[2:10] All right.
[2:14] I started the meeting 2 minutes late
yesterday and then ended it up 2 minutes
[2:18] late. So, we're not doing that again.
I call the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
[2:24] and welcome everybody to this special
planning committee meeting.
[2:28] I can confirm that we have a quorum and
all of our council are in the chamber.
[2:33] And we have senior staff and and
planning staff are present. Public input
[2:38] on this application was
uh
[2:43] was invited
at the
[2:46] normal
email address, which is planning at
[2:48] Muskoka Lakes. Today's meeting is being
live streamed and recorded on the
[2:53] Township of Muskoka Lakes website and
YouTube channel. By participating in
[2:57] this open public meeting today, you are
consenting to your image, voice, and
[3:01] comments being recorded and posted
online.
[3:06] Uh we have had
supplementary agenda and
[3:12] for uh
the Bala Legion, the returning case of
[3:17] the Bala Legion. We have Nick Jensen
speaking
[3:21] on the interest of the Bala Legion and
Lisa Gorgon Green is speaking on behalf
[3:26] of the resort Village Minett.
Uh committee, do we have any members who
[3:32] have a uh
uh disclosure of pecuniary interest?
[3:37] There's got to be another word for that.
Um
[3:43] » [laughter]
>> Right. So, we'll move on to the agenda
[3:46] now and we're going to start with our
three delegations. First one being Mr.
[3:50] Jaglowitz.
Then we will have Lisa Grogan Green and
[3:54] Mr. Jensen.
Good morning, Mr. Jaglowitz.
[4:00] I think you're familiar with our
protocol here, 5 minutes.
[4:04] » Yep.
>> Does that work?
[4:06] » And I see I've got a a big sign here
that says name and address, so
[4:10] » Yeah.
>> I'll I'll I'll follow the rules. Good
[4:14] morning. My name is Frank Jaglowitz, 14
Indian Crescent, Port Carling.
[4:19] Um
I'm here this morning to speak to you
[4:22] about the Cleveland's House proposal,
which I'm sure you're all quite quite
[4:26] familiar with.
And I'd like to give a great thank you
[4:30] to staff
for the very detailed 58-page report,
[4:34] which I think might be a record that
which outlines many aspects of the
[4:38] development and the staff's position on
many of the issues.
[4:42] So, if I might might ask staff to
display the first page. They're doing it
[4:46] already. Great.
So, this is the first page of your
[4:50] report, which are which are the which
are the recommendations. And as you
[4:53] know, this was prepared by Emily
Crowder,
[4:55] who's the senior planner, was approved
by Steve Stone, the manager of planning,
[5:00] and acknowledged by David Clink, the
CEO.
[5:03] So, I understand this would be the
official
[5:06] position of the township.
Um under the heading recommendations,
[5:10] you'll see in paragraph one
that recommends that the OPA submitted
[5:15] by the Goldhar Group
be revised
[5:19] to retain section C1.5.3.7
of OPA 56, which essentially prohibits
[5:26] the development of new habitable
buildings within the flood plain.
[5:31] In other words, staff is recommending
there be no new habitable buildings in
[5:37] the flood plain.
And this would essentially make the
[5:40] current proposal, in my view, not
viable.
[5:44] » I request putting the light on
for the people back there, on.
[5:56] Can people Can people hear? I apologize.
Do you want me to start over?
[6:01] No. No. No. Please go on. Okay.
Thanks, Paul.
[6:08] So, what I said was I I believe that I I
I now can hear the difference. Thank
[6:12] you.
In other words,
[6:15] the first paragraph of the
recommendation
[6:18] is to recommend no new habitable
buildings in the flood plain.
[6:24] And paragraph two then recommends
adoption of the OPA after it's revised
[6:29] to not permit any new habitable
buildings. Therefore, they're
[6:32] recommending approval of the proposal as
long as there's no habitable
[6:38] buildings in the flood plain.
However, paragraph three
[6:42] presents conditions to be added.
And I'll quote, "Should committee adopt
[6:47] the amendments permitting new
development within the flood plain, then
[6:53] there should be schedules to define
specific locations
[6:56] where buildings are located, setbacks,
and so on." So, in my view in this
[7:00] paragraph, staff are providing committee
an option
[7:04] to move this application forward under
certain conditions. And I seriously
[7:09] suggest that you consider this approach,
the approach in paragraph three,
[7:13] which is to allow buildings in the flood
plain and schedules be added to define
[7:18] the location, setbacks, and so on. So,
it's not unlimited, but it's a it's a
[7:22] limited thing.
But, the recommendation then goes on to
[7:27] deal in paragraph four with the zoning
bylaw, which would be required, and it
[7:34] once again recommends approval of it in
part
[7:37] subject to a number of conditions and
suggests that staff not use the one
[7:42] submitted but prepare an implementing
zoning bylaw amendment to implement the
[7:48] conditions at a future council meeting.
And that there be a holding provision
[7:53] put on the land subject
to a number of conditions.
[7:58] So in my opinion
the course is
[8:01] is the committee should first deal with
the official plan amendment because if
[8:05] that fails and there's no sense dealing
with the zoning.
[8:09] And if it but if it's if the proposal is
substantially approved as submitted then
[8:14] consider the zoning bylaw
a second. That that's the way I see it.
[8:20] So then let's turn now to the district.
I I ask you to go to page 49 of the
[8:25] staff report. And this contains the
District of Muskoka's comments.
[8:31] Um
So firstly paragraph one of the district
[8:35] comment district
indicates district staff are unable to
[8:39] recommend approval of the applications
as they do not conform with the
[8:43] district's MOP municipal
Muskoka official plan or comply with the
[8:49] PPS. Mr. Jagger, you are coming up to 5
minutes.
[8:53] But please continue.
I asked your indulgence. It's it's very
[8:57] brief.
Um I had and I had an interruption.
[9:00] Basically because once again same reason
buildings in the floodway.
[9:06] Also paragraph two provides an option
should committee wish to approve the
[9:10] application and apply a holding symbol
that can only be moved afterwards. So in
[9:13] other words the district have also
provided that option. So in summary
[9:18] here's something to think about when the
vote is called. Considering the past
[9:22] history of this site Cleveland's
Cleveland's house is this
[9:27] proposal better than any other options
that are available for this site? I
[9:31] believe it is and strongly encourage you
support it. Also remember the district
[9:36] is the final decision-maker and a split
vote at the at the Township Council will
[9:42] give district counselors the opening to
turn it down for the reason that even
[9:46] the Township's not fully supportive.
So, if you are not fully in support of
[9:50] this application, I ask you reconsider
and move this forward to the district
[9:55] with a strong vote. Thank you
for your time. I'm happy to answer any
[9:59] questions.
>> Minnie, do we have any questions for Mr.
[10:02] Jaglowitz?
>> Thank you.
[10:05] » Thank you very much.
Our next delegate is Ms. Grogan-Green.
[10:12] Is she in the waiting room? If we could
If we could bring her in. Thank you.
[10:36] » Hello.
Uh thank you. Sorry about that. Uh
[10:39] » Good morning.
>> Good morning.
[10:41] » If you could start with your name and
address and you have 5 minutes.
[10:44] » Okay, thank you. Uh my name is Lisa
Grogan-Green.
[10:48] My permanent residence is at 133 Muldrew
Lake Road, North York, I'm 4N3H4.
[10:56] Our family cottage on Campbell's Road
has made Minett a second home for a lot
[11:01] of us.
Over the years, I've been a frequent
[11:03] patron of Cleves, the Rock,
uh the local marinas, the Minett Mall,
[11:08] and the Rosso Hotel. I've watched Cleves
evolve since I was a child. From the
[11:13] addition of the golf course along
Juddhaven to the various expansions
[11:17] required to accommodate a growing resort
population.
[11:21] In preparation for today, I reviewed the
Township's report, the Azimuth EIS and
[11:26] peer review, the wetland compensation
plans,
[11:29] and the SLR peer review.
I recognize the immense time,
[11:34] professional analysis, and financial
investment that have gone into these
[11:38] documents. I also want to acknowledge
the dedicated effort of various councils
[11:43] since 2018 to ensure this development
and others are responsible and
[11:48] successful.
There appears to be a consensus among
[11:52] the consultants that the proposed open
water marsh and compensatory measures
[11:57] are a net benefit.
By enhancing adjacent wetlands and
[12:01] improving connection points, the
developer is creating a landscape that
[12:05] is ecologically superior to what exists
today.
[12:09] Improving water quality for Wallace Bay
and providing an improved habitat for
[12:14] local floral flora and fauna.
There's consideration paid to the
[12:19] careful treatment of endangered or
threatened species.
[12:23] I'm here today to ask the planning
committee to adopt the proposed
[12:27] amendments to section C1.5.3.7.
Very specifically, I support permitting
[12:34] the five micro cabins suspended over the
proposed open water marsh.
[12:39] It's important to note that development
within these fringes is not a new
[12:43] concept. Many existing cabins, such as
the Bayview Suites cabins 260 to 62, 280
[12:51] to 82, currently set at a near zero
setback from the thicket swamp. If you
[12:57] look behind them today, as I did last
week, there's either standing water
[13:01] behind some or a small rivulet adjacent
to others which had directly into Lake
[13:06] Rossell. Similarly, the yoga studio at
the marina is already suspended over the
[13:11] water, as is a well-trafficked boardwalk
at the western outlet.
[13:17] The current proposal does not introduce
development into a pristine untouched
[13:21] landscape. Rather, it thoughtfully
replaces aging infrastructure with a
[13:27] design that respects the modern flood
plane.
[13:31] The applicant Mitch Goldhar has
consistently demonstrated a willingness
[13:35] to work with the Minett Steering
Committee and other stakeholders.
[13:39] He's already made significant
concessions to address community
[13:42] concerns.
In fact, he bought the resort in 2019 to
[13:46] save us from the density granted to
Fowler and the development plans of
[13:50] Peter Freed.
Important facts should be taken into
[13:54] consideration today.
Mitch has already demonstrated a
[13:58] commitment to responsible development by
reducing the overall program from
[14:02] approximately 4,000 units to just under
2,000.
[14:06] He stated there's no current intention
to pursue any time share development. He
[14:11] has no current intention of severing and
selling portions of the land for forms
[14:15] of intensification.
Nor does he have a current intention of
[14:18] developing mid-rise condos on the
property.
[14:22] The above are all things that are
permitted as of right and could be in
[14:26] front of this planning committee today.
Instead, we are discussing a boutique
[14:30] 48-cabin village with an adjoining
amphitheater.
[14:34] The site has been designed by a
world-renowned architect with a
[14:37] thoughtful and intentional design
approach focused on craftsmanship,
[14:42] natural materials, and placemaking.
The application utilizes only 10% of the
[14:48] permitted density for the site. It
respects the height, servicing, and
[14:52] architectural principles established by
the steering committee
[14:56] while revitalizing an historic property
that has contributed to the character of
[15:01] Muskoka for decades.
The alternative to this proposal is
[15:05] uncertainty.
We have an opportunity to secure the
[15:09] long-term success of Cleves as a
world-class resort while enhancing its
[15:15] environmental condition.
Currently, a generation of young people
[15:20] has missed the opportunity to work at
Cleves and its restaurants, shops, and
[15:25] athletic facilities.
The success of the Rock Golf Course,
[15:29] Abby's Bake House, the Marina shops, and
the new addition of Pie
[15:34] give us a glimpse of the vibrancy that
awaits us in Minett.
[15:38] It is time to embrace a vision that
honors our history while investing in
[15:43] our future.
I urge the committee to say yes today
[15:47] and allow this project to move forward.
We've already lost yet another year.
[15:53] Thank you.
>> Thank you very much, Ms. Grogan Green.
[15:57] Committee, do we have any questions for
Ms. Grogan Green?
[16:02] All right. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you.
[16:05] » And you were right on at 5 minutes.
[16:09] All right. Our next uh delegate is Mr.
Jensen.
[16:17] » Uh Nick Jensen, uh 1003 Maple Avenue in
Bala, Ontario.
[16:23] Uh P0C 1A0.
[16:27] » Thank you very much. And and uh you have
5 minutes.
[16:29] » Cool. Uh and uh this comes to like
exactly 5 minutes, so sorry about that.
[16:34] Okay.
Uh my wife and I own Birch Park, a gift
[16:38] shop on the corner of Maple Avenue and
Highway 169 in Bala. Some might say I'm
[16:43] foolish to question 106 units of
potential customers just steps away.
[16:48] However, I would like to voice my
thoughts on the Legacy Manor in the most
[16:51] recent forms I've seen.
I've lived [snorts] in various downtown
[16:54] Toronto locations for 17 years, and I'm
no stranger to development. Frankly, I
[16:59] don't care what the building looks like,
how tall it is, or where the trees are
[17:02] planted. I only care if it functionally
makes sense in its location. What are
[17:06] the effects beyond its property lines? A
few numbers to consider. There are
[17:10] approximately 1,400 combined full-time
residents in Bala, Acton Island, most of
[17:15] Torrance, and surrounding as of 2021
according to Stats Canada. Bala proper
[17:20] certainly has less than under 1,000
full-time residents. Legion Manor will
[17:24] have 215 occupants, a number calculated
based on the proponents values of 1.8
[17:29] persons in a one-bedroom and three
persons in a two-bedroom. However, 81 of
[17:34] the 106 units have an office of 6 by 9
minimum size, which will realistically
[17:39] be used by some residents as a second or
third bedroom. The number of occupants
[17:43] will likely be significantly higher than
215 in addition to visitors coming and
[17:48] going.
