All right.
I started the meeting 2 minutes late yesterday and then ended it up 2 minutes
late. So, we're not doing that again. I call the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
and welcome everybody to this special planning committee meeting.
I can confirm that we have a quorum and all of our council are in the chamber.
And we have senior staff and and planning staff are present. Public input
on this application was uh
was invited at the
normal email address, which is planning at
Muskoka Lakes. Today's meeting is being live streamed and recorded on the
Township of Muskoka Lakes website and YouTube channel. By participating in
this open public meeting today, you are consenting to your image, voice, and
comments being recorded and posted online.
Uh we have had supplementary agenda and
for uh the Bala Legion, the returning case of
the Bala Legion. We have Nick Jensen speaking
on the interest of the Bala Legion and Lisa Gorgon Green is speaking on behalf
of the resort Village Minett. Uh committee, do we have any members who
have a uh uh disclosure of pecuniary interest?
There's got to be another word for that. Um
» [laughter] >> Right. So, we'll move on to the agenda
now and we're going to start with our three delegations. First one being Mr.
Jaglowitz. Then we will have Lisa Grogan Green and
Mr. Jensen. Good morning, Mr. Jaglowitz.
I think you're familiar with our protocol here, 5 minutes.
» Yep. >> Does that work?
» And I see I've got a a big sign here that says name and address, so
» Yeah. >> I'll I'll I'll follow the rules. Good
morning. My name is Frank Jaglowitz, 14 Indian Crescent, Port Carling.
Um I'm here this morning to speak to you
about the Cleveland's House proposal, which I'm sure you're all quite quite
familiar with. And I'd like to give a great thank you
to staff for the very detailed 58-page report,
which I think might be a record that which outlines many aspects of the
development and the staff's position on many of the issues.
So, if I might might ask staff to display the first page. They're doing it
already. Great. So, this is the first page of your
report, which are which are the which are the recommendations. And as you
know, this was prepared by Emily Crowder,
who's the senior planner, was approved by Steve Stone, the manager of planning,
and acknowledged by David Clink, the CEO.
So, I understand this would be the official
position of the township. Um under the heading recommendations,
you'll see in paragraph one that recommends that the OPA submitted
by the Goldhar Group be revised
to retain section C1.5.3.7 of OPA 56, which essentially prohibits
the development of new habitable buildings within the flood plain.
In other words, staff is recommending there be no new habitable buildings in
the flood plain. And this would essentially make the
current proposal, in my view, not viable.
» I request putting the light on for the people back there, on.
Can people Can people hear? I apologize. Do you want me to start over?
No. No. No. Please go on. Okay. Thanks, Paul.
So, what I said was I I believe that I I I now can hear the difference. Thank
you. In other words,
the first paragraph of the recommendation
is to recommend no new habitable buildings in the flood plain.
And paragraph two then recommends adoption of the OPA after it's revised
to not permit any new habitable buildings. Therefore, they're
recommending approval of the proposal as long as there's no habitable
buildings in the flood plain. However, paragraph three
presents conditions to be added. And I'll quote, "Should committee adopt
the amendments permitting new development within the flood plain, then
there should be schedules to define specific locations
where buildings are located, setbacks, and so on." So, in my view in this
paragraph, staff are providing committee an option
to move this application forward under certain conditions. And I seriously
suggest that you consider this approach, the approach in paragraph three,
which is to allow buildings in the flood plain and schedules be added to define
the location, setbacks, and so on. So, it's not unlimited, but it's a it's a
limited thing. But, the recommendation then goes on to
deal in paragraph four with the zoning bylaw, which would be required, and it
once again recommends approval of it in part
subject to a number of conditions and suggests that staff not use the one
submitted but prepare an implementing zoning bylaw amendment to implement the
conditions at a future council meeting. And that there be a holding provision
put on the land subject to a number of conditions.
So in my opinion the course is
is the committee should first deal with the official plan amendment because if
that fails and there's no sense dealing with the zoning.
And if it but if it's if the proposal is substantially approved as submitted then
consider the zoning bylaw a second. That that's the way I see it.
So then let's turn now to the district. I I ask you to go to page 49 of the
staff report. And this contains the District of Muskoka's comments.
Um So firstly paragraph one of the district
comment district indicates district staff are unable to
recommend approval of the applications as they do not conform with the
district's MOP municipal Muskoka official plan or comply with the
PPS. Mr. Jagger, you are coming up to 5 minutes.
But please continue. I asked your indulgence. It's it's very
brief. Um I had and I had an interruption.
Basically because once again same reason buildings in the floodway.
Also paragraph two provides an option should committee wish to approve the
application and apply a holding symbol that can only be moved afterwards. So in
other words the district have also provided that option. So in summary
here's something to think about when the vote is called. Considering the past
history of this site Cleveland's Cleveland's house is this
proposal better than any other options that are available for this site? I
believe it is and strongly encourage you support it. Also remember the district
is the final decision-maker and a split vote at the at the Township Council will
give district counselors the opening to turn it down for the reason that even
the Township's not fully supportive. So, if you are not fully in support of
this application, I ask you reconsider and move this forward to the district
with a strong vote. Thank you for your time. I'm happy to answer any
questions. >> Minnie, do we have any questions for Mr.
Jaglowitz? >> Thank you.
» Thank you very much. Our next delegate is Ms. Grogan-Green.
Is she in the waiting room? If we could If we could bring her in. Thank you.
» Hello. Uh thank you. Sorry about that. Uh
» Good morning. >> Good morning.
» If you could start with your name and address and you have 5 minutes.
» Okay, thank you. Uh my name is Lisa Grogan-Green.
My permanent residence is at 133 Muldrew Lake Road, North York, I'm 4N3H4.
Our family cottage on Campbell's Road has made Minett a second home for a lot
of us. Over the years, I've been a frequent
patron of Cleves, the Rock, uh the local marinas, the Minett Mall,
and the Rosso Hotel. I've watched Cleves evolve since I was a child. From the
addition of the golf course along Juddhaven to the various expansions
required to accommodate a growing resort population.
In preparation for today, I reviewed the Township's report, the Azimuth EIS and
peer review, the wetland compensation plans,
and the SLR peer review. I recognize the immense time,
professional analysis, and financial investment that have gone into these
documents. I also want to acknowledge the dedicated effort of various councils
since 2018 to ensure this development and others are responsible and
successful. There appears to be a consensus among
the consultants that the proposed open water marsh and compensatory measures
are a net benefit. By enhancing adjacent wetlands and
improving connection points, the developer is creating a landscape that
is ecologically superior to what exists today.
Improving water quality for Wallace Bay and providing an improved habitat for
local floral flora and fauna. There's consideration paid to the
careful treatment of endangered or threatened species.
I'm here today to ask the planning committee to adopt the proposed
amendments to section C1.5.3.7. Very specifically, I support permitting
the five micro cabins suspended over the proposed open water marsh.
It's important to note that development within these fringes is not a new
concept. Many existing cabins, such as the Bayview Suites cabins 260 to 62, 280
to 82, currently set at a near zero setback from the thicket swamp. If you
look behind them today, as I did last week, there's either standing water
behind some or a small rivulet adjacent to others which had directly into Lake
Rossell. Similarly, the yoga studio at the marina is already suspended over the
water, as is a well-trafficked boardwalk at the western outlet.
The current proposal does not introduce development into a pristine untouched
landscape. Rather, it thoughtfully replaces aging infrastructure with a
design that respects the modern flood plane.
The applicant Mitch Goldhar has consistently demonstrated a willingness
to work with the Minett Steering Committee and other stakeholders.
He's already made significant concessions to address community
concerns. In fact, he bought the resort in 2019 to
save us from the density granted to Fowler and the development plans of
Peter Freed. Important facts should be taken into
consideration today. Mitch has already demonstrated a
commitment to responsible development by reducing the overall program from
approximately 4,000 units to just under 2,000.
He stated there's no current intention to pursue any time share development. He
has no current intention of severing and selling portions of the land for forms
of intensification. Nor does he have a current intention of
developing mid-rise condos on the property.
The above are all things that are permitted as of right and could be in
front of this planning committee today. Instead, we are discussing a boutique
48-cabin village with an adjoining amphitheater.
The site has been designed by a world-renowned architect with a
thoughtful and intentional design approach focused on craftsmanship,
natural materials, and placemaking. The application utilizes only 10% of the
permitted density for the site. It respects the height, servicing, and
architectural principles established by the steering committee
while revitalizing an historic property that has contributed to the character of
Muskoka for decades. The alternative to this proposal is
uncertainty. We have an opportunity to secure the
long-term success of Cleves as a world-class resort while enhancing its
environmental condition. Currently, a generation of young people
has missed the opportunity to work at Cleves and its restaurants, shops, and
athletic facilities. The success of the Rock Golf Course,
Abby's Bake House, the Marina shops, and the new addition of Pie
give us a glimpse of the vibrancy that awaits us in Minett.
It is time to embrace a vision that honors our history while investing in
our future. I urge the committee to say yes today
and allow this project to move forward. We've already lost yet another year.
Thank you. >> Thank you very much, Ms. Grogan Green.
Committee, do we have any questions for Ms. Grogan Green?
All right. Thank you very much. >> Thank you.
» And you were right on at 5 minutes.
All right. Our next uh delegate is Mr. Jensen.
» Uh Nick Jensen, uh 1003 Maple Avenue in Bala, Ontario.
Uh P0C 1A0.
» Thank you very much. And and uh you have 5 minutes.
» Cool. Uh and uh this comes to like exactly 5 minutes, so sorry about that.
Okay. Uh my wife and I own Birch Park, a gift
shop on the corner of Maple Avenue and Highway 169 in Bala. Some might say I'm
foolish to question 106 units of potential customers just steps away.
However, I would like to voice my thoughts on the Legacy Manor in the most
recent forms I've seen. I've lived [snorts] in various downtown
Toronto locations for 17 years, and I'm no stranger to development. Frankly, I
don't care what the building looks like, how tall it is, or where the trees are
planted. I only care if it functionally makes sense in its location. What are
the effects beyond its property lines? A few numbers to consider. There are
approximately 1,400 combined full-time residents in Bala, Acton Island, most of
Torrance, and surrounding as of 2021 according to Stats Canada. Bala proper
certainly has less than under 1,000 full-time residents. Legion Manor will
have 215 occupants, a number calculated based on the proponents values of 1.8
persons in a one-bedroom and three persons in a two-bedroom. However, 81 of
the 106 units have an office of 6 by 9 minimum size, which will realistically
be used by some residents as a second or third bedroom. The number of occupants
will likely be significantly higher than 215 in addition to visitors coming and
going. There are 121 dedicated on-site parking
spots. How are 121 parking spots sufficient for a bare minimum of 215
people in a town with no public transit system? Bala is 20 minutes from
Gravenhurst and 35 minutes from Bracebridge, where the submission where
the greatest concentrations of employers and services in South Muskoka are
located. Previous submissions assumed parking for
only 56 vehicles. Given this figure has more than doubled, can we expect revised
parking and transportation briefs? Public parking will be an issue,
especially during the events at the arena community center and new Legion.
Already during tournaments or special events, every public and private lot
will often fill for most of the day. Vehicles routinely line the street top
to bottom and along River Street and Victoria Street. And whether
acknowledged or not, Legion Manor would require some amount of public parking.
Please note the traffic at Maple Avenue and Highway 169 was measured in April
during off-season. In the absence of further data, estimates were made using
Grey Street summer volumes. However, Maple and Grey are not comparable. The
high traffic destinations are on Maple Avenue. I also suggest there is no
normal traffic volume on Maple Avenue as events do not happen on a regular
schedule.
Possible left turn lanes onto River Street and Maple Avenue from Highway 169
were considered, and it was found that traffic 5 years beyond build-out does
not warrant a left turn lane at either intersection. However, the predicted
weekday PM values for both intersections come very close. So, what are the values
10 years beyond build out? What are the values given the parking has doubled
since the April report? I am also concerned about jamming up the
intersection on Maple Avenue blocking off vehicle access to our business. The
proponents counts indicate this is not an issue. However, this is already
sometimes a problem during the summer months. Even three or four cars waiting
at the intersection blocks the parking in front of our shop and dissuades
customers. Small changes in traffic have huge impacts for businesses.
Those concerns aside, we should consider Bala as a whole. Placing minimum 215
people plus visitors into a town of less than a thousand residents, a generous
estimate, within a few short years will have consequences. The township's
population grew by 1.3% per year between 2011 and 2021. Even using my numbers,
Legion Manor would increase Bala's population by 21% in a few short years,
realistically higher. That's nowhere near reasonable organic growth in a
semi-rural town with no public transit and limited employment opportunities.
One important point, if the plan is still to prioritize seniors in the units
that are not affordable housing, research from the Canadian Journal of
Emergency Medicine states that people 65+ need the greatest share of paramedic
transports at 44%. With our strained emergency services and distance from
hospitals, that may put these seniors at risk.
In the parking study, the proponents used proxy sites from Lindsay, Orillia,
and Barrie for comparison. In Lindsay, population 22,000, and Orillia,
population 33,000, it's interesting that seven of the nine proxy sites selected
contained fewer units than Legion Manor, despite those towns having 20 to 30
times the population and their own municipal transit systems. It seems like
Legion Manor is too large for the tiny town of Bala. Crushing its size bit by
bit is an indication that it just doesn't belong here at this scale. Other
Legion housing projects in Sault Ste. Marie and Coburg are not comparable for
reasons similar to Lindsay, Orillia, and Barrie. I say respectfully to those who
support this project in its current form. This is an experiment that has the
potential to permanently change the character of the town. For better or
worse, once it's done, it's done. Thank you.
» Thank you very much, Mr. Jensen, and you are right. Um committee, do we have any
questions for Mr. Jensen? Mr. Jensen, we will take your comments
to heart when we get to the application, which may not be until sometime this
afternoon, but thank you very much.
You can you exactly probably if you've got things to do
watch on YouTube. >> All right.
» All right, committee, we are moving on to
uh the next item of business, which is
OPA 62 uh
and uh or the adjustment of OPA 62 with the OP 64 and zoning bylaw amendment
22/23. And I will ask Ms. Crowder to come up
and give us her report.
» All right. Uh good morning, uh Chair Bosma and members of committee.
The applications before you today are for consideration of amendment 64 to the
Township of Muskoka Lakes official plan, as well as zoning bylaw amendment
application ZBA 22/23, respecting updates to the resort village
of Minett. The subject lands are known municipally
as 1048 and 1112 Juddhaven Road, and a portion of the lands do not have a
municipally assigned address. The lands are most commonly referred to
as the lands associated with the Cleveland's House Resort within the
resort village of Minett. As committee may recall, reports on
these applications were previously brought forward to committee on November
25th, 2025 and March 12th, 2026, which was a joint public meeting held with the
District of Muskoka. Further, as the members of committee and
the public may know, Minett has an extensive planning history that is
detailed in the previous staff reports that are linked in the report before you
today. Next slide, please.
The subject lands are currently developed with cabins associated with
Cleveland's House Resort, a marina, commercial areas including a yoga
studio, and have frontage on Lake Rosseau.
The site has an undulating topography, beach areas, and is vegetated with
mature trees amongst the developed areas.
The subject lands contain a wetland, which is situated at the northern reach
of Wallace Bay. Muskoka Road 28, known as Juddhaven
Road, is a Class B District Road and is located to the west of the site, and a
privately owned section of Juddhaven Road bisects the lot east to west.
This area The area around the site contains tourism, residential,
commercial, and recreational uses. More specifically, fire station five, a
golf course, and residential uses are located to the north of the subject
lands. The JW Marriott and residential uses are located to the east of the
subject lands. Other ands Other lands owned by the
applicant, residential uses as well as an unrelated draft approved phased
standard condominium containing 43 resort commercial accommodation units,
are located to the south of the subject lands.
Next slide, please. The applicant is proposing a resort
development consisting of a wellness center including three in indoor sport
courts, a gym, a spa, a yoga studio, exhibition rooms, eight retail spaces,
restaurant food and beverage facilities, and five office spaces, a marina, 17
outdoor sport courts, a tennis pavilion, a viewing tower, 48 rental cabins,
private beaches, stormwater facilities, and a water and wastewater treatment
plant. Though staff would note that the lands where the treatment plant is
proposed is not currently included in this phase of the development.
Next slide, please. The requests to amend OPA 56 are
detailed in the staff report for today's meeting, the previous staff reports, and
are summarized as shown on the screen. This is a substantial application for
the township, and for the sake of time, I'm going to focus my presentation on
the key components that require careful consideration by committee today.
These items include, next slide, please. Development within the flood plain,
development within and adjacent to the wetland, front yard setbacks and
vegetative buffers, development concurrent with the water and wastewater
treatment plant, and the master development agreement.
Next slide, please. As part of the proposal, accommodation
units with accessory structures, a spa, sport courts, an amphitheater, and
buildings associated with the wellness center are located in part or in whole
within the flood plain of Lake Rosso. Further, the proposal also seeks to
introduce approximately 10,000 cubic meters of fill into the identified flood
plain. The applicant has applied to amend the
section of OPA 56, which states that new habitable buildings are not permitted
within the flood plain. The provincial planning statement
includes policy, which states that development shall be directed away from
areas of natural or human-made hazards where there is an unacceptable risk to
public health and safety, or of property damage, and not creating new or
aggravating existing hazards. Staff have carefully considered section
5 of the PPS in its entirety. Ultimately, the PPS states that
development and site alteration shall not be permitted within a floodway
regardless of whether the area of inundation contains high points of land
not subject to flooding. Where a one-zone concept applies, such
as Lake Rosso, the floodway is the entire contiguous floodplain.
The exception criteria included within the PPS do not apply at to the situation
at hand. Staff have consulted our legal
solicitor, other professional planners in the area, and the District of
Muskoka, all of whom share staff's conclusion on this matter.
Next slide, please.
The provincial policy direction has been carried forward into the Muskoka
official plan and the Township's official plan. Given this very clear
policy direction, staff are unable to support approval of development and site
alteration within the floodplain. Staff are concerned that approval of
development within the floodplain would exacerbate the increasing concerns
associated with flooding in the Township, and would set a precedent for
applications to develop within the floodplain moving forward.
Site-specific approvals can cumulatively have a significant impact, and as stated
in the Township's official plan, the cumulative impact of amendments on this
and other lands will be considered to have greater weight than a site-specific
considerations. For these reasons, it is staff's opinion
that approving the amendment to permit development within the floodplain does
not represent good planning. Committee's decision to either approve
or prohibit development within the floodplain will have significant impacts
on the remainder of the proposal, such as the requested development within
and adjacent to the wetland, and the requested reduced front yard setbacks
and vegetative buffers, as all of these requests would place development and
site alteration within the floodplain. Accordingly, it makes sense to deal with
the matter of flooding first. Next slide, please.
The application also seeks to permit development and site alteration within
and adjacent to an identified wetland. The proposal seeks to permit the
development of resort commercial accommodation uses, recreation uses,
resort commercial uses, including sport courts, and trails and boardwalks within
the identified wetland feature. As previously indicated, staff are
unable to support development within the flood plain, which encompasses the
entirety of the wetland feature. With that in mind, staff have carefully
considered the request to develop within and adjacent to the wetland based on the
remaining applicable policies, acknowledging that committee may
recommend approval of development within the flood plain.
Section 4.1 of the provincial planning statement speaks to natural heritage,
stating that natural features and areas shall be protected for the long term.
Further, the PPS states that development and site alteration shall not be
permitted within significant wildlife habitat, which has been identified
within this wetland, unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no
negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions.
