offended. Our job is to represent to the best of

[1:09:53] our abilities the interests of the entire township, everyone who resides,

[1:09:57] who who travels here, who is a part-time or full-time resident,

[1:10:01] to consider all of the implications of this project. And frankly, I think

[1:10:07] all of the implications of turning down this project. Um I'm going to have more

[1:10:11] to say as we go through what sounds like a three- or four-day exercise, but when

[1:10:16] we get to the various issues, I will have more to say. But I think it's

[1:10:19] important that we go at this the right way. We have tremendous documentation,

[1:10:23] probably too much, to consider. We've read it, we've asked

[1:10:28] questions, we've highlighted it, we've asked for for um

[1:10:33] amendments to it. Um and we're at that day when it might have all been easier

[1:10:38] just to get to call in sick. But we have to stand up and we have to do this

[1:10:43] review and we have to make sure that we are putting all of the interests

[1:10:47] into the formula that decides how we're going to vote. And again,

[1:10:51] Emily, you've done a remarkable job as we are accustomed to. Thank you for your

[1:10:55] for standing up for all of this in such an articulate manner. Um I appreciate it

[1:11:00] very much. And um I'm going to go back to the

[1:11:04] chair. Thank you.

[1:11:07] » Councilor Roberts. >> Thank you, Chair, and through you to Ms.

[1:11:11] Crowder. Um

[1:11:14] is my understanding correct that the some of the current buildings are at

[1:11:19] zero level of of water level or are Ms. Crowder?

[1:11:25] » Through you, Chair, um to Councilor Roberts. Um well, first of all, thank

[1:11:28] you, Mayor Kelly. Um but through you to Councilor Roberts, um there are some

[1:11:33] existing buildings that are within the flood plain on these lands. Um the

[1:11:38] document prepared by Ms. Bustard um that was shown on the screen today, I haven't

[1:11:43] seen that until this morning. The comparative of um existing buildings

[1:11:47] versus proposed, so I cannot verify you know, the the number specifically,

[1:11:54] but yes, there is existing development within the flood plain. Um and that was

[1:11:59] part of staff's analysis um in that buildings that are considered to be

[1:12:06] legal non-complying within the flood plain could be replaced one for one.

[1:12:10] Um the applications before us today look to alter those locations um and size and

[1:12:17] extent, so a bit different, but to answer your

[1:12:20] question, yes. >> All right, thank you. So, I don't know

[1:12:22] who to ask the question to, but it's more for my clarity on Lake Rosseau. I

[1:12:26] don't get on Lake Rosseau a lot. Um I can see flooding

[1:12:30] the the spring flooding on Lake Muskoka, the evidence and what happens,

[1:12:35] but historically

[1:12:38] what happens in the spring on Lake Rosseau? Is it going up 2 or 3

[1:12:43] ft like it does in Lake Muskoka or is it Ms. Crowder?

[1:12:48] » Through you, Chair, um to Councilor Roberts. I

[1:12:52] admittedly am not an expert on the flooding levels

[1:12:55] in the Township and on the specific lakes. I don't know if Mr. Pink knows

[1:12:59] the change in elevation on Lake Rosso. What

[1:13:03] I can say is we did do a site visit for this property

[1:13:07] in the spring and there is some photos in the staff report that show that site

[1:13:11] visit and the flooding on site particularly near the Wetland area

[1:13:16] and the area between the Wetland and Judhaven Road. You can see that it it

[1:13:21] does flood in that in that location.

[1:13:28] » Other questions committee? Let me read the

[1:13:31] » Councilor Mazan. >> Councilor Mazan.

[1:13:34] » Thank you and through you. And I again

[1:13:39] the quality of all of these inputs I'm just repeating is just so significant

[1:13:43] and there's a lot of information that all of us are trying to mine through.

[1:13:48] I think that both of you have isolated where this most I won't use the word

[1:13:53] contentious but most significant thing seems to be around the 2 m 3 m. I did

[1:13:58] note though in the conclusion of the I need to put my glasses on again.

[1:14:05] The um SLR recommendations there was a few

[1:14:09] other pieces. Number

[1:14:12] So I'll not talk about the 2 m but a riparian restoration plan

[1:14:17] a compensatory critical fish habitat and then I think the fourth one was

[1:14:22] about restricting guest access to the new Wetland area which I think

[1:14:27] it's probably difficult to actually manage but I think I'm hearing isn't

[1:14:30] really as significant but perhaps those other two you could just expand upon a

[1:14:34] little bit. >> I'm happy to. Thank you very much. Yeah

[1:14:37] generally those conditions and we responded when SLR sent those. We're

[1:14:41] generally in agreement. There's a slight disagreement on the extent of the fish

[1:14:44] habitat replacement and that's going back to my commentary in my presentation

[1:14:48] that the the total thicket is the 8500 but MNR has only identified 1500 of fish

[1:14:54] habitat and our and and through our surveying. So, that can be detailed more

[1:14:58] through obviously the discussions that we'll have through detailed design. So,

[1:15:01] there's a there's a potential that it's larger than the 1500 but they don't our

[1:15:05] consultants don't believe it's anywhere close to the 8500 that was stipulated by

[1:15:08] SLR. Um so, that I'd say is a clarification

[1:15:11] that we need to work through and and there's absolutely no real contention on

[1:15:14] that. It's just a matter of of the environmentalists kind of getting

[1:15:17] together and reviewing that. And the repair and restoration plan fully in

[1:15:21] agreement and a restoration plan actually shows that. Uh and if it

[1:15:24] enhancements needed on that, no problem whatsoever. And yes, 100% we've agreed

[1:15:28] no motorized vehicles in there. So, generally we are completely aligned with

[1:15:32] the exception of the depth. >> Thank you.

[1:15:34] » You're welcome. >> I could just ask members of the public

[1:15:36] to not talk during the meeting, please. Next question.

[1:15:44] No talking, please. Councilor Mazin.

[1:15:49] » Uh thank you and through you and just uh one other I just want confirmation

[1:15:53] perhaps from staff about the concurrent the request for the concurrent uh

[1:15:59] treatment plant that is going to be handled through the district. If I can

[1:16:02] just have assurance or if you can just explain how that works. Thanks.

[1:16:06] » Ms. Grater. >> Thank you. Through you, Chair, uh to

[1:16:09] Councilor Mazin. Yes, so the district did provide comment on the application

[1:16:13] and did speak to um the request for the um wastewater treatment plant to run

[1:16:19] concurrently with development on site. So, in the recommendation

[1:16:25] one of the points um to be included within the holding provision is an

[1:16:29] agreement with the district um be entered into and registered on title

[1:16:33] regarding um the design and construction for the wastewater treatment plant and

[1:16:39] it is to include the provision of financial securities,

[1:16:43] um the requirement for the developer to obtain at their sole expense all

[1:16:47] required provincial approvals, um and it details those provincial

[1:16:51] approvals that are required. Um before start of operation.

[1:16:58] Um requirement for the developer to ensure

[1:17:01] that any rental arrangements made and or any lease or rental agreements to

[1:17:06] include terms identifying that occupancy will be contingent upon

[1:17:11] um those provincial approvals and construction of the necessary water and

[1:17:15] sewer infrastructure. And the requirement for the developer to

[1:17:19] obtain the necessary connection permits from the district prior to connection um

[1:17:24] to the municipal water and sewer infrastructure. So they have put in

[1:17:28] their conditions that they feel satisfy um this requirement. And I do know that

[1:17:34] um Curtis Severight, who is manager for the planning department at the district,

[1:17:37] is online today and available to answer any questions um

[1:17:42] regarding the water and sewer or any district interest really.

[1:17:46] » Mayor Kelly. Thank you for that. I just have a a

[1:17:49] follow-up, if I may. I I'm a little confused about

[1:17:53] whether this is an issue of the need to construct water and sewer or the timing

[1:17:57] of the construction. And so and that's what I thought it was.

[1:18:02] If it's timing, I understand that the risk is of

[1:18:06] of non-completion, never gets done. Is that the real risk? And and I have to

[1:18:10] ask my question and then I'll turn the mic off. Is that not something that

[1:18:14] could be covered off with a performance bond of some sort? Ms. Crowder.

[1:18:17] » Through you, Chair, um to Mayor Kelly. So the question is timing. That is the

[1:18:22] the component that we're debating or or just that is um being proposed. And they

[1:18:27] do want to construct the wastewater treatment plant at the same time as the

[1:18:31] rest of the development is being built out. Um

[1:18:35] there is a requirement for financial security, so that does protect the

[1:18:39] township to a certain extent. The risk is that,

[1:18:43] um, you know, the treatment plant not be built and that people potentially occupy

[1:18:48] these buildings before occupancy is granted, which is always an enforcement

[1:18:53] challenge.

[1:18:58] » Councilor Edwards. And then Councilor Mazin.

[1:19:01] » Uh, yes. Um, I can see the

[1:19:05] necessity of building the houses as well as the sewer and water at the same time.

[1:19:11] I believe it was asked and that we can withhold occupancy

[1:19:16] permits and who's going to move in if they don't have water and sewer?

[1:19:23] » Committee, I'm >> I'm going to answer that one.

[1:19:24] » Seeing a slow down in the questions. Oh, sorry, Councilor Mazin.

[1:19:29] » Uh, thank you. Through you, this is just again a clarification because there's

[1:19:32] some new terms here about one zone one zone flooding versus two zone. I think,

[1:19:38] uh, Ms. Crowder, you had mentioned that and I know that it was in the report

[1:19:41] from, uh, Ms. Buster as well. Could you just for committee's sake explain the

[1:19:45] difference between the two, please? >> Ms. Crowder.

[1:19:48] » Through you, Chair. Uh, to Councilor Mazin, absolutely. So, a one zone

[1:19:51] concept is applied for, um, lakes typically, larger, um, bodies of water,

[1:19:58] not to be mixed up with a large inland versus small inland, but lakes in

[1:20:02] general. Um, and a two zone concept is applied

[1:20:05] more so for rivers, um, where the change in flooding elevation is more drastic

[1:20:11] than on a lake concept. So, in the provincial planning statement, the, um,

[1:20:17] two terms are defined and applied to specific situations. One zone concept,

[1:20:23] the entirety of the flood plain is considered to be the floodway.

[1:20:28] And so, that's a very important distinction when reading the provincial

[1:20:31] planning policies. In a two-zone concept, you have the floodway and the

[1:20:37] flood fringe together, which create the flood plain. So, it you know, very

[1:20:42] technical defined terms. Um and in this case, Lake Rosso is a

[1:20:47] one-zone. The entirety of the flood plain is the floodway.

[1:20:52] » Quick supplemental, Chair. >> Yes.

[1:20:54] » Okay. Just so putting in this into layman's terms,

[1:20:58] using the distinction between a river and now a one-zone floodway,

[1:21:04] the difference would be the variability one could assume on a river

[1:21:09] uh because of the fringe. So, there's like a static line and then

[1:21:13] an up and down. That's probably a lot more variable on a two-zone. Is that

[1:21:17] correct? >> Ms. Crowder.

[1:21:19] » Through you, Chair, to Councilman Zand. That is my understanding that the

[1:21:22] variability in water level differs more greatly when you are talking about a

[1:21:27] river stream river um scenario versus a lake. So, the

[1:21:32] policies that are applicable differ a bit. Um and I think maybe CAO Pink wants

[1:21:37] to add. >> CAO Pink.

[1:21:40] Thank you. Just quickly, yes. I think the variability in height, uh but also I

[1:21:43] think the variability in flow. And that's a large part of the distinction

[1:21:47] too in a riverine environment. You're going to have greater flow in that

[1:21:50] floodway, while the flood fringe may and that could directly impact health and

[1:21:54] safety at those at those flows.

[1:21:57] Uh and that's why it's a two-zone concept in in rivers as well. So,

[1:22:00] height, uh but also flow levels. Thank you.

[1:22:08] All right, Committee. Let me

[1:22:23] » Sorry, Councillor Bosworth, your mic's not on. There you sorry. Thank you.

[1:22:28] Um Before I read the resolution, which

[1:22:31] changes the nature of the discussion and some of the rules around how we have to

[1:22:34] behave. Um

[1:22:38] Um we're going to take a 15-minute break and be back at

[1:22:44] and 10 10 35.

[1:22:51] And I will remind committee and the people in the room that there

[1:22:55] should be no discussion of this either between committee members or

[1:22:59] between committee and the public.

[1:23:03] » All right.

[1:30:09] » Mhm.

[1:38:29] » I'm going to read the resolution so that we can have

[1:38:32] open to full discussion and continuing questions as required. Moved by

[1:38:36] Councillor Edwards, seconded by Councillor Kent.

[1:38:39] Be it resolved that the official plan amendment application OPA

[1:38:45] -64 2666940

[1:38:50] Ontario Inc. and 2665556

[1:38:54] Ontario Inc. be revised to

[1:38:58] retain section C1.5.3.7 which prohibits the development of new

[1:39:04] habitable buildings within the flood plain and that any affected proposed

[1:39:09] amendments be retained or revised accordingly and that the proposed OPA be

[1:39:14] adopted by the Township and the record be forwarded to the

[1:39:18] district municipality of Muskoka for approval and that should committee

[1:39:23] adopt proposed amendments to section C1.5.3.7

[1:39:29] permitting new development within the flood plain that is scheduled to section

[1:39:33] C1.5.4.3 C1.5.4.4

[1:39:38] and C1.5.4.5

[1:39:42] be added which demonstrates the specific location and extent wherein buildings

[1:39:48] structures are permitted within the front yard setback and where the

[1:39:51] required 15 m shoreline vegetative buffer is per-

[1:39:55] is permitted to be reduced. So, this effectively deals with the

[1:40:00] first item that we had on our agenda, which is the flood plain.

[1:40:04] So, I open it up to committee for questions and discussions.

[1:40:18] Media, are we ready to vote?

[1:40:23] Yes.

[1:40:31] » Just uh I'm I'm trying to to understand the flow

[1:40:35] of these things again if that third paragraph Sorry, I'm just

[1:40:39] going back to what Mr. Chinks was saying earlier and I just want to make sure I

[1:40:42] haven't lost any thread here. Are we proposing amendments?

[1:40:45] » Well, we have to decide. >> So, this is the moment that you wanted

[1:40:50] to >> read through this, it's saying

[1:40:53] the recommendation is to not accept the flood plain.

[1:40:57] But, should we do consider it, then we will have some specific position some uh

[1:41:04] schedule that demonstrates the specific location

[1:41:08] and extent of the buildings. So, we have to decide which one it is.

[1:41:13] Is that fair to say, Ms. Scouter? >> Through you, Chair. Um

[1:41:18] so, what's before you is the question of whether um you are going to approve or

[1:41:25] prohibit development within the flood plain. Essentially, that question um

[1:41:29] would need to be answered at this stage. And if the decision was to permit

[1:41:33] development with the within the flood plain, then it would be that third

[1:41:36] paragraph that we are um recommending be implemented. But if you were

[1:41:42] recommending development not be permitted within the flood plain, it

[1:41:45] would be those first two within the resolution.

[1:41:48] » Councilor Madison. >> So, probably just needing a bit of

[1:41:51] guidance here then because I think this is the key point.

[1:41:55] Which is if we don't actually agree at this Like we actually have to make a

[1:41:59] decision on this. And so then

[1:42:04] maybe some assistance if we were to suggest that paragraph three is the

[1:42:08] approach we want to suggest. I just don't know

[1:42:11] process-wise how to go about this. What specific

[1:42:15] amendments would we be including? I just want to be sure I'm clear.

[1:42:19] Uh >> Mr. Crowder, guide us on how

[1:42:23] you would like us to get make recraft recraft this resolution.

[1:42:29] » Through you, Chair. Um I think that either way you decide whether to approve

[1:42:34] or deny, the the resolution should be amended to

[1:42:39] reflect that. So, I think the first two items here um so, staff's recommendation

[1:42:44] was that the OPA be revised to retain section the section that prohibits

[1:42:51] development within the flood plain and that the revised OPA be adopted by the

[1:42:55] township and that record sent to the district. However, should committee wish

[1:43:00] to um adopt the proposed amendments to section C1 um 537, which is development

[1:43:07] within the flood plain, then we would um

[1:43:11] Essentially, we're looking for direction on you at this point. But I see CAO Pink

[1:43:15] wants to add some comments. >> Councilor Madison then Councilor Burke.

[1:43:18] » I think maybe CAO Pink could help guide here first and

[1:43:21] » CAO Pink. >> We almost voted on something and didn't

[1:43:24] have an answer. No, thank you. Uh through you, maybe to

[1:43:28] help uh with the process. This is a little unusual and I apologize maybe for

[1:43:31] missing it, but the resolution before you, I would suggest not calling or

[1:43:35] voting on that because it's it's two separate things.

[1:43:38] » Yes. >> Um I think what it really forces is an

[1:43:41] amendment to that resolution and to sort of pick your path. So, I would suggest

[1:43:46] to you perhaps the way if there's a mover and a seconder to either support

[1:43:49] development in a flood plain, then it would consider the third

[1:43:52] paragraph, and committee can vote on that. Uh should a mover and seconder

[1:43:56] want to advance not permitting development in a flood plain, it would

[1:44:00] advance the first two um uh paragraphs in that, and I think that

[1:44:03] might be the best way to sort of manage this process and have a formal uh vote

[1:44:08] uh on those two paths. But, the again, the resolution before you has sort of

[1:44:12] two options. If you passed it, I think it would be a little confusing uh

[1:44:18] » Uh Counselor Berry, then Counselor Kent. >> Uh thank you and through you. Uh I think

[1:44:21] I'm going to try and make a a point that may help some of the the lay people

[1:44:27] around all. When we're talking about development in in the flood plain,

[1:44:32] we're talking about redevelopment in the flood plain. There's there's structure

[1:44:36] already there here. And what we're doing is remediating

[1:44:41] what's there and fixing it and taking 30,000 square

[1:44:46] feet down to 18,000 square feet. So, I mean, development to me sounds like it's

[1:44:51] new. It's all brand new. We're coming here and we're just putting in new.