There are 121 dedicated on-site parking
[17:51] spots. How are 121 parking spots
sufficient for a bare minimum of 215
[17:57] people in a town with no public transit
system? Bala is 20 minutes from
[18:01] Gravenhurst and 35 minutes from
Bracebridge, where the submission where
[18:04] the greatest concentrations of employers
and services in South Muskoka are
[18:07] located.
Previous submissions assumed parking for
[18:11] only 56 vehicles. Given this figure has
more than doubled, can we expect revised
[18:15] parking and transportation briefs?
Public parking will be an issue,
[18:19] especially during the events at the
arena community center and new Legion.
[18:22] Already during tournaments or special
events, every public and private lot
[18:26] will often fill for most of the day.
Vehicles routinely line the street top
[18:30] to bottom and along River Street and
Victoria Street. And whether
[18:32] acknowledged or not, Legion Manor would
require some amount of public parking.
[18:37] Please note the traffic at Maple Avenue
and Highway 169 was measured in April
[18:41] during off-season. In the absence of
further data, estimates were made using
[18:46] Grey Street summer volumes. However,
Maple and Grey are not comparable. The
[18:50] high traffic destinations are on Maple
Avenue. I also suggest there is no
[18:53] normal traffic volume on Maple Avenue as
events do not happen on a regular
[18:58] schedule.
[19:01] Possible left turn lanes onto River
Street and Maple Avenue from Highway 169
[19:04] were considered, and it was found that
traffic 5 years beyond build-out does
[19:08] not warrant a left turn lane at either
intersection. However, the predicted
[19:12] weekday PM values for both intersections
come very close. So, what are the values
[19:17] 10 years beyond build out? What are the
values given the parking has doubled
[19:20] since the April report? I am also
concerned about jamming up the
[19:24] intersection on Maple Avenue blocking
off vehicle access to our business. The
[19:28] proponents counts indicate this is not
an issue. However, this is already
[19:32] sometimes a problem during the summer
months. Even three or four cars waiting
[19:35] at the intersection blocks the parking
in front of our shop and dissuades
[19:38] customers. Small changes in traffic have
huge impacts for businesses.
[19:42] Those concerns aside, we should consider
Bala as a whole. Placing minimum 215
[19:47] people plus visitors into a town of less
than a thousand residents, a generous
[19:51] estimate, within a few short years will
have consequences. The township's
[19:55] population grew by 1.3% per year between
2011 and 2021. Even using my numbers,
[20:02] Legion Manor would increase Bala's
population by 21% in a few short years,
[20:06] realistically higher. That's nowhere
near reasonable organic growth in a
[20:10] semi-rural town with no public transit
and limited employment opportunities.
[20:15] One important point, if the plan is
still to prioritize seniors in the units
[20:18] that are not affordable housing,
research from the Canadian Journal of
[20:21] Emergency Medicine states that people
65+ need the greatest share of paramedic
[20:26] transports at 44%. With our strained
emergency services and distance from
[20:31] hospitals, that may put these seniors at
risk.
[20:33] In the parking study, the proponents
used proxy sites from Lindsay, Orillia,
[20:37] and Barrie for comparison. In Lindsay,
population 22,000, and Orillia,
[20:42] population 33,000, it's interesting that
seven of the nine proxy sites selected
[20:47] contained fewer units than Legion Manor,
despite those towns having 20 to 30
[20:52] times the population and their own
municipal transit systems. It seems like
[20:56] Legion Manor is too large for the tiny
town of Bala. Crushing its size bit by
[21:01] bit is an indication that it just
doesn't belong here at this scale. Other
[21:05] Legion housing projects in Sault Ste.
Marie and Coburg are not comparable for
[21:08] reasons similar to Lindsay, Orillia, and
Barrie. I say respectfully to those who
[21:13] support this project in its current
form. This is an experiment that has the
[21:18] potential to permanently change the
character of the town. For better or
[21:21] worse, once it's done, it's done.
Thank you.
[21:26] » Thank you very much, Mr. Jensen, and you
are right. Um committee, do we have any
[21:31] questions for Mr. Jensen?
Mr. Jensen, we will take your comments
[21:37] to heart when we get to the application,
which may not be until sometime this
[21:42] afternoon, but thank you very much.
[21:46] You can you exactly probably if you've
got things to do
[21:50] watch on YouTube.
>> All right.
[21:56] » All right, committee, we are moving on
to
[21:59] uh the
next item of business, which is
[22:03] OPA 62
uh
[22:07] and uh or the adjustment of OPA 62 with
the OP 64 and zoning bylaw amendment
[22:12] 22/23.
And I will ask Ms. Crowder to come up
[22:17] and give us her report.
[22:29] » All right. Uh good morning, uh Chair
Bosma and members of committee.
[22:34] The applications before you today are
for consideration of amendment 64 to the
[22:39] Township of Muskoka Lakes official plan,
as well as zoning bylaw amendment
[22:42] application ZBA 22/23,
respecting updates to the resort village
[22:48] of Minett.
The subject lands are known municipally
[22:51] as 1048 and 1112 Juddhaven Road, and a
portion of the lands do not have a
[22:56] municipally assigned address.
The lands are most commonly referred to
[23:01] as the lands associated with the
Cleveland's House Resort within the
[23:04] resort village of Minett.
As committee may recall, reports on
[23:08] these applications were previously
brought forward to committee on November
[23:11] 25th, 2025 and March 12th, 2026, which
was a joint public meeting held with the
[23:17] District of Muskoka.
Further, as the members of committee and
[23:21] the public may know, Minett has an
extensive planning history that is
[23:24] detailed in the previous staff reports
that are linked in the report before you
[23:28] today.
Next slide, please.
[23:32] The subject lands are currently
developed with cabins associated with
[23:36] Cleveland's House Resort, a marina,
commercial areas including a yoga
[23:40] studio, and have frontage on Lake
Rosseau.
[23:43] The site has an undulating topography,
beach areas, and is vegetated with
[23:47] mature trees amongst the developed
areas.
[23:50] The subject lands contain a wetland,
which is situated at the northern reach
[23:54] of Wallace Bay.
Muskoka Road 28, known as Juddhaven
[23:57] Road, is a Class B District Road and is
located to the west of the site, and a
[24:02] privately owned section of Juddhaven
Road bisects the lot east to west.
[24:07] This area The area around the site
contains tourism, residential,
[24:11] commercial, and recreational uses.
More specifically, fire station five, a
[24:16] golf course, and residential uses are
located to the north of the subject
[24:19] lands. The JW Marriott and residential
uses are located to the east of the
[24:24] subject lands.
Other ands Other lands owned by the
[24:27] applicant, residential uses as well as
an unrelated draft approved phased
[24:32] standard condominium containing 43
resort commercial accommodation units,
[24:37] are located to the south of the subject
lands.
[24:39] Next slide, please.
The applicant is proposing a resort
[24:43] development consisting of a wellness
center including three in indoor sport
[24:47] courts, a gym, a spa, a yoga studio,
exhibition rooms, eight retail spaces,
[24:54] restaurant food and beverage facilities,
and five office spaces, a marina, 17
[25:00] outdoor sport courts, a tennis pavilion,
a viewing tower, 48 rental cabins,
[25:06] private beaches, stormwater facilities,
and a water and wastewater treatment
[25:10] plant. Though staff would note that the
lands where the treatment plant is
[25:14] proposed is not currently included in
this phase of the development.
[25:18] Next slide, please.
The requests to amend OPA 56 are
[25:22] detailed in the staff report for today's
meeting, the previous staff reports, and
[25:27] are summarized as shown on the screen.
This is a substantial application for
[25:31] the township, and for the sake of time,
I'm going to focus my presentation on
[25:35] the key components that require careful
consideration by committee today.
[25:39] These items include, next slide, please.
Development within the flood plain,
[25:44] development within and adjacent to the
wetland, front yard setbacks and
[25:48] vegetative buffers, development
concurrent with the water and wastewater
[25:52] treatment plant, and the master
development agreement.
[25:56] Next slide, please.
As part of the proposal, accommodation
[26:00] units with accessory structures, a spa,
sport courts, an amphitheater, and
[26:06] buildings associated with the wellness
center are located in part or in whole
[26:10] within the flood plain of Lake Rosso.
Further, the proposal also seeks to
[26:14] introduce approximately 10,000 cubic
meters of fill into the identified flood
[26:19] plain.
The applicant has applied to amend the
[26:22] section of OPA 56, which states that new
habitable buildings are not permitted
[26:27] within the flood plain.
The provincial planning statement
[26:30] includes policy, which states that
development shall be directed away from
[26:34] areas of natural or human-made hazards
where there is an unacceptable risk to
[26:38] public health and safety, or of property
damage, and not creating new or
[26:43] aggravating existing hazards.
Staff have carefully considered section
[26:47] 5 of the PPS in its entirety.
Ultimately, the PPS states that
[26:51] development and site alteration shall
not be permitted within a floodway
[26:55] regardless of whether the area of
inundation contains high points of land
[26:59] not subject to flooding.
Where a one-zone concept applies, such
[27:03] as Lake Rosso, the floodway is the
entire contiguous floodplain.
[27:08] The exception criteria included within
the PPS do not apply at to the situation
[27:13] at hand.
Staff have consulted our legal
[27:15] solicitor, other professional planners
in the area, and the District of
[27:19] Muskoka, all of whom share staff's
conclusion on this matter.
[27:23] Next slide, please.
[27:26] The provincial policy direction has been
carried forward into the Muskoka
[27:30] official plan and the Township's
official plan. Given this very clear
[27:34] policy direction, staff are unable to
support approval of development and site
[27:38] alteration within the floodplain.
Staff are concerned that approval of
[27:42] development within the floodplain would
exacerbate the increasing concerns
[27:45] associated with flooding in the
Township, and would set a precedent for
[27:49] applications to develop within the
floodplain moving forward.
[27:53] Site-specific approvals can cumulatively
have a significant impact, and as stated
[27:57] in the Township's official plan, the
cumulative impact of amendments on this
[28:01] and other lands will be considered to
have greater weight than a site-specific
[28:05] considerations.
For these reasons, it is staff's opinion
[28:09] that approving the amendment to permit
development within the floodplain does
[28:12] not represent good planning.
Committee's decision to either approve
[28:17] or prohibit development within the
floodplain will have significant impacts
[28:21] on the remainder of the proposal,
such as the requested development within
[28:25] and adjacent to the wetland, and the
requested reduced front yard setbacks
[28:29] and vegetative buffers, as all of these
requests would place development and
[28:33] site alteration within the floodplain.
Accordingly, it makes sense to deal with
[28:37] the matter of flooding first.
Next slide, please.
[28:41] The application also seeks to permit
development and site alteration within
[28:45] and adjacent to an identified wetland.
The proposal seeks to permit the
[28:49] development of resort commercial
accommodation uses, recreation uses,
[28:53] resort commercial uses, including sport
courts, and trails and boardwalks within
[28:58] the identified wetland feature.
As previously indicated, staff are
[29:02] unable to support development within the
flood plain, which encompasses the
[29:06] entirety of the wetland feature.
With that in mind, staff have carefully
[29:10] considered the request to develop within
and adjacent to the wetland based on the
[29:14] remaining applicable policies,
acknowledging that committee may
[29:17] recommend approval of development within
the flood plain.
[29:20] Section 4.1 of the provincial planning
statement speaks to natural heritage,
[29:25] stating that natural features and areas
shall be protected for the long term.
[29:29] Further, the PPS states that development
and site alteration shall not be
[29:33] permitted within significant wildlife
habitat, which has been identified
[29:36] within this wetland, unless it has been
demonstrated that there will be no
[29:40] negative impacts on the natural features
or their ecological functions.
[29:44] This policy is carried forward through
the Muskoka official plan and the
[29:47] Township's official plan.
As committee is aware, a peer review
[29:51] process has been ongoing involving an
environmental impact study and more
[29:55] recently a wetland compensation and net
environmental benefit and enhancement
[29:59] report. It was the request of the agent
applicant that the peer review process
[30:03] be brought to a close.
Accordingly, SLR, the consultant who
[30:07] conducted the peer review, provided a
final review of these documents. SLR
[30:12] concluded that they continue to raise
concerns with the extent of the proposed
[30:15] alteration of the existing natural swamp
communities.
[30:19] SLR recommends that a number of measures
be taken to ensure that the proposal
[30:23] results in a net enhancement.
If these recommendations are
[30:26] implemented, SLR states that the
proposal may be environmentally
[30:30] feasible, subject to consultation and
approval with federal and provincial
[30:34] agencies.
Accordingly, staff's recommendation that
[30:38] the proposal may be consistent with the
PPS, the MOP, and the TMLOP is
[30:43] contingent upon the implementation of
the recommendations put forward by SLR.
[30:48] Further, the compensation plan includes
utilization of ponds five, six, and
[30:52] seven for compensation purposes.
However, the submitted engineering
[30:56] documents speak to these ponds being
utilized for stormwater purposes.
[31:00] Clarification on which is correct is
required, and if used for stormwater,
[31:04] additional compensation will be needed
will need to be explored as stated by
[31:09] SLR.
The recommendations put forward by SLR
[31:12] include
first, maximize coverage of the western
[31:16] shallow inlet by shallow wetland
communities, meaning less than 2 m in
[31:20] depth, rather than open water. This will
support the aquatic plant establishment
[31:25] and enhance ecological function.
To demonstrate a net benefit,
[31:29] compensatory wetland creation should
exceed the 86,800,
[31:35] sorry, 618 square feet that is proposed
to be dredged.