This policy is carried forward through the Muskoka official plan and the
Township's official plan. As committee is aware, a peer review
process has been ongoing involving an environmental impact study and more
recently a wetland compensation and net environmental benefit and enhancement
report. It was the request of the agent applicant that the peer review process
be brought to a close. Accordingly, SLR, the consultant who
conducted the peer review, provided a final review of these documents. SLR
concluded that they continue to raise concerns with the extent of the proposed
alteration of the existing natural swamp communities.
SLR recommends that a number of measures be taken to ensure that the proposal
results in a net enhancement. If these recommendations are
implemented, SLR states that the proposal may be environmentally
feasible, subject to consultation and approval with federal and provincial
agencies. Accordingly, staff's recommendation that
the proposal may be consistent with the PPS, the MOP, and the TMLOP is
contingent upon the implementation of the recommendations put forward by SLR.
Further, the compensation plan includes utilization of ponds five, six, and
seven for compensation purposes. However, the submitted engineering
documents speak to these ponds being utilized for stormwater purposes.
Clarification on which is correct is required, and if used for stormwater,
additional compensation will be needed will need to be explored as stated by
SLR. The recommendations put forward by SLR
include first, maximize coverage of the western
shallow inlet by shallow wetland communities, meaning less than 2 m in
depth, rather than open water. This will support the aquatic plant establishment
and enhance ecological function. To demonstrate a net benefit,
compensatory wetland creation should exceed the 86,800,
sorry, 618 square feet that is proposed to be dredged.
Second, a riparian restoration plan should be implemented to ensure a strong
riparian area is established. Third, for compensatory critical fish
habitat, meaning habitat that provides spawning, rearing, and nursing
functions, new critical fish habitat should exceed the identified 88,264
square feet currently providing spawning function as identified by Azimuth.
And fourth, restrict guest access to the new wetland area to ensure disturbance
to this area is minimized. To this end, no motorized access should be allowed,
and fishing activity in the new wetland area needs to be strictly controlled
during all times of the year. Staff are aware that a request was sent
to the members of committee from the agent requesting that the resolution be
amended to reflect the permission of an open water marsh and dredging up to 3 m
in depth. Staff do not support this request based
on SLR's peer review, which stresses the importance of a shallow marsh approach
rather than an open water approach, and a maximum dredging depth of 2 m to
support aquatic plant establishment. Staff would also caution that approval
of development within a wetland, particularly if it does not result in a
net improvement, would set a precedent for development moving forward.
Next slide, please. As stated previously, staff are unable
to support development and site alteration within the floodplain.
The request to permit a reduced front yard setback would place buildings and
structures within the floodplain. Accordingly, if committee is not
supportive of development within the floodplain, these requests become moot.
However, if committee is considering approval of development and site
alteration within the floodplain, staff have conducted an an analysis on the
basis of the remaining applicable policies.
In the photo shown on the screen, the required 66-ft setback is shown hatched
in pink, and the required at 50-ft vegetative buffer is shown hatched in
green. The submitted environmental reports have
considered the proposed setbacks of development and include recommendations
to attempt to mitigate impacts of deficient setbacks and buffers, namely
that a robust robust revegetation plan be implemented.
Further, the District of Muskoka official plan requires that vegetative
buffers be present 50 ft in depth for 75% of the subject land's shoreline,
which differs from the township's official plan.
It is important to note that the township's policy, which dictates the
extent of vegetative buffers being 50 ft in depth and 100% of the shoreline, is
absent from OPA 56. Accordingly, staff rely on the district
policy, which specifies 75%. Staff have further considered existing
development within the required setbacks and buffers, and legal non-complying
rights. Staff would note that the proposed
amphitheater was not included in the applicant's request for relief. However,
it would require such. Next slide, please.
Next is development concurrent with treatment plant construction, and the
applicant agent has requested that the construction of the water and sewer
treatment plant be permitted to occur concurrently with the overall site. The
District of Muskoka has recommended a holding provision be included in the
zoning bylaw where provincial environmental compliance approvals for
all water treatment, water distribution, wastewater treatment, and wastewater
collection infrastructure be obtained and agreements with the district be
entered into amongst other conditions prior to its lifting.
While this would allow construction of servicing infrastructure concurrently
with development with multiple safeguards in place
committee should be aware of the potential human health and environmental
risks in the case develop development is finalized and services are not completed
or operational. Although occupancy of units would be
prohibited, enforcement thereof can pose challenges.
Township staff defer to the district for consideration of water and sewer
services and their appropriate build-out.
Next slide, please. Per section C172 through to C177 of OPA
56 it is intended that development shall
occur in accordance with the provisions of a master development agreement that
shall be supported to the satisfaction of the Township and district.
Section C172 of OPA 56 states in part that approval of a master development
agreement by council shall only be Sorry, shall only occur after all of the
requirements of section C17 have been met and shall occur before any lands in
the Minett Resort Village are zoned to implement this plan.
The master development agreement is intended to include a development
phasing plan, a master heights plan, a master servicing plan, a master parks
plan, an integrated transportation plan, a traffic impact study, a financial
impact assessment, urban design and architectural guidelines, a fire safety
plan or life safety plan, and other matters as deemed appropriate
by the Township and the district as it relates to the services it provides in
order to ensure identification and integration of uses, facilities, and
infrastructure. While an MDA
master development agreement has been drafted and discussions with the
applicant are ongoing, it has not yet been finalized. Therefore, staff
recommend that the lands be subject to a hold until this item is completed to the
satisfaction of the Township and the district.
As noted in the staff report, several specific items should be addressed and
included in the MDA such as emergency services comments,
a provision to restrict activities within the wetland,
a provision wherein the applicant agent commits to advancing plans for a
permanent staff facility to be submitted for consideration at a further date, and
a provision wherein the owner agrees to compensate in some capacity for the
deficiency of parking by providing parking on their adjacent lands.
Next slide, please.
The staff have prepared a detailed report for committee's consideration
today. Um staff have broken the recommendations down into the official
plan amendment and the zoning bylaw amendment. Staff um
well, Mr. Jaglowitz went through the recommendation earlier, but I'll just
summarize briefly. Um that official plan amendment OPA 64 be revised to retain
section C1537 which prohibits the development of new habitable buildings
in the flood plain, and that any affected proposed amendments be retained
or revised accordingly. And that the revised OPA be adopted by the Township
and the record forwarded to the District of Muskoka for approval.
And that should committee adopt proposed amendments to section C1537 permitting
new development within the flood plain, that a schedule to sections C1543,
1544, and 1545 be added, which demonstrates this is
specific location and extent where buildings and structures are permitted
within the front yard setback, and where the required 15-m
shoreline vegetation buffer be permitted to be reduced.
Staff also recommend that the zoning bylaw amendment application be approved
in part, subject to approval of the official plan amendment, approval of the
submitted amendment to the District of Muskoka official plan, and subject to
the following: that a draft zoning bylaw submitted by the applicant not be
adopted, and instead be replaced with a bylaw drafted by staff,
which would contain the recommendations contained within the staff report before
you today. That a holding provision be placed on
the subject lands for a developer's group agreement,
a master development agreement, issuance of provincial environmental
compliance approvals, an agreement with the District of
Muskoka respecting the water and wastewater treatment plant,
the submission of wetland compensation and net benefit and environment
enhancement report response memo to address the comments of the peer review
prepared by SLR to the satisfaction of the Township and
the District. That the subject lands be required to
obtain site plan approval, and that a satisfactory site plan agreement is
entered to into and registered on title along with securities
for matters limit not limited, but including um the EIS and peer review
responses and recommendations contained therein.
And the submission of an updated traffic impact brief or stamped letter from
professional engineer, which confirms that the proposed 0-m setback from
Juddhaven Road will not present any operational or functional concerns from
a transportation perspective, and confirms that the existing right-of-way
along Juddhaven Road is 26 m in width, consistent with the requirements of the
District of Muskoka official plan. I've no further comments, but I'm happy to
answer any questions from committee. Thank you.
» Uh thank you very much, Ms. Crowder. Ms. Bustard.
» The sign? Thank you very much.
» Ms. Bustard, um there was no time limit on you today.
» Well, I will still try to be brief, but I appreciate that.
» No. >> Uh thank you very much, and thank you to
Emily for that very thorough presentation.
Um uh Paula Bustard with Cleveland House
Resort, and I thank you for your indulgence in hearing from me again. Um
and we're really excited to be here today, and uh hopefully uh bring the
zoning in the OP portion uh to conclusion. Uh presentation, if you
don't mind, just going to the next slide. I will try to keep my comments
brief, but uh I am here obviously to answer any questions that you may have.
I have with me two of my colleagues, including Andrew Seymour, who heads up
our construction team, and who will be overseeing construction of this should
it be approved. Uh we also have online Aaz Smith, uh from our environmental
engineers are online and able to answer any questions.
Um I will not repeat what I have presented
to you on numerous occasions, other than to say that uh the vision that we
brought before you is something that we are fully committed to, but it is
contingent on the plan as proposed being approved. Uh some of the modifications
that would be necessitated by Sazer uh recommendations just make this unviable,
and uh something that we could not proceed with. Next slide, please.
Uh phase one, as you know, encompasses what is predominantly the Cleveland
House Resort as it stands today, uh including some of the cabins, the old
tennis, and the old golf course. As you can see from this aerial, this land, as
has uh been stated by previous deputants, is not pristine. It is land
that has been modified and altered many, many times in many different ways over
the last 100 years. Cleveland House has a long, rich history going back 150
years. This site has been altered by man and modified many times. What we are
proposing to do today is to clean it up, to modify it, to restore it, and bring
it back to life in a way that we think is viable and something that will make
all of us proud in Muskoka. Next slide.
Uh just some more imaging of obviously the site which many of you are familiar
with. Next slide, please.
Uh this is the marina. Next slide. This is our overall master plan. Uh what
is here before you today is phase one. Uh even with the totality of the plan
that we have proposed, it is quite modest in comparison to the density that
was approved um through the OPA that we settled with the town and the district
and the steering committee. Uh but phase one is what we're here to discuss today,
so I'd like to get in a little bit more detail. Next slide, please.
Uh and that obviously is phase one. Uh the total square footage that we're
proposing is just under 200,000 square feet, 199,000.
There's 48 cabins, a wellness center, tennis facility, uh retail uses,
amphitheater, uh and a marina. Next slide.
Uh just looking at phase one in a little bit more detail and what I'd like to
focus on now is the flood plain and the I guess more contentious uses that have
been identified by staff. Next slide. Uh this is just an aerial view. Before I
go to the next slide, I just want to explain uh one last time why it is so
important to us that the wetlands be restored. As it is right now, it is a
very very dense thicket swamp as has been obviously discussed numerous times
before you. Our hope and desire here is to create a
place that the traveling public and the community adore. That people want to be
there, that there's great porosity, there's great pedestrian access, that it
is somewhere that people can take their boat and go do shopping, have dinner, go
for a walk on the trails, explore the site. Someone rents a cabin with their
family, the kids are playing, they go to the tennis academy, they go and play the
wellness center. We want there to be a lot of flow, we want there to be a lot
of beauty. We also want access to nature, and part of that is providing
access to these wetlands. I need to say it one more time, we are not trying to
take away any wetlands. We want to modify the wetlands from a dense thicket
swamp to an open water marsh. We want there to be life, and aquatic life, and
habitat, and environment sustainability, but we want it to be done in such a way
that it's accessible to people. I've said this before, but when you walk
about 80% of that wetland right now, you can't actually get down to the waterline
unless you are crawling through the dense thicket. Your legs would be cut
up, the ground is unstable, there there is such thick muck in there that if
anyone fell in, I really do genuinely believe it would be a dangerous
condition. That is not conducive to renting out to families and to
facilitating an environment that people want to be.
Uh so what we are proposing is to enhance, not to destroy, and I think
that's a very, very important distinction. Next slide, please.
Uh what I just want to show you right now quickly, which I haven't shown you
previously, is a slide that before you right now every that is the existing
aerial. That is Cleveland's house that has existed for 100 years. And what you
see there, everything in yellow, is in the flood plain.
So, that is over 30,000 square feet of built form that
exists today in the flood plain. Uh next slide, please.
So, what is on the right now is our proposed phase one. Everything in orange
is what we're proposing to replace it with. It's almost identical, but in
actual fact, it's less square footage. The proposed GFA in the flood plain is
around 18,000 square feet. We are building less than what exists today.
Furthermore, we are proposing to build everything above the static flood
elevation. One thing that was just said in staff's presentation is that when you
look at the PPS, it the intent of it is to life safety and making sure that
you're not creating dangerous situations. And one of the disagreements
that we have and I I appreciate that there's professional disagreements on
some interpretations of policies. I agree that there's some singular
policies in the PPS when read in isolation, absolutely indicate that you
can't do what we're proposing. But the intent of the PPS is to read in its
entirety and look at the intent of the policies and look at the totality of the
policies. We've provided legal opinions that when read in totality, that there
absolutely is policy justification for this. Nonetheless, the decision is for
council and council will have the ability to make that decision
themselves. But we believe that the design is environmentally sound. We
believe the design has obviously a lot of merits to it. And on top of that,
there is absolutely no life or safety impact. Every single building will be
above the static flood elevation, either through the grading of the site or
through the cabins are stilted. The access and egress to all of these
buildings are also outside of the static flood elevation. There is absolutely no
life and safety issue here. Um
so I just want us to look at this one more time in terms of what we are
proposing versus what exists today. This is not a new condition. And I spoke at
length about the wetland and why we want to clean it up and we want to remove
obviously a lot of the thicket that is there now. Next slide.
We've talked at length about the various studies that's been done. Asmith has
been the consultant on this site for almost 20 years. We hired them
and they have a long long history, but for us they started in 2018 and these
are all the different studies they've done. Uh in my letter to you, although I
highly respect the the peer review that was done by SLR, we do disagree with
some of their analysis and some of their findings. I detailed it in my letter.
I'm happy to go through it. We believe the largest one is the fish habitat
8,000 cubic meters has been overstated. That was uh the entire area of the
thicket, but as as per MNR, only 1,500 has been identified as a fish habitat,
although there is potential for more. So, the 8,000 per replacement we think
is overstated. That being said, this process is not over, and as as uh staff
have presented to you, if this is approved, we're going to be going
through detailed design, and there'll be a litany of agreements facilitating the
redevelopment of these lands, and the consultants continue to work through
those design matters. There's a few other items that I stipulated in there
that we think were um our consultant's report was not properly interpreted by
the peer reviewer, but nonetheless, I'm not here to debate that other than to
say that when we get into detailed design, they will be in the room, and
we'll work through all those matters collaboratively.
Next slide. Again, just showing you what the
existing condition is and what we are trying to obviously uh
improve upon. Uh I just want to touch very briefly on the depth, cuz I know
that is a big issue. For the most part, we believe through
our design we will be adhering roughly to the 2 m, but our consultants have
consistently said, and we did respond to the SLR peer review that came out, uh
which has not been identified in the staff report, but we did respond uh in
June to that. There are a couple areas where it will
be necessary to go up to 3 m. For us to achieve what we're trying to do here and
to make sure that the overall vision is achieved, there's a couple areas that
need to be a little bit deeper up to 3 m. Me asking for uh your endorsement to
go up to 3 m is not us saying that the entirety of the thing is going to be
dredged to 3 m, but if it's a hard fast 2 m, we are concerned that we're not
going to be able to achieve this uh vision. The restoration of these
wetlands alone are going to be in the range of $3 million. That's a huge
investment uh in terms of dollars and and activities. We don't want to do it
if we're it's not going to obviously uh do it properly. If it's not going to
achieve the vision that we have, and that's why I ask for your consideration
to stipulate that there will be portions open water up to 3 m. Again, that's not
a blank check that we're just going to do everything to 3 m. We do believe the
general range will be two, but it's important that we have the ability
between two and three. Next slide, please.
Uh next slide. And then just showing the vision of what we're trying to achieve
in terms of the open water marsh with the cabins on stilts. Uh this is from
the pedestrian bridge as you enter the village. Next slide.
And this would be the view from the village looking across the wetland to
the cabins. Next slide.
Uh this is our restoration plan. So, the last thing I'll say about the wetlands
uh is that there is obviously a lot of compensatory measures that we have put
forward. Restoration, rehabilitation of habitat, replacement, enhancements, all
of those are stipulated in our net benefit report, and we are uh fully
committed to that. I know staff indicated that the ponds that are
currently attached to the lagoons should not be considered. Ultimately, it's a
multi-stage development for the wastewater facility, so those will be
decommissioned at some point. Uh and we do believe it's still appropriate to
consider them for compensation, but that is a matter that can be detailed through
our agreements with staff, and there can be further discussion of whether that is
appropriate. I don't think it has to be settled
today. Next slide.
Uh and these are obviously the further uh wetland restoration matters, not just
among the pond. There's naturalization of the channel. Uh there's
naturalization of other components and replantings on the other side of Jed
Haven that will be occurring. I just want to very uh briefly touch upon the
commentary too about the timing of development. The reason that we have
asked staff both at the town and the district to allow development to happen
to concurrently is just the the construction of the wastewater facility
and the servicing associated with it will be significant. Uh if that was to
happen and all of the commissioning had to happen before any building permits
could be pulled, it would be the most inefficient construction on Earth. Uh
Uh, we want to build simultaneously, obviously having full legal obligations
and the the agreement with the district will hold our feet to the fire to make
sure that we can't operate or do anything until such time that that plan
is operating, but it would be completely inefficient both financially and just
logically to build the entire facility and have the entire site sitting
stagnant, nothing happening while that's happening. So, that is the reason for
it, but we are not opposed to, you know, obviously the agreement and the legal
maneuvers that would obviously make sure that that has to be completed before the
site could be used in any way, shape or form.
Uh, next slide, please.
And lastly, you can just go through these next uh, six slides uh, just one
at a time if you don't mind. Just the pretty pictures. I just want to remind
everyone obviously what we're trying to achieve here, the craftsmanship, the
respect for privacy, separation, tree preservation is a big thing of what
we're proposing. We've meticulously mapped out all the trees through phase
one uh, to ensure that we've actually moved cabins to to preserve as many
trees as possible. The village we really see as being the heart and soul for the
community both the traveling public and for the community at large. Uh, the
bottom right picture or actually if you don't mind staying here, too. The tower
feature was one thing that was identified as a potential concern from
staff. It is 5 m by 5 m. It is very modest in size. So, although it does go
up to uh, a higher elevation, uh, the OPA that was stipula- that was approved
has the provisions to have moments that exceed heights for architectural
moments. Uh, we do think that that tower feature is important. Obviously the
lighting will be dealt with different uh, appropriately. And in my response
letter, we also asked that uh, the measurement of that gets from
established grade. It's the typical way of measuring height. The definition
that's being proposed would be a bit more uh, difficult to kind of interpret
and to implement because there's such grade changes on the site. So, uh,
measuring height from established grade is is standard in the industry.
Uh, next slide, please.
Next slide. I'll do That's just a height map just
showing you again uh the tower feature. Uh that one is the chimney and then the
next slide if you go to you'll see the tower feature.
Uh and so those are the three points that exceed the heights but again it is
permitted as per the OPA if it meets kind of architectural standards.