[1:44:55] Where in fact, this specific proposal is talking about redevelopment of what's

[1:45:00] already there in a in a

[1:45:03] much more uh holistic and and thoughtful way.

[1:45:09] » Counselor Kent. >> I would be happy to uh

[1:45:14] first or second uh second proposal, which is to support

[1:45:19] redevelopment in the flood plains. So, if somebody wants to second it, I'd go

[1:45:24] for that route.

[1:45:28] » Uh Counselor sorry, counselor Mazen has >> Put her hand up.

[1:45:31] » Thank you. I I think the question the I think

[1:45:34] I think you had asked the question is anybody willing to put forward a motion

[1:45:36] which it's I think what counselor Kent is also and I think we had been

[1:45:39] discussing. I think that is the next step so I'd be happy to

[1:45:44] shape I don't know if staff have already pulled something together to allow

[1:45:49] redevelopment or development. >> I want to give counselor Nishikawa

[1:45:53] » Okay, but >> Go ahead with the problem.

[1:45:55] » on this. Okay. Oh, okay. >> Counselor Nishikawa

[1:46:01] » I I would like to request staff whatever we're coming up with

[1:46:07] to be able to put it up on the screen and both have have a very clear vision

[1:46:13] of what we're voting on. >> Excellent idea. We had We had given that

[1:46:16] some consideration. Uh all right, so we have a mover

[1:46:21] » Mover. >> and a seconder.

[1:46:26] » And so I want time.

[1:46:30] » Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry. No, no, Sally moved it.

[1:46:33] And counselor Mazen seconded. Yes, I'm sorry.

[1:46:37] Got it. Thank you. >> So we need strike so

[1:46:39] » All right, let's take just a few minute break.

[1:46:42] » Hopefully. >> We'll break for however long it takes.

[1:46:46] No discussion, please. Counselor Kent, no discussion.

[1:46:51] » So are you going to mandatorily or something? Are you able

[1:46:55] to back it? >> Or assistant

[1:46:57] » This is my best friend over here. >> Hm?

[1:47:00] » He's writing it, my best friend. >> This is not allowed.

[1:47:06] » Oh. >> I was trying to draw it.

[1:47:08] » I can't read your handwriting.

[1:47:11] » I think

[1:47:14] He's writing.

[1:47:20] » So I guess

[1:47:28] » Councilor Adams. >> If I may, through you, just to confuse

[1:47:30] the issue. I I guess I

[1:47:33] Councilor I I'm just trying to look at >> I please?

[1:47:36] » at this and understand the word development

[1:47:40] which you know, sort of denotes new and redevelopment which means to essentially

[1:47:46] » let's just hold this till we got a resolution in front of us. It's a good

[1:47:49] point, but let's just hold it. >> Yeah, okay.

[1:47:54] But it's all right.

[2:00:27] » We like to be procedurally pure here. So,

[2:00:32] um, the first thing we are going to do is table the resolution that we just

[2:00:36] read and leave it aside.

[2:00:39] And then we will have a second resolution that reflects what uh

[2:00:44] counselor Kent and counselor Mazin have have tabled.

[2:00:49] So, the first one is Uh and we're bringing them up on the

[2:00:53] screen. I'm not going to bring this one up on the screen because it just says

[2:00:55] we're going to table it. But, if we could bring the other one up

[2:00:59] on the screen.

[2:01:01] CEO Pink, I got that correctly. All right.

[2:01:05] Moved by Councillor Kent, seconded by Councillor Mazin. Be it resolved that

[2:01:09] the motion be tabled. Any discussion?

[2:01:15] All right. All those in favor? All right.

[2:01:19] The next one up as you can see on the screen is moved by Councillor Kent,

[2:01:23] seconded by Councillor Mazin. Be it resolved that committee adopt proposed

[2:01:28] amendments to section C 1.5.3.7 permitting development within the flood

[2:01:34] plain.

[2:01:52] So, there's there's the question. Committee,

[2:01:56] what debate do we have around this?

[2:02:03] Councillor Zavitz. >> Thank you through you to the earlier

[2:02:07] point. Um pretty this uh the difference in it interpretation

[2:02:11] between the word development and redevelopment. I see that we've used the

[2:02:16] word development here and yet previously was discussed that you know,

[2:02:21] we just we're re-allowing the redevelopment within a a space. And I

[2:02:26] just wondered if I mean, is that a a commonly held

[2:02:30] um belief or is this new development? I'm

[2:02:34] clearly the >> Ms. Crowder.

[2:02:36] » Thank you through you, Chair, uh to Councillor Zavitz.

[2:02:39] So, the provincial planning statement doesn't differentiate between the terms

[2:02:43] development and redevelopment. It doesn't actually use the term

[2:02:46] redevelopment. It only has development. Um so strictly from a planning

[2:02:50] standpoint the terms could be synonymous.

[2:02:54] Um what I would say is just for the sake of clarity, this is not just replacement

[2:02:59] of existing buildings. This is construction of new buildings in the

[2:03:04] flood plain in new locations and extents and sport courts and fill within the

[2:03:12] flood plain. So consideration of this resolution should

[2:03:16] just make sure you have the whole picture. We are talking about buildings,

[2:03:19] structures, the amphitheater, sport courts, and the fill within the flood

[2:03:23] plain.

[2:03:27] » Councillor Nishikawa and then Councillor Roberts.

[2:03:31] » Um I'm I'm sure others have the same

[2:03:33] concern, but I I feel that I should present my concerns at this time.

[2:03:38] Um and I do have a district council

[2:03:44] um hat on at the moment as well knowing that we've looked at

[2:03:49] um other applications um

[2:03:53] within the flood plain. Um

[2:03:58] I can't um I can't vote for this today.

[2:04:02] Um I'm very very concerned about the precedent setting.

[2:04:06] And I would love to see this redeveloped if I wasn't concerned about some other

[2:04:11] huge two other very very large projects that

[2:04:16] would

[2:04:18] I feel like I'm creating a path for them to

[2:04:22] come and be quite frankly very destructive.

[2:04:26] I'm not saying that this particular property is, but it it it just

[2:04:31] so I can't vote for it today.

[2:04:36] » Any any other question to make? Oh, sorry. Councilor

[2:04:41] uh

[2:04:45] Councilor Councilor Robertson and Councilor

[2:04:47] Edwards. >> Thank you.

[2:04:51] I too may share what Councilor Nishikawa said, but then I'm thinking about the

[2:04:56] history of in the path we have followed with this from day one.

[2:05:02] I think about some of the other applications

[2:05:06] big applications we've had. Let's see, particularly the one in Milford Bay

[2:05:11] that the township ended up owning the property.

[2:05:14] Um I think about what we went through with some

[2:05:19] with Red Leaves. And I think that

[2:05:22] we have in front of us an opportunity to say, "Yeah, that's There are There are

[2:05:26] risks with this." Don't get me wrong, but

[2:05:30] we have a partner and I'm going to call it a partner because this is how this

[2:05:33] applicant has come across. That

[2:05:38] they have demonstrated us they're willing to work with the township.

[2:05:43] They have a vision to have a world-class

[2:05:49] resort that draws people in. And the key part to that is there the the re- the

[2:05:55] the rebuilding of or the reestablishment of the the wetland and building on it.

[2:06:00] And you just think about it. That was a wetland at one time and then men

[2:06:04] destroyed it. You know, the our biggest invasive

[2:06:07] species in the world went in and said, "Hey, I want a golf or I want to do

[2:06:10] this. I want to build a parking lot." And at that time there was no thought to

[2:06:13] it. And what we're doing is we're taking it back

[2:06:17] to to before settlers.

[2:06:21] And we're And then we're going to respectfully build on it. So, I'm in

[2:06:27] full support at this time knowing that there are risks, but also knowing that

[2:06:31] we can work those out. Now, the district is another another

[2:06:37] group that's going to they're the they have to approve this mostly, but I think

[2:06:41] again we the three groups the applicant, the township, and the and the district

[2:06:47] can work together and iron out the issues. So, that's my

[2:06:51] thoughts. >> Councilor Edwards.

[2:06:55] » Thank you. I was going to basically echo that.

[2:06:59] I could see if they were taking a wetland and want to fill it and build.

[2:07:03] But when they're enhancing it and that and putting an island in and everything

[2:07:08] else like that, I can support it. It is unique. It's something different. I look

[2:07:13] at the alternative what was there before and I wasn't happy with that. So, I

[2:07:18] think everybody has to be a little bit unhappy and then everybody should be

[2:07:22] satisfied. So, I will be supporting this. Thank you.

[2:07:27] » Councilor Kent. >> I was just going to say that I thought

[2:07:30] that Miss Grogan Green's comments this

[2:07:33] morning captured my thoughts really really well and that

[2:07:38] we've been at this I will haven't been at this for 8 years cuz I've only been

[2:07:41] on council for 3 and 1/2. But

[2:07:46] this is a very good applicant who's been done a very professional job

[2:07:51] of meeting and communicating with the township and the planning staff.

[2:07:57] I think that the product that comes out is a environmentally

[2:08:01] product. I think it's beautiful. Will add to the community. And I think for me

[2:08:05] the most surprising thing was in the last meeting where we had the public

[2:08:08] meeting. It was in March.

[2:08:11] Where we had tons of people here. I expected

[2:08:16] pushback from the community and what I heard was

[2:08:19] I did not hear one person who pushed back on the Minett development. To me,

[2:08:25] we're supposed to listen to the constituents and the community. And I

[2:08:28] realize there's building code and I realize there's

[2:08:30] provincial planning statements, but the community is in full support of

[2:08:34] getting this done as fast as possible. And I think that we need to listen to

[2:08:38] them. And the combination of Sherry's comment I Sherry comment

[2:08:43] Miss Green's comments and the community feedback pushed me over the edge which

[2:08:48] without any issue and I think it's that's an important reminder. I think

[2:08:51] it's a good a good builder an honest

[2:08:56] team of people working with the community and I think that's the best

[2:08:59] you're going to get. We should be very thankful that that person is here.

[2:09:02] Um anyway, that's my views. Thank you.

[2:09:07] » Okay, any more discussion comments?

[2:09:11] Are we ready to vote? All those in favor.

[2:09:16] Any opposed? Thank you. That carries.

[2:09:26] All right. So, the next topic

[2:09:32] And Miss Crowder, the development with the adjacent wetlands is included in the

[2:09:37] first resolution. Am I correct?

[2:09:44] » For you, Jared. Just one moment, please.

[2:09:53] So, the um item that was just voted on is the development within the flood

[2:09:58] plain. So, the next item would be development within the wetland and

[2:10:01] adjacent to the wetland. >> And is that part of the requirement to

[2:10:05] amend the OP or is that just the bylaw? >> That is a requirement to amend the

[2:10:09] official plan. >> Okay.

[2:10:14] So, we have a proposal and we have some comments from our staff

[2:10:19] on the wetland.

[2:10:21] The main issue I think is whether we are to allow

[2:10:27] depths up to 3 m. But there may be others, Ms. Crowder, if you just maybe

[2:10:31] tell us what the key top points are on that topic.

[2:10:34] » Through you, Chair. Um so, staff's recommendation that now that we've dealt

[2:10:39] with the flooding issue, so we're setting that aside, um

[2:10:43] staff's recommendation is that the proposal to um

[2:10:47] build within and adjacent to the wetland could be consistent with the provincial

[2:10:51] planning statement provided the recommendations put forth by SLR be

[2:10:55] implemented. And there were four main recommendations. One has to do with the

[2:11:00] depth of the wetland itself. Another has to do with the riparian

[2:11:06] restoration plan. The third is

[2:11:10] um compensatory measures for critical fish

[2:11:13] habitat. And the fourth is restricting guest access to the new wetland area. Um

[2:11:21] so, I believe we've heard concurrence from

[2:11:25] um the proponent. At least, you know, there's some items that they think

[2:11:29] have differing opinions on when it comes to the environmental professional's

[2:11:33] findings, which can be worked out through the site plan control stage.

[2:11:37] However, I think the main ask from them today is to permit um depths for

[2:11:42] dredging up to 3 m. Um staff's position is that dredging should be restricted to

[2:11:49] 2 m or less um in accordance with the peer review

[2:11:54] um done by SLR. Uh the peer review document speaks to the significant

[2:11:58] difference in aquatic vegetation that can survive in the different depth

[2:12:04] measurements. Um and a big part of their determination

[2:12:07] that this could be consistent with PPS is on that basis. So, ultimately the

[2:12:12] question falls to committee on what uh what water depth you would be

[2:12:16] comfortable with. >> Thank you very much. That was very

[2:12:19] clear. Counselor Zavitz. >> Thank you. It's for you too, I guess,

[2:12:22] Mrs. Bustard, if I may. Um

[2:12:25] the uh if I may, Chair.

[2:12:28] » Yes. >> Thank you. Um

[2:12:32] this notion of 3 m and that seems to be a hard stop for

[2:12:36] you. Um can you explain the difference in

[2:12:39] your minds between 2 and 3 m in terms of your uh goal, your mission

[2:12:46] there?

[2:12:48] » The Our goal there is to obviously deliver the vision that we have shown

[2:12:52] you in terms of creating a very robust, diverse habitat within the wetlands. Um

[2:12:58] I I think all those different components that we've discussed, the riparian

[2:13:01] restoration along the shoreline, the expansion of the fish habitat, there's

[2:13:04] naturalization of the channel, there's uh introduction of new habitat for

[2:13:08] turtles, there's bat boxes, there's a very, very detailed and thorough

[2:13:12] restoration and rehabilitation plan that has been brought forward. Part of that

[2:13:16] is uh requiring that there is some deeper area, specifically on the central

[2:13:21] uh around the island and opening to the channel that would bring it down to

[2:13:24] roughly 3 m. But as I said to you earlier, the the bulk of the area will

[2:13:28] probably be in that 2-m range. That is going to have different kind of growth

[2:13:32] and along the shoreline. Um but to have that diversity in what we're trying to

[2:13:36] achieve and to have that uh environment uh obviously not grow back immediately

[2:13:41] back into like a dense thicket like you've seen before and obviously to

[2:13:44] justify the very, very significant investment. I mean, when I said earlier

[2:13:48] 2 to 3 million dollars here, the totality of the investment on this

[2:13:51] property is being north of 200 million dollars. Um for us to do that, we have

[2:13:54] to make sure that the wetland is restored to the vision that we have and

[2:13:58] we think it is very, very important and our engineers and our environmental

[2:14:01] engineers believe that is totally justifiable. Um so what we're asking for

[2:14:05] is your approval to proceed uh up to the 3 m. Uh but again, that won't be

[2:14:09] universally 3 m across the totality of the wetland.

[2:14:13] » Councilor Zavitz. >> Mayor, please. Thank you.

[2:14:15] » Uh again to you, Paul. Um

[2:14:18] so, the 3 m isn't as I understand it from your description recreational. It's

[2:14:25] It's not recreational. It's environmental.

[2:14:27] » Yeah. >> Okay.

[2:14:29] » yes. But there There's going to be no motorized vehicles or boats in this at

[2:14:32] all. Uh there might be canoes um and and all that, but no, it's been not being

[2:14:36] driven. It's really from obviously creating the the diversity of habitat

[2:14:40] that we're trying to achieve in that area.

[2:14:46] » Councilor Mazin. >> Uh thank you. Answer you. And again, I

[2:14:50] think I'm just trying to get the process in my mind. If we've just done step one,

[2:14:54] the flood plain, step two is the wetland, just confirming that the other

[2:14:59] three um items that were recommended by the

[2:15:04] environmental study would be handled through site plan. I think I heard that.

[2:15:08] And then I want to come back to the question I have on

[2:15:11] the the depth. >> Through you, Chair. Um so, the other

[2:15:16] three items to Council Mazin, um the riparian restoration plan would be

[2:15:21] dealt with through site plan control. The compensatory critical fish habitat

[2:15:26] um would also be dealt with through site plan control. We kind of see a need for

[2:15:31] the process between the environmental

[2:15:33] consultants to continue because there are still some disagreements between the

[2:15:37] two sides. So, that does need to be worked out. The fourth item, restricting

[2:15:42] guest guest access, would be a provision that we would want included in the site

[2:15:46] plan agreement, but also the master development agreement. I do wonder about

[2:15:53] that item because we're kind of hearing that part of the use is going to be

[2:15:57] recreational of the wetland feature, and this sort of says

[2:16:01] that they will restrict that access. So,

[2:16:05] um maybe the proponent can speak to that.

[2:16:08] » Ms. Buster.

[2:16:13] » Uh, what had been discussed with us through the discussion points had been

[2:16:16] restricting motorized vehicles and motorized boats, excuse me, and we are

[2:16:20] absolutely okay with that. Um, obviously this is going to be in the

[2:16:23] heart and soul of the development. It's going to be one of the the main

[2:16:25] locations stitching together the village, the amphitheater, the tennis,

[2:16:29] the cabins. So, yes, there will be some human activity, but I think it's also an

[2:16:33] opportunity. As I said before, one of our aspirations that we have is

[2:16:36] education. You know, children and families accessing the wetlands,

[2:16:40] learning about aquatic life, actually experiencing it. There's amazing, um,

[2:16:45] obviously wetland restoration programs throughout the world. You know,

[2:16:47] Brickworks in Toronto is an example where it's it's an educational hub and

[2:16:51] it's used so that people can actually learn about the environment as opposed

[2:16:53] to it being kind of a theoretical. That is what we want it to be. So, if the

[2:16:57] interpretation that staff has that restricting use means that we do this

[2:17:01] restoration, but nobody can go near it, then we don't agree with that. But

[2:17:05] absolutely we agree that this is not going to be a place for motorized boats.