[31:39] Second, a riparian restoration plan
should be implemented to ensure a strong
[31:43] riparian area is established.
Third, for compensatory critical fish
[31:48] habitat, meaning habitat that provides
spawning, rearing, and nursing
[31:52] functions, new critical fish habitat
should exceed the identified 88,264
[31:59] square feet currently providing spawning
function as identified by Azimuth.
[32:05] And fourth, restrict guest access to the
new wetland area to ensure disturbance
[32:09] to this area is minimized. To this end,
no motorized access should be allowed,
[32:14] and fishing activity in the new wetland
area needs to be strictly controlled
[32:18] during all times of the year.
Staff are aware that a request was sent
[32:22] to the members of committee from the
agent requesting that the resolution be
[32:26] amended to reflect the permission of an
open water marsh and dredging up to 3 m
[32:31] in depth.
Staff do not support this request based
[32:34] on SLR's peer review, which stresses the
importance of a shallow marsh approach
[32:39] rather than an open water approach, and
a maximum dredging depth of 2 m to
[32:43] support aquatic plant establishment.
Staff would also caution that approval
[32:47] of development within a wetland,
particularly if it does not result in a
[32:51] net improvement, would set a precedent
for development moving forward.
[32:56] Next slide, please.
As stated previously, staff are unable
[33:00] to support development and site
alteration within the floodplain.
[33:03] The request to permit a reduced front
yard setback would place buildings and
[33:06] structures within the floodplain.
Accordingly, if committee is not
[33:09] supportive of development within the
floodplain, these requests become moot.
[33:13] However, if committee is considering
approval of development and site
[33:16] alteration within the floodplain, staff
have conducted an an analysis on the
[33:20] basis of the remaining applicable
policies.
[33:23] In the photo shown on the screen, the
required 66-ft setback is shown hatched
[33:28] in pink, and the required at 50-ft
vegetative buffer is shown hatched in
[33:32] green.
The submitted environmental reports have
[33:36] considered the proposed setbacks of
development and include recommendations
[33:40] to attempt to mitigate impacts of
deficient setbacks and buffers, namely
[33:44] that a robust robust revegetation plan
be implemented.
[33:49] Further, the District of Muskoka
official plan requires that vegetative
[33:52] buffers be present 50 ft in depth for
75% of the subject land's shoreline,
[33:57] which differs from the township's
official plan.
[34:00] It is important to note that the
township's policy, which dictates the
[34:03] extent of vegetative buffers being 50 ft
in depth and 100% of the shoreline, is
[34:08] absent from OPA 56.
Accordingly, staff rely on the district
[34:12] policy, which specifies 75%.
Staff have further considered existing
[34:16] development within the required setbacks
and buffers, and legal non-complying
[34:21] rights.
Staff would note that the proposed
[34:23] amphitheater was not included in the
applicant's request for relief. However,
[34:27] it would require such.
Next slide, please.
[34:32] Next is development concurrent with
treatment plant construction, and the
[34:36] applicant agent has requested that the
construction of the water and sewer
[34:39] treatment plant be permitted to occur
concurrently with the overall site. The
[34:44] District of Muskoka has recommended a
holding provision be included in the
[34:47] zoning bylaw where provincial
environmental compliance approvals for
[34:51] all water treatment, water distribution,
wastewater treatment, and wastewater
[34:56] collection infrastructure be obtained
and agreements with the district be
[34:59] entered into amongst other conditions
prior to its lifting.
[35:04] While this would allow construction of
servicing infrastructure concurrently
[35:07] with development
with multiple safeguards in place
[35:10] committee should be aware of the
potential human health and environmental
[35:14] risks in the case develop development is
finalized and services are not completed
[35:19] or operational.
Although occupancy of units would be
[35:23] prohibited, enforcement thereof can pose
challenges.
[35:26] Township staff defer to the district for
consideration of water and sewer
[35:30] services and their appropriate
build-out.
[35:33] Next slide, please.
Per section C172 through to C177 of OPA
[35:39] 56
it is intended that development shall
[35:42] occur in accordance with the provisions
of a master development agreement that
[35:46] shall be supported to the satisfaction
of the Township and district.
[35:51] Section C172 of OPA 56 states in part
that approval of a master development
[35:56] agreement by council shall only be
Sorry, shall only occur after all of the
[36:02] requirements of section C17 have been
met and shall occur before any lands in
[36:06] the Minett Resort Village are zoned to
implement this plan.
[36:10] The master development agreement is
intended to include a development
[36:13] phasing plan, a master heights plan, a
master servicing plan, a master parks
[36:18] plan, an integrated transportation plan,
a traffic impact study, a financial
[36:23] impact assessment, urban design and
architectural guidelines, a fire safety
[36:28] plan or life safety plan,
and other matters as deemed appropriate
[36:31] by the Township and the district as it
relates to the services it provides in
[36:35] order to ensure identification and
integration of uses, facilities, and
[36:39] infrastructure.
While an MDA
[36:43] master development agreement has been
drafted and discussions with the
[36:46] applicant are ongoing, it has not yet
been finalized. Therefore, staff
[36:50] recommend that the lands be subject to a
hold until this item is completed to the
[36:54] satisfaction of the Township and the
district.
[36:58] As noted in the staff report, several
specific items should be addressed and
[37:01] included in the MDA such as emergency
services comments,
[37:06] a provision to restrict activities
within the wetland,
[37:10] a provision wherein the applicant agent
commits to advancing plans for a
[37:14] permanent staff facility to be submitted
for consideration at a further date, and
[37:19] a provision wherein the owner agrees to
compensate in some capacity for the
[37:23] deficiency of parking by providing
parking on their adjacent lands.
[37:28] Next slide, please.
[37:34] The staff have prepared a detailed
report for committee's consideration
[37:37] today. Um staff have broken the
recommendations down into the official
[37:42] plan amendment and the zoning bylaw
amendment. Staff um
[37:46] well, Mr. Jaglowitz went through the
recommendation earlier, but I'll just
[37:49] summarize briefly. Um that official plan
amendment OPA 64 be revised to retain
[37:55] section C1537 which prohibits the
development of new habitable buildings
[37:59] in the flood plain, and that any
affected proposed amendments be retained
[38:03] or revised accordingly. And that the
revised OPA be adopted by the Township
[38:07] and the record forwarded to the District
of Muskoka for approval.
[38:11] And that should committee adopt proposed
amendments to section C1537 permitting
[38:16] new development within the flood plain,
that a schedule to sections C1543,
[38:21] 1544, and 1545
be added, which demonstrates this is
[38:26] specific location and extent where
buildings and structures are permitted
[38:30] within the front yard setback, and where
the required 15-m
[38:34] shoreline vegetation buffer be permitted
to be reduced.
[38:40] Staff also recommend that the zoning
bylaw amendment application be approved
[38:44] in part, subject to approval of the
official plan amendment, approval of the
[38:48] submitted amendment to the District of
Muskoka official plan, and subject to
[38:52] the following: that a draft zoning bylaw
submitted by the applicant not be
[38:57] adopted, and instead be replaced with a
bylaw drafted by staff,
[39:02] which would contain the recommendations
contained within the staff report before
[39:06] you today.
That a holding provision be placed on
[39:09] the subject lands for a developer's
group agreement,
[39:12] a master development agreement,
issuance of provincial environmental
[39:17] compliance approvals,
an agreement with the District of
[39:20] Muskoka respecting the water and
wastewater treatment plant,
[39:24] the submission of wetland compensation
and net benefit and environment
[39:27] enhancement report response memo to
address the comments of the peer review
[39:31] prepared by SLR
to the satisfaction of the Township and
[39:35] the District.
That the subject lands be required to
[39:38] obtain site plan approval, and that a
satisfactory site plan agreement is
[39:42] entered to into and registered on title
along with securities
[39:46] for matters limit not limited, but
including um the EIS and peer review
[39:52] responses and recommendations contained
therein.
[39:56] And the submission of an updated traffic
impact brief or stamped letter from
[40:00] professional engineer, which confirms
that the proposed 0-m setback from
[40:03] Juddhaven Road will not present any
operational or functional concerns from
[40:07] a transportation perspective, and
confirms that the existing right-of-way
[40:11] along Juddhaven Road is 26 m in width,
consistent with the requirements of the
[40:15] District of Muskoka official plan. I've
no further comments, but I'm happy to
[40:19] answer any questions from committee.
Thank you.
[40:22] » Uh thank you very much, Ms. Crowder.
Ms. Bustard.
[40:30] » The sign?
Thank you very much.
[40:33] » Ms. Bustard, um
there was no time limit on you today.
[40:37] » Well, I will still try to be brief, but
I appreciate that.
[40:40] » No.
>> Uh thank you very much, and thank you to
[40:42] Emily for that very thorough
presentation.
[40:44] Um
uh Paula Bustard with Cleveland House
[40:47] Resort, and I thank you for your
indulgence in hearing from me again. Um
[40:50] and we're really excited to be here
today, and uh hopefully uh bring the
[40:54] zoning in the OP portion uh to
conclusion. Uh presentation, if you
[40:58] don't mind, just going to the next
slide. I will try to keep my comments
[41:01] brief, but uh I am here obviously to
answer any questions that you may have.
[41:04] I have with me two of my colleagues,
including Andrew Seymour, who heads up
[41:07] our construction team, and who will be
overseeing construction of this should
[41:11] it be approved. Uh we also have online
Aaz Smith, uh from our environmental
[41:15] engineers are online and able to answer
any questions.
[41:18] Um
I will not repeat what I have presented
[41:21] to you on numerous occasions, other than
to say that uh the vision that we
[41:25] brought before you is something that we
are fully committed to, but it is
[41:28] contingent on the plan as proposed being
approved. Uh some of the modifications
[41:33] that would be necessitated by Sazer uh
recommendations just make this unviable,
[41:37] and uh something that we could not
proceed with. Next slide, please.
[41:42] Uh phase one, as you know, encompasses
what is predominantly the Cleveland
[41:47] House Resort as it stands today, uh
including some of the cabins, the old
[41:50] tennis, and the old golf course. As you
can see from this aerial, this land, as
[41:55] has uh been stated by previous
deputants, is not pristine. It is land
[41:59] that has been modified and altered many,
many times in many different ways over
[42:03] the last 100 years. Cleveland House has
a long, rich history going back 150
[42:07] years. This site has been altered by man
and modified many times. What we are
[42:12] proposing to do today is to clean it up,
to modify it, to restore it, and bring
[42:17] it back to life in a way that we think
is viable and something that will make
[42:21] all of us proud in Muskoka. Next slide.
[42:26] Uh just some more imaging of obviously
the site which many of you are familiar
[42:30] with. Next slide, please.
[42:34] Uh this is the marina. Next slide.
This is our overall master plan. Uh what
[42:40] is here before you today is phase one.
Uh even with the totality of the plan
[42:45] that we have proposed, it is quite
modest in comparison to the density that
[42:48] was approved um through the OPA that we
settled with the town and the district
[42:52] and the steering committee. Uh but phase
one is what we're here to discuss today,
[42:56] so I'd like to get in a little bit more
detail. Next slide, please.
[43:00] Uh and that obviously is phase one. Uh
the total square footage that we're
[43:04] proposing is just under 200,000 square
feet, 199,000.
[43:08] There's 48 cabins, a wellness center,
tennis facility, uh retail uses,
[43:13] amphitheater,
uh and a marina. Next slide.
[43:22] Uh just looking at phase one in a little
bit more detail and what I'd like to
[43:24] focus on now is the flood plain and the
I guess more contentious uses that have
[43:29] been identified by staff. Next slide.
Uh this is just an aerial view. Before I
[43:35] go to the next slide, I just want to
explain uh one last time why it is so
[43:39] important to us that the wetlands be
restored. As it is right now, it is a
[43:44] very very dense thicket swamp as has
been obviously discussed numerous times
[43:48] before you.
Our hope and desire here is to create a
[43:52] place that the traveling public and the
community adore. That people want to be
[43:55] there, that there's great porosity,
there's great pedestrian access, that it
[43:59] is somewhere that people can take their
boat and go do shopping, have dinner, go
[44:04] for a walk on the trails, explore the
site. Someone rents a cabin with their
[44:08] family, the kids are playing, they go to
the tennis academy, they go and play the
[44:12] wellness center. We want there to be a
lot of flow, we want there to be a lot
[44:15] of beauty. We also want access to
nature, and part of that is providing
[44:19] access to these wetlands. I need to say
it one more time, we are not trying to
[44:24] take away any wetlands. We want to
modify the wetlands from a dense thicket
[44:27] swamp to an open water marsh. We want
there to be life, and aquatic life, and
[44:32] habitat, and environment sustainability,
but we want it to be done in such a way
[44:36] that it's accessible to people. I've
said this before, but when you walk
[44:40] about 80% of that wetland right now, you
can't actually get down to the waterline
[44:45] unless you are crawling through the
dense thicket. Your legs would be cut
[44:48] up, the ground is unstable, there there
is such thick muck in there that if
[44:53] anyone fell in, I really do genuinely
believe it would be a dangerous
[44:56] condition. That is not conducive to
renting out to families and to
[45:00] facilitating an environment that people
want to be.
[45:03] Uh so what we are proposing is to
enhance, not to destroy, and I think
[45:07] that's a very, very important
distinction. Next slide, please.
[45:13] Uh what I just want to show you right
now quickly, which I haven't shown you
[45:15] previously, is a slide that before you
right now every that is the existing
[45:19] aerial. That is Cleveland's house that
has existed for 100 years. And what you
[45:23] see there, everything in yellow, is in
the flood plain.