I think I think I've covered all my talking points. I apologize but uh if
there's any questions you have I'm happy to answer it. I would just like to
specify the three modest modifications we are recommending to the
recommendations and to the conditions. Staff did uh show us the conditions
beforehand and we are generally supportive of all the holding
provisions. We believe that they are fair and equitable and give obviously um
comfort to both the city staff and to the district that these things will be
done before the lit the H is lifted. However, there's three clarifications
that I would ask. One, uh the timing for bringing the bylaw forward was very
ambiguous. It said at some future council date. Obviously, this process is
over 3 years at this point so we'd like some assurances that the bylaw is going
to be brought forward um immediately upon uh the ability of staff to do so at
the next council meeting. I know there's a district component to it but we are
asking for a commitment that the bylaw be brought forward immediately. Um I
know staff also spoke about modifying the zoning bylaw. We're absolutely fine
with that. I think that's more of an administrative um the draft of the bylaw
that we did was not using the zones that staff prefer which is absolutely fine.
We've already seen a new version of it and we are working with staff on that so
I have no issue with that but I don't like the ambiguity that it's just some
future council date. I would hate to have endorsement today but the bylaw not
be enacted for another 6 months. The more contentious one but I think
it's important is we are asking in the condition pertaining to a planning site
plan approval that a clarification that uh for the wetlands uh it's in state to
stipulate that in order to create an open water wetland adapt of up to 3 m be
permitted. That is an important um uh distinction for us and we're asking
you to consider that. And lastly, this is not contentious at all. Uh
uh Judd Haven, the condition that speaks to Judd Haven says uh confirming that
it's at a width of 26 m. It's currently only at 20 m, so we just want to change
the language to say confirming that it will uh be protected up to 26 m. It's
only built to 20, so we'll protect for the 26, but we can't confirm something
that doesn't exist right now. So with that, I thank you for your indulgence in
listening to me, and me and my team are here to answer any questions you have.
And thank you very much to staff. This has been a very, very long process, very
technical process, and I commend them for all the work that they have done.
Thank you.
» Thank you very much, Ms. Bustard. Committee, we now begin the heavy work.
We have questions for uh
Ms. Bustard or Ms. Crowder.
» I just have a quick question for Ms. Bus- Ms. Bustard if she could come back.
Uh I just need a little help on one thing that you just mentioned and have
mentioned earlier. The 3 m versus 2 m, uh you
kind of vaguely call out that you're only going to need it in certain
locations or certain circumstances. Can you identify those or approximately
identify those so that we know that they're where they are and perhaps why
they are necessary? >> There's obviously various depths through
the the the restoration that's going to occur. We We haven't got into detail
design, so we have rough estimations. There's extensive plantings. We've done
the island. It really will be through the center of the channel, just making
sure flow and water is happening. We don't want this to be stagnant. We don't
want this to quickly grow back into the thicket that it was.
Um I can't say with absolute certainty right now exactly where it'd be three,
where it'd be two, but we just don't want to be in a situation where the
approval caps it hard fast at two and that there's no there's no flexibility
on that matter. That being said, everything that we are going to be doing
with Azimuth and with our team is to the absolute highest standard. We are
motivated more than anyone to make sure that this is beautiful and the habitat
is thriving and it's an environment that people want to be.
So you can be sure that we are absolutely aligned on that. So I can't
tell you definitively where it would be, but we just need the ability in some
locations for it to come up to three or to go down to three meters.
» Thank you. >> You're welcome.
» Mitty, just before we go to the next question, I just I'd like to outline how
we will go through this. It's really not much different than we normally do. Uh
so we will have questions so that we fully understand in our minds what what
we're facing. Then I will read the resolution and then then we are going to
go through the various items that there are differences and we will start with
the flood plain. And if we require, we will have an
amendment and adjust it as we have as we normally do. Then we will do uh
development with the adjacent wetlands. Uh
after that we can deal with front yard setbacks and vegetative buffer and we
can go on through those things. So those are the items that are generally where
there are differences in opinion and we need to make that decision. So that will
be the process, but right now let's make sure we understand and have all of our
questions answered. Councilor Nishikawa.
» Thank you. Through you to um Mr. Pink.
I am It's just sort of a general question
about I think that the community would appreciate
when um the Marriott was being built. Um
we from my recollection
a bylaw officer was designated that that was
you know, they that was their only focus. They didn't have other projects.
That was their only focus. From one of some of these conversations
about the wetlands and things about how deep and how, you know, how much
destruction or what all that.
Who who checks? Like who, you know, how how how how are we knowing
um you know,
what happens on a job site for for instance within the wetlands?
» CEO Pick, thank you uh through you the chair and
good morning committee. Uh my recollection of the JW Marriott, I think
you may have misspoke. I believe uh a dedicated building inspector, yes,
uh was actually housed on site I think on a trailer and was dedicated
exclusively to reviewing uh construction and various inspections under the
building code for that entire development. At the time I believe uh we
would have likely had one part-time bylaw officer. So, I think to answer
your question uh council's put a lot of additional resources to bylaw
enforcement. Uh we now have uh more of a robust bylaw enforcement team.
Um I'm not I wouldn't commit uh right now to saying we're going to dedicate
one of those bylaw officers exclusively to this development, but I think we
certainly have the uh the resources and the capacity to
address any issues uh should it arise through this
construction similar to any other development in the
municipality.
» Thank you.
» Committee, no further questions. Councillor Mason.
» Uh thank you and through you. I think this was just one fact I was trying to
capture because there's a lot of information.
» Mhm. >> Uh so, I suspect it's probably in
somebody's report somewhere. Uh the square footage that currently
exists, I think Ms. Bustard put up a slide of what's currently in the flood
plain versus what is being recommended. I think I said it I captured it right.
but is it 30,000? Maybe you could just answer that question and then I
» Miss Buskirk. >> Uh thank you. It's roughly 30,000. We
don't have kind of detailed surveys of those buildings due to the age. So we've
we've taken the area off. Our internal architect has kind of taken off the
satellite images. So it's roughly 30,000 square feet and what we're proposing to
replace it with is roughly 18,000 square feet.
Okay, thank you.
» Councillor Edwards. >> Yes, thank you. This would be to
Miss Miss Buskirk.
Uh Is there a bridge across there?
» Uh yes, there's currently a pedestrian bridge that runs from the cabins, like
the baby suites, across the wetlands to where the yoga studio is and that exists
today. >> And it will be the same. So like
» Yeah, we're proposing to obviously improve upon it, but yes, we are
proposing that same kind of pedestrian linkage there.
» I guess what my my question is so large boats couldn't go in there. I thought
you had said before it was just for canoe, paddle boards and
» Yes, absolutely. We are in other than the depth matter, which I know is a
disagreement, we are we are in full agreement with the other recommendations
of SLR, including no motorized vehicles in there whatsoever. Absolutely. And
restricting access. Yeah.
» I've seen and I think it was just an artist
rendition of the uh cabins on stilts where they had stairs
going down to the ground in the flood plane. I thought you had to
have it so that you could get >> No, they actually the access and egress
stays above it. So they're actually raised and you don't drop down until
you're outside of the the elevation limit. Yeah, that's
correct.
» Councillor Zaps. >> Um thank you and through you to Paul if
you would. So the word contentious, I mean I I find
that disturbing after all these years, uh but thank you for that use. Uh I
guess I would ask you the question, um
if I could, uh other than that, other than the water depth issue, which is
whether it's 2 m or 3 m, is there anything else, could you phrase to us
any any other concerns you have that uh are to that level of uh contentious as a
contentious issue, or is that is that the main niggling point now? Is that
where we are with everything else, all the conditions and the H's and
everything else, is that where where you are, where we are with that
right now? >> I I think it's Cherry.
I don't even like using the word contentious. I shouldn't have used that.
I apologize. I I think there's been a really, really great collaborative
approach. I think we just on the floodplain issue are agreeing to
disagree. There's different ways of interpreting policy. We also are looking
at kind of the the holistic and the broader view. And uh obviously, as the
people who are going to own and operate these these lands, we feel really
passionately that this is such a critical issue to the enjoyment of the
site for for the public uh and for the community. Um so, it's that's why it's
so absolutely essential to us and that we just don't feel that there's a path
forward without it. Um but for the most part, the application, I think we are
all fully aligned. Um I remember going back way back to 2018 when I had the
pleasure of sitting on the Minut Steering Committee and hearing all the
aspirations of the community. And you know, we really took that to heart and I
think the plan does showcase that. I think the uh there's a couple comments
in there about parking. I don't totally understand the notion of compensation
for parking. We think the parking supply we've proposed is absolutely sufficient.
We do have lots of land around there that if there's need for overflow, but
that being said, our our our traffic consultant is very confident with the
numbers we put forward at 171 stalls. Um so, I I think that was identified and
the height was identified, but I think those are things that can get worked
through at site plan. So, I don't think there's any fundamental issues other
than the wetland Uh issue, which I understand the staff's position and and
why they've taken it, and we're asking for your consideration.
» Supplemental. >> Thank you, and through you, Paula.
Another question then, as it relates to flood planning, I mean,
we're we as a people are struggling with flood
planning right now, given the most recent flood and and the ones prior.
Um how committed are you to working with us
on that? >> In what
» Well, I guess, sorry, in in in the capacity that
um I think it's just going to be a bit of a
struggle to get to where we're all in agreement with the flood plain piece.
And I just wonder, you know, what your uh overarching uh theory is on that, I
suppose. >> Well, the the proposal we've put
together, and obviously the technical studies that we've put forward, uh we
think that there is a very very strong justification for what we've proposed,
which is that 80,000 that does encroach into the flood plain, which really does
replicate and to a lesser extent than what exists today. They will be built at
a higher elevation. All life safety will be dealt with. Um without that
component, we are not prepared to proceed with this this application.
» Mayor Kelly.
Uh thank you very much, and uh through you, not a question to anyone. In fact,
I might talk a lot, so you may sit down. Um
I I I just want to talk uh primarily to council. We or to council, to the
committee. Um this you know, the counselor Zabitsky's questions raise
some issues that we run into every once in a while.
We seem to think we have to reach unanimity. We seem to think that
we have to uh not offend. Um
and frankly, there shouldn't be this notion that it's we're pitting one
against the other here. Uh quite frankly, I I think both
submissions uh are very very strong, exemplary. Um uh as as apologetic said,
one outlines the sort of terms and conditions under which they're they're
uh willing to proceed with an application. Uh our position, which is a
very thorough uh review of the uh planning matters. Um and and I will say
right now because we always forget till the end, uh our staff have done just an
a remarkable job. They've done it under incredible time pressures. We have a uh
small uh group back in the planning department.
I won't say it, but thank goodness one of them is Emily.
» [laughter] >> Uh it it is really really well done and
represents the planning interest in a phenomenal way. I think we've heard
from a couple of the uh uh comments that came in and I was going
to repeat the comment as well. There's a path forward that is highlighted
uh if count if committee I'm going to say council 100 times. If committee
chooses uh a different path.
I will not countenance anyone saying that we're going against planning. We're
not going against planning. Planning is absolutely a huge factor in our
consideration. Environmental impact is a huge factor in our uh consideration.
But quite frankly, we have an obligation to the constituents of this township to
step back three paces and consider a lot more than just the planning
justification or the planning issues. We have to consider the economic
development issues. We have to consider the uh we have to consider the uh the
local impact issues. Uh we have to consider quite frankly, and this is one
of those cases where I don't do this I don't bet. But we have to sometimes bet
on the jockey, not the horse. Uh we have a we have a situation that's been lying
dormant for so long. It's uh I was going to speak to Paul about cleaning the
place up, please. It's a mess over there.
We're It's time that we put, you know, we get somebody who's able to show, you
know, a track record of of success in in closing on big
uh construction projects and has a commitment to the community.
Um that has to factor into the kinds of things that we're going to be putting in
the front of our mind. Not to minimize any of the effort or impact or input
from our planners, from CAO Pink, from the rest of the advisors we work from
with, including our outside advisors and frankly including Azimuth and some of
the other parties who participated in this as
well. There's a There's a path forward or
there isn't. No one need be offended. Our job is to represent to the best of
our abilities the interests of the entire township, everyone who resides,
who who travels here, who is a part-time or full-time resident,
to consider all of the implications of this project. And frankly, I think
all of the implications of turning down this project. Um I'm going to have more
to say as we go through what sounds like a three- or four-day exercise, but when
we get to the various issues, I will have more to say. But I think it's
important that we go at this the right way. We have tremendous documentation,
probably too much, to consider. We've read it, we've asked
questions, we've highlighted it, we've asked for for um
amendments to it. Um and we're at that day when it might have all been easier
just to get to call in sick. But we have to stand up and we have to do this
review and we have to make sure that we are putting all of the interests
into the formula that decides how we're going to vote. And again,
Emily, you've done a remarkable job as we are accustomed to. Thank you for your
for standing up for all of this in such an articulate manner. Um I appreciate it
very much. And um I'm going to go back to the
chair. Thank you.
» Councilor Roberts. >> Thank you, Chair, and through you to Ms.
Crowder. Um
is my understanding correct that the some of the current buildings are at
zero level of of water level or are Ms. Crowder?
» Through you, Chair, um to Councilor Roberts. Um well, first of all, thank
you, Mayor Kelly. Um but through you to Councilor Roberts, um there are some
existing buildings that are within the flood plain on these lands. Um the
document prepared by Ms. Bustard um that was shown on the screen today, I haven't
seen that until this morning. The comparative of um existing buildings
versus proposed, so I cannot verify you know, the the number specifically,
but yes, there is existing development within the flood plain. Um and that was
part of staff's analysis um in that buildings that are considered to be
legal non-complying within the flood plain could be replaced one for one.
Um the applications before us today look to alter those locations um and size and
extent, so a bit different, but to answer your
question, yes. >> All right, thank you. So, I don't know
who to ask the question to, but it's more for my clarity on Lake Rosseau. I
don't get on Lake Rosseau a lot. Um I can see flooding
the the spring flooding on Lake Muskoka, the evidence and what happens,
but historically
what happens in the spring on Lake Rosseau? Is it going up 2 or 3
ft like it does in Lake Muskoka or is it Ms. Crowder?
» Through you, Chair, um to Councilor Roberts. I
admittedly am not an expert on the flooding levels
in the Township and on the specific lakes. I don't know if Mr. Pink knows
the change in elevation on Lake Rosso. What
I can say is we did do a site visit for this property
in the spring and there is some photos in the staff report that show that site
visit and the flooding on site particularly near the Wetland area
and the area between the Wetland and Judhaven Road. You can see that it it
does flood in that in that location.
» Other questions committee? Let me read the
» Councilor Mazan. >> Councilor Mazan.
» Thank you and through you. And I again
the quality of all of these inputs I'm just repeating is just so significant
and there's a lot of information that all of us are trying to mine through.
I think that both of you have isolated where this most I won't use the word
contentious but most significant thing seems to be around the 2 m 3 m. I did
note though in the conclusion of the I need to put my glasses on again.
The um SLR recommendations there was a few
other pieces. Number
So I'll not talk about the 2 m but a riparian restoration plan
a compensatory critical fish habitat and then I think the fourth one was
about restricting guest access to the new Wetland area which I think
it's probably difficult to actually manage but I think I'm hearing isn't
really as significant but perhaps those other two you could just expand upon a
little bit. >> I'm happy to. Thank you very much. Yeah
generally those conditions and we responded when SLR sent those. We're
generally in agreement. There's a slight disagreement on the extent of the fish
habitat replacement and that's going back to my commentary in my presentation
that the the total thicket is the 8500 but MNR has only identified 1500 of fish
habitat and our and and through our surveying. So, that can be detailed more
through obviously the discussions that we'll have through detailed design. So,
there's a there's a potential that it's larger than the 1500 but they don't our
consultants don't believe it's anywhere close to the 8500 that was stipulated by
SLR. Um so, that I'd say is a clarification
that we need to work through and and there's absolutely no real contention on
that. It's just a matter of of the environmentalists kind of getting
together and reviewing that. And the repair and restoration plan fully in
agreement and a restoration plan actually shows that. Uh and if it
enhancements needed on that, no problem whatsoever. And yes, 100% we've agreed
no motorized vehicles in there. So, generally we are completely aligned with
the exception of the depth. >> Thank you.
» You're welcome. >> I could just ask members of the public
to not talk during the meeting, please. Next question.
No talking, please. Councilor Mazin.
» Uh thank you and through you and just uh one other I just want confirmation
perhaps from staff about the concurrent the request for the concurrent uh
treatment plant that is going to be handled through the district. If I can
just have assurance or if you can just explain how that works. Thanks.
» Ms. Grater. >> Thank you. Through you, Chair, uh to
Councilor Mazin. Yes, so the district did provide comment on the application
and did speak to um the request for the um wastewater treatment plant to run
concurrently with development on site. So, in the recommendation
one of the points um to be included within the holding provision is an
agreement with the district um be entered into and registered on title
regarding um the design and construction for the wastewater treatment plant and
it is to include the provision of financial securities,
um the requirement for the developer to obtain at their sole expense all
required provincial approvals, um and it details those provincial
approvals that are required. Um before start of operation.
Um requirement for the developer to ensure
that any rental arrangements made and or any lease or rental agreements to
include terms identifying that occupancy will be contingent upon
um those provincial approvals and construction of the necessary water and
sewer infrastructure. And the requirement for the developer to
obtain the necessary connection permits from the district prior to connection um
to the municipal water and sewer infrastructure. So they have put in
their conditions that they feel satisfy um this requirement. And I do know that
um Curtis Severight, who is manager for the planning department at the district,
is online today and available to answer any questions um
regarding the water and sewer or any district interest really.
» Mayor Kelly. Thank you for that. I just have a a
follow-up, if I may. I I'm a little confused about
whether this is an issue of the need to construct water and sewer or the timing
of the construction. And so and that's what I thought it was.
If it's timing, I understand that the risk is of
of non-completion, never gets done. Is that the real risk? And and I have to
ask my question and then I'll turn the mic off. Is that not something that
could be covered off with a performance bond of some sort? Ms. Crowder.
» Through you, Chair, um to Mayor Kelly. So the question is timing. That is the
the component that we're debating or or just that is um being proposed. And they
do want to construct the wastewater treatment plant at the same time as the
rest of the development is being built out. Um
there is a requirement for financial security, so that does protect the
township to a certain extent. The risk is that,
um, you know, the treatment plant not be built and that people potentially occupy
these buildings before occupancy is granted, which is always an enforcement
challenge.
» Councilor Edwards. And then Councilor Mazin.
» Uh, yes. Um, I can see the
necessity of building the houses as well as the sewer and water at the same time.
I believe it was asked and that we can withhold occupancy
permits and who's going to move in if they don't have water and sewer?
» Committee, I'm >> I'm going to answer that one.
» Seeing a slow down in the questions. Oh, sorry, Councilor Mazin.
» Uh, thank you. Through you, this is just again a clarification because there's
some new terms here about one zone one zone flooding versus two zone. I think,
uh, Ms. Crowder, you had mentioned that and I know that it was in the report
from, uh, Ms. Buster as well. Could you just for committee's sake explain the
difference between the two, please? >> Ms. Crowder.
» Through you, Chair. Uh, to Councilor Mazin, absolutely. So, a one zone
concept is applied for, um, lakes typically, larger, um, bodies of water,
not to be mixed up with a large inland versus small inland, but lakes in
general. Um, and a two zone concept is applied
more so for rivers, um, where the change in flooding elevation is more drastic
than on a lake concept. So, in the provincial planning statement, the, um,
two terms are defined and applied to specific situations. One zone concept,
the entirety of the flood plain is considered to be the floodway.