[2:17:09] Um, but I'm not sure where that distinction

[2:17:12] is and and that's certainly not how we read the SLR comments.

[2:17:15] Um, but nonetheless, we we'll work on the appropriate, obviously, measures to

[2:17:20] ensure that the environment is protected throughout the life of the project.

[2:17:25] » Um, sorry, can I just say >> Ms. Councillor Mast.

[2:17:27] » Sorry, I just wanted to thank you very much and through you. Um, coming back

[2:17:30] then to this 2 m 3 m thing. Um, seems to be the the piece and given it

[2:17:37] seems like it's very, um, localized in some cases. It's not this broad number.

[2:17:43] I'm asking, how do we capture that appropriately in whatever we prove to

[2:17:49] help kind of move this one forward so that instead of it having to be this

[2:17:54] broad statement. >> Ms. Buster.

[2:17:58] » If I may, the, uh, in our letter that I submitted to you, we proposed the

[2:18:02] wording um and I go go to here. In order to create

[2:18:07] an open water wetland feature to a depth of up to 3 m. And that would obviously

[2:18:11] give uh a lot of leeway for us to have those uh detailed discussions with staff

[2:18:15] through the detailed design um and obviously find the appropriate

[2:18:18] measure. So, it's an acknowledgement that it will kind of in some uh it'll go

[2:18:22] up to that depth, but it's certainly is not a universal. So, uh that's the

[2:18:25] wording that we proposed and we thought was a balanced approach.

[2:18:29] » Councillor Saunders. So, through you again um

[2:18:34] not so much a question as a statement, but I I think if you look and again is

[2:18:37] it a a parable, I guess. If you look at Blue Mountain Village and

[2:18:41] there's a lake there. This isn't a lake. This is a As I understand it, it's a

[2:18:45] watercourse. It's part of actually part of Lake Rousseau. So, it's

[2:18:50] it's fed by and it's it's part of as opposed to a a

[2:18:55] free-standing lake. And in that lake in at Blue Mountain, there's paddle boats

[2:18:59] and there's paddle boards. People aren't swimming, but they're recreating.

[2:19:04] And I know for a fact that that is more than 2 m

[2:19:07] to 3 m deep. And I guess just just uh as an analogy, there's there's the water

[2:19:11] being used recreationally, but people aren't swimming in it, but to the point

[2:19:15] of this particular project um there's a replenishment piece, I guess.

[2:19:21] Is that through you? You know, environmentally, is that not correct

[2:19:25] that the water is being um

[2:19:28] infused with new water as flows and everything goes. So, this is not

[2:19:32] stagnant a stagnant lake. This is part of Lake Rousseau.

[2:19:36] I just wanted to that extent. Maybe it's a question more than a statement. Can

[2:19:40] you comment on that? >> Through you, Chair. Um the water is

[2:19:44] connected, the waterway. So, this um does flow

[2:19:48] um as one with Lake Rousseau.

[2:19:51] Um I would say the wetland does that today. The water flows through one into

[2:19:55] the other. And um this would continue that process. Yes, um

[2:20:00] Yeah.

[2:20:03] » I think Counselor Kents Counselor Edwards Counselor Robert.

[2:20:07] » Counselor Kent. >> Uh, thank you. Just a quick question on

[2:20:10] that water. I was thinking as you were all talking about

[2:20:16] both the fact that it rises in the spring and it goes down. I mean, my dock

[2:20:20] on Lake Joe, for example, shifts by at least a meter

[2:20:25] between you know,

[2:20:28] July 1st and August 31st. And it's already shifted almost that full meter

[2:20:33] this season. If it shifts, do we have any data that shows does that mean that

[2:20:37] the 3 m is going to be now 1 and 1/2 and the 1 m is going to be dry?

[2:20:42] Or 2 m stuff is going to be dry? Do we have any data on what happens to that

[2:20:47] depth of depth of water in the marshy area,

[2:20:51] um, as the waters rise and fall in the season?

[2:20:54] » This cluster.

[2:20:57] » Uh, the wetland has historically always stayed uh,

[2:21:01] it never goes dry even in different things, but there is it can be very

[2:21:05] shallow in some sections right now cuz it's been obviously years of a lot of

[2:21:09] sediment in there. Um, something that you touched upon too,

[2:21:12] there's improvements happening well beyond just the restoration of the

[2:21:14] wetlands. We're doing the naturalization of the channel and the water that's

[2:21:17] coming from the other side of Judd Haven down through. So, we're improving the

[2:21:21] flow of the water that's going to come through. Obviously, the improvements to

[2:21:24] the wastewater facility is going to be changing the nutrient load that's going

[2:21:28] into the wetland which is going to be a net positive to the environment as well.

[2:21:31] Um, and one of the reasons for the depth as well is making sure that we are

[2:21:34] continuing that flow through the wetland into the lake so that the water doesn't

[2:21:38] become stagnant which again will have a domino effect of improving the aquatic

[2:21:41] health in there. Uh, right now with the there's it's overloaded quite with the

[2:21:45] nutrient load and with the and with the the thicket that a lot of it is being

[2:21:49] stifled. A lot of the environmental benefits in there are being stifled.

[2:21:52] Um so it never goes dry. With our depth there will be some fluctuation um

[2:21:56] absolutely um but it has not historically been a dry wetland.

[2:22:01] » Councillor Edwards. >> Yes uh is that too too too much of a

[2:22:06] burden? Uh

[2:22:09] I can envision this being tapered. It's not just going to go in and drop down.

[2:22:14] So it it's going to be >> Absolutely.

[2:22:16] » approximately what percentage that you would be using? Like

[2:22:21] I've seen where where where they'll they'll put a building envelope on it.

[2:22:24] Could you maybe lay it out for staff that this is what your your your plan

[2:22:28] is? >> In terms of the locations of the the

[2:22:31] deepest portions? Uh I don't want to make a number up

[2:22:35] right now so I don't have it cuz the detailed design has not been done but

[2:22:38] you are correct there'll be varying depths throughout the wetland and

[2:22:41] that'll be detailed through the restoration plan into the detailed

[2:22:44] design. Um >> Yeah I was going to say

[2:22:48] » Uh can I ask our head of construction?

[2:22:53] » So just echo what Paulo was saying as well with the flow and to get the right

[2:22:56] flows through the detailed design there will be an analysis done of the channels

[2:23:00] and where it actually implements the best flow for the water moving through

[2:23:04] it. So there will be deeper sections which will inhabit and and accelerate

[2:23:07] some of the flow and then the shallower sections which won't which all ties back

[2:23:11] to the environmental impact. >> We'll just add the the aspirations to

[2:23:16] obviously facilitate the different plant growths within the wetlands are being

[2:23:20] achieved um in different sections of the wetland and that has been a big part of

[2:23:24] our restoration plan and it's in the net benefit as part as well. So it's not

[2:23:29] I would just like to say it's not an either or. You know permitting the

[2:23:32] depths up to 3 m isn't negating the the plant and aquatic life that's being

[2:23:36] asked for by by the SLR and by staff. We're asking for basically a combination

[2:23:41] to obviously see the vision that we're bringing forward. So uh we we think the

[2:23:44] vision can be uh successfully implemented with the ability to have

[2:23:48] some leeway to go up to 3 m in some locations.

[2:23:51] » Thank you. >> Thank you.

[2:23:52] » Councillor Roberts.

[2:23:57] » Thank you, Chair, and through to you with a comment.

[2:24:00] Um the word recreation is not appropriate

[2:24:03] in this case. It's educational.

[2:24:06] And it's experience. And you're not going to have uh people I

[2:24:12] I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, we're not going to have people with

[2:24:15] floaties or out there trying to swim in the swamp.

[2:24:21] Sorry for that word. We're going to have something that I see

[2:24:25] my see my grandchildren.

[2:24:28] You know, they're after like my my 8-year-old grandchild wants a a pair of

[2:24:32] microscope. So, she can look at the bugs and that

[2:24:36] that are and I see that type of habitat. So, I'm thinking that

[2:24:40] that um we could maybe put a a little definition

[2:24:46] around what recreation means within this area.

[2:24:51] And what the the the applicant or would would would

[2:24:57] try to enforce or monitor, ensure that it happens. They talk they talk about it

[2:25:01] being educational. And I think it's a great educational thing for the people

[2:25:05] that have never seen this. So, there's my comments.

[2:25:10] » Councillor Zavitz and Councillor >> Thank you, Chair, and you to again to

[2:25:14] Paul. I guess in terms of the word recreation, um

[2:25:18] why do I envision this skating in the winter months? Is that something that

[2:25:23] you will do on here? Will that it will freeze and become

[2:25:27] I do see it being recreational to quite honest, it's a centerpiece. Am I

[2:25:32] wrong? >> Uh we see it being obviously a

[2:25:35] centerpiece of of I think education and aesthetics and and functionality. I I've

[2:25:40] never had a discussion about a skating rink. I don't know if the flows if it

[2:25:43] would freeze over. I'm happy to take that back and if there was an

[2:25:46] aspiration, we will absolutely look at that.

[2:25:48] Um but we I can honestly say we haven't had that discussion yet. I will just add

[2:25:52] one thing in terms of kind of debating the depth. There's There's What we're

[2:25:57] trying to do here is obviously create a new

[2:26:00] a new and improved situation that has a diversity of aquatic life as I said and

[2:26:04] plant life. The deeper dredging in some locations actually facilitate the

[2:26:07] ability for larger fish as well. So it's a trade-off. You might have in some

[2:26:11] locations not as much plant but you have more fish habitat. So again, I don't

[2:26:15] ever want this to be seen as an either or. It's just a trade-off the type of

[2:26:18] life that you're creating in there in terms of the environment.

[2:26:21] But we will absolutely take that back and if there's an opportunity for winter

[2:26:25] activations, we would certainly look at that.

[2:26:31] » Councillor McIntyre and then Councillor Mazin.

[2:26:34] » Okay. Um this is close to my heart because

[2:26:40] I really like and appreciate swamps. Swamps are the most productive ecosystem

[2:26:46] we have in our world because energy is just constantly moving and constantly

[2:26:52] creating. What we're doing here is we're taking a

[2:26:56] swamp and we're making it into a wetland. And as long as we're clear that

[2:27:01] that's what we're doing, okay. But we are losing what we had as a swamp

[2:27:07] and we're losing that ecosystem and we're losing the energy that goes with

[2:27:10] that ecosystem. I really

[2:27:15] appreciated um the analysis that was done in the report

[2:27:20] from SLR about the difference between a swamp and a wetland and what we would

[2:27:25] have to do if we're going to go ahead with this, how how we would have to

[2:27:30] amend the process so that we can retain the aspects of the swamp.

[2:27:36] » Councillor Mazin. >> Okay, thank you. It turned

[2:27:40] » You have one comment and then kind of a question as to process just to get I

[2:27:44] think the discussion focused again on the one the three meter piece.

[2:27:49] I'm just going back to Ms. Crowder's report, page 11 of the

[2:27:54] report where it talks about the four pieces of or four recommendations that

[2:28:02] came from the SR SLR recommendations and the fourth one

[2:28:07] specifically says, "Restrict guest access to the new wetland area to ensure

[2:28:11] disturbance to this area is minimized. To this end, no motorized access should

[2:28:17] be allowed and fishing activity in the new wetland area needs to be strictly

[2:28:21] controlled during all times of the year." So, I think there's some already

[2:28:25] some guided by the environmental expert. They've

[2:28:29] already given some guidance as to what that

[2:28:32] would look like and feel like. So, I'm somewhat satisfied with that piece.

[2:28:37] I think what I'd like to know is how do we advance the discussion and get some

[2:28:41] conclusion on the the the

[2:28:45] the number one piece, which is that three meters. Do we need to have a

[2:28:49] another motion put forward or is this an amendment or how do we get

[2:28:54] that to be the conversation? Ms. Crowder.

[2:28:58] » Through you, Chair, to Council Mazin. So, the way that

[2:29:03] the report or or the recommendation the

[2:29:06] resolution was read was to require the implementation of SLR's recommendations,

[2:29:13] which stipulates the two meter depth. So, if this committee wishes to permit a

[2:29:18] depth greater than two meters, we would need a revised

[2:29:22] resolution.

[2:29:26] » CEO Pink. >> Thank you. Just for clarity though, that

[2:29:30] that is the zoning amendment resolution that coming next. Right now, we're

[2:29:33] still, I think, considering the official plan amendment. That's the tabled

[2:29:37] resolution to amend the official plan. As we heard from both the, uh, delegate,

[2:29:41] Miss Crowder, um, these matters could be dealt with

[2:29:43] through site plan and the holding provision. Um, and that, uh, revision

[2:29:47] could be considered when we consider the next zoning amendment resolution.

[2:29:52] » So, is it fair to say then that we don't need a reser- resolution at this point?

[2:29:58] » Not at this point. I think, again, if we could provide, uh, clear direction to

[2:30:01] staff, we can have the resolution prepared if that's the, uh,

[2:30:04] when we get to the resolution, at the zoning amendment resolution.

[2:30:11] » So, should we should hold We should hold the vote until we get to the bylaw?

[2:30:17] CAO Pink? >> Yeah.

[2:30:20] » Right.

[2:30:22] Councillor Mazin? >> Perhaps I'm getting confused, but now,

[2:30:27] um, I understand, uh, what staff CAO Pink was just walking us through, but

[2:30:31] I'm just not not clear as to what our next step needs to be as it relates to

[2:30:35] the wetland on the OP then. What

[2:30:37] » Let me ask Miss Crowder a question. Of the other items that we have on the list

[2:30:41] that you sent me,

[2:30:45] are they to be addressed in the OP or in the bylaw?

[2:30:51] » Through you, Chair. Um, I'm also slightly confused, so I'm going

[2:30:55] to defer to CAO Pink, but there are, like, the the flood plain, the wetland

[2:31:00] piece, and the front yard setback. Those are all amendments to the official plan,

[2:31:04] but it sounds like we have tabled the official plan amendment piece, but I'm

[2:31:09] going to defer to >> CAO Pink, can you help us here?

[2:31:13] » Sorry, I think I might have caused more confusion than I apologize. It's perhaps

[2:31:16] just the old planning principles that we deal with official plan first, then

[2:31:20] zoning. So, I was strictly speaking just from a procedural process of the

[2:31:24] resolutions before you. Right now, the resolution that's been tabled is an

[2:31:27] official plan amendment. As you heard from Ms. Crowder and Ms. Bustard, uh the

[2:31:31] change I think that's being requested uh would be in the next resolution uh to

[2:31:35] consider with respect to the zoning. So, it'll be dealt with at the site plan

[2:31:37] stage. Uh again, um if committee could give us

[2:31:41] some indication of whether uh we're comfortable with the revised

[2:31:45] wording that's been requested, then staff can prepare the amended resolution

[2:31:49] when it comes to that point in the meeting.

[2:31:51] So, I think that's really the decision before you.

[2:31:53] Um sorry to confuse it. Um again, we can make the necessary changes

[2:31:58] if we get an indication from committee. >> Uh I think Does that Does that mean that

[2:32:04] we should be moving on to the bylaw now?

[2:32:10] » No.

[2:32:13] No, and again, sorry to confuse. I think

[2:32:15] you're going through sort of six main issues. I think we continue to work

[2:32:19] through those, uh get indication on each of those, and then staff will prepare

[2:32:22] the resolutions as necessary depending on what you decide on each.

[2:32:27] » How do we do it without having a resolution?

[2:32:31] » We can do formal resolutions on each if you if you wish. We can do that as well.

[2:32:35] » So, we could have a formal resolution on whether we accept uh up to 3 ft.

[2:32:40] meters

[2:32:46] » Through you, chair, if I may. >> Yeah.

[2:32:49] » I think I understand the the recommendation to implement the

[2:32:52] recommendations of SLR is as part of the holding provision under the zoning

[2:32:58] application. So, that is why Ms. CAO Pink rightfully pointed out that we'll

[2:33:04] deal with that amendment at that time. But, what we are looking for from

[2:33:08] committee right now is whether you are supportive of amending the official plan

[2:33:13] to permit development within and adjacent to the flood plain, and then we

[2:33:17] would deal or sorry, the wetland, and then we'll deal with the depth amendment

[2:33:21] at a later time, but it would be good if you could give us an indication on your

[2:33:25] supporter or not.

[2:33:28] » So, that would mean Councilor Masson.

[2:33:35] So, that I think Can you suggest if we were in favor

[2:33:42] of 3 m versus 2, what would the what would

[2:33:47] the resolution be at this moment?

[2:33:51] » Through you, Chair. The resolution at this moment is whether to permit the

[2:33:55] development in the flood in the wetland or adjacent to the wetland

[2:34:00] as a whole. And then we would deal with the depth

[2:34:03] through the zoning component of the application. Or, if committee wanted to

[2:34:08] be clear and deal with it all right now, we could have a resolution drawn up that

[2:34:13] states that committee in endorse or not development

[2:34:18] within and adjacent to the wetland provided this be the depth.

[2:34:22] » All right. I think that sounds very good. Thank you. Councilor Masson.

[2:34:25] » I would put forward the motion to capture whatever

[2:34:29] was just said there if somebody would second. Well, that's what this is a

[2:34:33] logical flow. We have to make that decision.

[2:34:36] » All right. >> Thank you.

[2:34:38] » All right. So, we will let the brain trust write this up for us.

[2:34:44] So, another give us another probably minimum 5 minutes.

[2:44:05] » Committee, if we could uh sit down.

[2:44:16] I'm going to blame Robert's Rules of Order for this.