[45:27] So, that is over
30,000 square feet of built form that
[45:31] exists today in the flood plain.
Uh next slide, please.
[45:37] So, what is on the right now is our
proposed phase one. Everything in orange
[45:42] is what we're proposing to replace it
with. It's almost identical, but in
[45:45] actual fact, it's less square footage.
The proposed GFA in the flood plain is
[45:50] around 18,000 square feet. We are
building less than what exists today.
[45:55] Furthermore, we are proposing to build
everything above the static flood
[45:58] elevation. One thing that was just said
in staff's presentation is that when you
[46:02] look at the PPS, it the intent of it is
to life safety and making sure that
[46:07] you're not creating dangerous
situations. And one of the disagreements
[46:10] that we have and I I appreciate that
there's professional disagreements on
[46:14] some interpretations of policies. I
agree that there's some singular
[46:17] policies in the PPS when read in
isolation, absolutely indicate that you
[46:22] can't do what we're proposing. But the
intent of the PPS is to read in its
[46:25] entirety and look at the intent of the
policies and look at the totality of the
[46:29] policies. We've provided legal opinions
that when read in totality, that there
[46:33] absolutely is policy justification for
this. Nonetheless, the decision is for
[46:37] council and council will have the
ability to make that decision
[46:39] themselves. But we believe that the
design is environmentally sound. We
[46:44] believe the design has obviously a lot
of merits to it. And on top of that,
[46:48] there is absolutely no life or safety
impact. Every single building will be
[46:53] above the static flood elevation, either
through the grading of the site or
[46:56] through the cabins are stilted. The
access and egress to all of these
[47:00] buildings are also outside of the static
flood elevation. There is absolutely no
[47:04] life and safety issue here.
Um
[47:08] so I just want us to look at this one
more time in terms of what we are
[47:11] proposing versus what exists today. This
is not a new condition. And I spoke at
[47:14] length about the wetland and why we want
to clean it up and we want to remove
[47:18] obviously a lot of the
thicket that is there now. Next slide.
[47:24] We've talked at length about the various
studies that's been done. Asmith has
[47:27] been the consultant on this site
for almost 20 years. We hired them
[47:32] and they have a long long history, but
for us they started in 2018 and these
[47:36] are all the different studies they've
done. Uh in my letter to you, although I
[47:40] highly respect the the peer review that
was done by SLR, we do disagree with
[47:45] some of their analysis and some of their
findings. I detailed it in my letter.
[47:48] I'm happy to go through it. We believe
the largest one is the fish habitat
[47:52] 8,000 cubic meters has been overstated.
That was uh the entire area of the
[47:57] thicket, but as as per MNR, only 1,500
has been identified as a fish habitat,
[48:03] although there is potential for more.
So, the 8,000 per replacement we think
[48:07] is overstated. That being said, this
process is not over, and as as uh staff
[48:11] have presented to you, if this is
approved, we're going to be going
[48:14] through detailed design, and there'll be
a litany of agreements facilitating the
[48:18] redevelopment of these lands, and the
consultants continue to work through
[48:21] those design matters. There's a few
other items that I stipulated in there
[48:25] that we think were um our consultant's
report was not properly interpreted by
[48:29] the peer reviewer, but nonetheless, I'm
not here to debate that other than to
[48:32] say that when we get into detailed
design, they will be in the room, and
[48:35] we'll work through all those matters
collaboratively.
[48:38] Next slide.
Again, just showing you what the
[48:42] existing condition is and what we are
trying to obviously uh
[48:45] improve upon. Uh I just want to touch
very briefly on the depth, cuz I know
[48:49] that is a big issue.
For the most part, we believe through
[48:54] our design we will be adhering roughly
to the 2 m, but our consultants have
[48:58] consistently said, and we did respond to
the SLR peer review that came out, uh
[49:03] which has not been identified in the
staff report, but we did respond uh in
[49:06] June to that.
There are a couple areas where it will
[49:10] be necessary to go up to 3 m. For us to
achieve what we're trying to do here and
[49:14] to make sure that the overall vision is
achieved, there's a couple areas that
[49:17] need to be a little bit deeper up to 3
m. Me asking for uh your endorsement to
[49:22] go up to 3 m is not us saying that the
entirety of the thing is going to be
[49:26] dredged to 3 m, but if it's a hard fast
2 m, we are concerned that we're not
[49:30] going to be able to achieve this uh
vision. The restoration of these
[49:34] wetlands alone are going to be in the
range of $3 million. That's a huge
[49:37] investment uh in terms of dollars and
and activities. We don't want to do it
[49:42] if we're it's not going to obviously uh
do it properly. If it's not going to
[49:46] achieve the vision that we have, and
that's why I ask for your consideration
[49:49] to stipulate that there will be portions
open water up to 3 m. Again, that's not
[49:54] a blank check that we're just going to
do everything to 3 m. We do believe the
[49:57] general range will be two, but it's
important that we have the ability
[50:00] between two and three. Next slide,
please.
[50:05] Uh next slide. And then just showing the
vision of what we're trying to achieve
[50:08] in terms of the open water marsh with
the cabins on stilts. Uh this is from
[50:12] the pedestrian bridge as you enter the
village. Next slide.
[50:16] And this would be the view from the
village looking across the wetland to
[50:19] the cabins.
Next slide.
[50:24] Uh this is our restoration plan. So, the
last thing I'll say about the wetlands
[50:28] uh is that there is obviously a lot of
compensatory measures that we have put
[50:31] forward. Restoration, rehabilitation of
habitat, replacement, enhancements, all
[50:37] of those are stipulated in our net
benefit report, and we are uh fully
[50:40] committed to that. I know staff
indicated that the ponds that are
[50:44] currently attached to the lagoons should
not be considered. Ultimately, it's a
[50:48] multi-stage development for the
wastewater facility, so those will be
[50:51] decommissioned at some point. Uh and we
do believe it's still appropriate to
[50:54] consider them for compensation, but that
is a matter that can be detailed through
[50:58] our agreements with staff, and there can
be further discussion of whether that is
[51:01] appropriate.
I don't think it has to be settled
[51:03] today. Next slide.
[51:07] Uh and these are obviously the further
uh wetland restoration matters, not just
[51:11] among the pond. There's naturalization
of the channel. Uh there's
[51:14] naturalization of other components and
replantings on the other side of Jed
[51:18] Haven that will be occurring. I just
want to very uh briefly touch upon the
[51:22] commentary too about the timing of
development. The reason that we have
[51:25] asked staff both at the town and the
district to allow development to happen
[51:28] to concurrently is just the the
construction of the wastewater facility
[51:33] and the servicing associated with it
will be significant. Uh if that was to
[51:37] happen and all of the commissioning had
to happen before any building permits
[51:40] could be pulled, it would be the most
inefficient construction on Earth. Uh
[51:45] Uh, we want to build simultaneously,
obviously having full legal obligations
[51:49] and the the agreement with the district
will hold our feet to the fire to make
[51:52] sure that we can't operate or do
anything until such time that that plan
[51:55] is operating, but it would be completely
inefficient both financially and just
[52:00] logically to build the entire facility
and have the entire site sitting
[52:05] stagnant, nothing happening while that's
happening. So, that is the reason for
[52:08] it, but we are not opposed to, you know,
obviously the agreement and the legal
[52:13] maneuvers that would obviously make sure
that that has to be completed before the
[52:16] site could be used in any way, shape or
form.
[52:18] Uh, next slide, please.
[52:21] And lastly, you can just go through
these next uh, six slides uh, just one
[52:25] at a time if you don't mind. Just the
pretty pictures. I just want to remind
[52:28] everyone obviously what we're trying to
achieve here, the craftsmanship, the
[52:32] respect for privacy, separation, tree
preservation is a big thing of what
[52:36] we're proposing. We've meticulously
mapped out all the trees through phase
[52:39] one uh, to ensure that we've actually
moved cabins to to preserve as many
[52:43] trees as possible. The village we really
see as being the heart and soul for the
[52:47] community both the traveling public and
for the community at large. Uh, the
[52:51] bottom right picture or actually if you
don't mind staying here, too. The tower
[52:54] feature was one thing that was
identified as a potential concern from
[52:56] staff. It is 5 m by 5 m. It is very
modest in size. So, although it does go
[53:02] up to uh, a higher elevation, uh, the
OPA that was stipula- that was approved
[53:07] has the provisions to have moments that
exceed heights for architectural
[53:10] moments. Uh, we do think that that tower
feature is important. Obviously the
[53:15] lighting will be dealt with different
uh, appropriately. And in my response
[53:19] letter, we also asked that uh, the
measurement of that gets from
[53:22] established grade. It's the typical way
of measuring height. The definition
[53:26] that's being proposed would be a bit
more uh, difficult to kind of interpret
[53:31] and to implement because there's such
grade changes on the site. So, uh,
[53:34] measuring height from established grade
is is standard in the industry.
[53:39] Uh, next slide, please.
[53:44] Next slide.
I'll do That's just a height map just
[53:47] showing you again uh the tower feature.
Uh that one is the chimney and then the
[53:51] next slide if you go to you'll see the
tower feature.
[53:54] Uh and so those are the three points
that exceed the heights but again it is
[53:57] permitted as per the OPA if it meets
kind of architectural standards.
[54:05] I think I think I've covered all my
talking points. I apologize but uh if
[54:10] there's any questions you have I'm happy
to answer it. I would just like to
[54:13] specify the three modest modifications
we are recommending to the
[54:17] recommendations and to the conditions.
Staff did uh show us the conditions
[54:20] beforehand and we are generally
supportive of all the holding
[54:23] provisions. We believe that they are
fair and equitable and give obviously um
[54:27] comfort to both the city staff and to
the district that these things will be
[54:30] done before the lit the H is lifted.
However, there's three clarifications
[54:35] that I would ask. One, uh the timing for
bringing the bylaw forward was very
[54:39] ambiguous. It said at some future
council date. Obviously, this process is
[54:43] over 3 years at this point so we'd like
some assurances that the bylaw is going
[54:47] to be brought forward um immediately
upon uh the ability of staff to do so at
[54:52] the next council meeting. I know there's
a district component to it but we are
[54:56] asking for a commitment that the bylaw
be brought forward immediately. Um I
[54:59] know staff also spoke about modifying
the zoning bylaw. We're absolutely fine
[55:03] with that. I think that's more of an
administrative um the draft of the bylaw
[55:07] that we did was not using the zones that
staff prefer which is absolutely fine.
[55:11] We've already seen a new version of it
and we are working with staff on that so
[55:14] I have no issue with that but I don't
like the ambiguity that it's just some
[55:17] future council date. I would hate to
have endorsement today but the bylaw not
[55:22] be enacted for another 6 months.
The more contentious one but I think
[55:26] it's important is we are asking in the
condition pertaining to a planning site
[55:29] plan approval that a clarification that
uh for the wetlands uh it's in state to
[55:35] stipulate that in order to create an
open water wetland adapt of up to 3 m be
[55:40] permitted. That is an important um
uh distinction for us and we're asking
[55:44] you to consider that. And lastly, this
is not contentious at all. Uh
[55:48] uh Judd Haven, the condition that speaks
to Judd Haven says uh confirming that
[55:52] it's at a width of 26 m. It's currently
only at 20 m, so we just want to change
[55:56] the language to say confirming that it
will uh be protected up to 26 m. It's
[56:01] only built to 20, so we'll protect for
the 26, but we can't confirm something
[56:05] that doesn't exist right now. So with
that, I thank you for your indulgence in
[56:09] listening to me, and me and my team are
here to answer any questions you have.
[56:12] And thank you very much to staff. This
has been a very, very long process, very
[56:16] technical process, and I commend them
for all the work that they have done.
[56:19] Thank you.
[56:24] » Thank you very much, Ms. Bustard.
Committee, we now begin the heavy work.
[56:30] We have questions for
uh
[56:33] Ms. Bustard or Ms. Crowder.
[56:37] » I just have a quick question for Ms.
Bus- Ms. Bustard if she could come back.
[56:42] Uh I just need a little help on one
thing that you just mentioned and have
[56:46] mentioned earlier. The 3 m versus 2 m,
uh you
[56:51] kind of vaguely call out that you're
only going to need it in certain
[56:55] locations or certain circumstances. Can
you identify those or approximately
[56:59] identify those so that we know that
they're where they are and perhaps why
[57:03] they are necessary?
>> There's obviously various depths through
[57:08] the the the restoration that's going to
occur. We We haven't got into detail
[57:11] design, so we have rough estimations.
There's extensive plantings. We've done
[57:15] the island. It really will be through
the center of the channel, just making
[57:19] sure flow and water is happening. We
don't want this to be stagnant. We don't
[57:22] want this to quickly grow back into the
thicket that it was.
[57:25] Um I can't say with absolute certainty
right now exactly where it'd be three,
[57:29] where it'd be two, but we just don't
want to be in a situation where the
[57:32] approval caps it hard fast at two and
that there's no there's no flexibility
[57:38] on that matter. That being said,
everything that we are going to be doing
[57:42] with Azimuth and with our team is to the
absolute highest standard. We are
[57:47] motivated more than anyone to make sure
that this is beautiful and the habitat
[57:51] is thriving and it's an environment that
people want to be.
[57:54] So you can be sure that we are
absolutely aligned on that. So I can't
[57:57] tell you definitively where it would be,
but we just need the ability in some
[58:00] locations for it to come up to three or
to go down to three meters.
[58:03] » Thank you.
>> You're welcome.