And so, that's a very important distinction when reading the provincial
planning policies. In a two-zone concept, you have the floodway and the
flood fringe together, which create the flood plain. So, it you know, very
technical defined terms. Um and in this case, Lake Rosso is a
one-zone. The entirety of the flood plain is the floodway.
» Quick supplemental, Chair. >> Yes.
» Okay. Just so putting in this into layman's terms,
using the distinction between a river and now a one-zone floodway,
the difference would be the variability one could assume on a river
uh because of the fringe. So, there's like a static line and then
an up and down. That's probably a lot more variable on a two-zone. Is that
correct? >> Ms. Crowder.
» Through you, Chair, to Councilman Zand. That is my understanding that the
variability in water level differs more greatly when you are talking about a
river stream river um scenario versus a lake. So, the
policies that are applicable differ a bit. Um and I think maybe CAO Pink wants
to add. >> CAO Pink.
Thank you. Just quickly, yes. I think the variability in height, uh but also I
think the variability in flow. And that's a large part of the distinction
too in a riverine environment. You're going to have greater flow in that
floodway, while the flood fringe may and that could directly impact health and
safety at those at those flows.
Uh and that's why it's a two-zone concept in in rivers as well. So,
height, uh but also flow levels. Thank you.
All right, Committee. Let me
» Sorry, Councillor Bosworth, your mic's not on. There you sorry. Thank you.
Um Before I read the resolution, which
changes the nature of the discussion and some of the rules around how we have to
behave. Um
Um we're going to take a 15-minute break and be back at
and 10 10 35.
And I will remind committee and the people in the room that there
should be no discussion of this either between committee members or
between committee and the public.
» All right.
» Mhm.
» I'm going to read the resolution so that we can have
open to full discussion and continuing questions as required. Moved by
Councillor Edwards, seconded by Councillor Kent.
Be it resolved that the official plan amendment application OPA
-64 2666940
Ontario Inc. and 2665556
Ontario Inc. be revised to
retain section C1.5.3.7 which prohibits the development of new
habitable buildings within the flood plain and that any affected proposed
amendments be retained or revised accordingly and that the proposed OPA be
adopted by the Township and the record be forwarded to the
district municipality of Muskoka for approval and that should committee
adopt proposed amendments to section C1.5.3.7
permitting new development within the flood plain that is scheduled to section
C1.5.4.3 C1.5.4.4
and C1.5.4.5
be added which demonstrates the specific location and extent wherein buildings
structures are permitted within the front yard setback and where the
required 15 m shoreline vegetative buffer is per-
is permitted to be reduced. So, this effectively deals with the
first item that we had on our agenda, which is the flood plain.
So, I open it up to committee for questions and discussions.
Media, are we ready to vote?
Yes.
» Just uh I'm I'm trying to to understand the flow
of these things again if that third paragraph Sorry, I'm just
going back to what Mr. Chinks was saying earlier and I just want to make sure I
haven't lost any thread here. Are we proposing amendments?
» Well, we have to decide. >> So, this is the moment that you wanted
to >> read through this, it's saying
the recommendation is to not accept the flood plain.
But, should we do consider it, then we will have some specific position some uh
schedule that demonstrates the specific location
and extent of the buildings. So, we have to decide which one it is.
Is that fair to say, Ms. Scouter? >> Through you, Chair. Um
so, what's before you is the question of whether um you are going to approve or
prohibit development within the flood plain. Essentially, that question um
would need to be answered at this stage. And if the decision was to permit
development with the within the flood plain, then it would be that third
paragraph that we are um recommending be implemented. But if you were
recommending development not be permitted within the flood plain, it
would be those first two within the resolution.
» Councilor Madison. >> So, probably just needing a bit of
guidance here then because I think this is the key point.
Which is if we don't actually agree at this Like we actually have to make a
decision on this. And so then
maybe some assistance if we were to suggest that paragraph three is the
approach we want to suggest. I just don't know
process-wise how to go about this. What specific
amendments would we be including? I just want to be sure I'm clear.
Uh >> Mr. Crowder, guide us on how
you would like us to get make recraft recraft this resolution.
» Through you, Chair. Um I think that either way you decide whether to approve
or deny, the the resolution should be amended to
reflect that. So, I think the first two items here um so, staff's recommendation
was that the OPA be revised to retain section the section that prohibits
development within the flood plain and that the revised OPA be adopted by the
township and that record sent to the district. However, should committee wish
to um adopt the proposed amendments to section C1 um 537, which is development
within the flood plain, then we would um
Essentially, we're looking for direction on you at this point. But I see CAO Pink
wants to add some comments. >> Councilor Madison then Councilor Burke.
» I think maybe CAO Pink could help guide here first and
» CAO Pink. >> We almost voted on something and didn't
have an answer. No, thank you. Uh through you, maybe to
help uh with the process. This is a little unusual and I apologize maybe for
missing it, but the resolution before you, I would suggest not calling or
voting on that because it's it's two separate things.
» Yes. >> Um I think what it really forces is an
amendment to that resolution and to sort of pick your path. So, I would suggest
to you perhaps the way if there's a mover and a seconder to either support
development in a flood plain, then it would consider the third
paragraph, and committee can vote on that. Uh should a mover and seconder
want to advance not permitting development in a flood plain, it would
advance the first two um uh paragraphs in that, and I think that
might be the best way to sort of manage this process and have a formal uh vote
uh on those two paths. But, the again, the resolution before you has sort of
two options. If you passed it, I think it would be a little confusing uh
» Uh Counselor Berry, then Counselor Kent. >> Uh thank you and through you. Uh I think
I'm going to try and make a a point that may help some of the the lay people
around all. When we're talking about development in in the flood plain,
we're talking about redevelopment in the flood plain. There's there's structure
already there here. And what we're doing is remediating
what's there and fixing it and taking 30,000 square
feet down to 18,000 square feet. So, I mean, development to me sounds like it's
new. It's all brand new. We're coming here and we're just putting in new.
Where in fact, this specific proposal is talking about redevelopment of what's
already there in a in a
much more uh holistic and and thoughtful way.
» Counselor Kent. >> I would be happy to uh
first or second uh second proposal, which is to support
redevelopment in the flood plains. So, if somebody wants to second it, I'd go
for that route.
» Uh Counselor sorry, counselor Mazen has >> Put her hand up.
» Thank you. I I think the question the I think
I think you had asked the question is anybody willing to put forward a motion
which it's I think what counselor Kent is also and I think we had been
discussing. I think that is the next step so I'd be happy to
shape I don't know if staff have already pulled something together to allow
redevelopment or development. >> I want to give counselor Nishikawa
» Okay, but >> Go ahead with the problem.
» on this. Okay. Oh, okay. >> Counselor Nishikawa
» I I would like to request staff whatever we're coming up with
to be able to put it up on the screen and both have have a very clear vision
of what we're voting on. >> Excellent idea. We had We had given that
some consideration. Uh all right, so we have a mover
» Mover. >> and a seconder.
» And so I want time.
» Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry. No, no, Sally moved it.
And counselor Mazen seconded. Yes, I'm sorry.
Got it. Thank you. >> So we need strike so
» All right, let's take just a few minute break.
» Hopefully. >> We'll break for however long it takes.
No discussion, please. Counselor Kent, no discussion.
» So are you going to mandatorily or something? Are you able
to back it? >> Or assistant
» This is my best friend over here. >> Hm?
» He's writing it, my best friend. >> This is not allowed.
» Oh. >> I was trying to draw it.
» I can't read your handwriting.
» I think
He's writing.
» So I guess
» Councilor Adams. >> If I may, through you, just to confuse
the issue. I I guess I
Councilor I I'm just trying to look at >> I please?
» at this and understand the word development
which you know, sort of denotes new and redevelopment which means to essentially
» let's just hold this till we got a resolution in front of us. It's a good
point, but let's just hold it. >> Yeah, okay.
But it's all right.
» We like to be procedurally pure here. So,
um, the first thing we are going to do is table the resolution that we just
read and leave it aside.
And then we will have a second resolution that reflects what uh
counselor Kent and counselor Mazin have have tabled.
So, the first one is Uh and we're bringing them up on the
screen. I'm not going to bring this one up on the screen because it just says
we're going to table it. But, if we could bring the other one up
on the screen.
CEO Pink, I got that correctly. All right.
Moved by Councillor Kent, seconded by Councillor Mazin. Be it resolved that
the motion be tabled. Any discussion?
All right. All those in favor? All right.
The next one up as you can see on the screen is moved by Councillor Kent,
seconded by Councillor Mazin. Be it resolved that committee adopt proposed
amendments to section C 1.5.3.7 permitting development within the flood
plain.
So, there's there's the question. Committee,
what debate do we have around this?
Councillor Zavitz. >> Thank you through you to the earlier
point. Um pretty this uh the difference in it interpretation
between the word development and redevelopment. I see that we've used the
word development here and yet previously was discussed that you know,
we just we're re-allowing the redevelopment within a a space. And I
just wondered if I mean, is that a a commonly held
um belief or is this new development? I'm
clearly the >> Ms. Crowder.
» Thank you through you, Chair, uh to Councillor Zavitz.
So, the provincial planning statement doesn't differentiate between the terms
development and redevelopment. It doesn't actually use the term
redevelopment. It only has development. Um so strictly from a planning
standpoint the terms could be synonymous.
Um what I would say is just for the sake of clarity, this is not just replacement
of existing buildings. This is construction of new buildings in the
flood plain in new locations and extents and sport courts and fill within the
flood plain. So consideration of this resolution should
just make sure you have the whole picture. We are talking about buildings,
structures, the amphitheater, sport courts, and the fill within the flood
plain.
» Councillor Nishikawa and then Councillor Roberts.
» Um I'm I'm sure others have the same
concern, but I I feel that I should present my concerns at this time.
Um and I do have a district council
um hat on at the moment as well knowing that we've looked at
um other applications um
within the flood plain. Um
I can't um I can't vote for this today.
Um I'm very very concerned about the precedent setting.
And I would love to see this redeveloped if I wasn't concerned about some other
huge two other very very large projects that
would
I feel like I'm creating a path for them to
come and be quite frankly very destructive.
I'm not saying that this particular property is, but it it it just
so I can't vote for it today.
» Any any other question to make? Oh, sorry. Councilor
uh
Councilor Councilor Robertson and Councilor
Edwards. >> Thank you.
I too may share what Councilor Nishikawa said, but then I'm thinking about the
history of in the path we have followed with this from day one.
I think about some of the other applications
big applications we've had. Let's see, particularly the one in Milford Bay
that the township ended up owning the property.
Um I think about what we went through with some
with Red Leaves. And I think that
we have in front of us an opportunity to say, "Yeah, that's There are There are
risks with this." Don't get me wrong, but
we have a partner and I'm going to call it a partner because this is how this
applicant has come across. That
they have demonstrated us they're willing to work with the township.
They have a vision to have a world-class
resort that draws people in. And the key part to that is there the the re- the
the rebuilding of or the reestablishment of the the wetland and building on it.
And you just think about it. That was a wetland at one time and then men
destroyed it. You know, the our biggest invasive
species in the world went in and said, "Hey, I want a golf or I want to do
this. I want to build a parking lot." And at that time there was no thought to
it. And what we're doing is we're taking it back
to to before settlers.
And we're And then we're going to respectfully build on it. So, I'm in
full support at this time knowing that there are risks, but also knowing that
we can work those out. Now, the district is another another
group that's going to they're the they have to approve this mostly, but I think
again we the three groups the applicant, the township, and the and the district
can work together and iron out the issues. So, that's my
thoughts. >> Councilor Edwards.
» Thank you. I was going to basically echo that.
I could see if they were taking a wetland and want to fill it and build.
But when they're enhancing it and that and putting an island in and everything
else like that, I can support it. It is unique. It's something different. I look
at the alternative what was there before and I wasn't happy with that. So, I
think everybody has to be a little bit unhappy and then everybody should be
satisfied. So, I will be supporting this. Thank you.
» Councilor Kent. >> I was just going to say that I thought
that Miss Grogan Green's comments this
morning captured my thoughts really really well and that
we've been at this I will haven't been at this for 8 years cuz I've only been
on council for 3 and 1/2. But
this is a very good applicant who's been done a very professional job
of meeting and communicating with the township and the planning staff.
I think that the product that comes out is a environmentally
product. I think it's beautiful. Will add to the community. And I think for me
the most surprising thing was in the last meeting where we had the public
meeting. It was in March.
Where we had tons of people here. I expected
pushback from the community and what I heard was
I did not hear one person who pushed back on the Minett development. To me,
we're supposed to listen to the constituents and the community. And I
realize there's building code and I realize there's
provincial planning statements, but the community is in full support of
getting this done as fast as possible. And I think that we need to listen to
them. And the combination of Sherry's comment I Sherry comment
Miss Green's comments and the community feedback pushed me over the edge which
without any issue and I think it's that's an important reminder. I think
it's a good a good builder an honest
team of people working with the community and I think that's the best
you're going to get. We should be very thankful that that person is here.
Um anyway, that's my views. Thank you.
» Okay, any more discussion comments?
Are we ready to vote? All those in favor.
Any opposed? Thank you. That carries.
All right. So, the next topic
And Miss Crowder, the development with the adjacent wetlands is included in the
first resolution. Am I correct?
» For you, Jared. Just one moment, please.
So, the um item that was just voted on is the development within the flood
plain. So, the next item would be development within the wetland and
adjacent to the wetland. >> And is that part of the requirement to
amend the OP or is that just the bylaw? >> That is a requirement to amend the
official plan. >> Okay.
So, we have a proposal and we have some comments from our staff
on the wetland.
The main issue I think is whether we are to allow
depths up to 3 m. But there may be others, Ms. Crowder, if you just maybe
tell us what the key top points are on that topic.
» Through you, Chair. Um so, staff's recommendation that now that we've dealt
with the flooding issue, so we're setting that aside, um
staff's recommendation is that the proposal to um
build within and adjacent to the wetland could be consistent with the provincial
planning statement provided the recommendations put forth by SLR be
implemented. And there were four main recommendations. One has to do with the
depth of the wetland itself. Another has to do with the riparian
restoration plan. The third is
um compensatory measures for critical fish
habitat. And the fourth is restricting guest access to the new wetland area. Um
so, I believe we've heard concurrence from
um the proponent. At least, you know, there's some items that they think
have differing opinions on when it comes to the environmental professional's
findings, which can be worked out through the site plan control stage.
However, I think the main ask from them today is to permit um depths for
dredging up to 3 m. Um staff's position is that dredging should be restricted to
2 m or less um in accordance with the peer review
um done by SLR. Uh the peer review document speaks to the significant
difference in aquatic vegetation that can survive in the different depth
measurements. Um and a big part of their determination
that this could be consistent with PPS is on that basis. So, ultimately the
question falls to committee on what uh what water depth you would be
comfortable with. >> Thank you very much. That was very
clear. Counselor Zavitz. >> Thank you. It's for you too, I guess,
Mrs. Bustard, if I may. Um
the uh if I may, Chair.
» Yes. >> Thank you. Um
this notion of 3 m and that seems to be a hard stop for
you. Um can you explain the difference in
your minds between 2 and 3 m in terms of your uh goal, your mission
there?
» The Our goal there is to obviously deliver the vision that we have shown
you in terms of creating a very robust, diverse habitat within the wetlands. Um
I I think all those different components that we've discussed, the riparian
restoration along the shoreline, the expansion of the fish habitat, there's
naturalization of the channel, there's uh introduction of new habitat for
turtles, there's bat boxes, there's a very, very detailed and thorough
restoration and rehabilitation plan that has been brought forward. Part of that
is uh requiring that there is some deeper area, specifically on the central
uh around the island and opening to the channel that would bring it down to
roughly 3 m. But as I said to you earlier, the the bulk of the area will
probably be in that 2-m range. That is going to have different kind of growth
and along the shoreline. Um but to have that diversity in what we're trying to
achieve and to have that uh environment uh obviously not grow back immediately
back into like a dense thicket like you've seen before and obviously to
justify the very, very significant investment. I mean, when I said earlier
2 to 3 million dollars here, the totality of the investment on this
property is being north of 200 million dollars. Um for us to do that, we have
to make sure that the wetland is restored to the vision that we have and
we think it is very, very important and our engineers and our environmental
engineers believe that is totally justifiable. Um so what we're asking for
is your approval to proceed uh up to the 3 m. Uh but again, that won't be
universally 3 m across the totality of the wetland.
» Councilor Zavitz. >> Mayor, please. Thank you.
» Uh again to you, Paul. Um
so, the 3 m isn't as I understand it from your description recreational. It's
It's not recreational. It's environmental.
» Yeah. >> Okay.
» yes. But there There's going to be no motorized vehicles or boats in this at
all. Uh there might be canoes um and and all that, but no, it's been not being
driven. It's really from obviously creating the the diversity of habitat
that we're trying to achieve in that area.
» Councilor Mazin. >> Uh thank you. Answer you. And again, I
think I'm just trying to get the process in my mind. If we've just done step one,
the flood plain, step two is the wetland, just confirming that the other
three um items that were recommended by the
environmental study would be handled through site plan. I think I heard that.
And then I want to come back to the question I have on
the the depth. >> Through you, Chair. Um so, the other
three items to Council Mazin, um the riparian restoration plan would be
dealt with through site plan control. The compensatory critical fish habitat
um would also be dealt with through site plan control. We kind of see a need for
the process between the environmental
consultants to continue because there are still some disagreements between the
two sides. So, that does need to be worked out. The fourth item, restricting
guest guest access, would be a provision that we would want included in the site
plan agreement, but also the master development agreement. I do wonder about
that item because we're kind of hearing that part of the use is going to be
recreational of the wetland feature, and this sort of says
that they will restrict that access. So,
um maybe the proponent can speak to that.
» Ms. Buster.
» Uh, what had been discussed with us through the discussion points had been
restricting motorized vehicles and motorized boats, excuse me, and we are
absolutely okay with that. Um, obviously this is going to be in the
heart and soul of the development. It's going to be one of the the main
locations stitching together the village, the amphitheater, the tennis,
the cabins. So, yes, there will be some human activity, but I think it's also an
opportunity. As I said before, one of our aspirations that we have is
education. You know, children and families accessing the wetlands,
learning about aquatic life, actually experiencing it. There's amazing, um,
obviously wetland restoration programs throughout the world. You know,
Brickworks in Toronto is an example where it's it's an educational hub and
it's used so that people can actually learn about the environment as opposed
to it being kind of a theoretical. That is what we want it to be. So, if the
interpretation that staff has that restricting use means that we do this
restoration, but nobody can go near it, then we don't agree with that. But
absolutely we agree that this is not going to be a place for motorized boats.
Um, but I'm not sure where that distinction
is and and that's certainly not how we read the SLR comments.
Um, but nonetheless, we we'll work on the appropriate, obviously, measures to
ensure that the environment is protected throughout the life of the project.
» Um, sorry, can I just say >> Ms. Councillor Mast.
» Sorry, I just wanted to thank you very much and through you. Um, coming back
then to this 2 m 3 m thing. Um, seems to be the the piece and given it
seems like it's very, um, localized in some cases. It's not this broad number.
I'm asking, how do we capture that appropriately in whatever we prove to
help kind of move this one forward so that instead of it having to be this
broad statement. >> Ms. Buster.
» If I may, the, uh, in our letter that I submitted to you, we proposed the
wording um and I go go to here. In order to create
an open water wetland feature to a depth of up to 3 m. And that would obviously
give uh a lot of leeway for us to have those uh detailed discussions with staff
through the detailed design um and obviously find the appropriate
measure. So, it's an acknowledgement that it will kind of in some uh it'll go
up to that depth, but it's certainly is not a universal. So, uh that's the
wording that we proposed and we thought was a balanced approach.