[2:44:19] Um if the committee

[2:44:23] so we're dealing with development in the wetland. If the committee

[2:44:28] is happy with allowing development in the wetland

[2:44:32] then we don't have to do anything because that's what

[2:44:36] the applicant has applied to do. If we don't want to have development in the

[2:44:41] wetland, then we need a resolution to say so.

[2:44:46] With respect to the 3 m, we will deal with that in the bylaw.

[2:44:52] All right? So So there So the debate right now is anybody on committee want

[2:44:58] to propose a resolution to not allow development in the wetland.

[2:45:05] Okay. No, we don't need anything. There's no

[2:45:08] resolution. All right, so there's no

[2:45:12] Right.

[2:45:17] » Um Uh

[2:45:20] Ms. Crowder, uh front yard setbacks and vegetative

[2:45:24] buffer. That also is part of the OP.

[2:45:30] And I think it's the same sort of position, I would think. If we

[2:45:37] I'll let you explain it. >> Through you, Chair. Yes, so the official

[2:45:41] plan OPA 56 includes provisions that speak to required front yard setbacks

[2:45:46] and requirement for vegetative buffers. So the applicant has applied to amend

[2:45:51] those sections of the official plan. Staff, flood plain issues aside, I'm

[2:45:57] just put that caveat, are um supportive of the proposed amendment

[2:46:02] provided the um provided a site-specific schedule is

[2:46:06] added to the amendment that specifies the exact extent location and extent of

[2:46:12] buildings and structures that are within that required setback, so it wouldn't be

[2:46:15] a blanket permission for a zero-foot setback. And also vegetative buffers

[2:46:20] would only be permitted to be reduced in specific extents and locations.

[2:46:24] Um this is already written into staff's recommendation. So if committee is on

[2:46:30] board with that approach, we don't need to do any kind of resolutions right now.

[2:46:34] However, if committee disagrees and would like to see something different,

[2:46:38] then we would look to you to put a motion on the on the floor.

[2:46:42] Thank you very much. All right, committee, was it was Did everybody

[2:46:45] understand that? Good. So, is there any desire

[2:46:51] to have things other than what Ms. Crowder has told us about having a

[2:46:56] specific um uh attachment that says where

[2:47:02] where the setback can be minimized and how much setback there can be.

[2:47:09] All right.

[2:47:12] So, I think we've agreed with that. All right.

[2:47:18] The next item is timing of construction and sequencing of relative to the

[2:47:23] wastewater treatment. Ms. Crowder, walk us through that.

[2:47:28] » Through you, Chair. Um this is more so just a It's not an official plan

[2:47:33] amendment, um but it is sort of a big component of the proposal and an ask of

[2:47:38] the applicant that the development of the treatment plant be permitted to

[2:47:42] occur concurrently with development of buildings and structures. We have gone

[2:47:46] over um the risks that are involved with that and the precautionary measures that

[2:47:51] are being taken in the form of the conditions put into the resolution

[2:47:54] before you. Um so, this is just sort of an opportunity for committee to voice

[2:48:00] their opinions on this matter, and if anybody were to have concerns, um you

[2:48:04] could propose um any kind of amendments at this point.

[2:48:08] » So, again, as as with the previous two, if committee

[2:48:13] wanted the treatment plant built ahead of the development, we would have to

[2:48:17] have a resolution >> That's right.

[2:48:19] » changing that. Otherwise, we leave it as it is.

[2:48:21] » That's right. >> Mayor Kelly.

[2:48:24] » Thank [clears throat] you, and through you. I I um

[2:48:27] just one quick comment first. You said ahead of the development. I think it's

[2:48:31] concurrent, isn't it, really? >> No, what I was saying that is that if we

[2:48:34] didn't we didn't like them being concurrent and

[2:48:39] wanted to go back to uh the process where the has to be built

[2:48:43] first, then we would need a resolution. >> Okay.

[2:48:46] » Fair enough. >> Fair enough.

[2:48:47] » Uh that's fine, yeah. >> Okay.

[2:48:55] All right, so I don't see any at um appetite for a resolution.

[2:49:01] The next item on our list is staff housing, Ms. Crowder.

[2:49:06] » Uh through you, Chair. So, staff housing is a component that is listed within OPA

[2:49:11] 56 as being required um in the initial phase of of development to support um

[2:49:19] the um employment opportunities that would

[2:49:22] be um produced from the wellness center and

[2:49:25] the other restaurants and buildings that are proposed. Um the applicant is

[2:49:31] proposing that instead of staff housing being built in the phase one lands that

[2:49:36] they utilize the existing Cleveland's House buildings and facilities to house

[2:49:41] staff until such time as they um do build specific staff housing buildings

[2:49:47] as part of a future phase. Um staff have recommended that within

[2:49:52] the master development agreement, a provision be included which um states

[2:49:56] that the owner agrees and um a well, agrees to develop staff housing

[2:50:02] in future phase um plans. And

[2:50:07] they we've um discussed this with the proponent and they have agreed to that.

[2:50:11] So, um the resolution as written before you

[2:50:14] today includes all of that recommendation. So, if you are all in

[2:50:18] agreement, um you don't need to do anything, but if anybody has any

[2:50:21] concerns, you could raise those now.

[2:50:25] » Committee?

[2:50:30] Next item is the height of proposed buildings.

[2:50:35] » Through you, Chair. Um so, there within OPA 56, it does stipulate um that height

[2:50:41] of building should not exceed 16 m. I think it's 16. Um, and however, that

[2:50:49] there is some leeway for prominent um buildings or structures

[2:50:54] to create a sense of um I don't remember the exact words. I

[2:50:58] don't want to get it wrong. >> [laughter]

[2:51:01] » Um, but there are um four buildings and structures proposed as part of the

[2:51:06] development which do exceed that height. Um, staff acknowledge that the official

[2:51:12] plan amendment OPA 56 is largely supportive of this. Um, there is one

[2:51:17] building that we did just want to get committee's um

[2:51:20] temperature on is which is the viewing tower. It is proposed to be 121 ft in

[2:51:27] height. Um, and just for reference, uh the typical mono pine that you see in

[2:51:32] the community is 100 ft. So this is this would be the most prominent building on

[2:51:37] the lake. So we did just want to um flag this for committee, and if you

[2:51:42] do wish to see a reduction in that height, now would be the time to

[2:51:47] um to let us know that.

[2:51:50] » Scrader, can you um

[2:51:53] tell us what the the dimensions of it are other than the height of

[2:51:58] I think it was

[2:52:01] So 15 by 15 ft roughly.

[2:52:07] » And could we just find out are there stairs inside to take that

[2:52:11] walk? >> Kent.

[2:52:13] » Are there stairs inside?

[2:52:17] » Obviously. >> I mean, this is an architectural feature

[2:52:20] as is I'm Manuela McLaughlin in terms of creating the topography of the village.

[2:52:23] Uh there will be some stairs inside. Whether it's access to the general

[2:52:27] public, I I don't know if that's been determined. I will just say on the

[2:52:30] height, please also remember the very, very substantial grade differences

[2:52:34] between us and the JW Marriott that sits up on the hill. So, when you talk about

[2:52:38] the height as being the highest on the lake, you also have to consider the

[2:52:41] established grade. It'll be dwarfed compared to when you turn into the bay

[2:52:44] and you see the JW Marriott up on the hill. So, from a from an aesthetics

[2:52:48] point of view, it's going to be quite modest and and it's a very, very small

[2:52:51] feature that's just going to add to the architectural language of the village.

[2:52:55] Thank you. >> [laughter]

[2:52:58] » All right, uh Counselor Kent. >> I guess just to follow up, I was

[2:53:01] wondering if if it isn't for people to walk in and see the view,

[2:53:07] what's the point of it?

[2:53:11] » Uh thank you very much. >> Mr.

[2:53:13] » Uh if you look at the totality of the renderings, I don't think we brought

[2:53:15] them back up. You can just see it. See the architectural language up there of

[2:53:18] creating some visual points. Obviously, one of the starting points when uh our

[2:53:22] architect Neil uh McLaughlin was looking at it was that view. I know when I sat

[2:53:26] on the steering committee, we talked about the view from the canoe. So, the

[2:53:28] uh the intent for the cabins was really to nestle them in the into the trees.

[2:53:33] They really disappear. And then you have that one moment when you turn into the

[2:53:36] bay and you see the village and a lot of natural materials. And obviously, Abby's

[2:53:40] Bakery that sits there now, we want to replace the uh the steeple. And so, we

[2:53:44] saw the steeple, the chimney, and the tower feature just creating these three

[2:53:47] vertical elements that kind of create uh articulation uh on that view corridor

[2:53:52] with obviously the sloped roofs and the natural materials there. So, it's an

[2:53:56] it's a decision from an architectural point of view. Um and we think that it

[2:54:00] adds to kind of the uh creating a placemaking. Thank you.

[2:54:08] » Committee, any other questions?

[2:54:14] Um it's kind of remind me if we are happy with the

[2:54:18] 151 ft we >> Through you, Chair. Um 121 ft.

[2:54:24] » Sorry, 121, yeah. >> Um so, if committee is okay with that

[2:54:29] number, um, then we don't need to do anything.

[2:54:33] If committee wanted to change that number, that would be an item to deal

[2:54:37] with at the zoning bylaw stage of of things.

[2:54:42] » We could leave that or we can get a general sense, um, here.

[2:54:46] Would anybody be wanting to make a amendment to not allow 121 feet?

[2:54:53] Counselor Zavitz. >> If I might just a question picking up on

[2:54:56] the mono pine comment. Is that is a mono pine 100 feet self-induced? I mean, is

[2:55:02] that the height of the mechanical piece of this whole thing or is that a height

[2:55:06] that has been decided by us that that's where

[2:55:10] we won't see or is that a tree line? So, I'm I'm just interested in the

[2:55:14] juxtaposition of that. >> Ms. Crowder.

[2:55:18] » Through you chair. Mono pines, they typically build them in

[2:55:25] two or three specific heights and it's because they provide different functions

[2:55:29] at those different heights. In Muskoka Lakes, we've typically seen 100 feet one

[2:55:35] ones. They do go higher, but the ones that we have seen come forward are

[2:55:38] typically that 100 feet. It is above the tree line. You can see them poking up.

[2:55:43] » Okay.

[2:55:47] Any other comments?

[2:55:50] All right. The last one on our list is the parking.

[2:55:58] Ms. Crowder. >> Through you chair.

[2:56:02] So, the proposal before committee, when compared to our zoning bylaw

[2:56:08] requirements for parking, the proposed parking supply is deficient

[2:56:13] um by a significant amount.

[2:56:17] The traffic impact assessment originally

[2:56:21] contemplated all just under 400 spaces. However, at as things progressed, the

[2:56:28] design changed to provide 171 spaces on-site,

[2:56:34] um which the traffic engineer still says is acceptable, um

[2:56:38] keeping in mind that the peer review process of that is still ongoing. But, I

[2:56:43] think staff acknowledged that the particular property owner owns many of

[2:56:48] the surrounding lands. So, we're not concerned with that parking supply not

[2:56:53] being provided on the subject lands, so long as parking is provided as this

[2:56:59] develops. Um so, we are recommending that a

[2:57:02] provision be included within the master development agreement that they owner

[2:57:06] agrees to provide that parking as development progresses. Um so, if

[2:57:13] committee is comfortable with that approach,

[2:57:15] um we don't need to do anything right now, but if committee is concerned, then

[2:57:21] you know, let us know. >> Chair Kelly.

[2:57:23] Thank you and through you. Just uh for clarification, uh Ms. Crowder, on that

[2:57:27] last one, the parking that that is provided that's not on the subject lands

[2:57:32] has to be on land co-owned or or owned by the same

[2:57:36] uh owner? And you can't you can't rent land? I There's a reason I'm asking this

[2:57:41] question, and it's not here [clears throat] now, but it will be. Ms.

[2:57:44] Crowder. >> Yeah.

[2:57:45] Through you, Chair. Um yes, it would need to be owned by the proponent um to

[2:57:51] be attributed to this situation, and there is a provision in the zoning bylaw

[2:57:55] that stipulates that the lands have to be within a certain distance of of the

[2:58:00] property. Um so, that would be an expectation as

[2:58:03] well.

[2:58:06] » Right, Committee. Uh Councillor Berry.

[2:58:09] » Uh thank you and through you. I'm just going to make a a comment to the

[2:58:12] planners because this is not like everywhere else. Um there's a huge

[2:58:17] proportion of the the the uh habitants

[2:58:23] um, of of the the uh the township that would likely come if they're day

[2:58:29] tripping to the community come by boat. Um, and they're not parking their car,

[2:58:35] they're going to park their boat. So, I'm I'm just want to make sure that the

[2:58:40] the planners have thought about this is a little different

[2:58:43] um, and it it's it's not going to have the same kinds of requirements. There

[2:58:48] are many people that come for the you know, that are here seasonally

[2:58:53] um, that avoid their car at all costs. Hop in a boat to go anywhere. And so, I

[2:58:59] think we need to make sure that that's that's taken into account especially for

[2:59:02] the the the village where we're we're apt to see some fairly, you know, local

[2:59:06] traffic. >> Ms. Crowder.

[2:59:09] » Sorry, through you chair, I might to counselor Berry. Yes, that is definitely

[2:59:14] um, a consideration that we have and the zoning bylaw actually allows us to

[2:59:20] account for boat parking from the required parking calculations. In this

[2:59:25] case, the number of boat slips is not solidly known at this point because the

[2:59:32] detailed design hasn't been carried out. So, the exact number that can be

[2:59:36] accounted for isn't um, isn't known at this time. However, as those details

[2:59:42] come out, if we'll have a greater sense for how many spaces are being provided

[2:59:46] on the water versus how many on land and um,

[2:59:50] we can proceed from that point. >> Counselor Roberts.

[2:59:55] I recall the the rights that were given a few years

[2:59:59] ago to the bay that that parking slips were significant.

[3:00:05] And I am I'm guessing that they're going to be much less than that of right.

[3:00:11] Ms. Crowder. >> Through you chair, uh to counselor

[3:00:14] Berry. >> So, there is a site-specific bylaw on

[3:00:17] the lands that permits a certain length and width of dock.

[3:00:22] It doesn't have a specific boat slip number in it, but it does have that

[3:00:27] length and width, which, you know, when you do the math, you can get an idea of

[3:00:30] how many slips can be incorporated into there. So, when staff bring the bylaw

[3:00:37] forward to committee or council for consideration,

[3:00:42] that's when you will see those details of length, width,

[3:00:47] shoreline structure permissions. And if I may just speak to Ms. Bustard's

[3:00:53] comment earlier about concern for when the bylaw would come

[3:00:57] forward, it is staff's intention to bring the bylaw forward as soon as

[3:01:01] possible following this meeting. It's not our intent to bring it 6 months

[3:01:05] later, so yeah.

[3:01:09] » Councillor Edwards. >> Concerning the the boat dockage,

[3:01:16] I think there was a guarantee that islanders that are using it for island

[3:01:21] access were were guaranteed to keep their spots. Is that right?

[3:01:25] » Ms. Bustard.

[3:01:29] » Thank you very much. Yes, we have continued to provide spaces and rent to

[3:01:34] the islanders, and we will continue to do so.

[3:01:37] And I believe Ms. Craddock can correct to me, but some of those arrangements

[3:01:40] will be stipulated through the master development agreement. May I add

[3:01:44] something on the parking? The one thing that I'm just a little bit

[3:01:47] confused with this motion is we did put forward a site-specific zoning bylaw

[3:01:51] that obviously was proposing a reduced parking rate. So, one thing I'd like

[3:01:55] just to clarify, your your bylaw does not take into consideration a lot of the

[3:01:59] shared ratios that other jurisdictions do. And I think you're speaking to it. A

[3:02:03] lot of people who are going to be parking on this site are going to be

[3:02:05] using a multitude of the facilities. Someone renting a cabin will then walk

[3:02:09] to the village and walk to the wellness center. Someone will take their boat and

[3:02:12] go there and use the trails. Uh so, we had proposed to reduce parking supply.

[3:02:16] Ms. Crowder is correct that the the first submission was in the range of 360

[3:02:20] spaces. Uh the reason it got reduced to 171

[3:02:23] uh predominantly was tree preservation. We went back after our first submission

[3:02:27] and really looked at how we can maintain more trees throughout the site and be a

[3:02:30] bit more selective on where we were actually paving. Um and then we went

[3:02:35] back to our traffic consultant BA Group and they did a robust analysis and said

[3:02:39] this is actually justified at the 171 with all the shared trips. So, we've put

[3:02:43] that forward and we're proposing to enshrine that in policy

[3:02:47] um understanding that there will be further discussions through the master

[3:02:50] development agreement and site plan. The only thing I'm asking for clarification

[3:02:53] on is I don't want to be in a situation where something gets passed today that

[3:02:57] requires us to build the amount of parking as per your bylaw and we're just

[3:03:02] basically utilizing more paving when we could be obviously having open space and

[3:03:05] tree preservation if it's not needed. So, understand that this might be a

[3:03:09] future discussion point, but I want to make sure there's leeway for that. Thank

[3:03:12] you. >> Ms. Crowder, can you comment on that?

[3:03:16] » Yes, through you, Chair. I'm just getting to that section of my report.

[3:03:19] Just one moment.