[58:05] » Mitty, just before we go to the next
question, I just I'd like to outline how
[58:09] we will go through this. It's really not
much different than we normally do. Uh
[58:13] so we will have questions so that we
fully understand in our minds what what
[58:18] we're facing. Then I will read the
resolution and then then we are going to
[58:23] go through the various items that there
are differences and we will start with
[58:28] the flood plain.
And if we require, we will have an
[58:31] amendment and adjust it as we have as we
normally do. Then we will do uh
[58:37] development with the adjacent wetlands.
Uh
[58:40] after that we can deal with front yard
setbacks and vegetative buffer and we
[58:44] can go on through those things. So those
are the items that are generally where
[58:47] there are differences in opinion and we
need to make that decision. So that will
[58:51] be the process, but right now let's make
sure we understand and have all of our
[58:54] questions answered.
Councilor Nishikawa.
[58:59] » Thank you. Through you to um
Mr. Pink.
[59:04] I am
It's just sort of a general question
[59:08] about I think that the community would
appreciate
[59:12] when um
the Marriott was being built. Um
[59:18] we
from my recollection
[59:22] a bylaw officer was designated that that
was
[59:26] you know, they that was their only
focus. They didn't have other projects.
[59:30] That was their only focus.
From one of some of these conversations
[59:35] about the wetlands and things about how
deep and how, you know, how much
[59:38] destruction or what all that.
[59:43] Who who checks? Like who, you know, how
how how how are we knowing
[59:49] um
you know,
[59:51] what happens on a job site for for
instance within the wetlands?
[59:55] » CEO Pick,
thank you uh through you the chair and
[59:58] good morning committee. Uh my
recollection of the JW Marriott, I think
[1:00:02] you may have misspoke. I believe uh a
dedicated building inspector, yes,
[1:00:07] uh was actually housed on site I think
on a trailer and was dedicated
[1:00:10] exclusively to reviewing uh construction
and various inspections under the
[1:00:15] building code for that entire
development. At the time I believe uh we
[1:00:19] would have likely had one part-time
bylaw officer. So, I think to answer
[1:00:23] your question uh council's put a lot of
additional resources to bylaw
[1:00:27] enforcement. Uh we now have uh more of a
robust bylaw enforcement team.
[1:00:31] Um I'm not I wouldn't commit uh right
now to saying we're going to dedicate
[1:00:36] one of those bylaw officers exclusively
to this development, but I think we
[1:00:39] certainly have the
uh the resources and the capacity to
[1:00:43] address any issues
uh should it arise through this
[1:00:45] construction
similar to any other development in the
[1:00:49] municipality.
[1:00:52] » Thank you.
[1:00:56] » Committee, no further questions.
Councillor Mason.
[1:00:59] » Uh thank you and through you. I think
this was just one fact I was trying to
[1:01:02] capture because there's a lot of
information.
[1:01:05] » Mhm.
>> Uh so, I suspect it's probably in
[1:01:07] somebody's report somewhere.
Uh the square footage that currently
[1:01:12] exists, I think Ms. Bustard put up a
slide of what's currently in the flood
[1:01:18] plain versus what is being recommended.
I think I said it I captured it right.
[1:01:22] but is it 30,000? Maybe you could just
answer that question and then I
[1:01:25] » Miss Buskirk.
>> Uh thank you. It's roughly 30,000. We
[1:01:29] don't have kind of detailed surveys of
those buildings due to the age. So we've
[1:01:32] we've taken the area off. Our internal
architect has kind of taken off the
[1:01:36] satellite images. So it's roughly 30,000
square feet and what we're proposing to
[1:01:39] replace it with is roughly 18,000 square
feet.
[1:01:44] Okay, thank you.
[1:01:49] » Councillor Edwards.
>> Yes, thank you. This would be to
[1:01:55] Miss
Miss Buskirk.
[1:01:57] Uh
Is there a bridge across there?
[1:02:04] » Uh yes, there's currently a pedestrian
bridge that runs from the cabins, like
[1:02:08] the baby suites, across the wetlands to
where the yoga studio is and that exists
[1:02:12] today.
>> And it will be the same. So like
[1:02:15] » Yeah, we're proposing to obviously
improve upon it, but yes, we are
[1:02:18] proposing that same kind of pedestrian
linkage there.
[1:02:21] » I guess what my my question is so large
boats couldn't go in there. I thought
[1:02:25] you had said before it was just for
canoe, paddle boards and
[1:02:29] » Yes, absolutely. We are in other than
the depth matter, which I know is a
[1:02:33] disagreement, we are we are in full
agreement with the other recommendations
[1:02:37] of SLR, including no motorized vehicles
in there whatsoever. Absolutely. And
[1:02:41] restricting access.
Yeah.
[1:02:44] » I've seen and I think it was just an
artist
[1:02:47] rendition of the uh
cabins on stilts where they had stairs
[1:02:51] going down to the ground
in the flood plane. I thought you had to
[1:02:55] have it so that you could get
>> No, they actually the access and egress
[1:02:59] stays above it. So they're actually
raised and you don't drop down until
[1:03:03] you're outside of the
the elevation limit. Yeah, that's
[1:03:06] correct.
[1:03:09] » Councillor Zaps.
>> Um thank you and through you to Paul if
[1:03:13] you would.
So the word contentious, I mean I I find
[1:03:18] that disturbing after all these years,
uh but thank you for that use. Uh I
[1:03:22] guess I would ask you the question,
um
[1:03:26] if I could, uh other than that, other
than the water depth issue, which is
[1:03:31] whether it's 2 m or 3 m, is there
anything else, could you phrase to us
[1:03:36] any any other concerns you have that uh
are to that level of uh contentious as a
[1:03:43] contentious issue, or is that is that
the main niggling point now? Is that
[1:03:47] where we are with everything else, all
the conditions and the H's and
[1:03:50] everything else, is that where
where you are, where we are with that
[1:03:54] right now?
>> I I think it's Cherry.
[1:03:56] I don't even like using the word
contentious. I shouldn't have used that.
[1:03:58] I apologize. I I think there's been a
really, really great collaborative
[1:04:01] approach. I think we just on the
floodplain issue are agreeing to
[1:04:04] disagree. There's different ways of
interpreting policy. We also are looking
[1:04:08] at kind of the the holistic and the
broader view. And uh obviously, as the
[1:04:14] people who are going to own and operate
these these lands, we feel really
[1:04:18] passionately that this is such a
critical issue to the enjoyment of the
[1:04:22] site for for the public uh and for the
community. Um so, it's that's why it's
[1:04:27] so absolutely essential to us and that
we just don't feel that there's a path
[1:04:30] forward without it. Um but for the most
part, the application, I think we are
[1:04:34] all fully aligned. Um I remember going
back way back to 2018 when I had the
[1:04:39] pleasure of sitting on the Minut
Steering Committee and hearing all the
[1:04:41] aspirations of the community. And you
know, we really took that to heart and I
[1:04:45] think the plan does showcase that. I
think the uh there's a couple comments
[1:04:49] in there about parking. I don't totally
understand the notion of compensation
[1:04:53] for parking. We think the parking supply
we've proposed is absolutely sufficient.
[1:04:56] We do have lots of land around there
that if there's need for overflow, but
[1:05:00] that being said, our our our traffic
consultant is very confident with the
[1:05:03] numbers we put forward at 171 stalls. Um
so, I I think that was identified and
[1:05:07] the height was identified, but I think
those are things that can get worked
[1:05:10] through at site plan. So, I don't think
there's any fundamental issues other
[1:05:13] than the wetland Uh issue, which I
understand the staff's position and and
[1:05:17] why they've taken it, and we're asking
for your consideration.
[1:05:22] » Supplemental.
>> Thank you, and through you, Paula.
[1:05:25] Another question then,
as it relates to flood planning, I mean,
[1:05:28] we're
we as a people are struggling with flood
[1:05:31] planning right now, given the most
recent flood and and the ones prior.
[1:05:36] Um
how committed are you to working with us
[1:05:40] on that?
>> In what
[1:05:43] » Well, I guess, sorry, in in in the
capacity that
[1:05:47] um
I think it's just going to be a bit of a
[1:05:49] struggle to get to where we're all in
agreement with the flood plain piece.
[1:05:54] And I just wonder, you know, what your
uh overarching uh theory is on that, I
[1:05:59] suppose.
>> Well, the the proposal we've put
[1:06:02] together, and obviously the technical
studies that we've put forward, uh we
[1:06:06] think that there is a very very strong
justification for what we've proposed,
[1:06:09] which is that 80,000 that does encroach
into the flood plain, which really does
[1:06:13] replicate and to a lesser extent than
what exists today. They will be built at
[1:06:17] a higher elevation. All life safety will
be dealt with. Um without that
[1:06:21] component, we are not prepared to
proceed with this this application.
[1:06:26] » Mayor Kelly.
[1:06:29] Uh thank you very much, and uh through
you, not a question to anyone. In fact,
[1:06:33] I might talk a lot, so you may sit down.
Um
[1:06:37] I I I just want to talk uh primarily to
council. We or to council, to the
[1:06:42] committee. Um this you know, the
counselor Zabitsky's questions raise
[1:06:47] some issues that we run into every once
in a while.
[1:06:50] We seem to think we have to
reach unanimity. We seem to think that
[1:06:54] we have to
uh not offend. Um
[1:06:59] and frankly, there shouldn't be this
notion that it's we're pitting one
[1:07:02] against the other here.
Uh quite frankly, I I think both
[1:07:07] submissions uh are very very strong,
exemplary. Um uh as as apologetic said,
[1:07:15] one outlines the sort of terms and
conditions under which they're they're
[1:07:19] uh willing to proceed with an
application. Uh our position, which is a
[1:07:23] very thorough uh review of the uh
planning matters. Um and and I will say
[1:07:29] right now because we always forget till
the end, uh our staff have done just an
[1:07:34] a remarkable job. They've done it under
incredible time pressures. We have a uh
[1:07:39] small uh
group back in the planning department.
[1:07:44] I won't say it, but thank goodness one
of them is Emily.
[1:07:48] » [laughter]
>> Uh it it is really really well done and
[1:07:51] represents the planning interest
in a phenomenal way. I think we've heard
[1:07:56] from a couple of the uh
uh comments that came in and I was going
[1:08:00] to repeat the comment as well. There's a
path forward that is highlighted
[1:08:05] uh if count if committee I'm going to
say council 100 times. If committee
[1:08:09] chooses
uh a different path.
[1:08:13] I will not countenance anyone saying
that we're going against planning. We're
[1:08:18] not going against planning. Planning is
absolutely a huge factor in our
[1:08:22] consideration. Environmental impact is a
huge factor in our uh consideration.
[1:08:28] But quite frankly, we have an obligation
to the constituents of this township to
[1:08:32] step back three paces and consider a lot
more than just the planning
[1:08:38] justification or the planning issues. We
have to consider the economic
[1:08:41] development issues. We have to consider
the uh we have to consider the uh the
[1:08:46] local impact issues. Uh we have to
consider quite frankly, and this is one
[1:08:50] of those cases where I don't do this I
don't bet. But we have to sometimes bet
[1:08:55] on the jockey, not the horse. Uh we have
a we have a situation that's been lying
[1:09:00] dormant for so long. It's uh I was going
to speak to Paul about cleaning the
[1:09:05] place up, please. It's a mess over
there.
[1:09:08] We're It's time that we put, you know,
we get somebody who's able to show, you
[1:09:13] know, a track record of of success in in
closing on big
[1:09:17] uh construction projects and has a
commitment to the community.
[1:09:22] Um that has to factor into the kinds of
things that we're going to be putting in
[1:09:26] the front of our mind. Not to minimize
any of the effort or impact or input
[1:09:31] from our planners, from CAO Pink, from
the rest of the advisors we work from
[1:09:36] with, including our outside advisors and
frankly including Azimuth and some of
[1:09:40] the other
parties who participated in this as
[1:09:43] well.
There's a There's a path forward or
[1:09:47] there isn't. No one need be offended.
Our job is to represent to the best of
[1:09:53] our abilities the interests of the
entire township, everyone who resides,
[1:09:57] who who travels here, who is a part-time
or full-time resident,
[1:10:01] to consider all of the implications
of this project. And frankly, I think
[1:10:07] all of the implications of turning down
this project. Um I'm going to have more
[1:10:11] to say as we go through what sounds like
a three- or four-day exercise, but when
[1:10:16] we get to the various issues, I will
have more to say. But I think it's
[1:10:19] important that we go at this the right
way. We have tremendous documentation,
[1:10:23] probably too much,
to consider. We've read it, we've asked
[1:10:28] questions, we've highlighted it, we've
asked for for um
[1:10:33] amendments to it. Um and we're at that
day when it might have all been easier
[1:10:38] just to get to call in sick. But we have
to stand up and we have to do this
[1:10:43] review and we have to make sure that we
are putting all of the interests
[1:10:47] into the formula that decides how we're
going to vote. And again,
[1:10:51] Emily, you've done a remarkable job as
we are accustomed to. Thank you for your
[1:10:55] for standing up for all of this in such
an articulate manner. Um I appreciate it
[1:11:00] very much.
And um I'm going to go back to the
[1:11:04] chair. Thank you.
[1:11:07] » Councilor Roberts.
>> Thank you, Chair, and through you to Ms.
[1:11:11] Crowder.
Um
[1:11:14] is my understanding correct that the
some of the current buildings are at
[1:11:19] zero level of of water level or are
Ms. Crowder?