» Councillor Saunders. So, through you again um
not so much a question as a statement, but I I think if you look and again is
it a a parable, I guess. If you look at Blue Mountain Village and
there's a lake there. This isn't a lake. This is a As I understand it, it's a
watercourse. It's part of actually part of Lake Rousseau. So, it's
it's fed by and it's it's part of as opposed to a a
free-standing lake. And in that lake in at Blue Mountain, there's paddle boats
and there's paddle boards. People aren't swimming, but they're recreating.
And I know for a fact that that is more than 2 m
to 3 m deep. And I guess just just uh as an analogy, there's there's the water
being used recreationally, but people aren't swimming in it, but to the point
of this particular project um there's a replenishment piece, I guess.
Is that through you? You know, environmentally, is that not correct
that the water is being um
infused with new water as flows and everything goes. So, this is not
stagnant a stagnant lake. This is part of Lake Rousseau.
I just wanted to that extent. Maybe it's a question more than a statement. Can
you comment on that? >> Through you, Chair. Um the water is
connected, the waterway. So, this um does flow
um as one with Lake Rousseau.
Um I would say the wetland does that today. The water flows through one into
the other. And um this would continue that process. Yes, um
Yeah.
» I think Counselor Kents Counselor Edwards Counselor Robert.
» Counselor Kent. >> Uh, thank you. Just a quick question on
that water. I was thinking as you were all talking about
both the fact that it rises in the spring and it goes down. I mean, my dock
on Lake Joe, for example, shifts by at least a meter
between you know,
July 1st and August 31st. And it's already shifted almost that full meter
this season. If it shifts, do we have any data that shows does that mean that
the 3 m is going to be now 1 and 1/2 and the 1 m is going to be dry?
Or 2 m stuff is going to be dry? Do we have any data on what happens to that
depth of depth of water in the marshy area,
um, as the waters rise and fall in the season?
» This cluster.
» Uh, the wetland has historically always stayed uh,
it never goes dry even in different things, but there is it can be very
shallow in some sections right now cuz it's been obviously years of a lot of
sediment in there. Um, something that you touched upon too,
there's improvements happening well beyond just the restoration of the
wetlands. We're doing the naturalization of the channel and the water that's
coming from the other side of Judd Haven down through. So, we're improving the
flow of the water that's going to come through. Obviously, the improvements to
the wastewater facility is going to be changing the nutrient load that's going
into the wetland which is going to be a net positive to the environment as well.
Um, and one of the reasons for the depth as well is making sure that we are
continuing that flow through the wetland into the lake so that the water doesn't
become stagnant which again will have a domino effect of improving the aquatic
health in there. Uh, right now with the there's it's overloaded quite with the
nutrient load and with the and with the the thicket that a lot of it is being
stifled. A lot of the environmental benefits in there are being stifled.
Um so it never goes dry. With our depth there will be some fluctuation um
absolutely um but it has not historically been a dry wetland.
» Councillor Edwards. >> Yes uh is that too too too much of a
burden? Uh
I can envision this being tapered. It's not just going to go in and drop down.
So it it's going to be >> Absolutely.
» approximately what percentage that you would be using? Like
I've seen where where where they'll they'll put a building envelope on it.
Could you maybe lay it out for staff that this is what your your your plan
is? >> In terms of the locations of the the
deepest portions? Uh I don't want to make a number up
right now so I don't have it cuz the detailed design has not been done but
you are correct there'll be varying depths throughout the wetland and
that'll be detailed through the restoration plan into the detailed
design. Um >> Yeah I was going to say
» Uh can I ask our head of construction?
» So just echo what Paulo was saying as well with the flow and to get the right
flows through the detailed design there will be an analysis done of the channels
and where it actually implements the best flow for the water moving through
it. So there will be deeper sections which will inhabit and and accelerate
some of the flow and then the shallower sections which won't which all ties back
to the environmental impact. >> We'll just add the the aspirations to
obviously facilitate the different plant growths within the wetlands are being
achieved um in different sections of the wetland and that has been a big part of
our restoration plan and it's in the net benefit as part as well. So it's not
I would just like to say it's not an either or. You know permitting the
depths up to 3 m isn't negating the the plant and aquatic life that's being
asked for by by the SLR and by staff. We're asking for basically a combination
to obviously see the vision that we're bringing forward. So uh we we think the
vision can be uh successfully implemented with the ability to have
some leeway to go up to 3 m in some locations.
» Thank you. >> Thank you.
» Councillor Roberts.
» Thank you, Chair, and through to you with a comment.
Um the word recreation is not appropriate
in this case. It's educational.
And it's experience. And you're not going to have uh people I
I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, we're not going to have people with
floaties or out there trying to swim in the swamp.
Sorry for that word. We're going to have something that I see
my see my grandchildren.
You know, they're after like my my 8-year-old grandchild wants a a pair of
microscope. So, she can look at the bugs and that
that are and I see that type of habitat. So, I'm thinking that
that um we could maybe put a a little definition
around what recreation means within this area.
And what the the the applicant or would would would
try to enforce or monitor, ensure that it happens. They talk they talk about it
being educational. And I think it's a great educational thing for the people
that have never seen this. So, there's my comments.
» Councillor Zavitz and Councillor >> Thank you, Chair, and you to again to
Paul. I guess in terms of the word recreation, um
why do I envision this skating in the winter months? Is that something that
you will do on here? Will that it will freeze and become
I do see it being recreational to quite honest, it's a centerpiece. Am I
wrong? >> Uh we see it being obviously a
centerpiece of of I think education and aesthetics and and functionality. I I've
never had a discussion about a skating rink. I don't know if the flows if it
would freeze over. I'm happy to take that back and if there was an
aspiration, we will absolutely look at that.
Um but we I can honestly say we haven't had that discussion yet. I will just add
one thing in terms of kind of debating the depth. There's There's What we're
trying to do here is obviously create a new
a new and improved situation that has a diversity of aquatic life as I said and
plant life. The deeper dredging in some locations actually facilitate the
ability for larger fish as well. So it's a trade-off. You might have in some
locations not as much plant but you have more fish habitat. So again, I don't
ever want this to be seen as an either or. It's just a trade-off the type of
life that you're creating in there in terms of the environment.
But we will absolutely take that back and if there's an opportunity for winter
activations, we would certainly look at that.
» Councillor McIntyre and then Councillor Mazin.
» Okay. Um this is close to my heart because
I really like and appreciate swamps. Swamps are the most productive ecosystem
we have in our world because energy is just constantly moving and constantly
creating. What we're doing here is we're taking a
swamp and we're making it into a wetland. And as long as we're clear that
that's what we're doing, okay. But we are losing what we had as a swamp
and we're losing that ecosystem and we're losing the energy that goes with
that ecosystem. I really
appreciated um the analysis that was done in the report
from SLR about the difference between a swamp and a wetland and what we would
have to do if we're going to go ahead with this, how how we would have to
amend the process so that we can retain the aspects of the swamp.
» Councillor Mazin. >> Okay, thank you. It turned
» You have one comment and then kind of a question as to process just to get I
think the discussion focused again on the one the three meter piece.
I'm just going back to Ms. Crowder's report, page 11 of the
report where it talks about the four pieces of or four recommendations that
came from the SR SLR recommendations and the fourth one
specifically says, "Restrict guest access to the new wetland area to ensure
disturbance to this area is minimized. To this end, no motorized access should
be allowed and fishing activity in the new wetland area needs to be strictly
controlled during all times of the year." So, I think there's some already
some guided by the environmental expert. They've
already given some guidance as to what that
would look like and feel like. So, I'm somewhat satisfied with that piece.
I think what I'd like to know is how do we advance the discussion and get some
conclusion on the the the
the number one piece, which is that three meters. Do we need to have a
another motion put forward or is this an amendment or how do we get
that to be the conversation? Ms. Crowder.
» Through you, Chair, to Council Mazin. So, the way that
the report or or the recommendation the
resolution was read was to require the implementation of SLR's recommendations,
which stipulates the two meter depth. So, if this committee wishes to permit a
depth greater than two meters, we would need a revised
resolution.
» CEO Pink. >> Thank you. Just for clarity though, that
that is the zoning amendment resolution that coming next. Right now, we're
still, I think, considering the official plan amendment. That's the tabled
resolution to amend the official plan. As we heard from both the, uh, delegate,
Miss Crowder, um, these matters could be dealt with
through site plan and the holding provision. Um, and that, uh, revision
could be considered when we consider the next zoning amendment resolution.
» So, is it fair to say then that we don't need a reser- resolution at this point?
» Not at this point. I think, again, if we could provide, uh, clear direction to
staff, we can have the resolution prepared if that's the, uh,
when we get to the resolution, at the zoning amendment resolution.
» So, should we should hold We should hold the vote until we get to the bylaw?
CAO Pink? >> Yeah.
» Right.
Councillor Mazin? >> Perhaps I'm getting confused, but now,
um, I understand, uh, what staff CAO Pink was just walking us through, but
I'm just not not clear as to what our next step needs to be as it relates to
the wetland on the OP then. What
» Let me ask Miss Crowder a question. Of the other items that we have on the list
that you sent me,
are they to be addressed in the OP or in the bylaw?
» Through you, Chair. Um, I'm also slightly confused, so I'm going
to defer to CAO Pink, but there are, like, the the flood plain, the wetland
piece, and the front yard setback. Those are all amendments to the official plan,
but it sounds like we have tabled the official plan amendment piece, but I'm
going to defer to >> CAO Pink, can you help us here?
» Sorry, I think I might have caused more confusion than I apologize. It's perhaps
just the old planning principles that we deal with official plan first, then
zoning. So, I was strictly speaking just from a procedural process of the
resolutions before you. Right now, the resolution that's been tabled is an
official plan amendment. As you heard from Ms. Crowder and Ms. Bustard, uh the
change I think that's being requested uh would be in the next resolution uh to
consider with respect to the zoning. So, it'll be dealt with at the site plan
stage. Uh again, um if committee could give us
some indication of whether uh we're comfortable with the revised
wording that's been requested, then staff can prepare the amended resolution
when it comes to that point in the meeting.
So, I think that's really the decision before you.
Um sorry to confuse it. Um again, we can make the necessary changes
if we get an indication from committee. >> Uh I think Does that Does that mean that
we should be moving on to the bylaw now?
» No.
No, and again, sorry to confuse. I think
you're going through sort of six main issues. I think we continue to work
through those, uh get indication on each of those, and then staff will prepare
the resolutions as necessary depending on what you decide on each.
» How do we do it without having a resolution?
» We can do formal resolutions on each if you if you wish. We can do that as well.
» So, we could have a formal resolution on whether we accept uh up to 3 ft.
meters
» Through you, chair, if I may. >> Yeah.
» I think I understand the the recommendation to implement the
recommendations of SLR is as part of the holding provision under the zoning
application. So, that is why Ms. CAO Pink rightfully pointed out that we'll
deal with that amendment at that time. But, what we are looking for from
committee right now is whether you are supportive of amending the official plan
to permit development within and adjacent to the flood plain, and then we
would deal or sorry, the wetland, and then we'll deal with the depth amendment
at a later time, but it would be good if you could give us an indication on your
supporter or not.
» So, that would mean Councilor Masson.
So, that I think Can you suggest if we were in favor
of 3 m versus 2, what would the what would
the resolution be at this moment?
» Through you, Chair. The resolution at this moment is whether to permit the
development in the flood in the wetland or adjacent to the wetland
as a whole. And then we would deal with the depth
through the zoning component of the application. Or, if committee wanted to
be clear and deal with it all right now, we could have a resolution drawn up that
states that committee in endorse or not development
within and adjacent to the wetland provided this be the depth.
» All right. I think that sounds very good. Thank you. Councilor Masson.
» I would put forward the motion to capture whatever
was just said there if somebody would second. Well, that's what this is a
logical flow. We have to make that decision.
» All right. >> Thank you.
» All right. So, we will let the brain trust write this up for us.
So, another give us another probably minimum 5 minutes.
» Committee, if we could uh sit down.
I'm going to blame Robert's Rules of Order for this.
Um if the committee
so we're dealing with development in the wetland. If the committee
is happy with allowing development in the wetland
then we don't have to do anything because that's what
the applicant has applied to do. If we don't want to have development in the
wetland, then we need a resolution to say so.
With respect to the 3 m, we will deal with that in the bylaw.
All right? So So there So the debate right now is anybody on committee want
to propose a resolution to not allow development in the wetland.
Okay. No, we don't need anything. There's no
resolution. All right, so there's no
Right.
» Um Uh
Ms. Crowder, uh front yard setbacks and vegetative
buffer. That also is part of the OP.
And I think it's the same sort of position, I would think. If we
I'll let you explain it. >> Through you, Chair. Yes, so the official
plan OPA 56 includes provisions that speak to required front yard setbacks
and requirement for vegetative buffers. So the applicant has applied to amend
those sections of the official plan. Staff, flood plain issues aside, I'm
just put that caveat, are um supportive of the proposed amendment
provided the um provided a site-specific schedule is
added to the amendment that specifies the exact extent location and extent of
buildings and structures that are within that required setback, so it wouldn't be
a blanket permission for a zero-foot setback. And also vegetative buffers
would only be permitted to be reduced in specific extents and locations.
Um this is already written into staff's recommendation. So if committee is on
board with that approach, we don't need to do any kind of resolutions right now.
However, if committee disagrees and would like to see something different,
then we would look to you to put a motion on the on the floor.
Thank you very much. All right, committee, was it was Did everybody
understand that? Good. So, is there any desire
to have things other than what Ms. Crowder has told us about having a
specific um uh attachment that says where
where the setback can be minimized and how much setback there can be.
All right.
So, I think we've agreed with that. All right.
The next item is timing of construction and sequencing of relative to the
wastewater treatment. Ms. Crowder, walk us through that.
» Through you, Chair. Um this is more so just a It's not an official plan
amendment, um but it is sort of a big component of the proposal and an ask of
the applicant that the development of the treatment plant be permitted to
occur concurrently with development of buildings and structures. We have gone
over um the risks that are involved with that and the precautionary measures that
are being taken in the form of the conditions put into the resolution
before you. Um so, this is just sort of an opportunity for committee to voice
their opinions on this matter, and if anybody were to have concerns, um you
could propose um any kind of amendments at this point.
» So, again, as as with the previous two, if committee
wanted the treatment plant built ahead of the development, we would have to
have a resolution >> That's right.
» changing that. Otherwise, we leave it as it is.
» That's right. >> Mayor Kelly.
» Thank [clears throat] you, and through you. I I um
just one quick comment first. You said ahead of the development. I think it's
concurrent, isn't it, really? >> No, what I was saying that is that if we
didn't we didn't like them being concurrent and
wanted to go back to uh the process where the has to be built
first, then we would need a resolution. >> Okay.
» Fair enough. >> Fair enough.
» Uh that's fine, yeah. >> Okay.
All right, so I don't see any at um appetite for a resolution.
The next item on our list is staff housing, Ms. Crowder.
» Uh through you, Chair. So, staff housing is a component that is listed within OPA
56 as being required um in the initial phase of of development to support um
the um employment opportunities that would
be um produced from the wellness center and
the other restaurants and buildings that are proposed. Um the applicant is
proposing that instead of staff housing being built in the phase one lands that
they utilize the existing Cleveland's House buildings and facilities to house
staff until such time as they um do build specific staff housing buildings
as part of a future phase. Um staff have recommended that within
the master development agreement, a provision be included which um states
that the owner agrees and um a well, agrees to develop staff housing
in future phase um plans. And
they we've um discussed this with the proponent and they have agreed to that.
So, um the resolution as written before you
today includes all of that recommendation. So, if you are all in
agreement, um you don't need to do anything, but if anybody has any
concerns, you could raise those now.
» Committee?
Next item is the height of proposed buildings.
» Through you, Chair. Um so, there within OPA 56, it does stipulate um that height
of building should not exceed 16 m. I think it's 16. Um, and however, that
there is some leeway for prominent um buildings or structures
to create a sense of um I don't remember the exact words. I
don't want to get it wrong. >> [laughter]
» Um, but there are um four buildings and structures proposed as part of the
development which do exceed that height. Um, staff acknowledge that the official
plan amendment OPA 56 is largely supportive of this. Um, there is one
building that we did just want to get committee's um
temperature on is which is the viewing tower. It is proposed to be 121 ft in
height. Um, and just for reference, uh the typical mono pine that you see in
the community is 100 ft. So this is this would be the most prominent building on
the lake. So we did just want to um flag this for committee, and if you
do wish to see a reduction in that height, now would be the time to
um to let us know that.
» Scrader, can you um
tell us what the the dimensions of it are other than the height of
I think it was
So 15 by 15 ft roughly.
» And could we just find out are there stairs inside to take that
walk? >> Kent.
» Are there stairs inside?
» Obviously. >> I mean, this is an architectural feature
as is I'm Manuela McLaughlin in terms of creating the topography of the village.
Uh there will be some stairs inside. Whether it's access to the general
public, I I don't know if that's been determined. I will just say on the
height, please also remember the very, very substantial grade differences
between us and the JW Marriott that sits up on the hill. So, when you talk about
the height as being the highest on the lake, you also have to consider the
established grade. It'll be dwarfed compared to when you turn into the bay
and you see the JW Marriott up on the hill. So, from a from an aesthetics
point of view, it's going to be quite modest and and it's a very, very small
feature that's just going to add to the architectural language of the village.
Thank you. >> [laughter]
» All right, uh Counselor Kent. >> I guess just to follow up, I was
wondering if if it isn't for people to walk in and see the view,
what's the point of it?
» Uh thank you very much. >> Mr.
» Uh if you look at the totality of the renderings, I don't think we brought
them back up. You can just see it. See the architectural language up there of
creating some visual points. Obviously, one of the starting points when uh our
architect Neil uh McLaughlin was looking at it was that view. I know when I sat
on the steering committee, we talked about the view from the canoe. So, the
uh the intent for the cabins was really to nestle them in the into the trees.
They really disappear. And then you have that one moment when you turn into the
bay and you see the village and a lot of natural materials. And obviously, Abby's
Bakery that sits there now, we want to replace the uh the steeple. And so, we
saw the steeple, the chimney, and the tower feature just creating these three
vertical elements that kind of create uh articulation uh on that view corridor
with obviously the sloped roofs and the natural materials there. So, it's an
it's a decision from an architectural point of view. Um and we think that it
adds to kind of the uh creating a placemaking. Thank you.
» Committee, any other questions?
Um it's kind of remind me if we are happy with the
151 ft we >> Through you, Chair. Um 121 ft.
» Sorry, 121, yeah. >> Um so, if committee is okay with that
number, um, then we don't need to do anything.
If committee wanted to change that number, that would be an item to deal
with at the zoning bylaw stage of of things.
» We could leave that or we can get a general sense, um, here.
Would anybody be wanting to make a amendment to not allow 121 feet?
Counselor Zavitz. >> If I might just a question picking up on
the mono pine comment. Is that is a mono pine 100 feet self-induced? I mean, is
that the height of the mechanical piece of this whole thing or is that a height
that has been decided by us that that's where
we won't see or is that a tree line? So, I'm I'm just interested in the
juxtaposition of that. >> Ms. Crowder.