[3:03:25] Thank you. Um yes, so acknowledging the request to um permit

[3:03:32] a reduction in parking spaces, staff um are recommending that that component be

[3:03:37] approved provided a clause is incorporated into the master development

[3:03:41] agreement, which states that the parking will be compensated for on the

[3:03:46] surrounding lands in some capacity. So, it doesn't stipulate that every single

[3:03:51] space must be accounted for, but I think the hope and expectation is that on the

[3:03:56] surrounding lands if at as this progresses, we realize there is a need

[3:04:00] for parking, that the proponent would agree to provide for that parking on

[3:04:05] their surrounding lands. >> And does it does it require that it has

[3:04:08] to meet our bylaw or we needs to do studies to figure out what is the

[3:04:13] appropriate level? >> Through you, Chair. So, the way it's

[3:04:16] written, my understanding is that it would not need to meet the requirements

[3:04:20] of our bylaw. It's more so as we move through the site plan control stage and

[3:04:25] see how things are developing out, if there is a deficiency in parking and

[3:04:29] it's proving to be a problem, then the owner agrees through that master

[3:04:32] development agreement that they will look at providing parking on the

[3:04:35] abutting lands. >> Ms. Busker, is that the clarification

[3:04:39] you were looking for? >> Uh yes, that's okay with us. Thank you.

[3:04:42] » Thank you.

[3:04:46] And so, just to summarize, if we agree with

[3:04:51] if we don't have any changes to what's been said about parking, we don't have

[3:04:54] to do anything at the moment. All right. >> That's right. Thank you.

[3:05:01] » Scarlett, let's come to the end of our list.

[3:05:05] I think it's time to come back to the original resolution.

[3:05:11] And Deputy Clerk, could you tell us

[3:05:14] just walk us through that process? I think I know it, but

[3:05:19] let you do it. >> Thank you, uh

[3:05:22] Chair Bosma.

[3:05:25] I I'm happy to screen share and uh any in particular the second resolution. The

[3:05:30] first resolution is basically a motion to bring the

[3:05:34] the motion we originally tabled to remove that from the table, so it can

[3:05:38] now be presented onto the floor. And then from there, there will be a

[3:05:43] resolution which I will screen share that will substitute the original main

[3:05:46] motion with the second one. So, just give me a moment and with any

[3:05:50] luck, I'm printing and will be ready to go.

[3:05:59] So, >> We were told nobody.

[3:06:21] » This is the first one. >> Yeah. Thank you.

[3:06:24] » And I'm going to read it, right? >> Yes, please.

[3:06:27] » All right. So, the first one is quite simple and we're not going to put it on

[3:06:30] this on the screen. >> No, in my opinion, it's not necessary.

[3:06:34] » I agree, too. Yeah. Uh moved by Councillor Bury,

[3:06:37] seconded by Councillor Edwards. Be it resolved that the motion regarding

[3:06:41] official plan amendment application OPA-64

[3:06:46] it be taken from the table. Any debate?

[3:06:51] Those in favor? Thank you.

[3:06:53] Next one we are going to put it up on the screen.

[3:07:03] All right, can we zoom in a little so people can see it?

[3:07:05] » Thank you. >> All right.

[3:07:07] Um moved by Councillor Mazin, seconded by Councillor Zavitz.

[3:07:11] Be it resolved that the main motion regarding official plan amendment

[3:07:15] application

[3:07:18] number or the com- number of companies, two

[3:07:21] 6666940 Ontario Inc. land and 266

[3:07:26] 5556 Ontario Inc. be substituted with the

[3:07:31] following. Be it resolved that the official plan application amendment,

[3:07:35] those company numbers, be revised to include a schedule to

[3:07:40] sections C1.5.4.3, C1.5.4.4,

[3:07:46] and C1.5

[3:07:49] .4.5, which demonstrates the specific location and extent where building

[3:07:54] struct- building {slash} structures are permitted within the front yard setback,

[3:07:59] and where we where the required 15 m shoreline vegetative buffer is permitted

[3:08:03] to be reduced, and that the revised OPA be adopted by the township, and the

[3:08:10] record be forwarded to the District Municipality of Muskoka for approval.

[3:08:17] » Ms. Gradauer, could you just walk us through what that middle paragraph just

[3:08:21] meant? Just to be sure that everybody understands.

[3:08:24] » Absolutely, through you, Chair. Um so, that middle paragraph there essentially

[3:08:29] states that um we you would be approving the amendment, um and that schedules

[3:08:36] would be attached to that amendment, which specify the exact location and

[3:08:40] extent where development within the flood plain and adjacent Sorry,

[3:08:45] development within the wetland and adjacent to the wetland would be

[3:08:49] permitted, um the proposed front yard setbacks, and the proposed vegetative

[3:08:55] buffer. So, these would be site-specific um schedules attached to the amendment

[3:09:00] that would specify those locations and extents, rather than permitting blanket

[3:09:04] permissions across the whole lands.

[3:09:08] » Committee, is there any misunderstanding there?

[3:09:12] Do we have any debate on that? Any further debate, I should say.

[3:09:17] Seeing none, I call the question. All those

[3:09:20] » in favor.

[3:09:23] » Any opposed?

[3:09:26] That carries.

[3:09:30] And I think it's safe to say we're done with the official plan.

[3:09:34] We will take a break for lunch, and we'll be back at 1:00 and discuss the

[3:09:38] bylaw.

[3:09:47] It's pretty short and sweet. Do you want to do the bylaw now?

[3:09:50] » David >> Well

[3:09:52] » I'm sorry. >> Go.

[3:09:53] » No, no. I think you can have lunch. >> Yeah, okay. That's good.

[3:09:56] » So, why would we do this? >> I knew we were too.

[3:10:00] » I I don't know. I just thought It's fine.

[3:10:34] » Just like to remind everybody we should not be discussing this.

[3:10:37] » Okay.

[3:10:41] » I understand it.

[3:15:34] » Mhm.

[3:44:19] » Mhm.

[3:59:39] » Mhm.

[4:02:32] » Back to order at 1:00.

[4:02:37] Committee. The next on the agenda is to go through

[4:02:41] the bylaw related to this application.

[4:02:47] Um it is a two-page bylaw, but it covers a lot and I think it's worth reading

[4:02:53] rather than assuming everybody has read it in detail. And it covers

[4:02:58] a number of the things that we've already covered.

[4:03:01] After that, I will ask Emily just to have a

[4:03:04] real brief run through of it what it means to from a staff point of view and

[4:03:09] and its relationship or or their discussions with the applicant. Then

[4:03:15] we'll open it up for discussion.

[4:03:18] It's long, but pay attention. Um

[4:03:24] can we put it up on the screen? We will work on that while I'm reading

[4:03:27] it. >> Third and fourth piece of the

[4:03:28] resolution.

[4:03:32] » Moved by Mayor Kelly, seconded by Councillor Zavitz, be it resolved that

[4:03:35] zoning by-law application amendment ZBA 22/23

[4:03:41] to company names be approved in part subject to the approval of OPA 64,

[4:03:47] approval of the submitted amendment to the District Official the District

[4:03:50] Muskoka Official Plan and subject to the following.

[4:03:54] The draft zoning by-law amendment be submitted by the applicant not

[4:03:59] Sorry, let me start that again. That the draft

[4:04:03] zoning by-law amendment submitted by the applicant not be adopted and that staff

[4:04:09] be directed to prepare an implementing zoning by-law amendment for

[4:04:13] considerations at a future council meeting that incorporates the holding

[4:04:17] provisions, {comma} floodplain related and other applicable recommendations

[4:04:22] contained in plan uh report plan 2026-092

[4:04:28] as modified by any direction of the planning committee.

[4:04:33] That a holding H provision be placed on the subject lands for the

[4:04:37] following. That A developers group agreements

[4:04:43] is/are entered into wherein one or more proponents within the full service area

[4:04:49] shown on schedule on a schedule to the by-law

[4:04:53] contribute equitably towards the provisions

[4:04:56] of the municipal sewage services and municipal water services to the

[4:05:01] satisfaction of the District Municipality of Muskoka and the Township

[4:05:05] of Muskoka Lakes. That a satisfactory master development

[4:05:09] agreement in accordance with section C- C1.7.2-

[4:05:18] Got two Yeah, sorry, I'm not quite sure. Is that ongoing number?

[4:05:24] » I don't think so. >> C- C1.7.2-

[4:05:28] C >> Okay, all right.

[4:05:30] With section C 1.7.2-C

[4:05:34] 1.7.7 of OPA 56 and matters detailed within

[4:05:40] the staff report plan 2026-092 be entered into between between the

[4:05:45] Township of Muskoka Lakes just and

[4:05:49] Sorry, I'm having a hard time this afternoon. The District

[4:05:53] Municipality of Muskoka and the owner company two company numbers.

[4:05:58] Issuance of required provincial environmental compliance approvals for

[4:06:02] all water treatment, water distribution, waste water treatment and waste water

[4:06:07] collection infrastructure by the Ministry of the Environment,

[4:06:11] Conservation and Parks for the construction

[4:06:14] of the required municipal water and sanitary sewage sewer infrastructure for

[4:06:18] the Minett special policy area.

[4:06:23] An agreement with the District Municipality of Muskoka has been entered

[4:06:27] into and registered on that title pertaining to the design and

[4:06:30] construction for the municipal water and sanitary sewer infrastructure required

[4:06:35] to support the development including but not limited to the following:

[4:06:39] the provincial the provision of financial securities,

[4:06:44] the requirement of the developer to obtain at their sole expense all

[4:06:48] required provincial approvals including but not limited to the following:

[4:06:53] municipal drinking water works permit, municipal drinking water license and a

[4:06:58] permit to take Wait. to take water for all water treatment,

[4:07:03] water distribution, waste water treatment and waste water collection

[4:07:07] infrastructure by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks for

[4:07:11] the operation of the required municipal water and sanitary sewer infrastructure

[4:07:15] structure for the Minett special policy area before start of operation or

[4:07:20] results through connection permits

[4:07:24] to connect to municipal water and sanitary sewer infrastructure are made.

[4:07:29] That's a really long sentence. The requirement for the developer to

[4:07:33] ensure that any rental agreements made and or any lease or rental agreements to

[4:07:38] include terms identifying the occupancy will be contingent upon the fall

[4:07:44] following the developer obtaining the required provincial approvals,

[4:07:47] construction of the necessary water and sanitary sewer infrastructure, and

[4:07:52] the requirement for the developer to obtain the necessary connection permits

[4:07:57] for the dis- district municipality of Muskoka prior

[4:08:00] to connection to the municipal water and sanitary sewer infrastructure.

[4:08:04] The submission of a wetland compensation and net benefit and enhancement report

[4:08:09] response memo to address the comments of the peer review prepared by SLR

[4:08:14] Consulting Limited dated June 17th, 2026 to the satisfaction of the Township of

[4:08:19] Muskoka Lakes and the District Municipality of Muskoka.

[4:08:23] The subject's land be required to obtain site plan approval and that a sat-

[4:08:27] satisfactory site plan agreement be entered into the

[4:08:31] into and registered on title along with securities for matters including but not

[4:08:35] limited to implementation of the recommendations made

[4:08:39] within the EIS and peer review responses prepared by Azimuth Environmental

[4:08:44] Consulting Inc. wetland compensation and net benefit and

[4:08:48] enhancement report prepared Oh, I'm sorry. Just read that. Uh uh

[4:08:53] uh

[4:08:56] Sorry, guys. Wetland compensation and net benefit and

[4:09:00] enhancement report prepared by Azimuth Environmental Consulting and associated

[4:09:04] peer reviews prepared by SLR Consulting pertaining to the protection,

[4:09:09] compensation, and net benefit of significant natural features on and

[4:09:12] adjacent to the subject lands and other matters as detailed in staff report plan

[4:09:17] 2026-092 and OPA 56. And finally,

[4:09:22] the submission of an identified traffic impact brief or stamped letter from

[4:09:27] a professional engineer which confirms that the opposed 0 m setback from

[4:09:33] Juddhaven Road bracket District Road 28 will not represent will not present any

[4:09:39] operation or functional concerns from a transportation per

[4:09:42] perspective. And confirms that the existing right-of-way along Juddhaven

[4:09:47] Road is 26 m in width consistent with the requirements of the District of

[4:09:52] Muskoka. Ms. Crowder,

[4:09:56] could you net that out for us?

[4:10:00] But seriously, too, you know, what what what is before us and and where are we

[4:10:04] agreement and what are the actual decisions are before us?

[4:10:09] » Through you, Chair. Um yes, so lengthy um resolution, but essentially this

[4:10:15] incorporates um that staff bring forward a bylaw for

[4:10:22] council's consideration um that will be drafted by staff over the next few

[4:10:27] weeks. I would like to bring it forward to the special council meeting in July

[4:10:32] um if all works out that way, that would be wonderful. And you would have that

[4:10:37] bylaw for your review and consideration. Um and then ultimately would be making a

[4:10:43] decision on that bylaw at that council meeting. So, that's the first component

[4:10:48] of that resolution. And the bylaw would be drafted um to

[4:10:53] reflect the decisions made here today as it pertains to the floodplain, the

[4:10:57] wetland, and other matters that we've discussed.

[4:11:00] And the second part of this bylaw or this sorry, this resolution is the

[4:11:04] incorporation of holding provisions. Um and what would be included within those

[4:11:09] holding, um, provisions. So, we have the developers group agreement and the

[4:11:13] master development agreement, both of which are laid out in the, um, OPA 56.

[4:11:18] And, uh, the master development agreement is currently under works with

[4:11:22] the proponent, um, in the draft stage. Provincial approvals, the district's,

[4:11:27] um, requirements have been incorporated in here as it relates to the water and

[4:11:31] waste water treatment plant. Um, and then essentially that site plan

[4:11:37] approval be, um, that that process be implemented and the

[4:11:43] consultants continue working together, the environmental consultants,

[4:11:47] um, and that essentially the, the measures set forth would be implemented

[4:11:52] through the site plan control process. Um,

[4:11:56] and then there's also another district condition about the traffic impact

[4:11:59] brief. The items that have been requested or that we have heard may want

[4:12:05] to be amended would include, um, the depth of dredging.

[4:12:10] So, if that is a matter that, um, this committee wishes to amend, cuz as of

[4:12:15] right now, um, the motion reads that the

[4:12:19] recommendations put forth by SLR be implemented. So, that would be the 2 m

[4:12:23] depth. So, if that's something that committee wants to change, um, there is

[4:12:27] a resolution prepared to reflect that. And the second is the traffic impact

[4:12:33] brief, um, and the right of way along Jud Haven Road.

[4:12:37] The district and the proponent have discussed this item and have agreed to

[4:12:42] wording, um, that has also been put in a

[4:12:45] resolution for you. Um, to discuss. So, that's sort of a summary

[4:12:51] here. Um, we can also go through exactly what the wording of the, those

[4:12:55] amendments are should committee be interested in doing so.

[4:12:58] » And, um, there wasn't a mention, I think, of uh,

[4:13:03] the 26 m versus the 20 m. Is it >> Through you

[4:13:07] » need to correct for that as well? >> Through you, Chair. So, that's the item

[4:13:11] about the right of way with Judhaven Road that I mentioned. So, it is in the

[4:13:15] in the resolution there. >> Ms. Bustard, um

[4:13:18] do you have any anything you'd like to say about

[4:13:23] what we have in this resolution? >> Uh thank you very much for the

[4:13:27] opportunity. I I mean, we've talked at length about it. Our our request just

[4:13:31] remains that there would be the opportunity to dredge up to 3 m

[4:13:34] with the extent and and details being defined through detailed design. And Ms.

[4:13:39] Crowder just specified that Judhaven is more just administrative. It just right

[4:13:43] now says that the right of way is 26 when it's currently only 20. So, the

[4:13:47] confirmation is that it can be widened up to 26. So, it's more just a language

[4:13:51] correction more than anything else. >> That's very well.

[4:13:53] » Thank you very much. But all other conditions we're in full agreement with.

[4:13:56] Thank you. >> Thank you.

[4:13:58] Councillor Adams. >> Uh thank you and through you.

[4:14:01] How do we table the motion of the 2 m to 3 m?

[4:14:06] Thank you. >> We have We have a draft.

[4:14:09] » a mover and a seconder. >> Well, we

[4:14:12] » Yeah, are we >> First of all, before we get to that

[4:14:15] are there any questions? >> Chair,

[4:14:19] pardon me. Um I did see Curtis Zefritz on the screen, manager of planning. So,

[4:14:23] I don't know if he wanted to speak to the district condition.

[4:14:27] » Good afternoon, sir. >> Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, uh through

[4:14:31] you. No, I would just want to be available should the committee have any

[4:14:34] questions about any of the district conditions. So, I just had my my video

[4:14:39] camera on just to be available. >> All right. Thank you very much.

[4:14:42] » Thank you. >> All right. So, where were we We were at

[4:14:46] Does anybody have any questions? All right. Now we can have the debate.

[4:14:50] Is there any debate other than we need a resolution passed?

[4:14:56] Right? We have a draft resolution.

[4:15:00] » Yeah. Technically, I should have a mover and a

[4:15:02] seconder. On that resolution, I preferably

[4:15:07] » I think I saw this hand up and then that hand. So,

[4:15:10] um moved by Councillor Mezen, seconded by

[4:15:13] Councillor Zavitz.

[4:15:16] » So, that's the wording now. People will write on this.

[4:15:19] » Pardon? >> Sorry.

[4:15:20] » That's wording. I'll give you the correct wording to sign.

[4:15:57] » Okay, committee, let me let me read this

[4:16:00] resolution.

[4:16:03] Moved by Councillor Edwards, seconded by

[4:16:08] Sorry.

[4:16:11] » Okay.

[4:16:18] » Be it resolved that Sorry, moved by Councillor Mezen,

[4:16:22] seconded by Councillor Zavitz. Be it resolved that the resolution as

[4:16:25] amended be amended as follows: to add

[4:16:31] in order to create an open water and shallow

[4:16:35] marsh wetland feature not exceeding 3 m in depth

[4:16:39] after the words wetland compensation and net benefit and enhancement report

[4:16:44] prepared by Azimuth Environmental Consulting Inc. in the second last

[4:16:48] bullet. And that the words

[4:16:51] quote, that existing right of way along Juddhaven Road is 26 m in width,

[4:16:57] consistent with the requirements of the District of Muskoka official plan, end

[4:17:01] quote, in the last bullet be replaced with, quote, that the right of way is or

[4:17:08] allows for the future expansion to 26 m consistent with the requirements of the

[4:17:13] District of Muskoka official plan.