[1:11:25] » Through you, Chair, um to Councilor
Roberts. Um well, first of all, thank
[1:11:28] you, Mayor Kelly. Um but through you to
Councilor Roberts, um there are some
[1:11:33] existing buildings that are within the
flood plain on these lands. Um the
[1:11:38] document prepared by Ms. Bustard um that
was shown on the screen today, I haven't
[1:11:43] seen that until this morning. The
comparative of um existing buildings
[1:11:47] versus proposed, so I cannot verify
you know, the the number specifically,
[1:11:54] but yes, there is existing development
within the flood plain. Um and that was
[1:11:59] part of staff's analysis um in that
buildings that are considered to be
[1:12:06] legal non-complying within the flood
plain could be replaced one for one.
[1:12:10] Um the applications before us today look
to alter those locations um and size and
[1:12:17] extent, so
a bit different, but to answer your
[1:12:20] question, yes.
>> All right, thank you. So, I don't know
[1:12:22] who to ask the question to, but it's
more for my clarity on Lake Rosseau. I
[1:12:26] don't get on Lake Rosseau a lot. Um I
can see flooding
[1:12:30] the the spring flooding on Lake Muskoka,
the evidence and what happens,
[1:12:35] but
historically
[1:12:38] what happens in the spring
on Lake Rosseau? Is it going up 2 or 3
[1:12:43] ft like it does in Lake Muskoka or is it
Ms. Crowder?
[1:12:48] » Through you, Chair, um to Councilor
Roberts. I
[1:12:52] admittedly am not an expert on the
flooding levels
[1:12:55] in the Township and on the specific
lakes. I don't know if Mr. Pink knows
[1:12:59] the
change in elevation on Lake Rosso. What
[1:13:03] I can say is we did do a site visit for
this property
[1:13:07] in the spring and there is some photos
in the staff report that show that site
[1:13:11] visit and the flooding on site
particularly near the Wetland area
[1:13:16] and the area between the Wetland and
Judhaven Road. You can see that it it
[1:13:21] does flood in that in that location.
[1:13:28] » Other questions committee?
Let me read the
[1:13:31] » Councilor Mazan.
>> Councilor Mazan.
[1:13:34] » Thank you and through you.
And I again
[1:13:39] the quality of all of these inputs I'm
just repeating is just so significant
[1:13:43] and there's a lot of information that
all of us are trying to mine through.
[1:13:48] I think that both of you have isolated
where this most I won't use the word
[1:13:53] contentious but most significant thing
seems to be around the 2 m 3 m. I did
[1:13:58] note though in the conclusion of the
I need to put my glasses on again.
[1:14:05] The um
SLR recommendations there was a few
[1:14:09] other pieces.
Number
[1:14:12] So I'll not talk about the 2 m but a
riparian restoration plan
[1:14:17] a compensatory critical fish habitat
and then I think the fourth one was
[1:14:22] about restricting guest access to the
new Wetland area which I think
[1:14:27] it's probably difficult to actually
manage but I think I'm hearing isn't
[1:14:30] really as significant but perhaps those
other two you could just expand upon a
[1:14:34] little bit.
>> I'm happy to. Thank you very much. Yeah
[1:14:37] generally those conditions and we
responded when SLR sent those. We're
[1:14:41] generally in agreement. There's a slight
disagreement on the extent of the fish
[1:14:44] habitat replacement and that's going
back to my commentary in my presentation
[1:14:48] that the the total thicket is the 8500
but MNR has only identified 1500 of fish
[1:14:54] habitat and our and and through our
surveying. So, that can be detailed more
[1:14:58] through obviously the discussions that
we'll have through detailed design. So,
[1:15:01] there's a there's a potential that it's
larger than the 1500 but they don't our
[1:15:05] consultants don't believe it's anywhere
close to the 8500 that was stipulated by
[1:15:08] SLR.
Um so, that I'd say is a clarification
[1:15:11] that we need to work through and and
there's absolutely no real contention on
[1:15:14] that. It's just a matter of of the
environmentalists kind of getting
[1:15:17] together and reviewing that. And the
repair and restoration plan fully in
[1:15:21] agreement and a restoration plan
actually shows that. Uh and if it
[1:15:24] enhancements needed on that, no problem
whatsoever. And yes, 100% we've agreed
[1:15:28] no motorized vehicles in there. So,
generally we are completely aligned with
[1:15:32] the exception of the depth.
>> Thank you.
[1:15:34] » You're welcome.
>> I could just ask members of the public
[1:15:36] to not talk during the meeting, please.
Next question.
[1:15:44] No talking, please.
Councilor Mazin.
[1:15:49] » Uh thank you and through you and just uh
one other I just want confirmation
[1:15:53] perhaps from staff about the concurrent
the request for the concurrent uh
[1:15:59] treatment plant that is going to be
handled through the district. If I can
[1:16:02] just have assurance or if you can just
explain how that works. Thanks.
[1:16:06] » Ms. Grater.
>> Thank you. Through you, Chair, uh to
[1:16:09] Councilor Mazin. Yes, so the district
did provide comment on the application
[1:16:13] and did speak to um the request for the
um wastewater treatment plant to run
[1:16:19] concurrently with development on site.
So, in the recommendation
[1:16:25] one of the points um to be included
within the holding provision is an
[1:16:29] agreement with the district um be
entered into and registered on title
[1:16:33] regarding um the design and construction
for the wastewater treatment plant and
[1:16:39] it is to include the provision of
financial securities,
[1:16:43] um the requirement for the developer to
obtain at their sole expense all
[1:16:47] required provincial approvals,
um and it details those provincial
[1:16:51] approvals that are required.
Um before start of operation.
[1:16:58] Um
requirement for the developer to ensure
[1:17:01] that any rental arrangements made and or
any lease or rental agreements to
[1:17:06] include terms identifying that occupancy
will be contingent upon
[1:17:11] um those provincial approvals and
construction of the necessary water and
[1:17:15] sewer infrastructure.
And the requirement for the developer to
[1:17:19] obtain the necessary connection permits
from the district prior to connection um
[1:17:24] to the municipal water and sewer
infrastructure. So they have put in
[1:17:28] their conditions that they feel satisfy
um this requirement. And I do know that
[1:17:34] um Curtis Severight, who is manager for
the planning department at the district,
[1:17:37] is online today and available to answer
any questions um
[1:17:42] regarding the water and sewer or any
district interest really.
[1:17:46] » Mayor Kelly.
Thank you for that. I just have a a
[1:17:49] follow-up,
if I may. I I'm a little confused about
[1:17:53] whether this is an issue of the need to
construct water and sewer or the timing
[1:17:57] of the construction.
And so and that's what I thought it was.
[1:18:02] If it's timing, I understand that the
risk is of
[1:18:06] of non-completion, never gets done. Is
that the real risk? And and I have to
[1:18:10] ask my question and then I'll turn the
mic off. Is that not something that
[1:18:14] could be covered off with a performance
bond of some sort? Ms. Crowder.
[1:18:17] » Through you, Chair, um to Mayor Kelly.
So the question is timing. That is the
[1:18:22] the component that we're debating or or
just that is um being proposed. And they
[1:18:27] do want to construct the wastewater
treatment plant at the same time as the
[1:18:31] rest of the development is being built
out. Um
[1:18:35] there is a requirement for financial
security, so that does protect the
[1:18:39] township to a certain extent. The risk
is that,
[1:18:43] um, you know, the treatment plant not be
built and that people potentially occupy
[1:18:48] these buildings before occupancy is
granted, which is always an enforcement
[1:18:53] challenge.
[1:18:58] » Councilor Edwards.
And then Councilor Mazin.
[1:19:01] » Uh, yes. Um,
I can see the
[1:19:05] necessity of building the houses as well
as the sewer and water at the same time.
[1:19:11] I believe it was asked
and that we can withhold occupancy
[1:19:16] permits and who's going to move in if
they don't have water and sewer?
[1:19:23] » Committee, I'm
>> I'm going to answer that one.
[1:19:24] » Seeing a slow down in the questions. Oh,
sorry, Councilor Mazin.
[1:19:29] » Uh, thank you. Through you, this is just
again a clarification because there's
[1:19:32] some new terms here about one zone one
zone flooding versus two zone. I think,
[1:19:38] uh, Ms. Crowder, you had mentioned that
and I know that it was in the report
[1:19:41] from, uh, Ms. Buster as well. Could you
just for committee's sake explain the
[1:19:45] difference between the two, please?
>> Ms. Crowder.
[1:19:48] » Through you, Chair. Uh, to Councilor
Mazin, absolutely. So, a one zone
[1:19:51] concept is applied for, um, lakes
typically, larger, um, bodies of water,
[1:19:58] not to be mixed up with a large inland
versus small inland, but lakes in
[1:20:02] general.
Um, and a two zone concept is applied
[1:20:05] more so for rivers, um, where the change
in flooding elevation is more drastic
[1:20:11] than on a lake concept. So, in the
provincial planning statement, the, um,
[1:20:17] two terms are defined and applied to
specific situations. One zone concept,
[1:20:23] the entirety of the flood plain is
considered to be the floodway.
[1:20:28] And so, that's a very important
distinction when reading the provincial
[1:20:31] planning policies. In a two-zone
concept, you have the floodway and the
[1:20:37] flood fringe together, which create the
flood plain. So, it you know, very
[1:20:42] technical defined terms.
Um and in this case, Lake Rosso is a
[1:20:47] one-zone. The entirety of the flood
plain is the floodway.
[1:20:52] » Quick supplemental, Chair.
>> Yes.
[1:20:54] » Okay. Just so
putting in this into layman's terms,
[1:20:58] using the distinction between a river
and now a one-zone floodway,
[1:21:04] the difference would be the variability
one could assume on a river
[1:21:09] uh because of the fringe.
So, there's like a static line and then
[1:21:13] an up and down. That's probably a lot
more variable on a two-zone. Is that
[1:21:17] correct?
>> Ms. Crowder.
[1:21:19] » Through you, Chair, to Councilman Zand.
That is my understanding that the
[1:21:22] variability in water level differs more
greatly when you are talking about a
[1:21:27] river stream
river um scenario versus a lake. So, the
[1:21:32] policies that are applicable differ a
bit. Um and I think maybe CAO Pink wants
[1:21:37] to add.
>> CAO Pink.
[1:21:40] Thank you. Just quickly, yes. I think
the variability in height, uh but also I
[1:21:43] think the variability in flow. And
that's a large part of the distinction
[1:21:47] too in a riverine environment. You're
going to have greater flow in that
[1:21:50] floodway, while the flood fringe may and
that could directly impact health and
[1:21:54] safety
at those at those flows.
[1:21:57] Uh and that's why it's a two-zone
concept in in rivers as well. So,
[1:22:00] height, uh but also flow levels. Thank
you.
[1:22:08] All right, Committee. Let me
[1:22:23] » Sorry, Councillor Bosworth, your mic's
not on. There you sorry. Thank you.
[1:22:28] Um
Before I read the resolution, which
[1:22:31] changes the nature of the discussion and
some of the rules around how we have to
[1:22:34] behave.
Um
[1:22:38] Um we're going to take a 15-minute break
and be back at
[1:22:44] and
10 10 35.
[1:22:51] And I will remind committee
and the people in the room that there
[1:22:55] should be no discussion of this
either between committee members or
[1:22:59] between committee and the public.
[1:23:03] » All right.
[1:30:09] » Mhm.
[1:38:29] » I'm going to read the resolution so that
we can have
[1:38:32] open to full discussion and continuing
questions as required. Moved by
[1:38:36] Councillor Edwards, seconded by
Councillor Kent.
[1:38:39] Be it resolved that the official plan
amendment application OPA
[1:38:45] -64
2666940
[1:38:50] Ontario Inc. and 2665556
[1:38:54] Ontario Inc.
be revised to
[1:38:58] retain section C1.5.3.7
which prohibits the development of new
[1:39:04] habitable buildings within the flood
plain and that any affected proposed
[1:39:09] amendments be retained or revised
accordingly and that the proposed OPA be
[1:39:14] adopted by the Township
and the record be forwarded to the
[1:39:18] district municipality of Muskoka for
approval and that should committee
[1:39:23] adopt proposed amendments to section
C1.5.3.7
[1:39:29] permitting new development within the
flood plain that is scheduled to section
[1:39:33] C1.5.4.3
C1.5.4.4
[1:39:38] and C1.5.4.5
[1:39:42] be added which demonstrates the specific
location and extent wherein buildings
[1:39:48] structures are permitted within the
front yard setback and where the
[1:39:51] required 15 m shoreline vegetative
buffer is per-
[1:39:55] is permitted to be reduced.
So, this effectively deals with the
[1:40:00] first item that we had on our agenda,
which is the flood plain.
[1:40:04] So, I open it up to committee for
questions and discussions.
[1:40:18] Media, are we ready to vote?
[1:40:23] Yes.
[1:40:31] » Just uh
I'm I'm trying to to understand the flow
[1:40:35] of these things again if
that third paragraph Sorry, I'm just
[1:40:39] going back to what Mr. Chinks was saying
earlier and I just want to make sure I
[1:40:42] haven't lost any thread here. Are we
proposing amendments?
[1:40:45] » Well, we have to decide.
>> So, this is the moment that you wanted
[1:40:50] to
>> read through this, it's saying
[1:40:53] the recommendation is to not accept the
flood plain.
[1:40:57] But, should we do consider it, then we
will have some specific position some uh
[1:41:04] schedule
that demonstrates the specific location
[1:41:08] and extent of the buildings. So, we have
to decide which one it is.
[1:41:13] Is that fair to say, Ms. Scouter?
>> Through you, Chair. Um
[1:41:18] so, what's before you is the question of
whether um you are going to approve or
[1:41:25] prohibit development within the flood
plain. Essentially, that question um
[1:41:29] would need to be answered at this stage.