» Through you chair. Mono pines, they typically build them in
two or three specific heights and it's because they provide different functions
at those different heights. In Muskoka Lakes, we've typically seen 100 feet one
ones. They do go higher, but the ones that we have seen come forward are
typically that 100 feet. It is above the tree line. You can see them poking up.
» Okay.
Any other comments?
All right. The last one on our list is the parking.
Ms. Crowder. >> Through you chair.
So, the proposal before committee, when compared to our zoning bylaw
requirements for parking, the proposed parking supply is deficient
um by a significant amount.
The traffic impact assessment originally
contemplated all just under 400 spaces. However, at as things progressed, the
design changed to provide 171 spaces on-site,
um which the traffic engineer still says is acceptable, um
keeping in mind that the peer review process of that is still ongoing. But, I
think staff acknowledged that the particular property owner owns many of
the surrounding lands. So, we're not concerned with that parking supply not
being provided on the subject lands, so long as parking is provided as this
develops. Um so, we are recommending that a
provision be included within the master development agreement that they owner
agrees to provide that parking as development progresses. Um so, if
committee is comfortable with that approach,
um we don't need to do anything right now, but if committee is concerned, then
you know, let us know. >> Chair Kelly.
Thank you and through you. Just uh for clarification, uh Ms. Crowder, on that
last one, the parking that that is provided that's not on the subject lands
has to be on land co-owned or or owned by the same
uh owner? And you can't you can't rent land? I There's a reason I'm asking this
question, and it's not here [clears throat] now, but it will be. Ms.
Crowder. >> Yeah.
Through you, Chair. Um yes, it would need to be owned by the proponent um to
be attributed to this situation, and there is a provision in the zoning bylaw
that stipulates that the lands have to be within a certain distance of of the
property. Um so, that would be an expectation as
well.
» Right, Committee. Uh Councillor Berry.
» Uh thank you and through you. I'm just going to make a a comment to the
planners because this is not like everywhere else. Um there's a huge
proportion of the the the uh habitants
um, of of the the uh the township that would likely come if they're day
tripping to the community come by boat. Um, and they're not parking their car,
they're going to park their boat. So, I'm I'm just want to make sure that the
the planners have thought about this is a little different
um, and it it's it's not going to have the same kinds of requirements. There
are many people that come for the you know, that are here seasonally
um, that avoid their car at all costs. Hop in a boat to go anywhere. And so, I
think we need to make sure that that's that's taken into account especially for
the the the village where we're we're apt to see some fairly, you know, local
traffic. >> Ms. Crowder.
» Sorry, through you chair, I might to counselor Berry. Yes, that is definitely
um, a consideration that we have and the zoning bylaw actually allows us to
account for boat parking from the required parking calculations. In this
case, the number of boat slips is not solidly known at this point because the
detailed design hasn't been carried out. So, the exact number that can be
accounted for isn't um, isn't known at this time. However, as those details
come out, if we'll have a greater sense for how many spaces are being provided
on the water versus how many on land and um,
we can proceed from that point. >> Counselor Roberts.
I recall the the rights that were given a few years
ago to the bay that that parking slips were significant.
And I am I'm guessing that they're going to be much less than that of right.
Ms. Crowder. >> Through you chair, uh to counselor
Berry. >> So, there is a site-specific bylaw on
the lands that permits a certain length and width of dock.
It doesn't have a specific boat slip number in it, but it does have that
length and width, which, you know, when you do the math, you can get an idea of
how many slips can be incorporated into there. So, when staff bring the bylaw
forward to committee or council for consideration,
that's when you will see those details of length, width,
shoreline structure permissions. And if I may just speak to Ms. Bustard's
comment earlier about concern for when the bylaw would come
forward, it is staff's intention to bring the bylaw forward as soon as
possible following this meeting. It's not our intent to bring it 6 months
later, so yeah.
» Councillor Edwards. >> Concerning the the boat dockage,
I think there was a guarantee that islanders that are using it for island
access were were guaranteed to keep their spots. Is that right?
» Ms. Bustard.
» Thank you very much. Yes, we have continued to provide spaces and rent to
the islanders, and we will continue to do so.
And I believe Ms. Craddock can correct to me, but some of those arrangements
will be stipulated through the master development agreement. May I add
something on the parking? The one thing that I'm just a little bit
confused with this motion is we did put forward a site-specific zoning bylaw
that obviously was proposing a reduced parking rate. So, one thing I'd like
just to clarify, your your bylaw does not take into consideration a lot of the
shared ratios that other jurisdictions do. And I think you're speaking to it. A
lot of people who are going to be parking on this site are going to be
using a multitude of the facilities. Someone renting a cabin will then walk
to the village and walk to the wellness center. Someone will take their boat and
go there and use the trails. Uh so, we had proposed to reduce parking supply.
Ms. Crowder is correct that the the first submission was in the range of 360
spaces. Uh the reason it got reduced to 171
uh predominantly was tree preservation. We went back after our first submission
and really looked at how we can maintain more trees throughout the site and be a
bit more selective on where we were actually paving. Um and then we went
back to our traffic consultant BA Group and they did a robust analysis and said
this is actually justified at the 171 with all the shared trips. So, we've put
that forward and we're proposing to enshrine that in policy
um understanding that there will be further discussions through the master
development agreement and site plan. The only thing I'm asking for clarification
on is I don't want to be in a situation where something gets passed today that
requires us to build the amount of parking as per your bylaw and we're just
basically utilizing more paving when we could be obviously having open space and
tree preservation if it's not needed. So, understand that this might be a
future discussion point, but I want to make sure there's leeway for that. Thank
you. >> Ms. Crowder, can you comment on that?
» Yes, through you, Chair. I'm just getting to that section of my report.
Just one moment.
Thank you. Um yes, so acknowledging the request to um permit
a reduction in parking spaces, staff um are recommending that that component be
approved provided a clause is incorporated into the master development
agreement, which states that the parking will be compensated for on the
surrounding lands in some capacity. So, it doesn't stipulate that every single
space must be accounted for, but I think the hope and expectation is that on the
surrounding lands if at as this progresses, we realize there is a need
for parking, that the proponent would agree to provide for that parking on
their surrounding lands. >> And does it does it require that it has
to meet our bylaw or we needs to do studies to figure out what is the
appropriate level? >> Through you, Chair. So, the way it's
written, my understanding is that it would not need to meet the requirements
of our bylaw. It's more so as we move through the site plan control stage and
see how things are developing out, if there is a deficiency in parking and
it's proving to be a problem, then the owner agrees through that master
development agreement that they will look at providing parking on the
abutting lands. >> Ms. Busker, is that the clarification
you were looking for? >> Uh yes, that's okay with us. Thank you.
» Thank you.
And so, just to summarize, if we agree with
if we don't have any changes to what's been said about parking, we don't have
to do anything at the moment. All right. >> That's right. Thank you.
» Scarlett, let's come to the end of our list.
I think it's time to come back to the original resolution.
And Deputy Clerk, could you tell us
just walk us through that process? I think I know it, but
let you do it. >> Thank you, uh
Chair Bosma.
I I'm happy to screen share and uh any in particular the second resolution. The
first resolution is basically a motion to bring the
the motion we originally tabled to remove that from the table, so it can
now be presented onto the floor. And then from there, there will be a
resolution which I will screen share that will substitute the original main
motion with the second one. So, just give me a moment and with any
luck, I'm printing and will be ready to go.
So, >> We were told nobody.
» This is the first one. >> Yeah. Thank you.
» And I'm going to read it, right? >> Yes, please.
» All right. So, the first one is quite simple and we're not going to put it on
this on the screen. >> No, in my opinion, it's not necessary.
» I agree, too. Yeah. Uh moved by Councillor Bury,
seconded by Councillor Edwards. Be it resolved that the motion regarding
official plan amendment application OPA-64
it be taken from the table. Any debate?
Those in favor? Thank you.
Next one we are going to put it up on the screen.
All right, can we zoom in a little so people can see it?
» Thank you. >> All right.
Um moved by Councillor Mazin, seconded by Councillor Zavitz.
Be it resolved that the main motion regarding official plan amendment
application
number or the com- number of companies, two
6666940 Ontario Inc. land and 266
5556 Ontario Inc. be substituted with the
following. Be it resolved that the official plan application amendment,
those company numbers, be revised to include a schedule to
sections C1.5.4.3, C1.5.4.4,
and C1.5
.4.5, which demonstrates the specific location and extent where building
struct- building {slash} structures are permitted within the front yard setback,
and where we where the required 15 m shoreline vegetative buffer is permitted
to be reduced, and that the revised OPA be adopted by the township, and the
record be forwarded to the District Municipality of Muskoka for approval.
» Ms. Gradauer, could you just walk us through what that middle paragraph just
meant? Just to be sure that everybody understands.
» Absolutely, through you, Chair. Um so, that middle paragraph there essentially
states that um we you would be approving the amendment, um and that schedules
would be attached to that amendment, which specify the exact location and
extent where development within the flood plain and adjacent Sorry,
development within the wetland and adjacent to the wetland would be
permitted, um the proposed front yard setbacks, and the proposed vegetative
buffer. So, these would be site-specific um schedules attached to the amendment
that would specify those locations and extents, rather than permitting blanket
permissions across the whole lands.
» Committee, is there any misunderstanding there?
Do we have any debate on that? Any further debate, I should say.
Seeing none, I call the question. All those
» in favor.
» Any opposed?
That carries.
And I think it's safe to say we're done with the official plan.
We will take a break for lunch, and we'll be back at 1:00 and discuss the
bylaw.
It's pretty short and sweet. Do you want to do the bylaw now?
» David >> Well
» I'm sorry. >> Go.
» No, no. I think you can have lunch. >> Yeah, okay. That's good.
» So, why would we do this? >> I knew we were too.
» I I don't know. I just thought It's fine.
» Just like to remind everybody we should not be discussing this.
» Okay.
» I understand it.
» Mhm.
» Back to order at 1:00.
Committee. The next on the agenda is to go through
the bylaw related to this application.
Um it is a two-page bylaw, but it covers a lot and I think it's worth reading
rather than assuming everybody has read it in detail. And it covers
a number of the things that we've already covered.
After that, I will ask Emily just to have a
real brief run through of it what it means to from a staff point of view and
and its relationship or or their discussions with the applicant. Then
we'll open it up for discussion.
It's long, but pay attention. Um
can we put it up on the screen? We will work on that while I'm reading
it. >> Third and fourth piece of the
resolution.
» Moved by Mayor Kelly, seconded by Councillor Zavitz, be it resolved that
zoning by-law application amendment ZBA 22/23
to company names be approved in part subject to the approval of OPA 64,
approval of the submitted amendment to the District Official the District
Muskoka Official Plan and subject to the following.
The draft zoning by-law amendment be submitted by the applicant not
Sorry, let me start that again. That the draft
zoning by-law amendment submitted by the applicant not be adopted and that staff
be directed to prepare an implementing zoning by-law amendment for
considerations at a future council meeting that incorporates the holding
provisions, {comma} floodplain related and other applicable recommendations
contained in plan uh report plan 2026-092
as modified by any direction of the planning committee.
That a holding H provision be placed on the subject lands for the
following. That A developers group agreements
is/are entered into wherein one or more proponents within the full service area
shown on schedule on a schedule to the by-law
contribute equitably towards the provisions
of the municipal sewage services and municipal water services to the
satisfaction of the District Municipality of Muskoka and the Township
of Muskoka Lakes. That a satisfactory master development
agreement in accordance with section C- C1.7.2-
Got two Yeah, sorry, I'm not quite sure. Is that ongoing number?
» I don't think so. >> C- C1.7.2-
C >> Okay, all right.
With section C 1.7.2-C
1.7.7 of OPA 56 and matters detailed within
the staff report plan 2026-092 be entered into between between the
Township of Muskoka Lakes just and
Sorry, I'm having a hard time this afternoon. The District
Municipality of Muskoka and the owner company two company numbers.
Issuance of required provincial environmental compliance approvals for
all water treatment, water distribution, waste water treatment and waste water
collection infrastructure by the Ministry of the Environment,
Conservation and Parks for the construction
of the required municipal water and sanitary sewage sewer infrastructure for
the Minett special policy area.
An agreement with the District Municipality of Muskoka has been entered
into and registered on that title pertaining to the design and
construction for the municipal water and sanitary sewer infrastructure required
to support the development including but not limited to the following:
the provincial the provision of financial securities,
the requirement of the developer to obtain at their sole expense all
required provincial approvals including but not limited to the following:
municipal drinking water works permit, municipal drinking water license and a
permit to take Wait. to take water for all water treatment,
water distribution, waste water treatment and waste water collection
infrastructure by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks for
the operation of the required municipal water and sanitary sewer infrastructure
structure for the Minett special policy area before start of operation or
results through connection permits
to connect to municipal water and sanitary sewer infrastructure are made.
That's a really long sentence. The requirement for the developer to
ensure that any rental agreements made and or any lease or rental agreements to
include terms identifying the occupancy will be contingent upon the fall
following the developer obtaining the required provincial approvals,
construction of the necessary water and sanitary sewer infrastructure, and
the requirement for the developer to obtain the necessary connection permits
for the dis- district municipality of Muskoka prior
to connection to the municipal water and sanitary sewer infrastructure.
The submission of a wetland compensation and net benefit and enhancement report
response memo to address the comments of the peer review prepared by SLR
Consulting Limited dated June 17th, 2026 to the satisfaction of the Township of
Muskoka Lakes and the District Municipality of Muskoka.
The subject's land be required to obtain site plan approval and that a sat-
satisfactory site plan agreement be entered into the
into and registered on title along with securities for matters including but not
limited to implementation of the recommendations made
within the EIS and peer review responses prepared by Azimuth Environmental
Consulting Inc. wetland compensation and net benefit and
enhancement report prepared Oh, I'm sorry. Just read that. Uh uh
uh
Sorry, guys. Wetland compensation and net benefit and
enhancement report prepared by Azimuth Environmental Consulting and associated
peer reviews prepared by SLR Consulting pertaining to the protection,
compensation, and net benefit of significant natural features on and
adjacent to the subject lands and other matters as detailed in staff report plan
2026-092 and OPA 56. And finally,
the submission of an identified traffic impact brief or stamped letter from
a professional engineer which confirms that the opposed 0 m setback from
Juddhaven Road bracket District Road 28 will not represent will not present any
operation or functional concerns from a transportation per
perspective. And confirms that the existing right-of-way along Juddhaven
Road is 26 m in width consistent with the requirements of the District of
Muskoka. Ms. Crowder,
could you net that out for us?
But seriously, too, you know, what what what is before us and and where are we
agreement and what are the actual decisions are before us?
» Through you, Chair. Um yes, so lengthy um resolution, but essentially this
incorporates um that staff bring forward a bylaw for
council's consideration um that will be drafted by staff over the next few
weeks. I would like to bring it forward to the special council meeting in July
um if all works out that way, that would be wonderful. And you would have that
bylaw for your review and consideration. Um and then ultimately would be making a
decision on that bylaw at that council meeting. So, that's the first component
of that resolution. And the bylaw would be drafted um to
reflect the decisions made here today as it pertains to the floodplain, the
wetland, and other matters that we've discussed.
And the second part of this bylaw or this sorry, this resolution is the
incorporation of holding provisions. Um and what would be included within those
holding, um, provisions. So, we have the developers group agreement and the
master development agreement, both of which are laid out in the, um, OPA 56.
And, uh, the master development agreement is currently under works with
the proponent, um, in the draft stage. Provincial approvals, the district's,
um, requirements have been incorporated in here as it relates to the water and
waste water treatment plant. Um, and then essentially that site plan
approval be, um, that that process be implemented and the
consultants continue working together, the environmental consultants,
um, and that essentially the, the measures set forth would be implemented
through the site plan control process. Um,
and then there's also another district condition about the traffic impact
brief. The items that have been requested or that we have heard may want
to be amended would include, um, the depth of dredging.
So, if that is a matter that, um, this committee wishes to amend, cuz as of
right now, um, the motion reads that the
recommendations put forth by SLR be implemented. So, that would be the 2 m
depth. So, if that's something that committee wants to change, um, there is
a resolution prepared to reflect that. And the second is the traffic impact
brief, um, and the right of way along Jud Haven Road.
The district and the proponent have discussed this item and have agreed to
wording, um, that has also been put in a
resolution for you. Um, to discuss. So, that's sort of a summary
here. Um, we can also go through exactly what the wording of the, those
amendments are should committee be interested in doing so.
» And, um, there wasn't a mention, I think, of uh,
the 26 m versus the 20 m. Is it >> Through you
» need to correct for that as well? >> Through you, Chair. So, that's the item
about the right of way with Judhaven Road that I mentioned. So, it is in the
in the resolution there. >> Ms. Bustard, um
do you have any anything you'd like to say about
what we have in this resolution? >> Uh thank you very much for the
opportunity. I I mean, we've talked at length about it. Our our request just
remains that there would be the opportunity to dredge up to 3 m
with the extent and and details being defined through detailed design. And Ms.
Crowder just specified that Judhaven is more just administrative. It just right
now says that the right of way is 26 when it's currently only 20. So, the
confirmation is that it can be widened up to 26. So, it's more just a language
correction more than anything else. >> That's very well.
» Thank you very much. But all other conditions we're in full agreement with.
Thank you. >> Thank you.
Councillor Adams. >> Uh thank you and through you.
How do we table the motion of the 2 m to 3 m?
Thank you. >> We have We have a draft.
» a mover and a seconder. >> Well, we
» Yeah, are we >> First of all, before we get to that
are there any questions? >> Chair,
pardon me. Um I did see Curtis Zefritz on the screen, manager of planning. So,
I don't know if he wanted to speak to the district condition.
» Good afternoon, sir. >> Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, uh through
you. No, I would just want to be available should the committee have any
questions about any of the district conditions. So, I just had my my video
camera on just to be available. >> All right. Thank you very much.
» Thank you. >> All right. So, where were we We were at
Does anybody have any questions? All right. Now we can have the debate.
Is there any debate other than we need a resolution passed?
Right? We have a draft resolution.
» Yeah. Technically, I should have a mover and a
seconder. On that resolution, I preferably
» I think I saw this hand up and then that hand. So,
um moved by Councillor Mezen, seconded by
Councillor Zavitz.
» So, that's the wording now. People will write on this.
» Pardon? >> Sorry.
» That's wording. I'll give you the correct wording to sign.
» Okay, committee, let me let me read this
resolution.
Moved by Councillor Edwards, seconded by
Sorry.
» Okay.
» Be it resolved that Sorry, moved by Councillor Mezen,
seconded by Councillor Zavitz. Be it resolved that the resolution as
amended be amended as follows: to add
in order to create an open water and shallow
marsh wetland feature not exceeding 3 m in depth
after the words wetland compensation and net benefit and enhancement report
prepared by Azimuth Environmental Consulting Inc. in the second last
bullet. And that the words
quote, that existing right of way along Juddhaven Road is 26 m in width,
consistent with the requirements of the District of Muskoka official plan, end
quote, in the last bullet be replaced with, quote, that the right of way is or
allows for the future expansion to 26 m consistent with the requirements of the
District of Muskoka official plan.
That's the resolution. Do we have any
Any questions or debate? Going to call the question. All those in
favor. Okay. Carries. Any opposed?
Okay.
All right. We move on to the next item agenda.
Agenda item. Um first of all, thank you to staff on
this file. Thank you for the applicants.
And uh thank you to committee
for being such a obedient committee.