[4:17:17] That's the resolution. Do we have any

[4:17:22] Any questions or debate? Going to call the question. All those in

[4:17:26] favor. Okay. Carries. Any opposed?

[4:17:31] Okay.

[4:17:42] All right. We move on to the next item agenda.

[4:17:45] Agenda item. Um first of all, thank you to staff on

[4:17:51] this file. Thank you for the applicants.

[4:17:55] And uh thank you to committee

[4:17:59] for being such a obedient committee.

[4:18:05] There we go. A cooperative and understanding

[4:18:08] committee. All right. So, the our next item

[4:18:13] Mayor Mayor Kelly. Thank you very much. And uh I just want

[4:18:17] to say one quick thing. This, you know, it's a huge day

[4:18:21] uh for us and I think it's a huge uh vote of confidence in the future of our

[4:18:26] township and particularly up in Minett. Um I spoke earlier about uh stepping

[4:18:31] back two or three paces and addressing more than the very well-documented

[4:18:36] planning issues. And I'm really, really pleased with how this thing was dealt

[4:18:40] with. There There was great questions, great debate and discussion.

[4:18:45] Um and so I couldn't be more proud. I know there will be some negative

[4:18:49] blowback on some of the issues. Some people are going to disagree with us,

[4:18:53] but I can tell you at the foundation of every good decision is process, and

[4:18:58] we've we I think executed well against a really good process, good plan. So,

[4:19:03] thank you all on behalf of the rest of the constituents of this township.

[4:19:12] » Actually, committee, we have We have one more thing to do, and that

[4:19:16] is we need to approve the main motion as amended. Everybody All those in favor?

[4:19:23] Thank you. All right.

[4:19:33] All right, so

[4:19:39] Without further ado, we move on to the Bala Legion file.

[4:19:52] » Okay, thank you, Chair Bosworth. The next applications to be heard today

[4:19:57] are concurrent zoning bylaw amendment application ZBA 2226

[4:20:02] and official plan amendment application OPA 67 in the name of the Royal Canadian

[4:20:07] Legion. The subject lands are known municipally as 1011 Maple Avenue.

[4:20:12] Next slide, please.

[4:20:16] As committee may recall, these applications were originally heard last

[4:20:19] month on June 11th, where the applications were deferred by planning

[4:20:23] committee for staff to undertake a review and analysis of submissions

[4:20:26] received in response to the applications.

[4:20:29] As part of the deferral, a revised proposal was requested, which

[4:20:33] demonstrates a reduction in height and density and provides a satisfactory

[4:20:37] parking solution before approval can be considered.

[4:20:40] Next slide, please.

[4:20:43] The amended proposal has removed a story from the proposed multi-use building.

[4:20:48] This results in a reduction in height from 72.2 ft to 54 ft.

[4:20:53] This change in height largely addresses staff's concern as it relates to height,

[4:20:57] noting that the existing site-specific bylaw on the lands permits a building

[4:21:01] height of 55 ft. Next slide, please.

[4:21:06] The amended proposal has reduced the number of units from 128 to 106.

[4:21:12] This changes the unit per hectare ratio from 170 units per hectare to 137 units

[4:21:18] per hectare. Staff acknowledge that this is still a

[4:21:21] significant numerical variation from the existing policy, which permits 70 units

[4:21:26] per gross hectare. The remaining policies within the

[4:21:29] official plan speak to the character of the area. Considering that the parking,

[4:21:33] lot coverage, height, and other attributes are now supportable by staff,

[4:21:38] staff are of the opinion that the number of units within the building would not

[4:21:41] change the character from a built form perspective.

[4:21:45] From an intensity of use perspective, staff refer to the technical studies

[4:21:49] which provide justification for the development and are subject peer review

[4:21:52] through the utilization of a holding provision.

[4:21:56] Staff do note, however, that the built form of the site, meaning the building

[4:22:00] plus the parking, will occupy most of the subject lands, leaving minimal green

[4:22:04] space or ability to revegetate. Any available area will be required to

[4:22:09] be revegetated through the site plan control process.

[4:22:13] Next slide, please. The amended proposal increased the

[4:22:17] amount of on-site parking from 56 spaces to 121 spaces.

[4:22:22] 43 of these spaces will be underground, and 78 will be at grade.

[4:22:27] This is a significant improvement over the previous iteration of the proposal,

[4:22:31] which would provide for one space per residential unit plus 15 spaces for

[4:22:36] visitors, the Legion, medical clinic, etc.

[4:22:39] Staff acknowledge that there are surrounding public parking areas, which

[4:22:43] could aid in the need for parking during the day.

[4:22:46] However, staff remain of the opinion that the parking justification report

[4:22:50] leaves unresolved concerns. These concerns need to be addressed

[4:22:54] prior to lifting of the holding provision.

[4:22:57] The proposal seeks to provide five barrier-free parking spaces, where 12

[4:23:01] accessible units are proposed. Staff question the adequacy of the

[4:23:05] proposed amount of barrier-free spaces when these numbers don't align.

[4:23:10] Further, the proposed Legion facilities, by nature of their use, draw users to

[4:23:14] the establishment who may who may require barrier-free spaces.

[4:23:19] The Township's comprehensive zoning bylaw requires a minimum of 13 13

[4:23:23] barrier-free spaces, and staff recommend that this number be

[4:23:27] upheld. Next slide, please.

[4:23:31] Since the time of the original public meeting, one letter of support and two

[4:23:35] letters of opposition have been received. These comments were forwarded

[4:23:38] to committee prior to today's meeting, one of which was forwarded this morning.

[4:23:43] As it was received this morning. It is staff's opinion that the concerns

[4:23:47] noted in the original letter of opposition, the one forwarded to you

[4:23:52] earlier on, um is addressed through revisions to the

[4:23:55] applications to reduce density and that the parking justification study be

[4:23:59] revised to address staff's concerns as noted in the original staff report.

[4:24:06] Staff have prepared a detailed report for committee's consideration and

[4:24:09] recommend the following: that official plan amendment 67, as

[4:24:13] amended, be revised to reflect the amended applications as detailed in the

[4:24:17] staff report, and that the revised OPA be adopted by the Township and the

[4:24:21] record forwarded to the District Municipality of Muskoka for approval.

[4:24:25] Staff further recommend that zoning bylaw amendment application ZBA 2226, as

[4:24:30] amended, be approved subject to the following.

[4:24:34] That the draft bylaw and associated schedules be revised to reflect the

[4:24:38] amended applications as detailed in the staff report.

[4:24:42] That the draft bylaw be revised to require that 13 of the proposed parking

[4:24:46] spaces be barrier-free spaces in accordance with the requirements of the

[4:24:50] Township's comprehensive zoning bylaw as amended.

[4:24:53] And that revisions be made to the draft bylaw to first amend section 2D to state

[4:24:59] that the parking justification report be to satisfactorily address staff comments

[4:25:03] instead of being peer-reviewed. And second, remove section 2G being that

[4:25:09] the lands receive site plan approval prior to the lifting of the holding

[4:25:12] provision. Staff have no further comments at this

[4:25:15] time. They're happy to answer any questions from committee. Thank you.

[4:25:19] » Thank you very much. Mr. Hunter.

[4:25:24] You have the floor.

[4:25:29] » Thank you, Chair, and good afternoon. Uh my name is James Hunter, the planner and

[4:25:33] project manager for the applicant on behalf of Morgan Planning and

[4:25:36] Development. Um we talked about >> James, I I will be uh I'll be generous

[4:25:41] with the 5 minutes today. >> Oh, no, I don't need 5 minutes. I

[4:25:43] appreciate it. Um I'm just jumping up to say that we

[4:25:47] would like to thank staff uh first and foremost for everything that they've

[4:25:49] worked uh with us on this proposal. It's been uh quite a process to get to this

[4:25:53] stage, and the applicant really appreciates that. And second, thank you

[4:25:56] to you, Council Committee, for hearing us uh in the previous meeting and this

[4:26:00] meeting. Um we brought forward a application and a proposed development

[4:26:04] that we're very excited about. Uh with our second submission, we made some

[4:26:07] pretty substantial changes to get to this point. Um in addition to that, the

[4:26:11] parking uh landscape comments that were provided in the report, um we do

[4:26:15] support, and we can address that through the holding provision. So, um in

[4:26:18] summary, uh thank you for the recommendation, and I'm happy to answer

[4:26:21] any questions directed my way. >> Thank you very much.

[4:26:26] Committee, what questions do we have for the applicant and Ms. Crowder?

[4:26:32] Councilor Roberts. >> Hey, I I I clarity on the parking.

[4:26:39] So, there's 137 units

[4:26:42] in in in that that's just the units. The No, 102.

[4:26:47] So, you must The

[4:26:49] 100 Go ahead. >> Through you, Chair, if I may, to

[4:26:52] Councilor Roberts, there are 106 units proposed. The density ratio

[4:26:59] is 170 Sorry, 137 units per gross hectare.

[4:27:05] The lands are less than a hectare, which is why there's

[4:27:08] those numbers are different, but it's 106 units proposed.

[4:27:11] » 106, okay. So, I thank you for for clarifying that for me. I made a

[4:27:14] mistake. So, there's 106 residential units.

[4:27:20] But, there's also the Legion um

[4:27:24] facility that the traditionally is have had on spot.

[4:27:31] And that will require more parking when the events happen.

[4:27:36] And then we have um 13 barrier-free um

[4:27:42] uh spots.

[4:27:44] Are the 13 the that 13 barriers speed uh

[4:27:49] places which could be used 24 hours a day by people that

[4:27:54] live in the [clears throat] complex and

[4:27:58] require parking. >> Ms. Crowder.

[4:28:00] » Through you, Chair, uh to Councilor Roberts, so

[4:28:04] of the proposed parking supply, which is 121 spaces, 13 of those staff are

[4:28:10] recommending be barrier-free. Now, the township's

[4:28:15] um jurisdiction over this would be This is

[4:28:18] the number of parking spaces required, this is the number that have to be

[4:28:21] barrier-free. Um potentially through site plan

[4:28:25] agreements, we could stipulate that those those spaces need to be for the

[4:28:29] residents of the of the um residential component.

[4:28:35] Um we've done something similar in the past

[4:28:38] with um cash in lieu of parking applications,

[4:28:41] but as of right now, we have not worked that into our recommendation. So, if

[4:28:45] that's something that committee would like to see happen, that those spaces be

[4:28:48] dedicated to the residents, um then that could be something that's brought

[4:28:53] forward. But as of right now, the way the resolution is is written, that would

[4:28:57] not be a requirement. So, those spaces would be available to

[4:29:01] the public, essentially. >> Mhm.

[4:29:04] Thank you.

[4:29:06] Councillor Nishikawa. >> Thank you. I just wanted to comment on

[4:29:11] the three buildings I've been involved with

[4:29:14] through the district and accessible parking,

[4:29:18] that it wasn't

[4:29:21] um it wasn't just for

[4:29:25] the residents when we did the accessible parking numbers. It was

[4:29:29] quite frankly visitors as well. So, I just didn't want to get

[4:29:33] hung up on trying to manage the users of the

[4:29:39] Legion itself as opposed to the residents.

[4:29:44] » It's still a little still a little a little unclear in my mind. First First

[4:29:48] of all, does the 121 include the 13?

[4:29:54] » Through you, Chair. As currently proposed, they are proposing five

[4:29:58] barrier-free spaces, >> Right.

[4:30:00] » which would be five of the 121. What staff are recommending is that

[4:30:06] 13 of the 121 be barrier-free. >> And were you also suggesting that we

[4:30:12] could make those barrier-free available only to the residents?

[4:30:18] » Through you, Chair. I think the question was raised as to whether they would be

[4:30:22] dedicated to the residential units. We have not written that that needs to

[4:30:27] happen in our staff report. We have just noted that the zoning bylaw requires

[4:30:32] this number of barrier-free units based on the number of units and the gross

[4:30:36] floor area of the other uses proposed. If committee wants to see those

[4:30:41] dedicated to the residential units, that's something that could be

[4:30:44] discussed. But as of right now, we're not recommending that, no.

[4:30:47] » And and what do we have with respect to visitor parking? No visitor parking?

[4:30:53] » Through you. Um the proposal as currently drafted,

[4:30:57] there would be 15 spaces that would be associated with visitor parking. And

[4:31:04] that is if every unit had a space that was

[4:31:08] occupied, it would leave 15 spaces left over for visitors, but that would also

[4:31:12] be for the Legion itself, the medical clinic, and um the office spaces.

[4:31:19] » Mr. Under. >> Yeah, thank you. And through the Chair,

[4:31:21] just to help uh Ms. Crowder out. So, once we get the official plan amendment

[4:31:25] and zoning bylaw amendment in place after this, we're going to work with

[4:31:27] staff on the site plan approval site plan control process. Um something we

[4:31:31] haven't highlighted enough through our application is that a percentage of

[4:31:34] these units are going to be accessible. So, when we design this building for

[4:31:37] site plan approval, to uh Counselor Roberts' point, um we will allocate

[4:31:42] accessible spaces to those units in addition to visitor and residents. So,

[4:31:47] um we're essentially setting uh minimum of five. We would like to get to the 13

[4:31:52] that staff suggested. If we can, we will exceed that number. Um it just depends

[4:31:56] on how the the site design goes at the site plan approval. And then the number

[4:32:00] of accessible units cuz we would obviously want to target a one-to-one

[4:32:03] ratio for those units for those accessible spaces. So, ultimately the

[4:32:07] current 121 um would provide for that, but we do hope to expand the parking. I

[4:32:11] just want to make that clear that we do plan to increase these numbers uh

[4:32:14] through our site plan control.

[4:32:17] » Committee, any other questions do we have?

[4:32:22] Councilor Mazan.

[4:32:25] » Thank you and through you and just again on the parking piece

[4:32:29] confirming that the process will allow for

[4:32:34] um parking all to be within their

[4:32:39] uh their property footprint.

[4:32:42] And that of the public space would remain

[4:32:45] for transient use, meaning for events. Like I think somebody

[4:32:50] brought up events and things like it like it's being used today but not for

[4:32:53] overnight parking. >> Schroeder.

[4:32:56] » Through you, Chair. Um am I correct that Councilor Mazan, you're referring to the

[4:33:01] lot across the across the way? >> Thank you and through you. I think what

[4:33:05] I'm just I think a concern that has been brought up and we've experienced before

[4:33:09] in other areas of the township is um public lands are used as overnight

[4:33:14] parking spots. It can create real conflict within the community and I'm

[4:33:18] just I'm actually picking up on the the question Mayor Kelly had asked earlier

[4:33:22] on. Just making sure that the parking will be satisfied in this

[4:33:26] process for this particular um development on its own lands or

[4:33:32] versus relying on public lands. We just don't want to create a conflict. We've

[4:33:37] already lived through this conflict many times.

[4:33:40] » Ms. Schroeder. >> Through you, Chair. Um to Councilor

[4:33:43] Mazan. So the main um thing that staff were looking at when it came to the

[4:33:48] residential component is that each residence have at least one space and

[4:33:52] that has been resolved. The question of whether there are enough spaces on the

[4:33:56] lands to satisfy the more public use being the Legion facilities and any

[4:34:01] events they may have um is a bit more sub

[4:34:06] uh I always get subjective and objective

[4:34:08] mixed up. But, um the parking plans that we have before us say that the parking

[4:34:14] supply is satisfactory for that. However, we are recommending that that

[4:34:19] be peer-reviewed because staff do have significant questions and concerns with

[4:34:23] that parking plan. So, provided it is peer-reviewed and those questions

[4:34:28] answered to the satisfaction of staff, and we would be in a position to lift

[4:34:32] the hold. However, if those questions were not satisfactorily addressed,

[4:34:37] then we would not lift the hold. >> Okay, Kelly.

[4:34:43] Thank you, and through you. I I just have a couple of concerns I want to hear

[4:34:46] some answers to. And one of them is the parking concern, and one of them is the

[4:34:50] use of a hold as a tool to remedy a perceived shortage of of parking.

[4:34:56] Simply because I

[4:34:59] you know, I don't know how you can just

[4:35:02] I guess we don't allow anything to happen until they get resolved.

[4:35:05] Otherwise, you're going to wind up with a building with a deficiency of parking.

[4:35:08] And the real issue for me is not the deficiency of the parking,

[4:35:11] it's what that does to the surrounding neighborhood and the residents. We had a

[4:35:15] uh young gentleman in here earlier this

[4:35:18] morning who was a store owner in the near near area. He's counting on people

[4:35:21] being able to park in or near uh

[4:35:24] proximity to his store and walk in and buy stuff and get out. And we can't uh

[4:35:30] in good conscience saddle him with the responsibility of looking out at the

[4:35:35] cars that have nowhere else to park and have to sit there all the time. So,

[4:35:38] that's a big issue. Uh I don't know once the cat's out of the bag how you solve

[4:35:42] that one. I'll throw out the other question, and whoever wants to answer it

[4:35:46] can answer it. Um I was in attendance [clears throat] when the first

[4:35:50] announcement was made, and and I don't see um Mr. Mills here right now, but uh

[4:35:56] there was certainly a lot of buzz and a lot of interest. And I think there were

[4:35:59] a lot of people who put funds up uh to secure some right of first refusal or

[4:36:05] whatever it is to get a spot in the new building. I want to understand whether

[4:36:10] or not the nature of the building has stayed consistent throughout.

[4:36:14] Is [clears throat] it still uh what people thought they were buying into?