And if the decision was to permit
[1:41:33] development with the within the flood
plain, then it would be that third
[1:41:36] paragraph that we are um recommending be
implemented. But if you were
[1:41:42] recommending development not be
permitted within the flood plain, it
[1:41:45] would be those first two within the
resolution.
[1:41:48] » Councilor Madison.
>> So, probably just needing a bit of
[1:41:51] guidance here then because I think this
is the key point.
[1:41:55] Which is if we don't actually agree at
this Like we actually have to make a
[1:41:59] decision on this.
And so then
[1:42:04] maybe some assistance if we were to
suggest that paragraph three is the
[1:42:08] approach we
want to suggest. I just don't know
[1:42:11] process-wise how to go about this. What
specific
[1:42:15] amendments would we be including? I just
want to be sure I'm clear.
[1:42:19] Uh
>> Mr. Crowder, guide us on how
[1:42:23] you would like us to get make
recraft recraft this resolution.
[1:42:29] » Through you, Chair. Um I think that
either way you decide whether to approve
[1:42:34] or deny, the
the resolution should be amended to
[1:42:39] reflect that. So, I think the first two
items here um so, staff's recommendation
[1:42:44] was that the OPA be revised to retain
section the section that prohibits
[1:42:51] development within the flood plain and
that the revised OPA be adopted by the
[1:42:55] township and that record sent to the
district. However, should committee wish
[1:43:00] to um adopt the proposed amendments to
section C1 um 537, which is development
[1:43:07] within the flood plain, then we would
um
[1:43:11] Essentially, we're looking for direction
on you at this point. But I see CAO Pink
[1:43:15] wants to add some comments.
>> Councilor Madison then Councilor Burke.
[1:43:18] » I think maybe CAO Pink could help guide
here first and
[1:43:21] » CAO Pink.
>> We almost voted on something and didn't
[1:43:24] have an answer.
No, thank you. Uh through you, maybe to
[1:43:28] help uh with the process. This is a
little unusual and I apologize maybe for
[1:43:31] missing it, but the resolution before
you, I would suggest not calling or
[1:43:35] voting on that because it's it's two
separate things.
[1:43:38] » Yes.
>> Um I think what it really forces is an
[1:43:41] amendment to that resolution and to sort
of pick your path. So, I would suggest
[1:43:46] to you perhaps the way if there's a
mover and a seconder to either support
[1:43:49] development in a flood plain,
then it would consider the third
[1:43:52] paragraph, and committee can vote on
that. Uh should a mover and seconder
[1:43:56] want to advance not permitting
development in a flood plain, it would
[1:44:00] advance the first two um
uh paragraphs in that, and I think that
[1:44:03] might be the best way to sort of manage
this process and have a formal uh vote
[1:44:08] uh on those two paths. But, the again,
the resolution before you has sort of
[1:44:12] two options. If you passed it, I think
it would be a little confusing uh
[1:44:18] » Uh Counselor Berry, then Counselor Kent.
>> Uh thank you and through you. Uh I think
[1:44:21] I'm going to try and make a a point that
may help some of the the lay people
[1:44:27] around all. When we're talking about
development in in the flood plain,
[1:44:32] we're talking about redevelopment in the
flood plain. There's there's structure
[1:44:36] already there here.
And what we're doing is remediating
[1:44:41] what's there
and fixing it and taking 30,000 square
[1:44:46] feet down to 18,000 square feet. So, I
mean, development to me sounds like it's
[1:44:51] new. It's all brand new. We're coming
here and we're just putting in new.
[1:44:55] Where in fact, this specific proposal is
talking about redevelopment of what's
[1:45:00] already there
in a in a
[1:45:03] much more uh holistic and and thoughtful
way.
[1:45:09] » Counselor Kent.
>> I would be happy to uh
[1:45:14] first or second uh second proposal,
which is to support
[1:45:19] redevelopment in the flood plains. So,
if somebody wants to second it, I'd go
[1:45:24] for that route.
[1:45:28] » Uh Counselor sorry, counselor Mazen has
>> Put her hand up.
[1:45:31] » Thank you. I I think the question the I
think
[1:45:34] I think you had asked the question is
anybody willing to put forward a motion
[1:45:36] which it's I think what counselor Kent
is also and I think we had been
[1:45:39] discussing. I think that is the next
step so I'd be happy to
[1:45:44] shape I don't know if staff have already
pulled something together to allow
[1:45:49] redevelopment or development.
>> I want to give counselor Nishikawa
[1:45:53] » Okay, but
>> Go ahead with the problem.
[1:45:55] » on this. Okay. Oh, okay.
>> Counselor Nishikawa
[1:46:01] » I I would like to request staff
whatever we're coming up with
[1:46:07] to be able to put it up on the screen
and both have have a very clear vision
[1:46:13] of what we're voting on.
>> Excellent idea. We had We had given that
[1:46:16] some consideration.
Uh all right, so we have a mover
[1:46:21] » Mover.
>> and a seconder.
[1:46:26] » And so I want time.
[1:46:30] » Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry. No, no, Sally
moved it.
[1:46:33] And counselor Mazen seconded. Yes, I'm
sorry.
[1:46:37] Got it. Thank you.
>> So we need strike so
[1:46:39] » All right, let's take just a few minute
break.
[1:46:42] » Hopefully.
>> We'll break for however long it takes.
[1:46:46] No discussion, please.
Counselor Kent, no discussion.
[1:46:51] » So are you going to
mandatorily or something? Are you able
[1:46:55] to back it?
>> Or assistant
[1:46:57] » This is my best friend over here.
>> Hm?
[1:47:00] » He's writing it, my best friend.
>> This is not allowed.
[1:47:06] » Oh.
>> I was trying to draw it.
[1:47:08] » I can't read your handwriting.
[1:47:11] » I think
[1:47:14] He's writing.
[1:47:20] » So
I guess
[1:47:28] » Councilor Adams.
>> If I may, through you, just to confuse
[1:47:30] the issue.
I I guess I
[1:47:33] Councilor I I'm just trying to look at
>> I please?
[1:47:36] » at this and understand the word
development
[1:47:40] which you know, sort of denotes new and
redevelopment which means to essentially
[1:47:46] » let's just hold this till we got a
resolution in front of us. It's a good
[1:47:49] point, but let's just hold it.
>> Yeah, okay.
[1:47:54] But it's all right.
[2:00:27] » We like to be procedurally pure here.
So,
[2:00:32] um, the first thing we are going to do
is table the resolution that we just
[2:00:36] read
and leave it aside.
[2:00:39] And then we will have a second
resolution that reflects what uh
[2:00:44] counselor Kent and counselor Mazin have
have tabled.
[2:00:49] So, the first one is
Uh and we're bringing them up on the
[2:00:53] screen. I'm not going to bring this one
up on the screen because it just says
[2:00:55] we're going to table it.
But, if we could bring the other one up
[2:00:59] on the screen.
[2:01:01] CEO Pink, I got that correctly.
All right.
[2:01:05] Moved by Councillor Kent, seconded by
Councillor Mazin. Be it resolved that
[2:01:09] the motion be tabled.
Any discussion?
[2:01:15] All right. All those in favor?
All right.
[2:01:19] The next one up as you can see on the
screen is moved by Councillor Kent,
[2:01:23] seconded by Councillor Mazin. Be it
resolved that committee adopt proposed
[2:01:28] amendments to section C 1.5.3.7
permitting development within the flood
[2:01:34] plain.
[2:01:52] So, there's there's the question.
Committee,
[2:01:56] what debate do we have around this?
[2:02:03] Councillor Zavitz.
>> Thank you through you to the earlier
[2:02:07] point. Um pretty this uh
the difference in it interpretation
[2:02:11] between the word development and
redevelopment. I see that we've used the
[2:02:16] word development here and yet
previously was discussed that you know,
[2:02:21] we just we're re-allowing the
redevelopment within a a space. And I
[2:02:26] just wondered if I mean, is that a
a commonly held
[2:02:30] um
belief or is this new development? I'm
[2:02:34] clearly the
>> Ms. Crowder.
[2:02:36] » Thank you through you, Chair, uh to
Councillor Zavitz.
[2:02:39] So, the provincial planning statement
doesn't differentiate between the terms
[2:02:43] development and redevelopment. It
doesn't actually use the term
[2:02:46] redevelopment. It only has development.
Um so strictly from a planning
[2:02:50] standpoint the terms could be
synonymous.
[2:02:54] Um what I would say is just for the sake
of clarity, this is not just replacement
[2:02:59] of existing buildings. This is
construction of new buildings in the
[2:03:04] flood plain in new locations and extents
and sport courts and fill within the
[2:03:12] flood plain. So
consideration of this resolution should
[2:03:16] just make sure you have the whole
picture. We are talking about buildings,
[2:03:19] structures, the amphitheater, sport
courts, and the fill within the flood
[2:03:23] plain.
[2:03:27] » Councillor Nishikawa and then Councillor
Roberts.
[2:03:31] » Um
I'm I'm sure others have the same
[2:03:33] concern, but I I feel that I should
present my concerns at this time.
[2:03:38] Um
and I do have a district council
[2:03:44] um hat on at the moment as well
knowing that we've looked at
[2:03:49] um
other applications um
[2:03:53] within the flood plain.
Um
[2:03:58] I can't um
I can't vote for this today.
[2:04:02] Um I'm very very concerned about the
precedent setting.
[2:04:06] And I would love to see this redeveloped
if I wasn't concerned about some other
[2:04:11] huge
two other very very large projects that
[2:04:16] would
[2:04:18] I feel like I'm creating a path for them
to
[2:04:22] come and
be quite frankly very destructive.
[2:04:26] I'm not saying that this particular
property is, but it it it just
[2:04:31] so I can't vote for it today.
[2:04:36] » Any any other
question to make? Oh, sorry. Councilor
[2:04:41] uh
[2:04:45] Councilor
Councilor Robertson and Councilor
[2:04:47] Edwards.
>> Thank you.
[2:04:51] I too may share what Councilor Nishikawa
said, but then I'm thinking about the
[2:04:56] history of in the path we have followed
with this from day one.
[2:05:02] I think about
some of the other applications
[2:05:06] big applications we've had. Let's see,
particularly the one in Milford Bay
[2:05:11] that the township ended up owning the
property.
[2:05:14] Um I think about what we went through
with some
[2:05:19] with Red Leaves.
And I think that
[2:05:22] we have in front of us an opportunity to
say, "Yeah, that's There are There are
[2:05:26] risks with this." Don't get me wrong,
but
[2:05:30] we have a partner and I'm going to call
it a partner because this is how this
[2:05:33] applicant has come across.
That
[2:05:38] they have demonstrated us they're
willing to work with the township.
[2:05:43] They have a vision to have
a world-class
[2:05:49] resort that draws people in. And the key
part to that is there the the re- the
[2:05:55] the rebuilding of or the reestablishment
of the the wetland and building on it.
[2:06:00] And you just think about it. That was a
wetland at one time and then men
[2:06:04] destroyed it.
You know, the our biggest invasive
[2:06:07] species in the world went in and said,
"Hey, I want a golf or I want to do
[2:06:10] this. I want to build a parking lot."
And at that time there was no thought to
[2:06:13] it. And what we're doing is we're taking
it back
[2:06:17] to to before
settlers.
[2:06:21] And we're And then we're going to
respectfully build on it. So, I'm in
[2:06:27] full support at this time knowing that
there are risks, but also knowing that
[2:06:31] we can work those out. Now, the district
is another another
[2:06:37] group that's going to they're the they
have to approve this mostly, but I think
[2:06:41] again we the three groups the applicant,
the township, and the and the district
[2:06:47] can work together
and iron out the issues. So, that's my
[2:06:51] thoughts.
>> Councilor Edwards.
[2:06:55] » Thank you. I was going to basically echo
that.
[2:06:59] I could see if they were taking a
wetland and want to fill it and build.
[2:07:03] But when they're enhancing it and that
and putting an island in and everything
[2:07:08] else like that, I can support it. It is
unique. It's something different. I look
[2:07:13] at the alternative what was there before
and I wasn't happy with that. So, I
[2:07:18] think everybody has to be a little bit
unhappy and then everybody should be
[2:07:22] satisfied. So, I will be supporting
this. Thank you.
[2:07:27] » Councilor Kent.
>> I was just going to say that I thought
[2:07:30] that
Miss Grogan Green's comments this
[2:07:33] morning captured my thoughts really
really well and that
[2:07:38] we've been at this I will haven't been
at this for 8 years cuz I've only been
[2:07:41] on council for 3 and 1/2.
But
[2:07:46] this is a very good applicant who's been
done a very professional job
[2:07:51] of meeting and communicating with the
township and the planning staff.
[2:07:57] I think that the product that comes out
is a environmentally
[2:08:01] product. I think it's beautiful. Will
add to the community. And I think for me
[2:08:05] the most surprising thing was in the
last meeting where we had the public
[2:08:08] meeting. It was in
March.
[2:08:11] Where we had tons of people here.
I expected
[2:08:16] pushback from the community and what I
heard was
[2:08:19] I did not hear one person who pushed
back on the Minett development. To me,
[2:08:25] we're supposed to listen to the
constituents and the community. And I
[2:08:28] realize there's building code and I
realize there's
[2:08:30] provincial planning statements, but
the community is in full support of
[2:08:34] getting this done as fast as possible.