There we go. A cooperative and understanding
committee. All right. So, the our next item
Mayor Mayor Kelly. Thank you very much. And uh I just want
to say one quick thing. This, you know, it's a huge day
uh for us and I think it's a huge uh vote of confidence in the future of our
township and particularly up in Minett. Um I spoke earlier about uh stepping
back two or three paces and addressing more than the very well-documented
planning issues. And I'm really, really pleased with how this thing was dealt
with. There There was great questions, great debate and discussion.
Um and so I couldn't be more proud. I know there will be some negative
blowback on some of the issues. Some people are going to disagree with us,
but I can tell you at the foundation of every good decision is process, and
we've we I think executed well against a really good process, good plan. So,
thank you all on behalf of the rest of the constituents of this township.
» Actually, committee, we have We have one more thing to do, and that
is we need to approve the main motion as amended. Everybody All those in favor?
Thank you. All right.
All right, so
Without further ado, we move on to the Bala Legion file.
» Okay, thank you, Chair Bosworth. The next applications to be heard today
are concurrent zoning bylaw amendment application ZBA 2226
and official plan amendment application OPA 67 in the name of the Royal Canadian
Legion. The subject lands are known municipally as 1011 Maple Avenue.
Next slide, please.
As committee may recall, these applications were originally heard last
month on June 11th, where the applications were deferred by planning
committee for staff to undertake a review and analysis of submissions
received in response to the applications.
As part of the deferral, a revised proposal was requested, which
demonstrates a reduction in height and density and provides a satisfactory
parking solution before approval can be considered.
Next slide, please.
The amended proposal has removed a story from the proposed multi-use building.
This results in a reduction in height from 72.2 ft to 54 ft.
This change in height largely addresses staff's concern as it relates to height,
noting that the existing site-specific bylaw on the lands permits a building
height of 55 ft. Next slide, please.
The amended proposal has reduced the number of units from 128 to 106.
This changes the unit per hectare ratio from 170 units per hectare to 137 units
per hectare. Staff acknowledge that this is still a
significant numerical variation from the existing policy, which permits 70 units
per gross hectare. The remaining policies within the
official plan speak to the character of the area. Considering that the parking,
lot coverage, height, and other attributes are now supportable by staff,
staff are of the opinion that the number of units within the building would not
change the character from a built form perspective.
From an intensity of use perspective, staff refer to the technical studies
which provide justification for the development and are subject peer review
through the utilization of a holding provision.
Staff do note, however, that the built form of the site, meaning the building
plus the parking, will occupy most of the subject lands, leaving minimal green
space or ability to revegetate. Any available area will be required to
be revegetated through the site plan control process.
Next slide, please. The amended proposal increased the
amount of on-site parking from 56 spaces to 121 spaces.
43 of these spaces will be underground, and 78 will be at grade.
This is a significant improvement over the previous iteration of the proposal,
which would provide for one space per residential unit plus 15 spaces for
visitors, the Legion, medical clinic, etc.
Staff acknowledge that there are surrounding public parking areas, which
could aid in the need for parking during the day.
However, staff remain of the opinion that the parking justification report
leaves unresolved concerns. These concerns need to be addressed
prior to lifting of the holding provision.
The proposal seeks to provide five barrier-free parking spaces, where 12
accessible units are proposed. Staff question the adequacy of the
proposed amount of barrier-free spaces when these numbers don't align.
Further, the proposed Legion facilities, by nature of their use, draw users to
the establishment who may who may require barrier-free spaces.
The Township's comprehensive zoning bylaw requires a minimum of 13 13
barrier-free spaces, and staff recommend that this number be
upheld. Next slide, please.
Since the time of the original public meeting, one letter of support and two
letters of opposition have been received. These comments were forwarded
to committee prior to today's meeting, one of which was forwarded this morning.
As it was received this morning. It is staff's opinion that the concerns
noted in the original letter of opposition, the one forwarded to you
earlier on, um is addressed through revisions to the
applications to reduce density and that the parking justification study be
revised to address staff's concerns as noted in the original staff report.
Staff have prepared a detailed report for committee's consideration and
recommend the following: that official plan amendment 67, as
amended, be revised to reflect the amended applications as detailed in the
staff report, and that the revised OPA be adopted by the Township and the
record forwarded to the District Municipality of Muskoka for approval.
Staff further recommend that zoning bylaw amendment application ZBA 2226, as
amended, be approved subject to the following.
That the draft bylaw and associated schedules be revised to reflect the
amended applications as detailed in the staff report.
That the draft bylaw be revised to require that 13 of the proposed parking
spaces be barrier-free spaces in accordance with the requirements of the
Township's comprehensive zoning bylaw as amended.
And that revisions be made to the draft bylaw to first amend section 2D to state
that the parking justification report be to satisfactorily address staff comments
instead of being peer-reviewed. And second, remove section 2G being that
the lands receive site plan approval prior to the lifting of the holding
provision. Staff have no further comments at this
time. They're happy to answer any questions from committee. Thank you.
» Thank you very much. Mr. Hunter.
You have the floor.
» Thank you, Chair, and good afternoon. Uh my name is James Hunter, the planner and
project manager for the applicant on behalf of Morgan Planning and
Development. Um we talked about >> James, I I will be uh I'll be generous
with the 5 minutes today. >> Oh, no, I don't need 5 minutes. I
appreciate it. Um I'm just jumping up to say that we
would like to thank staff uh first and foremost for everything that they've
worked uh with us on this proposal. It's been uh quite a process to get to this
stage, and the applicant really appreciates that. And second, thank you
to you, Council Committee, for hearing us uh in the previous meeting and this
meeting. Um we brought forward a application and a proposed development
that we're very excited about. Uh with our second submission, we made some
pretty substantial changes to get to this point. Um in addition to that, the
parking uh landscape comments that were provided in the report, um we do
support, and we can address that through the holding provision. So, um in
summary, uh thank you for the recommendation, and I'm happy to answer
any questions directed my way. >> Thank you very much.
Committee, what questions do we have for the applicant and Ms. Crowder?
Councilor Roberts. >> Hey, I I I clarity on the parking.
So, there's 137 units
in in in that that's just the units. The No, 102.
So, you must The
100 Go ahead. >> Through you, Chair, if I may, to
Councilor Roberts, there are 106 units proposed. The density ratio
is 170 Sorry, 137 units per gross hectare.
The lands are less than a hectare, which is why there's
those numbers are different, but it's 106 units proposed.
» 106, okay. So, I thank you for for clarifying that for me. I made a
mistake. So, there's 106 residential units.
But, there's also the Legion um
facility that the traditionally is have had on spot.
And that will require more parking when the events happen.
And then we have um 13 barrier-free um
uh spots.
Are the 13 the that 13 barriers speed uh
places which could be used 24 hours a day by people that
live in the [clears throat] complex and
require parking. >> Ms. Crowder.
» Through you, Chair, uh to Councilor Roberts, so
of the proposed parking supply, which is 121 spaces, 13 of those staff are
recommending be barrier-free. Now, the township's
um jurisdiction over this would be This is
the number of parking spaces required, this is the number that have to be
barrier-free. Um potentially through site plan
agreements, we could stipulate that those those spaces need to be for the
residents of the of the um residential component.
Um we've done something similar in the past
with um cash in lieu of parking applications,
but as of right now, we have not worked that into our recommendation. So, if
that's something that committee would like to see happen, that those spaces be
dedicated to the residents, um then that could be something that's brought
forward. But as of right now, the way the resolution is is written, that would
not be a requirement. So, those spaces would be available to
the public, essentially. >> Mhm.
Thank you.
Councillor Nishikawa. >> Thank you. I just wanted to comment on
the three buildings I've been involved with
through the district and accessible parking,
that it wasn't
um it wasn't just for
the residents when we did the accessible parking numbers. It was
quite frankly visitors as well. So, I just didn't want to get
hung up on trying to manage the users of the
Legion itself as opposed to the residents.
» It's still a little still a little a little unclear in my mind. First First
of all, does the 121 include the 13?
» Through you, Chair. As currently proposed, they are proposing five
barrier-free spaces, >> Right.
» which would be five of the 121. What staff are recommending is that
13 of the 121 be barrier-free. >> And were you also suggesting that we
could make those barrier-free available only to the residents?
» Through you, Chair. I think the question was raised as to whether they would be
dedicated to the residential units. We have not written that that needs to
happen in our staff report. We have just noted that the zoning bylaw requires
this number of barrier-free units based on the number of units and the gross
floor area of the other uses proposed. If committee wants to see those
dedicated to the residential units, that's something that could be
discussed. But as of right now, we're not recommending that, no.
» And and what do we have with respect to visitor parking? No visitor parking?
» Through you. Um the proposal as currently drafted,
there would be 15 spaces that would be associated with visitor parking. And
that is if every unit had a space that was
occupied, it would leave 15 spaces left over for visitors, but that would also
be for the Legion itself, the medical clinic, and um the office spaces.
» Mr. Under. >> Yeah, thank you. And through the Chair,
just to help uh Ms. Crowder out. So, once we get the official plan amendment
and zoning bylaw amendment in place after this, we're going to work with
staff on the site plan approval site plan control process. Um something we
haven't highlighted enough through our application is that a percentage of
these units are going to be accessible. So, when we design this building for
site plan approval, to uh Counselor Roberts' point, um we will allocate
accessible spaces to those units in addition to visitor and residents. So,
um we're essentially setting uh minimum of five. We would like to get to the 13
that staff suggested. If we can, we will exceed that number. Um it just depends
on how the the site design goes at the site plan approval. And then the number
of accessible units cuz we would obviously want to target a one-to-one
ratio for those units for those accessible spaces. So, ultimately the
current 121 um would provide for that, but we do hope to expand the parking. I
just want to make that clear that we do plan to increase these numbers uh
through our site plan control.
» Committee, any other questions do we have?
Councilor Mazan.
» Thank you and through you and just again on the parking piece
confirming that the process will allow for
um parking all to be within their
uh their property footprint.
And that of the public space would remain
for transient use, meaning for events. Like I think somebody
brought up events and things like it like it's being used today but not for
overnight parking. >> Schroeder.
» Through you, Chair. Um am I correct that Councilor Mazan, you're referring to the
lot across the across the way? >> Thank you and through you. I think what
I'm just I think a concern that has been brought up and we've experienced before
in other areas of the township is um public lands are used as overnight
parking spots. It can create real conflict within the community and I'm
just I'm actually picking up on the the question Mayor Kelly had asked earlier
on. Just making sure that the parking will be satisfied in this
process for this particular um development on its own lands or
versus relying on public lands. We just don't want to create a conflict. We've
already lived through this conflict many times.
» Ms. Schroeder. >> Through you, Chair. Um to Councilor
Mazan. So the main um thing that staff were looking at when it came to the
residential component is that each residence have at least one space and
that has been resolved. The question of whether there are enough spaces on the
lands to satisfy the more public use being the Legion facilities and any
events they may have um is a bit more sub
uh I always get subjective and objective
mixed up. But, um the parking plans that we have before us say that the parking
supply is satisfactory for that. However, we are recommending that that
be peer-reviewed because staff do have significant questions and concerns with
that parking plan. So, provided it is peer-reviewed and those questions
answered to the satisfaction of staff, and we would be in a position to lift
the hold. However, if those questions were not satisfactorily addressed,
then we would not lift the hold. >> Okay, Kelly.
Thank you, and through you. I I just have a couple of concerns I want to hear
some answers to. And one of them is the parking concern, and one of them is the
use of a hold as a tool to remedy a perceived shortage of of parking.
Simply because I
you know, I don't know how you can just
I guess we don't allow anything to happen until they get resolved.
Otherwise, you're going to wind up with a building with a deficiency of parking.
And the real issue for me is not the deficiency of the parking,
it's what that does to the surrounding neighborhood and the residents. We had a
uh young gentleman in here earlier this
morning who was a store owner in the near near area. He's counting on people
being able to park in or near uh
proximity to his store and walk in and buy stuff and get out. And we can't uh
in good conscience saddle him with the responsibility of looking out at the
cars that have nowhere else to park and have to sit there all the time. So,
that's a big issue. Uh I don't know once the cat's out of the bag how you solve
that one. I'll throw out the other question, and whoever wants to answer it
can answer it. Um I was in attendance [clears throat] when the first
announcement was made, and and I don't see um Mr. Mills here right now, but uh
there was certainly a lot of buzz and a lot of interest. And I think there were
a lot of people who put funds up uh to secure some right of first refusal or
whatever it is to get a spot in the new building. I want to understand whether
or not the nature of the building has stayed consistent throughout.
Is [clears throat] it still uh what people thought they were buying into?
Has it changed either by financing or other commitments that may have been
made? Uh has the nature of the uh the building changed so that there's any
concern but that there's still a big demand for this uh
product in the market. >> So, there's two questions. I'll let
counselor or sorry, Ms. Crowder um
answer the first one. >> Thank you through you, Chair.
» Back to holding effectiveness for >> Yeah. Yeah, so when staff read the
traffic study, which also speaks to parking,
um there were major concerns that were noted. Um namely that
the areas used as comparators simply aren't comparative to our area. You
know, we Bella doesn't have any public transit. So, to compare against only
areas with public transit doesn't make a lot of sense. So, we have
posed, I think, four or five very big questions that need to be addressed
before we would ever be in a position where we would lift that hold. So, yeah,
you cannot apply for your building permits until the hold is lifted. Um so,
we would not be in a position where this building is built and then we're not
satisfied. >> Ms. Crowder, the second question about
the nature of the building. >> Yeah, so through the chair to to Mayor.
Um the nature of the building has remained the same. For a second
submission, there's been a slight internal redesign to drop the number of
units and also to increase the parking. Um but the original commitments and
trust is all actually grow and our remain. So,
um also it's very important, sorry, just on
the first topic for the parking. So, the the parking study we did that was
provided in support of the first application, uh that specifically looked
at the 56 on-site parking spaces and then our proposals for off-site or
shared parking spaces. Since that time we've more than doubled the parking on
the site. We also have access to uh approximately 81 across the street and
then we have adjacent owners agreements for about 40 spaces.
So, the parking study originally um said that our site was efficient. Now,
speaking with consultants, we haven't had time to update that, so that's what
this on hold is on the zoning. And that is a standard process, so as as Ms.
Crowder said, uh we have to update that study and provide it to staff for
confirmation before we can lift that zone.
» Follow up, Mr. Kelly. >> Just a quick follow up and thank you for
that. Thank you for the information. Uh [clears throat] the the adjacent and
across the street parking um is part of my concern and you
probably heard my uh focus on parking uh this morning. Um
my understanding, uh Ms. Crowder, correct me if I'm wrong or I should
go ahead and correct me now. I'm probably going to be wrong. Uh but uh
» [laughter] >> is that
my understanding [clears throat] is that the parking really has to be on land
owned by the same uh uh owner as the building and I don't know that you I
know in the adjacent spaces you're looking at, I think it's leased facility
uh leased land and I don't know what you have across the street.
» Mr. Honor. >> Yes, Mr. Chair, today Mr. Kelly. So,
to clarify, there's 121 parking spaces on site and 43 of those are underground,
78 are at grade. So, all of the parking is accommodated on site. The way that
the Legion has historically operated is street parking, minimal on site and then
the 81 spaces across the street. All of that will be maintained and actually
increased on our site. Um something that we discussed in last meeting that we'd
like to work with the township on is improved street parking in the area. So,
if we're a development working with the municipality um along Maple and
surrounding areas to improve those spots so that it's not only for us for
festivals, etc. that it's improved for everyone. So, that's a large component
of our project. Um so, when we look at the rough numbers, I mean, we're we're
looking at a total between the residents and the visitors, we're probably in the
250 to 270 parking spaces with events, which is significant considering we
started at about 100. So, across our site between the shared agreements and
offsite, we've almost tripled the parking or exceeded triple the parking.
Um and our parking space originally supported that. So, as Ms. Crowder said,
um the increase hasn't been addressed through the parking justification
justification study. Um that is going to be done to remove the zone hold.
» Councillor Kent. >> Can I make a call it's question. I I
guess my biggest concern I have other concerns, but
is the sustainability of Bala being able to deal with this 25%
increase in population head count. This combined with the the prior that was
noted by the gentleman this morning. It's a tiny town. It's not set up to
service people properly for year-round at that level. That number of people on
a year-round basis. And I was wondering what we as a township or what
what can be done to to support the growth if that's what the committee
decides to do, but just sort of plopping it in and doing nothing to help them
with maybe a nurse practitioner's office, a
whatever is needed, additional grocery store, you know, put the LCBO back, you
know, things that need to be done to support this community. How do we make
that happen and who evaluates that? >> Ms. Crowder, could you talk to that from
a planning point of view? >> Through you, Chair. Um to Councillor
Kent, it's a great question. Um I can answer it from
the planning side of things. We are relying on the professional
guidance of provided to us by the district and the consultant. So, the
district is saying that there is capacity to service this facility.
Um Yes.
And as far as the transportation goes, it is recommended it be peer reviewed,
but provided that checks out as the as the
um study says, it it is able to support the
proposal. We do rely on those findings. Um
as far as providing facilities, this specific proposal does propose a medical
clinic within the building, um which they're saying would have one
practitioner. Um so, something to think about, but I do
appreciate your comments that as a whole community,
you know, what will this impact be? I don't know that I have the answer
specifically for you, but it is a consideration.
» Councillor Nishikawa.
Councillor Nishikawa. >> Oh, sorry. I just wanted to clarify, um
what um Ms. Crowder mentioned from the district's perspective,
they were I believe I understood it to be that the district was has room for
servicing, as in sewer and water, but nothing else. Like, they're not
bringing transportation to the area, ever, to Muskoka Lakes,
quite frankly, but I'm just saying that that it's not on the table for that we
would ever get the district to And so, I wanted just clarify that
from you. Thank you. >> Ms. Crowder.
» Thank you. Thank you. Through you, Chair, to Councillor Nishikawa. Yes, to
clarify, I'm speaking solely to water and sewer infrastructure.
Thank you. >> Councillor Zavitz.
Thank you, and through you. So, I'm happy to answer uh my good friend over
there. Um you know, it it's interesting. Uh we talk about seasonal and we talk
about, you know, year-round, Um Bala swells in those summer those peak
summer months to a, you know, quite a size.
And the people that are there are accommodated and I you know, I I as the
district has identified this as a development node as has we um with with
water and sewer as some of the services. Yes, there we're lacking in some others,
but you know, I wonder if that's not a sort of a natural growth piece as well.
So, I I don't want to get too far ahead of myself, but you know, in terms of the
parking is probably my only concern if I might and the parking in terms of the
lot that we own that anyone the public can use
is that are we going to come down to that discussion around this table? I
guess in terms of, you know, if you're including it if they're including it in
their number, I mean, that's our parking lot, right? So, that's
anybody's parking lot all day and not at night. So, I I'd like some clarification
on that if I might. Screw you, chair. >> Ms. Corriveau, I
I think that question if I've got it the counselor is having is, you know, how
will the site plan process will it involve us? I think you
would like to know that and um
you how how will we know the ultimate outcome of the parking?
Is that fair, Counselor Zavitz? >> Well, screw you. Sorry, I I thank you
for that clarification. What I'm saying is it's everyone's
parking lot. So, for them to include it in their numbers
I find that a little worrisome and I maybe that might have been a slip. Um
but if if he's if you're including that as part of the 280 whatever, that
parking lot could be used for a birthday party down the street and there could be
48 cars there. So, that's not dependable parking is what I'm saying, 12 hours of
the day. >> Understood.