[4:36:18] Has it changed either by financing or other commitments that may have been

[4:36:22] made? Uh has the nature of the uh the building changed so that there's any

[4:36:28] concern but that there's still a big demand for this uh

[4:36:32] product in the market. >> So, there's two questions. I'll let

[4:36:36] counselor or sorry, Ms. Crowder um

[4:36:39] answer the first one. >> Thank you through you, Chair.

[4:36:42] » Back to holding effectiveness for >> Yeah. Yeah, so when staff read the

[4:36:48] traffic study, which also speaks to parking,

[4:36:51] um there were major concerns that were noted. Um namely that

[4:36:56] the areas used as comparators simply aren't comparative to our area. You

[4:37:01] know, we Bella doesn't have any public transit. So, to compare against only

[4:37:06] areas with public transit doesn't make a lot of sense. So, we have

[4:37:12] posed, I think, four or five very big questions that need to be addressed

[4:37:17] before we would ever be in a position where we would lift that hold. So, yeah,

[4:37:22] you cannot apply for your building permits until the hold is lifted. Um so,

[4:37:27] we would not be in a position where this building is built and then we're not

[4:37:31] satisfied. >> Ms. Crowder, the second question about

[4:37:34] the nature of the building. >> Yeah, so through the chair to to Mayor.

[4:37:39] Um the nature of the building has remained the same. For a second

[4:37:41] submission, there's been a slight internal redesign to drop the number of

[4:37:44] units and also to increase the parking. Um but the original commitments and

[4:37:48] trust is all actually grow and our remain. So,

[4:37:51] um also it's very important, sorry, just on

[4:37:53] the first topic for the parking. So, the the parking study we did that was

[4:37:56] provided in support of the first application, uh that specifically looked

[4:38:01] at the 56 on-site parking spaces and then our proposals for off-site or

[4:38:05] shared parking spaces. Since that time we've more than doubled the parking on

[4:38:08] the site. We also have access to uh approximately 81 across the street and

[4:38:12] then we have adjacent owners agreements for about 40 spaces.

[4:38:16] So, the parking study originally um said that our site was efficient. Now,

[4:38:22] speaking with consultants, we haven't had time to update that, so that's what

[4:38:24] this on hold is on the zoning. And that is a standard process, so as as Ms.

[4:38:29] Crowder said, uh we have to update that study and provide it to staff for

[4:38:33] confirmation before we can lift that zone.

[4:38:37] » Follow up, Mr. Kelly. >> Just a quick follow up and thank you for

[4:38:39] that. Thank you for the information. Uh [clears throat] the the adjacent and

[4:38:43] across the street parking um is part of my concern and you

[4:38:48] probably heard my uh focus on parking uh this morning. Um

[4:38:54] my understanding, uh Ms. Crowder, correct me if I'm wrong or I should

[4:38:58] go ahead and correct me now. I'm probably going to be wrong. Uh but uh

[4:39:01] » [laughter] >> is that

[4:39:03] my understanding [clears throat] is that the parking really has to be on land

[4:39:08] owned by the same uh uh owner as the building and I don't know that you I

[4:39:12] know in the adjacent spaces you're looking at, I think it's leased facility

[4:39:15] uh leased land and I don't know what you have across the street.

[4:39:18] » Mr. Honor. >> Yes, Mr. Chair, today Mr. Kelly. So,

[4:39:22] to clarify, there's 121 parking spaces on site and 43 of those are underground,

[4:39:27] 78 are at grade. So, all of the parking is accommodated on site. The way that

[4:39:31] the Legion has historically operated is street parking, minimal on site and then

[4:39:36] the 81 spaces across the street. All of that will be maintained and actually

[4:39:39] increased on our site. Um something that we discussed in last meeting that we'd

[4:39:43] like to work with the township on is improved street parking in the area. So,

[4:39:47] if we're a development working with the municipality um along Maple and

[4:39:50] surrounding areas to improve those spots so that it's not only for us for

[4:39:54] festivals, etc. that it's improved for everyone. So, that's a large component

[4:39:58] of our project. Um so, when we look at the rough numbers, I mean, we're we're

[4:40:01] looking at a total between the residents and the visitors, we're probably in the

[4:40:05] 250 to 270 parking spaces with events, which is significant considering we

[4:40:11] started at about 100. So, across our site between the shared agreements and

[4:40:15] offsite, we've almost tripled the parking or exceeded triple the parking.

[4:40:19] Um and our parking space originally supported that. So, as Ms. Crowder said,

[4:40:22] um the increase hasn't been addressed through the parking justification

[4:40:26] justification study. Um that is going to be done to remove the zone hold.

[4:40:34] » Councillor Kent. >> Can I make a call it's question. I I

[4:40:39] guess my biggest concern I have other concerns, but

[4:40:44] is the sustainability of Bala being able to deal with this 25%

[4:40:49] increase in population head count. This combined with the the prior that was

[4:40:53] noted by the gentleman this morning. It's a tiny town. It's not set up to

[4:40:57] service people properly for year-round at that level. That number of people on

[4:41:03] a year-round basis. And I was wondering what we as a township or what

[4:41:08] what can be done to to support the growth if that's what the committee

[4:41:14] decides to do, but just sort of plopping it in and doing nothing to help them

[4:41:18] with maybe a nurse practitioner's office, a

[4:41:22] whatever is needed, additional grocery store, you know, put the LCBO back, you

[4:41:27] know, things that need to be done to support this community. How do we make

[4:41:30] that happen and who evaluates that? >> Ms. Crowder, could you talk to that from

[4:41:35] a planning point of view? >> Through you, Chair. Um to Councillor

[4:41:38] Kent, it's a great question. Um I can answer it from

[4:41:43] the planning side of things. We are relying on the professional

[4:41:48] guidance of provided to us by the district and the consultant. So, the

[4:41:53] district is saying that there is capacity to service this facility.

[4:41:59] Um Yes.

[4:42:01] And as far as the transportation goes, it is recommended it be peer reviewed,

[4:42:06] but provided that checks out as the as the

[4:42:09] um study says, it it is able to support the

[4:42:12] proposal. We do rely on those findings. Um

[4:42:16] as far as providing facilities, this specific proposal does propose a medical

[4:42:22] clinic within the building, um which they're saying would have one

[4:42:25] practitioner. Um so, something to think about, but I do

[4:42:29] appreciate your comments that as a whole community,

[4:42:33] you know, what will this impact be? I don't know that I have the answer

[4:42:37] specifically for you, but it is a consideration.

[4:42:40] » Councillor Nishikawa.

[4:42:45] Councillor Nishikawa. >> Oh, sorry. I just wanted to clarify, um

[4:42:49] what um Ms. Crowder mentioned from the district's perspective,

[4:42:55] they were I believe I understood it to be that the district was has room for

[4:43:01] servicing, as in sewer and water, but nothing else. Like, they're not

[4:43:06] bringing transportation to the area, ever, to Muskoka Lakes,

[4:43:11] quite frankly, but I'm just saying that that it's not on the table for that we

[4:43:15] would ever get the district to And so, I wanted just clarify that

[4:43:19] from you. Thank you. >> Ms. Crowder.

[4:43:20] » Thank you. Thank you. Through you, Chair, to Councillor Nishikawa. Yes, to

[4:43:23] clarify, I'm speaking solely to water and sewer infrastructure.

[4:43:28] Thank you. >> Councillor Zavitz.

[4:43:31] Thank you, and through you. So, I'm happy to answer uh my good friend over

[4:43:35] there. Um you know, it it's interesting. Uh we talk about seasonal and we talk

[4:43:40] about, you know, year-round, Um Bala swells in those summer those peak

[4:43:46] summer months to a, you know, quite a size.

[4:43:50] And the people that are there are accommodated and I you know, I I as the

[4:43:54] district has identified this as a development node as has we um with with

[4:43:59] water and sewer as some of the services. Yes, there we're lacking in some others,

[4:44:05] but you know, I wonder if that's not a sort of a natural growth piece as well.

[4:44:09] So, I I don't want to get too far ahead of myself, but you know, in terms of the

[4:44:13] parking is probably my only concern if I might and the parking in terms of the

[4:44:19] lot that we own that anyone the public can use

[4:44:25] is that are we going to come down to that discussion around this table? I

[4:44:29] guess in terms of, you know, if you're including it if they're including it in

[4:44:33] their number, I mean, that's our parking lot, right? So, that's

[4:44:38] anybody's parking lot all day and not at night. So, I I'd like some clarification

[4:44:43] on that if I might. Screw you, chair. >> Ms. Corriveau, I

[4:44:48] I think that question if I've got it the counselor is having is, you know, how

[4:44:52] will the site plan process will it involve us? I think you

[4:44:58] would like to know that and um

[4:45:03] you how how will we know the ultimate outcome of the parking?

[4:45:07] Is that fair, Counselor Zavitz? >> Well, screw you. Sorry, I I thank you

[4:45:11] for that clarification. What I'm saying is it's everyone's

[4:45:14] parking lot. So, for them to include it in their numbers

[4:45:18] I find that a little worrisome and I maybe that might have been a slip. Um

[4:45:22] but if if he's if you're including that as part of the 280 whatever, that

[4:45:27] parking lot could be used for a birthday party down the street and there could be

[4:45:31] 48 cars there. So, that's not dependable parking is what I'm saying, 12 hours of

[4:45:36] the day. >> Understood.

[4:45:37] » Mr. Hunter. >> Yeah, through the chair to councilor so

[4:45:41] that's not included in any of our parking calculations anymore just to be

[4:45:45] clear. Everything is provided on site which was the recommendation for the

[4:45:48] reason we had the original deferral. We're saying that if there's peak events

[4:45:52] and then we do have that 81 parking spaces across the street. We're looking

[4:45:56] to work with the township for on site parking improvements along the streets.

[4:45:59] There's other means that we have available to us but as far as our

[4:46:02] development and servicing the legion goes our transportation and our

[4:46:06] professional engineers say that we is supported. We have reviewed that with

[4:46:09] the district and they have the same opinion. It's just a matter of us

[4:46:12] updating that wholly into the comprehensive revised report and getting

[4:46:16] it back to staff for our submission so. >> If I may supplemental thank you. Chair.

[4:46:21] » Yes. >> Thank you.

[4:46:23] Yeah, because it's also the legion's parking lot to use right and and you

[4:46:28] have used it for 80 years.

[4:46:31] » Yeah, so >> since the legion was built so

[4:46:33] » Yeah, through the chair. That's Sorry. Um,

[4:46:36] the legion has used that parking spot and surrounding since it's open so the

[4:46:40] function will remain the same. We've added it additional spaces and we're

[4:46:44] recommending further improvements for any concerns.

[4:46:47] Um, but you're right it's a public parking space.

[4:46:50] » Ms. Crowder. >> Thank you, chair. Um,

[4:46:53] just to touch on that the one of the questions or comments that staff raised

[4:46:57] about the transit study is that those public parking spaces were being

[4:47:03] included in the justification and so we have said

[4:47:07] no. You know, these are public spaces. They

[4:47:11] this this your findings your professional opinion should not be on

[4:47:14] the basis of public spaces. So that is something that we have asked them to

[4:47:18] address. Um, and also I did want to correct cuz I

[4:47:22] did misspeak earlier. I said that the district has confirmed capacity.

[4:47:26] We have included in the bylaw that is part of the hold that confirmation of

[4:47:31] capacity be received. So I just wanted to correct myself. Thank you.

[4:47:35] » You too.

[4:47:37] Councillor Robertson and Councillor Edwards.

[4:47:40] Okay, so all parking is going to be within the

[4:47:44] footprint of the of the property. And

[4:47:48] um my concern is from the gentleman who who

[4:47:51] was at Birch retailing or whatever that has there.

[4:47:56] When people come to visit that establishment where there'll be a lot of

[4:47:59] visitors, they're not going to know that

[4:48:03] there's a retail business. Oh, I got right one right in front. I'm just going

[4:48:06] to park there and it'll choke this gentleman's business off.

[4:48:10] How are you going to protect that?

[4:48:15] Ms. Crowder?

[4:48:17] » For you, Chair. Um

[4:48:19] when public when spaces are public, they are available

[4:48:24] for anyone to use um within the specified hours within the bylaw. So,

[4:48:30] however, when spaces are on private property,

[4:48:35] those can be reserved for certain uses. I don't know that the applicant is

[4:48:40] proposing to do that, to specify certain spaces for what, but for the spaces in

[4:48:44] front of the gentleman's um business, if we're talking about spaces along the

[4:48:49] public road, those would be public and available to anyone to park there.

[4:48:56] So, that is a consideration that, you know, committee should be aware of.

[4:49:00] » Councillor Edwards. Uh

[4:49:03] thank you, Mr. Chair. I I have a few. Looking at there's uh a miscalculation,

[4:49:09] so now there's 322 spaces, so we're deficient 201 spaces

[4:49:15] and eight eight barrier-free spaces. Is that correct?

[4:49:19] » Ms. Crowder. >> For you, Chair.

[4:49:21] Um to Councillor Edwards, yes, so I made a math error in the first report

[4:49:28] and um the correct number of spaces been included in this revised report. So, the

[4:49:34] required number of spaces based on the uses and everything proposed is 322

[4:49:40] spaces per the township's zoning bylaw. They are proposing 121 spaces,

[4:49:46] which means a deficiency of 201 spaces. >> Right.

[4:49:50] Now, I I heard mention on-street parking.

[4:49:55] I And I believe from from the uh the uh agent.

[4:50:01] What about winter parking when we have to plow roads and everything else like

[4:50:04] that? You hear that? And then,

[4:50:07] do we have a parking bylaw where you can only only uh park for so many hours?

[4:50:12] No overnight parking? >> Ms. Croner.

[4:50:15] » Can you correct that? >> Yeah, through you, Chair, to Councillor

[4:50:17] Edwards. Another one of the great questions that we have asked the

[4:50:20] transportation people to look at because that was not spoken to in the study is

[4:50:25] snow and snow removal and how that impacts their analysis. So, that is

[4:50:31] something that we are looking for them to address as part of the process where

[4:50:36] the hold is is invoked for the review of the study.

[4:50:39] Um as far as the road uh parking bylaws, I know that the lot across from the

[4:50:45] Legion is day parking only. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Um I don't

[4:50:51] specifically know about Maple Street. Um I imagine somebody around the table

[4:50:55] probably does. Um but we can certainly look into it if you'd like.

[4:50:59] » Okay. And let me ask one more. There was an approval

[4:51:03] for uh a uh senior's building there. How many units were in there and what

[4:51:07] parking was in there? Like, it fit the site at that time, did it not?

[4:51:12] » Ms. Croner. >> Through you, Chair, uh to Councillor

[4:51:14] Edwards. Yes, there was an approval for a retirement home. It was for 128 units,

[4:51:20] which was the previously proposed number of units of this application.

[4:51:25] Um at our previous meeting we did go into some depth about the differences in

[4:51:29] the uses a retirement home versus um you know, the multi-use apartment

[4:51:34] building that we're talking about today. And the number of parking spaces

[4:51:38] required for retirement home is significantly less than the the number

[4:51:43] of required parking spaces for today's proposal because of the use. Um so we do

[4:51:49] have those numbers, they're in the previous staff report and I'd be happy

[4:51:52] to pull them up for you. Um but I don't have them off the top of my head.

[4:51:56] » you. I just wonder why the the change like they had approval for something

[4:52:00] they could put 128 people in it. Why not use what they have

[4:52:05] because I I I could myself I can't see

[4:52:09] supplying 201 spaces somewhere else unless they own the land, but

[4:52:15] » Committee, we're getting someone into discussion. So when I need to read the

[4:52:18] resolution, we can continue with questions as well.

[4:52:23] » So moved by anybody in the council second is

[4:52:27] » I I guess it's an oversight.

[4:52:38] » Moved by Mayor Kelly, seconded by Councillor Kent. Be it resolved that

[4:52:42] official plan amendment OPA-67 amended bracket bracket Royal Canadian

[4:52:48] Legion be revised to reflect the amended application as detailed in staff report

[4:52:53] plan 20-26-102

[4:52:58] and that the revised OPA be adopted by the Township and that the record

[4:53:04] forwarded to the District Municipality of Muskoka for approval.

[4:53:09] Uh where was I? I think Mayor Kelly. >> Thank you and through you two questions.

[4:53:15] Uh the first to uh Ms. Crowder. Um

[4:53:19] Uh uh uh uh uh uh I actually don't know whether the hold is something that has

[4:53:23] to come back to committee to be relieved or lifted or whether it is an

[4:53:26] administrative act just looked after by staff.

[4:53:29] I'm assuming it's a staff function, but I don't Oh, it's not. It actually comes

[4:53:32] here. I'm going to ask then, if it were your call, how many I just want to focus

[4:53:38] specifically on the number of available parking spaces, um, on the property

[4:53:44] itself or on contiguous land owned by the same, uh, owner. How many spaces

[4:53:49] would you need to, uh, see, uh, before you would recommend waving or

[4:53:55] lifting that hold? Ms. Crowder.

[4:53:58] Through you, Chair, to Mayor Kelly. Um, it's not a specific number I would be

[4:54:02] looking for. It is the justification, having answered our questions. So, I I

[4:54:09] don't have a specific number before you, but when, um, we do receive a study that

[4:54:14] satisfies our questions, we would then be come back to Council for the lifting

[4:54:20] of the hold, and we'd be able to update you at that time, and provided everybody

[4:54:25] was comfortable with those findings, then you would be in a position to, um,

[4:54:28] lift the hold. But, it is like a it's a bylaw of itself to lift the hold. That's

[4:54:33] good. Thank you very much. Second question, and it relates I don't want to

[4:54:37] get into the, uh, uh,

[4:54:41] I really don't want to get into the viability of the project itself. That's

[4:54:44] not where I'm going with this, and I certainly am not making any any judgment

[4:54:48] based on whether it's attainable or affordable.