» Mr. Hunter. >> Yeah, through the chair to councilor so
that's not included in any of our parking calculations anymore just to be
clear. Everything is provided on site which was the recommendation for the
reason we had the original deferral. We're saying that if there's peak events
and then we do have that 81 parking spaces across the street. We're looking
to work with the township for on site parking improvements along the streets.
There's other means that we have available to us but as far as our
development and servicing the legion goes our transportation and our
professional engineers say that we is supported. We have reviewed that with
the district and they have the same opinion. It's just a matter of us
updating that wholly into the comprehensive revised report and getting
it back to staff for our submission so. >> If I may supplemental thank you. Chair.
» Yes. >> Thank you.
Yeah, because it's also the legion's parking lot to use right and and you
have used it for 80 years.
» Yeah, so >> since the legion was built so
» Yeah, through the chair. That's Sorry. Um,
the legion has used that parking spot and surrounding since it's open so the
function will remain the same. We've added it additional spaces and we're
recommending further improvements for any concerns.
Um, but you're right it's a public parking space.
» Ms. Crowder. >> Thank you, chair. Um,
just to touch on that the one of the questions or comments that staff raised
about the transit study is that those public parking spaces were being
included in the justification and so we have said
no. You know, these are public spaces. They
this this your findings your professional opinion should not be on
the basis of public spaces. So that is something that we have asked them to
address. Um, and also I did want to correct cuz I
did misspeak earlier. I said that the district has confirmed capacity.
We have included in the bylaw that is part of the hold that confirmation of
capacity be received. So I just wanted to correct myself. Thank you.
» You too.
Councillor Robertson and Councillor Edwards.
Okay, so all parking is going to be within the
footprint of the of the property. And
um my concern is from the gentleman who who
was at Birch retailing or whatever that has there.
When people come to visit that establishment where there'll be a lot of
visitors, they're not going to know that
there's a retail business. Oh, I got right one right in front. I'm just going
to park there and it'll choke this gentleman's business off.
How are you going to protect that?
Ms. Crowder?
» For you, Chair. Um
when public when spaces are public, they are available
for anyone to use um within the specified hours within the bylaw. So,
however, when spaces are on private property,
those can be reserved for certain uses. I don't know that the applicant is
proposing to do that, to specify certain spaces for what, but for the spaces in
front of the gentleman's um business, if we're talking about spaces along the
public road, those would be public and available to anyone to park there.
So, that is a consideration that, you know, committee should be aware of.
» Councillor Edwards. Uh
thank you, Mr. Chair. I I have a few. Looking at there's uh a miscalculation,
so now there's 322 spaces, so we're deficient 201 spaces
and eight eight barrier-free spaces. Is that correct?
» Ms. Crowder. >> For you, Chair.
Um to Councillor Edwards, yes, so I made a math error in the first report
and um the correct number of spaces been included in this revised report. So, the
required number of spaces based on the uses and everything proposed is 322
spaces per the township's zoning bylaw. They are proposing 121 spaces,
which means a deficiency of 201 spaces. >> Right.
Now, I I heard mention on-street parking.
I And I believe from from the uh the uh agent.
What about winter parking when we have to plow roads and everything else like
that? You hear that? And then,
do we have a parking bylaw where you can only only uh park for so many hours?
No overnight parking? >> Ms. Croner.
» Can you correct that? >> Yeah, through you, Chair, to Councillor
Edwards. Another one of the great questions that we have asked the
transportation people to look at because that was not spoken to in the study is
snow and snow removal and how that impacts their analysis. So, that is
something that we are looking for them to address as part of the process where
the hold is is invoked for the review of the study.
Um as far as the road uh parking bylaws, I know that the lot across from the
Legion is day parking only. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Um I don't
specifically know about Maple Street. Um I imagine somebody around the table
probably does. Um but we can certainly look into it if you'd like.
» Okay. And let me ask one more. There was an approval
for uh a uh senior's building there. How many units were in there and what
parking was in there? Like, it fit the site at that time, did it not?
» Ms. Croner. >> Through you, Chair, uh to Councillor
Edwards. Yes, there was an approval for a retirement home. It was for 128 units,
which was the previously proposed number of units of this application.
Um at our previous meeting we did go into some depth about the differences in
the uses a retirement home versus um you know, the multi-use apartment
building that we're talking about today. And the number of parking spaces
required for retirement home is significantly less than the the number
of required parking spaces for today's proposal because of the use. Um so we do
have those numbers, they're in the previous staff report and I'd be happy
to pull them up for you. Um but I don't have them off the top of my head.
» you. I just wonder why the the change like they had approval for something
they could put 128 people in it. Why not use what they have
because I I I could myself I can't see
supplying 201 spaces somewhere else unless they own the land, but
» Committee, we're getting someone into discussion. So when I need to read the
resolution, we can continue with questions as well.
» So moved by anybody in the council second is
» I I guess it's an oversight.
» Moved by Mayor Kelly, seconded by Councillor Kent. Be it resolved that
official plan amendment OPA-67 amended bracket bracket Royal Canadian
Legion be revised to reflect the amended application as detailed in staff report
plan 20-26-102
and that the revised OPA be adopted by the Township and that the record
forwarded to the District Municipality of Muskoka for approval.
Uh where was I? I think Mayor Kelly. >> Thank you and through you two questions.
Uh the first to uh Ms. Crowder. Um
Uh uh uh uh uh uh I actually don't know whether the hold is something that has
to come back to committee to be relieved or lifted or whether it is an
administrative act just looked after by staff.
I'm assuming it's a staff function, but I don't Oh, it's not. It actually comes
here. I'm going to ask then, if it were your call, how many I just want to focus
specifically on the number of available parking spaces, um, on the property
itself or on contiguous land owned by the same, uh, owner. How many spaces
would you need to, uh, see, uh, before you would recommend waving or
lifting that hold? Ms. Crowder.
Through you, Chair, to Mayor Kelly. Um, it's not a specific number I would be
looking for. It is the justification, having answered our questions. So, I I
don't have a specific number before you, but when, um, we do receive a study that
satisfies our questions, we would then be come back to Council for the lifting
of the hold, and we'd be able to update you at that time, and provided everybody
was comfortable with those findings, then you would be in a position to, um,
lift the hold. But, it is like a it's a bylaw of itself to lift the hold. That's
good. Thank you very much. Second question, and it relates I don't want to
get into the, uh, uh,
I really don't want to get into the viability of the project itself. That's
not where I'm going with this, and I certainly am not making any any judgment
based on whether it's attainable or affordable.
Um, I think I've said it before, but just to
be for the record, I believe any addition to the housing stock is
valuable and is I don't particularly care, uh, whether
they're attainable, affordable, or otherwise, as long as they are new
places for people to live. Um, is there an element of this project that
will be affordable. Uh that will be under you know, rent control to the
extent that it'll maybe be something with the District of
Muskoka is engaged in. And if so, I'm just curious what proportion of that
would be. Uh Mr. Hunter.
» Yes, thank you to the chair to the mayor. Um
our proposal includes a a target towards seniors. So, to your earlier question,
we're not removing the seniors component. There's still a significant
interest and a target towards those uh residents who rent these units cuz it is
a rental building. Out of that, uh we are targeting a
percentage, at least 20% to be accessible units. So, that includes
people with special needs or seniors with needs. And then, I believe we're
33% right now for actual affordable criteria. And I didn't bring it today,
but I got a thick document through CMHC that you have to meet all this criteria,
certain kinds of rents, and very specific targets. So, um instead of
leaving this at purely a retirement community, the 120 units, we dropped it
to 106. And then, we're trying to actually meet the needs of uh more
members of the community. So, Uh perfect. And and thank you through
you. And have you had discussions at all with the the District uh housing group?
You have? Okay. Uh and to my knowledge, and I have some
knowledge of the affordable housing, um the District reserves the right when
they're engaged on a file to provide the tenant. And those tenants may not be
from Bala, they may be moved in from elsewhere within the District. We we're
aware of that. Is that a possibility? Okay. Thank you.
» Yeah, so through the chair, the the District is involved. I mean, this uh
this development, we're lucky the clients are pretty well connected. This
has gone through the province through CMHC, through the pro- uh through the
District. Um it's gone through all levels. So, as as you mentioned, we do
have the ability to not only bring in residents from this area, but other
surrounding areas who um are really in need of affordable housing projects.
Our firm works throughout the whole district of Muskoka. There's really not
a lot of availability, so there's quite a lot of interest in this project. And
also from the adult standpoint, you know, we're we're hearing demand for
this, so yeah, it provides quite a accessibility.
» Do we have any other questions?
Councillor Roberts. >> To the gentleman in the back, this is
not a public meeting, so I'm afraid you can't make comments or questions.
No.
» Thank you, Chair. The The other concern I have
is access to 169 and possibly the traffic jams that occur
in during our peak months.
What are staff's thoughts on that?
» Ms. Crowder. >> Through you, Chair, to Councillor
Roberts. So, the traffic impact brief has been submitted, which states that
there won't be an impact. One of the requirements of the hold is
that it be peer reviewed. So, we would be looking to have that
document peer reviewed and go from there. That's right. Thank you.
» Councillor Zavitz. >> Thank you, and through you, just to
speak to that to the Councillor. There are five access egress ingress
points from there
to get in and out. So, I mean, I think I guess I counted
» There's five between River Street and other accesses, so lots of access.
» Any other uh Councillor Ishikawa. >> Well, I just wanted to One of the
concerns from um the the gentleman from Birch Park this morning was that in fact
cars would be lined up in front of his business and no one would be able to
have access to his business because waiting to make and it's the left-hand
turn. We all that have that problem on 118 when we try to leave this office.
Um and it's about the one eight that that left-hand turn. So, it's a big
bigger issue than this pic particular development that the district should
start addressing. But, it is a concern of that business
owner that people will be lined up waiting to make that left-hand turn in
in summer and not people won't have access to his building. So, that's But,
I don't know that
we can control that through this application.
» Committee, any other questions? Ms. Crowder, I have a question. Does uh
if it has affordable housing
does that are there different parking requirements for affordable housing?
» Through you, Chair. It's a great question. Um
as of right now we don't have any guarantee that these
will be affordable units. Yes, the intent has been stated very clearly. Um
but, the township doesn't have any way to regulate that. Um sec- the second
point I would say is that our bylaw doesn't currently account for any kind
of parking differentiation between affordable and not. I know that in um
cities, there's been a big provincial movement to lessen the parking
requirements um across the board, but particularly for situations like
apartment buildings. However, I would say those are very city specific or or
larger area specific because of public transit, which really isn't a
consideration here. >> Councillor Robert Edwards.
Uh I'm concerned about the holding.
And that's simply because if they can't do it, it just going to fall apart.
If we deferred this again, could they do some some
more work on how they're going to solve it because like I say, we pass it with a
holding and they can't do it, it's going to fall apart. But if we deferred it and
they they they talked to the district and everything else that they they may
have to reduce it a little bit or do some some some tweaking on it. Would
that not be better than than a holding? Ms. Croner?
» Through you, Chair, to Councillor Edwards. Um this project's been a little
bit unique in that we have been asked to asked to address many of these items
through utilization of a hold as opposed to deferring, specifically because it's
been communicated to me by the applicant and agent that
their need for funding for this project is dependent on a bylaw or an approval
being given. Um if the applications are deferred,
they would not have that approval, so they have requested that these be
addressed via a hold provision. However, it is committee's right to
um change that direction and defer should they wish to do so.
Um I think ultimately you would be able to
accomplish either way. So um we have been amenable to their request.
» Okay, yeah. Supplemental then?
» Yes. >> So if they're getting funding on on
these units, they may not ever be approved if they can't meet the holding.
» They won't get the
» Fair comment. Um Mayor Kelly. >> Thank you and through you, I just want
to address that last issue. I I really think in this circumstance uh sticking
with the hold uh we're in a really um well, hopefully opportunistic market for
people who are building uh attainable and affordable housing and housing of
any kind. There is uh I think it's a theory so far, but tons of money
available through CMHC and other sources. And it's really uh imperative
that the we get this far with the project so that the applications can be
made, the funding's process can start, it probably takes some time while we
sort out the hold on on the other side. I frankly don't see uh the difference
nothing's going to happen on the premise until the hold is lifted. And in the
meantime, because we've chosen to hold rather than defer, um the uh
organization can start the process of of application for the funding that's
available. >> Councillor Nishikawa.
» Thank you. Through um you and I I almost I'm going to ask if we have an
opinion from the district at this point. I have
been on district council where we have approved projects we thought
with with other holds on and in fact um
it CMHC actually didn't give them the funding because the hold wasn't a
guarantee that this thing was going to get built.
So, I don't know where what that looks like, but I would love to have
district's opinion uh cuz they're on the call.
» Um
Mr. Hunter. >> Yes.
» We'll come to >> I'll I'll be quick on that. So, two two
important components here, like we we need the the zoning and OPA passed with
the hold. The hold gives us the freedom and the power of the township to control
matters such as traffic. But, speaking plainly, our applicant and
our owner cannot be spending any more money, like have the traffic report
updated, archaeological or sorry, architectural. Like these are very
expensive studies and and engineers that we're
paying. So, to progress and get to point where we
can do more detailed design and address these concerns, like we need that
financing and frankly though with the promise it's just waiting to press the
button. Um so there is a commitment to that and we
were I guess we're we're really requesting that we need to have this
brought forward to a motion. We we can't have a deferral and we accept the hold
and it gives staff and council the ability to have that control before it
is removed. >> Um do we have the district was he the
district planner? >> No.
» Through through you chair, um the district is no longer online I've been
told. Um all I can say is they provided comment on the applications saying they
are not opposed, but they did not provide anything further than that.
» [clears throat] >> Mayor Kelly.
Thank you and through you. I I just want to make sure we we we know what we're
voting for here. The there's no guarantee that anybody's
going to step up and fund, but there is a guarantee that if we
don't approve this with a hold, we'll never find out. So, at least this way we
can put a stake in the ground, we can give the necessary support, the township
can give the necessary support to the owner of the building or the developer
uh to start the application process while we work through those other issues
that are still going to be subject to the hold.
» All right committee, any other debate on this?
» Councillor Edwards.
» The only thing I I I'm concerned about is we heard the business owner today say
it's a problem for him.
So, if if we're starting to lose this and that
I say like we can go ahead with it. It's not a good situation.
I think we all know that. That's why we're asking all these these questions.
It was approved for for a seniors building they could put
that in they would do the housing that that that is required and everything
else say that it's the changes that's that's what I'm concerned about.
» Thank you and through you I I'm going to stay on this one because I have a very
keen interest in seeing some housing get built around here.
Um I I think you can pick any intersection
anywhere in this Township and say we're going to build something here and people
would pop out of the woodwork and say not in my yard not near me. I don't like
this. It's a it's a fact of life. There was a very articulate I I gather that
the email we all got yesterday was the same person that spoke today. I didn't
make the link. Oh it wasn't. Oh.
There was a very articulate email that that came out yesterday late late
yesterday. You know, you you have to pay attention
to these things and there was some very good issues raised. The simple fact of
the matter is at some point in time we have to make a value judgment. Do we
value the opportunity to grow the community to to stop the aging and
shrinking population base to revitalize the economy to put people back in you
know, I heard Miss Buster this morning say or something it
was actually Miss Grogan Green say nobody has had an opportunity to work at
Cleaves for a decade or something.
We got to turn this around and it's got to start somewhere. It's got to start
with a stake in the ground that says we will build here and we will find people
to live here and they will be consumers in this marketplace and they will be
workers in this marketplace and hopefully someday they'll grow kids in
this marketplace and they'll fill hockey leagues and and
church groups and so on. It's it's a difficult thing but you're not going to
find zero opposition anywhere. So I we've had one or two. They were both
well done. I thought the presentation this morning was well-done. But I you
know, maybe help them understand that we just
imported 130 new people who are going to be
buying in your store. That may be worth losing a few parking
spaces. I don't know. But by the way, I'm not going to be too pleased if the
parking is reliant on public space or roadside space. That's
This is we're not here to subsidize the development of this thing with parking.
They've got to come back under the hold. We'll come back and we'll look. That's
why I was trying to get a sense from Ms. Crowder if there was a hard number. We
will have an opportunity to decide whether this moves ahead, whether
there's sufficient parking on site that the people who actually operate and live
around the space have much less to worry about than they think they do.
» Uh Counselor Davidson, Counselor Massin. >> Uh thank you. I would say here, here to
the mayor on those comments and I would ask for the vote, please. Thank you.
» Director Crowder. >> Okay.
It's a point of order. I I think the group has to agree to that.
» You have to sort of, you know, orally decide to ask.
» Right. Um The group has to
being told by >> There are two
» We need We need two-thirds agreement to call a vote.
All those in favor of calling the vote right now.
Okay, we didn't get two-thirds. Counselor Massin.
» I would have called the vote. >> [laughter]
» I just wanted to um add and remind that it was 2 days ago. I was trying to
remind myself as I was listening when we all sat and listened to our economic
development strategy and the direct link with and importance of adding. They
focused on attainable housing within our township. And I just think some of the
questions I mean it's day egg and the what's it called? The chicken or the egg
scenario, but you know, certainly would think that by adding housing into a a
town or a community, then we are going to start seeing some of the other
businesses kind of growing and flourishing in that area simply because
you have more people walking around and shopping. So, you
know, I think it becomes these things are all very much linked and I think to
echo the comments, my my biggest focus is to ensure that we've got the right
parking to support whatever the density and it sounds to me like we've got a
very good plan in place with staff through this holding provision to allow
for that and to help the applicant get this project financed if they can.
And then I would call the vote but >> [laughter]
» Uh committee, any more questions or comments?
Are we ready to vote now?
» No, I'm good. >> I need short. I don't know if I can put
it on the screen. >> I'll read the resolution again we've
requested. Moved by Mayor Kelly, seconded by Councillor Cain.
Be it resolved that the official plan amendment OPA-67
and it is - amended bracket Royal Canadian
Legion be revised to reflect the amended application as detailed in staff report
plan 2026-102
and that the revised OPA be adopted by the township and the record forwarded to
the District Municipality of Muskoka for approval.
All those in favor.
Any opposed? That carries.
» This is the bylaw? >> Yes, it is.
» And who's the bylaw? All right, so now we have the That was
the OP. This is the bylaw. Uh moved by Councillor Edwards, seconded
by Councillor McIntyre. Be it resolved that zoning
bylaw application amendment ZBA-22/26 amended Royal Canadian Legion be
approved subject to the following: that the draft bylaw and associated
schedules be revised to reflect the amended applications as detailed in the
staff report plan 2026-102. That the draft bylaw be revised to
require that 13 of the proposed parking spaces be required to be barrier for
free spaces in accordance with the requirement of the township's
comprehensive zoning bylaw 2014-14 as amended and that revisions be made to
the draft bylaw to A, amend section two bracket or 2D to
state that the parking justification report be updated to satisfactorily
address staff's comments instead of being period
reviewed and B, remove section 2G being that the lands received site plan
approval prior to the lifting of the holding
of holding H provision. Any debate?
All those in favor. Any opposed?
That carries.
Where the hell
Committee, we have one final resolution here.
Moved by
Councillor Kent, seconded by Mayor Kelly.
Be it resolved that the special planning committee meeting adjourn at
2:12 p.m. The next regular planning committee
meeting will be held on Thursday, September the 17th, 2023 2026 at 9:00
a.m. via an electronically and in-person hybrid format from the council members
council chambers municipality municipal offices in beautiful downtown
Port Carling, Ontario. All those in favor?
Thank you.