[4:54:51] Um, I think I've said it before, but just to

[4:54:54] be for the record, I believe any addition to the housing stock is

[4:54:58] valuable and is I don't particularly care, uh, whether

[4:55:02] they're attainable, affordable, or otherwise, as long as they are new

[4:55:05] places for people to live. Um, is there an element of this project that

[4:55:12] will be affordable. Uh that will be under you know, rent control to the

[4:55:16] extent that it'll maybe be something with the District of

[4:55:20] Muskoka is engaged in. And if so, I'm just curious what proportion of that

[4:55:24] would be. Uh Mr. Hunter.

[4:55:26] » Yes, thank you to the chair to the mayor. Um

[4:55:29] our proposal includes a a target towards seniors. So, to your earlier question,

[4:55:34] we're not removing the seniors component. There's still a significant

[4:55:37] interest and a target towards those uh residents who rent these units cuz it is

[4:55:42] a rental building. Out of that, uh we are targeting a

[4:55:45] percentage, at least 20% to be accessible units. So, that includes

[4:55:50] people with special needs or seniors with needs. And then, I believe we're

[4:55:53] 33% right now for actual affordable criteria. And I didn't bring it today,

[4:55:58] but I got a thick document through CMHC that you have to meet all this criteria,

[4:56:03] certain kinds of rents, and very specific targets. So, um instead of

[4:56:07] leaving this at purely a retirement community, the 120 units, we dropped it

[4:56:11] to 106. And then, we're trying to actually meet the needs of uh more

[4:56:14] members of the community. So, Uh perfect. And and thank you through

[4:56:18] you. And have you had discussions at all with the the District uh housing group?

[4:56:23] You have? Okay. Uh and to my knowledge, and I have some

[4:56:28] knowledge of the affordable housing, um the District reserves the right when

[4:56:34] they're engaged on a file to provide the tenant. And those tenants may not be

[4:56:39] from Bala, they may be moved in from elsewhere within the District. We we're

[4:56:44] aware of that. Is that a possibility? Okay. Thank you.

[4:56:47] » Yeah, so through the chair, the the District is involved. I mean, this uh

[4:56:51] this development, we're lucky the clients are pretty well connected. This

[4:56:54] has gone through the province through CMHC, through the pro- uh through the

[4:56:57] District. Um it's gone through all levels. So, as as you mentioned, we do

[4:57:01] have the ability to not only bring in residents from this area, but other

[4:57:04] surrounding areas who um are really in need of affordable housing projects.

[4:57:08] Our firm works throughout the whole district of Muskoka. There's really not

[4:57:12] a lot of availability, so there's quite a lot of interest in this project. And

[4:57:16] also from the adult standpoint, you know, we're we're hearing demand for

[4:57:19] this, so yeah, it provides quite a accessibility.

[4:57:25] » Do we have any other questions?

[4:57:29] Councillor Roberts. >> To the gentleman in the back, this is

[4:57:32] not a public meeting, so I'm afraid you can't make comments or questions.

[4:57:37] No.

[4:57:39] » Thank you, Chair. The The other concern I have

[4:57:44] is access to 169 and possibly the traffic jams that occur

[4:57:51] in during our peak months.

[4:57:54] What are staff's thoughts on that?

[4:57:58] » Ms. Crowder. >> Through you, Chair, to Councillor

[4:58:02] Roberts. So, the traffic impact brief has been submitted, which states that

[4:58:08] there won't be an impact. One of the requirements of the hold is

[4:58:13] that it be peer reviewed. So, we would be looking to have that

[4:58:16] document peer reviewed and go from there. That's right. Thank you.

[4:58:22] » Councillor Zavitz. >> Thank you, and through you, just to

[4:58:24] speak to that to the Councillor. There are five access egress ingress

[4:58:29] points from there

[4:58:32] to get in and out. So, I mean, I think I guess I counted

[4:58:35] » There's five between River Street and other accesses, so lots of access.

[4:58:45] » Any other uh Councillor Ishikawa. >> Well, I just wanted to One of the

[4:58:49] concerns from um the the gentleman from Birch Park this morning was that in fact

[4:58:55] cars would be lined up in front of his business and no one would be able to

[4:59:00] have access to his business because waiting to make and it's the left-hand

[4:59:04] turn. We all that have that problem on 118 when we try to leave this office.

[4:59:09] Um and it's about the one eight that that left-hand turn. So, it's a big

[4:59:14] bigger issue than this pic particular development that the district should

[4:59:18] start addressing. But, it is a concern of that business

[4:59:22] owner that people will be lined up waiting to make that left-hand turn in

[4:59:27] in summer and not people won't have access to his building. So, that's But,

[4:59:31] I don't know that

[4:59:34] we can control that through this application.

[4:59:39] » Committee, any other questions? Ms. Crowder, I have a question. Does uh

[4:59:44] if it has affordable housing

[4:59:48] does that are there different parking requirements for affordable housing?

[4:59:55] » Through you, Chair. It's a great question. Um

[4:59:59] as of right now we don't have any guarantee that these

[5:00:03] will be affordable units. Yes, the intent has been stated very clearly. Um

[5:00:09] but, the township doesn't have any way to regulate that. Um sec- the second

[5:00:15] point I would say is that our bylaw doesn't currently account for any kind

[5:00:21] of parking differentiation between affordable and not. I know that in um

[5:00:26] cities, there's been a big provincial movement to lessen the parking

[5:00:30] requirements um across the board, but particularly for situations like

[5:00:34] apartment buildings. However, I would say those are very city specific or or

[5:00:40] larger area specific because of public transit, which really isn't a

[5:00:44] consideration here. >> Councillor Robert Edwards.

[5:00:51] Uh I'm concerned about the holding.

[5:00:55] And that's simply because if they can't do it, it just going to fall apart.

[5:00:59] If we deferred this again, could they do some some

[5:01:04] more work on how they're going to solve it because like I say, we pass it with a

[5:01:09] holding and they can't do it, it's going to fall apart. But if we deferred it and

[5:01:14] they they they talked to the district and everything else that they they may

[5:01:18] have to reduce it a little bit or do some some some tweaking on it. Would

[5:01:23] that not be better than than a holding? Ms. Croner?

[5:01:28] » Through you, Chair, to Councillor Edwards. Um this project's been a little

[5:01:32] bit unique in that we have been asked to asked to address many of these items

[5:01:38] through utilization of a hold as opposed to deferring, specifically because it's

[5:01:44] been communicated to me by the applicant and agent that

[5:01:49] their need for funding for this project is dependent on a bylaw or an approval

[5:01:55] being given. Um if the applications are deferred,

[5:01:59] they would not have that approval, so they have requested that these be

[5:02:03] addressed via a hold provision. However, it is committee's right to

[5:02:08] um change that direction and defer should they wish to do so.

[5:02:12] Um I think ultimately you would be able to

[5:02:15] accomplish either way. So um we have been amenable to their request.

[5:02:20] » Okay, yeah. Supplemental then?

[5:02:23] » Yes. >> So if they're getting funding on on

[5:02:28] these units, they may not ever be approved if they can't meet the holding.

[5:02:34] » They won't get the

[5:02:38] » Fair comment. Um Mayor Kelly. >> Thank you and through you, I just want

[5:02:43] to address that last issue. I I really think in this circumstance uh sticking

[5:02:47] with the hold uh we're in a really um well, hopefully opportunistic market for

[5:02:53] people who are building uh attainable and affordable housing and housing of

[5:02:57] any kind. There is uh I think it's a theory so far, but tons of money

[5:03:01] available through CMHC and other sources. And it's really uh imperative

[5:03:05] that the we get this far with the project so that the applications can be

[5:03:10] made, the funding's process can start, it probably takes some time while we

[5:03:15] sort out the hold on on the other side. I frankly don't see uh the difference

[5:03:20] nothing's going to happen on the premise until the hold is lifted. And in the

[5:03:23] meantime, because we've chosen to hold rather than defer, um the uh

[5:03:28] organization can start the process of of application for the funding that's

[5:03:32] available. >> Councillor Nishikawa.

[5:03:36] » Thank you. Through um you and I I almost I'm going to ask if we have an

[5:03:42] opinion from the district at this point. I have

[5:03:46] been on district council where we have approved projects we thought

[5:03:51] with with other holds on and in fact um

[5:03:57] it CMHC actually didn't give them the funding because the hold wasn't a

[5:04:01] guarantee that this thing was going to get built.

[5:04:04] So, I don't know where what that looks like, but I would love to have

[5:04:07] district's opinion uh cuz they're on the call.

[5:04:13] » Um

[5:04:16] Mr. Hunter. >> Yes.

[5:04:18] » We'll come to >> I'll I'll be quick on that. So, two two

[5:04:21] important components here, like we we need the the zoning and OPA passed with

[5:04:25] the hold. The hold gives us the freedom and the power of the township to control

[5:04:30] matters such as traffic. But, speaking plainly, our applicant and

[5:04:34] our owner cannot be spending any more money, like have the traffic report

[5:04:38] updated, archaeological or sorry, architectural. Like these are very

[5:04:41] expensive studies and and engineers that we're

[5:04:45] paying. So, to progress and get to point where we

[5:04:48] can do more detailed design and address these concerns, like we need that

[5:04:51] financing and frankly though with the promise it's just waiting to press the

[5:04:54] button. Um so there is a commitment to that and we

[5:04:59] were I guess we're we're really requesting that we need to have this

[5:05:02] brought forward to a motion. We we can't have a deferral and we accept the hold

[5:05:06] and it gives staff and council the ability to have that control before it

[5:05:10] is removed. >> Um do we have the district was he the

[5:05:15] district planner? >> No.

[5:05:17] » Through through you chair, um the district is no longer online I've been

[5:05:21] told. Um all I can say is they provided comment on the applications saying they

[5:05:28] are not opposed, but they did not provide anything further than that.

[5:05:32] » [clears throat] >> Mayor Kelly.

[5:05:35] Thank you and through you. I I just want to make sure we we we know what we're

[5:05:38] voting for here. The there's no guarantee that anybody's

[5:05:41] going to step up and fund, but there is a guarantee that if we

[5:05:44] don't approve this with a hold, we'll never find out. So, at least this way we

[5:05:50] can put a stake in the ground, we can give the necessary support, the township

[5:05:55] can give the necessary support to the owner of the building or the developer

[5:05:59] uh to start the application process while we work through those other issues

[5:06:03] that are still going to be subject to the hold.

[5:06:12] » All right committee, any other debate on this?

[5:06:15] » Councillor Edwards.

[5:06:18] » The only thing I I I'm concerned about is we heard the business owner today say

[5:06:23] it's a problem for him.

[5:06:26] So, if if we're starting to lose this and that

[5:06:30] I say like we can go ahead with it. It's not a good situation.

[5:06:35] I think we all know that. That's why we're asking all these these questions.

[5:06:40] It was approved for for a seniors building they could put

[5:06:43] that in they would do the housing that that that is required and everything

[5:06:47] else say that it's the changes that's that's what I'm concerned about.

[5:06:55] » Thank you and through you I I'm going to stay on this one because I have a very

[5:07:01] keen interest in seeing some housing get built around here.

[5:07:04] Um I I think you can pick any intersection

[5:07:08] anywhere in this Township and say we're going to build something here and people

[5:07:11] would pop out of the woodwork and say not in my yard not near me. I don't like

[5:07:15] this. It's a it's a fact of life. There was a very articulate I I gather that

[5:07:19] the email we all got yesterday was the same person that spoke today. I didn't

[5:07:23] make the link. Oh it wasn't. Oh.

[5:07:26] There was a very articulate email that that came out yesterday late late

[5:07:30] yesterday. You know, you you have to pay attention

[5:07:34] to these things and there was some very good issues raised. The simple fact of

[5:07:37] the matter is at some point in time we have to make a value judgment. Do we

[5:07:41] value the opportunity to grow the community to to stop the aging and

[5:07:46] shrinking population base to revitalize the economy to put people back in you

[5:07:51] know, I heard Miss Buster this morning say or something it

[5:07:56] was actually Miss Grogan Green say nobody has had an opportunity to work at

[5:08:00] Cleaves for a decade or something.

[5:08:04] We got to turn this around and it's got to start somewhere. It's got to start

[5:08:07] with a stake in the ground that says we will build here and we will find people

[5:08:11] to live here and they will be consumers in this marketplace and they will be

[5:08:16] workers in this marketplace and hopefully someday they'll grow kids in

[5:08:20] this marketplace and they'll fill hockey leagues and and

[5:08:24] church groups and so on. It's it's a difficult thing but you're not going to

[5:08:28] find zero opposition anywhere. So I we've had one or two. They were both

[5:08:35] well done. I thought the presentation this morning was well-done. But I you

[5:08:40] know, maybe help them understand that we just

[5:08:43] imported 130 new people who are going to be

[5:08:47] buying in your store. That may be worth losing a few parking

[5:08:51] spaces. I don't know. But by the way, I'm not going to be too pleased if the

[5:08:55] parking is reliant on public space or roadside space. That's

[5:09:00] This is we're not here to subsidize the development of this thing with parking.

[5:09:04] They've got to come back under the hold. We'll come back and we'll look. That's

[5:09:09] why I was trying to get a sense from Ms. Crowder if there was a hard number. We

[5:09:14] will have an opportunity to decide whether this moves ahead, whether

[5:09:18] there's sufficient parking on site that the people who actually operate and live

[5:09:23] around the space have much less to worry about than they think they do.

[5:09:29] » Uh Counselor Davidson, Counselor Massin. >> Uh thank you. I would say here, here to

[5:09:32] the mayor on those comments and I would ask for the vote, please. Thank you.

[5:09:37] » Director Crowder. >> Okay.

[5:09:41] It's a point of order. I I think the group has to agree to that.

[5:09:45] » You have to sort of, you know, orally decide to ask.

[5:09:49] » Right. Um The group has to

[5:09:53] being told by >> There are two

[5:09:56] » We need We need two-thirds agreement to call a vote.

[5:10:00] All those in favor of calling the vote right now.

[5:10:06] Okay, we didn't get two-thirds. Counselor Massin.

[5:10:09] » I would have called the vote. >> [laughter]

[5:10:12] » I just wanted to um add and remind that it was 2 days ago. I was trying to

[5:10:16] remind myself as I was listening when we all sat and listened to our economic

[5:10:20] development strategy and the direct link with and importance of adding. They

[5:10:25] focused on attainable housing within our township. And I just think some of the

[5:10:30] questions I mean it's day egg and the what's it called? The chicken or the egg

[5:10:34] scenario, but you know, certainly would think that by adding housing into a a

[5:10:39] town or a community, then we are going to start seeing some of the other

[5:10:43] businesses kind of growing and flourishing in that area simply because

[5:10:47] you have more people walking around and shopping. So, you

[5:10:51] know, I think it becomes these things are all very much linked and I think to

[5:10:55] echo the comments, my my biggest focus is to ensure that we've got the right

[5:11:00] parking to support whatever the density and it sounds to me like we've got a

[5:11:04] very good plan in place with staff through this holding provision to allow

[5:11:08] for that and to help the applicant get this project financed if they can.

[5:11:15] And then I would call the vote but >> [laughter]

[5:11:20] » Uh committee, any more questions or comments?

[5:11:24] Are we ready to vote now?

[5:11:29] » No, I'm good. >> I need short. I don't know if I can put

[5:11:33] it on the screen. >> I'll read the resolution again we've

[5:11:36] requested. Moved by Mayor Kelly, seconded by Councillor Cain.

[5:11:41] Be it resolved that the official plan amendment OPA-67

[5:11:45] and it is - amended bracket Royal Canadian

[5:11:48] Legion be revised to reflect the amended application as detailed in staff report

[5:11:54] plan 2026-102

[5:11:58] and that the revised OPA be adopted by the township and the record forwarded to

[5:12:03] the District Municipality of Muskoka for approval.

[5:12:09] All those in favor.

[5:12:12] Any opposed? That carries.

[5:12:20] » This is the bylaw? >> Yes, it is.

[5:12:24] » And who's the bylaw? All right, so now we have the That was

[5:12:28] the OP. This is the bylaw. Uh moved by Councillor Edwards, seconded

[5:12:34] by Councillor McIntyre. Be it resolved that zoning

[5:12:38] bylaw application amendment ZBA-22/26 amended Royal Canadian Legion be

[5:12:45] approved subject to the following: that the draft bylaw and associated

[5:12:49] schedules be revised to reflect the amended applications as detailed in the

[5:12:53] staff report plan 2026-102. That the draft bylaw be revised to

[5:12:59] require that 13 of the proposed parking spaces be required to be barrier for

[5:13:05] free spaces in accordance with the requirement of the township's

[5:13:08] comprehensive zoning bylaw 2014-14 as amended and that revisions be made to

[5:13:14] the draft bylaw to A, amend section two bracket or 2D to

[5:13:20] state that the parking justification report be updated to satisfactorily

[5:13:25] address staff's comments instead of being period

[5:13:29] reviewed and B, remove section 2G being that the lands received site plan

[5:13:35] approval prior to the lifting of the holding

[5:13:37] of holding H provision. Any debate?

[5:13:43] All those in favor. Any opposed?

[5:13:48] That carries.

[5:13:51] Where the hell

[5:14:01] Committee, we have one final resolution here.

[5:14:06] Moved by

[5:14:10] Councillor Kent, seconded by Mayor Kelly.

[5:14:17] Be it resolved that the special planning committee meeting adjourn at

[5:14:22] 2:12 p.m. The next regular planning committee

[5:14:25] meeting will be held on Thursday, September the 17th, 2023 2026 at 9:00

[5:14:32] a.m. via an electronically and in-person hybrid format from the council members

[5:14:36] council chambers municipality municipal offices in beautiful downtown

[5:14:42] Port Carling, Ontario. All those in favor?

[5:14:46] Thank you.

Special Planning Committee - 17 Jul 2026

Transcript