And I think that we need to listen to
[2:08:38] them. And the combination of Sherry's
comment I Sherry comment
[2:08:43] Miss Green's comments and the community
feedback pushed me over the edge which
[2:08:48] without any issue and I think it's
that's an important reminder. I think
[2:08:51] it's a good a good builder
an honest
[2:08:56] team of people working with the
community and I think that's the best
[2:08:59] you're going to get. We should be very
thankful that that person is here.
[2:09:02] Um anyway, that's my views. Thank you.
[2:09:07] » Okay, any more
discussion comments?
[2:09:11] Are we ready to vote?
All those in favor.
[2:09:16] Any opposed?
Thank you. That carries.
[2:09:26] All right. So, the next topic
[2:09:32] And Miss Crowder, the development with
the adjacent wetlands is included in the
[2:09:37] first resolution. Am I correct?
[2:09:44] » For you, Jared. Just one moment, please.
[2:09:53] So, the um item that was just voted on
is the development within the flood
[2:09:58] plain. So, the next item would be
development within the wetland and
[2:10:01] adjacent to the wetland.
>> And is that part of the requirement to
[2:10:05] amend the OP or is that just the bylaw?
>> That is a requirement to amend the
[2:10:09] official plan.
>> Okay.
[2:10:14] So, we have a proposal
and we have some comments from our staff
[2:10:19] on
the wetland.
[2:10:21] The main issue I think is whether we are
to allow
[2:10:27] depths up to 3 m. But there may be
others, Ms. Crowder, if you just maybe
[2:10:31] tell us what the key top points are on
that topic.
[2:10:34] » Through you, Chair. Um so, staff's
recommendation that now that we've dealt
[2:10:39] with the flooding issue, so we're
setting that aside, um
[2:10:43] staff's recommendation is that the
proposal to um
[2:10:47] build within and adjacent to the wetland
could be consistent with the provincial
[2:10:51] planning statement provided the
recommendations put forth by SLR be
[2:10:55] implemented. And there were four main
recommendations. One has to do with the
[2:11:00] depth of the wetland itself.
Another has to do with the riparian
[2:11:06] restoration plan.
The third is
[2:11:10] um
compensatory measures for critical fish
[2:11:13] habitat. And the fourth is restricting
guest access to the new wetland area. Um
[2:11:21] so, I believe we've heard concurrence
from
[2:11:25] um the proponent. At least, you know,
there's some items that they think
[2:11:29] have differing opinions on when it comes
to the environmental professional's
[2:11:33] findings, which can be worked out
through the site plan control stage.
[2:11:37] However, I think the main ask from them
today is to permit um depths for
[2:11:42] dredging up to 3 m. Um staff's position
is that dredging should be restricted to
[2:11:49] 2 m or less um in accordance with the
peer review
[2:11:54] um done by SLR. Uh the peer review
document speaks to the significant
[2:11:58] difference in aquatic vegetation that
can survive in the different depth
[2:12:04] measurements.
Um and a big part of their determination
[2:12:07] that this could be consistent with PPS
is on that basis. So, ultimately the
[2:12:12] question falls to committee on what uh
what water depth you would be
[2:12:16] comfortable with.
>> Thank you very much. That was very
[2:12:19] clear. Counselor Zavitz.
>> Thank you. It's for you too, I guess,
[2:12:22] Mrs. Bustard, if I may.
Um
[2:12:25] the uh
if I may, Chair.
[2:12:28] » Yes.
>> Thank you. Um
[2:12:32] this notion of 3 m
and that seems to be a hard stop for
[2:12:36] you.
Um can you explain the difference in
[2:12:39] your minds between 2 and 3 m in terms of
your uh goal, your mission
[2:12:46] there?
[2:12:48] » The Our goal there is to obviously
deliver the vision that we have shown
[2:12:52] you in terms of creating a very robust,
diverse habitat within the wetlands. Um
[2:12:58] I I think all those different components
that we've discussed, the riparian
[2:13:01] restoration along the shoreline, the
expansion of the fish habitat, there's
[2:13:04] naturalization of the channel, there's
uh introduction of new habitat for
[2:13:08] turtles, there's bat boxes, there's a
very, very detailed and thorough
[2:13:12] restoration and rehabilitation plan that
has been brought forward. Part of that
[2:13:16] is uh requiring that there is some
deeper area, specifically on the central
[2:13:21] uh around the island and opening to the
channel that would bring it down to
[2:13:24] roughly 3 m. But as I said to you
earlier, the the bulk of the area will
[2:13:28] probably be in that 2-m range. That is
going to have different kind of growth
[2:13:32] and along the shoreline. Um but to have
that diversity in what we're trying to
[2:13:36] achieve and to have that uh environment
uh obviously not grow back immediately
[2:13:41] back into like a dense thicket like
you've seen before and obviously to
[2:13:44] justify the very, very significant
investment. I mean, when I said earlier
[2:13:48] 2 to 3 million dollars here, the
totality of the investment on this
[2:13:51] property is being north of 200 million
dollars. Um for us to do that, we have
[2:13:54] to make sure that the wetland is
restored to the vision that we have and
[2:13:58] we think it is very, very important and
our engineers and our environmental
[2:14:01] engineers believe that is totally
justifiable. Um so what we're asking for
[2:14:05] is your approval to proceed uh up to the
3 m. Uh but again, that won't be
[2:14:09] universally 3 m across the totality of
the wetland.
[2:14:13] » Councilor Zavitz.
>> Mayor, please. Thank you.
[2:14:15] » Uh
again to you, Paul. Um
[2:14:18] so, the 3 m isn't as I understand it
from your description recreational. It's
[2:14:25] It's not recreational. It's
environmental.
[2:14:27] » Yeah.
>> Okay.
[2:14:29] » yes. But there There's going to be no
motorized vehicles or boats in this at
[2:14:32] all. Uh there might be canoes um and and
all that, but no, it's been not being
[2:14:36] driven. It's really from obviously
creating the the diversity of habitat
[2:14:40] that we're trying to achieve in that
area.
[2:14:46] » Councilor Mazin.
>> Uh thank you. Answer you. And again, I
[2:14:50] think I'm just trying to get the process
in my mind. If we've just done step one,
[2:14:54] the flood plain, step two is the
wetland, just confirming that the other
[2:14:59] three
um items that were recommended by the
[2:15:04] environmental study would be handled
through site plan. I think I heard that.
[2:15:08] And then I want to come back to the
question I have on
[2:15:11] the the depth.
>> Through you, Chair. Um so, the other
[2:15:16] three items to Council Mazin, um
the riparian restoration plan would be
[2:15:21] dealt with through site plan control.
The compensatory critical fish habitat
[2:15:26] um would also be dealt with through site
plan control. We kind of see a need for
[2:15:31] the
process between the environmental
[2:15:33] consultants to continue because there
are still some disagreements between the
[2:15:37] two sides. So, that does need to be
worked out. The fourth item, restricting
[2:15:42] guest guest access, would be a provision
that we would want included in the site
[2:15:46] plan agreement, but also the master
development agreement. I do wonder about
[2:15:53] that item because we're kind of hearing
that part of the use is going to be
[2:15:57] recreational of the wetland feature, and
this sort of says
[2:16:01] that they will restrict that access.
So,
[2:16:05] um
maybe the proponent can speak to that.
[2:16:08] » Ms. Buster.
[2:16:13] » Uh, what had been discussed with us
through the discussion points had been
[2:16:16] restricting motorized vehicles and
motorized boats, excuse me, and we are
[2:16:20] absolutely okay with that.
Um, obviously this is going to be in the
[2:16:23] heart and soul of the development. It's
going to be one of the the main
[2:16:25] locations stitching together the
village, the amphitheater, the tennis,
[2:16:29] the cabins. So, yes, there will be some
human activity, but I think it's also an
[2:16:33] opportunity. As I said before, one of
our aspirations that we have is
[2:16:36] education. You know, children and
families accessing the wetlands,
[2:16:40] learning about aquatic life, actually
experiencing it. There's amazing, um,
[2:16:45] obviously wetland restoration programs
throughout the world. You know,
[2:16:47] Brickworks in Toronto is an example
where it's it's an educational hub and
[2:16:51] it's used so that people can actually
learn about the environment as opposed
[2:16:53] to it being kind of a theoretical. That
is what we want it to be. So, if the
[2:16:57] interpretation that staff has that
restricting use means that we do this
[2:17:01] restoration, but nobody can go near it,
then we don't agree with that. But
[2:17:05] absolutely we agree that this is not
going to be a place for motorized boats.
[2:17:09] Um,
but I'm not sure where that distinction
[2:17:12] is and and that's certainly not how we
read the SLR comments.
[2:17:15] Um, but nonetheless, we we'll work on
the appropriate, obviously, measures to
[2:17:20] ensure that the environment is protected
throughout the life of the project.
[2:17:25] » Um, sorry, can I just say
>> Ms. Councillor Mast.
[2:17:27] » Sorry, I just wanted to thank you very
much and through you. Um, coming back
[2:17:30] then to this 2 m 3 m thing. Um,
seems to be the the piece and given it
[2:17:37] seems like it's very, um, localized in
some cases. It's not this broad number.
[2:17:43] I'm asking, how do we capture that
appropriately in whatever we prove to
[2:17:49] help kind of move this one forward so
that instead of it having to be this
[2:17:54] broad statement.
>> Ms. Buster.
[2:17:58] » If I may, the, uh, in our letter that I
submitted to you, we proposed the
[2:18:02] wording um
and I go go to here. In order to create
[2:18:07] an open water wetland feature to a depth
of up to 3 m. And that would obviously
[2:18:11] give uh a lot of leeway for us to have
those uh detailed discussions with staff
[2:18:15] through the detailed design
um and obviously find the appropriate
[2:18:18] measure. So, it's an acknowledgement
that it will kind of in some uh it'll go
[2:18:22] up to that depth, but it's certainly is
not a universal. So, uh that's the
[2:18:25] wording that we proposed and we thought
was a balanced approach.
[2:18:29] » Councillor Saunders.
So, through you again um
[2:18:34] not so much a question as a statement,
but I I think if you look and again is
[2:18:37] it a a parable, I guess.
If you look at Blue Mountain Village and
[2:18:41] there's a lake there. This isn't a lake.
This is a As I understand it, it's a
[2:18:45] watercourse. It's part of
actually part of Lake Rousseau. So, it's
[2:18:50] it's fed by
and it's it's part of as opposed to a a
[2:18:55] free-standing lake. And in that lake in
at Blue Mountain, there's paddle boats
[2:18:59] and there's paddle boards. People aren't
swimming, but they're recreating.
[2:19:04] And I know for a fact that that is more
than 2 m
[2:19:07] to 3 m deep. And I guess just just uh as
an analogy, there's there's the water
[2:19:11] being used recreationally, but people
aren't swimming in it, but to the point
[2:19:15] of this particular project um
there's a replenishment piece, I guess.
[2:19:21] Is that through you? You know,
environmentally, is that not correct
[2:19:25] that the water is being
um
[2:19:28] infused with new water as flows and
everything goes. So, this is not
[2:19:32] stagnant a stagnant lake. This is part
of Lake Rousseau.
[2:19:36] I just wanted to that extent. Maybe it's
a question more than a statement. Can
[2:19:40] you comment on that?
>> Through you, Chair. Um the water is
[2:19:44] connected, the waterway. So, this um
does flow
[2:19:48] um
as one with Lake Rousseau.
[2:19:51] Um I would say the wetland does that
today. The water flows through one into
[2:19:55] the other. And um this would continue
that process. Yes, um
[2:20:00] Yeah.
[2:20:03] » I think Counselor Kents Counselor
Edwards Counselor Robert.
[2:20:07] » Counselor Kent.
>> Uh, thank you. Just a quick question on
[2:20:10] that water. I was thinking as you were
all talking about
[2:20:16] both the fact that it rises in the
spring and it goes down. I mean, my dock
[2:20:20] on Lake Joe, for example, shifts by at
least a meter
[2:20:25] between
you know,
[2:20:28] July 1st and August 31st. And it's
already shifted almost that full meter
[2:20:33] this season. If it shifts, do we have
any data that shows does that mean that
[2:20:37] the 3 m is going to be now 1 and 1/2 and
the 1 m is going to be dry?
[2:20:42] Or 2 m stuff is going to be dry? Do we
have any data on what happens to that
[2:20:47] depth of depth of water in the
marshy area,
[2:20:51] um, as the waters rise and fall in the
season?
[2:20:54] » This cluster.
[2:20:57] » Uh, the wetland has historically always
stayed uh,
[2:21:01] it never goes dry even in different
things, but there is it can be very
[2:21:05] shallow in some sections right now cuz
it's been obviously years of a lot of
[2:21:09] sediment in there.
Um, something that you touched upon too,
[2:21:12] there's improvements happening well
beyond just the restoration of the
[2:21:14] wetlands. We're doing the naturalization
of the channel and the water that's
[2:21:17] coming from the other side of Judd Haven
down through. So, we're improving the
[2:21:21] flow of the water that's going to come
through. Obviously, the improvements to
[2:21:24] the wastewater facility is going to be
changing the nutrient load that's going
[2:21:28] into the wetland which is going to be a
net positive to the environment as well.
[2:21:31] Um, and one of the reasons for the depth
as well is making sure that we are
[2:21:34] continuing that flow through the wetland
into the lake so that the water doesn't
[2:21:38] become stagnant which again will have a
domino effect of improving the aquatic
[2:21:41] health in there. Uh, right now with the
there's it's overloaded quite with the
[2:21:45] nutrient load and with the and with the
the thicket that a lot of it is being
[2:21:49] stifled. A lot of the environmental
benefits in there are being stifled.
[2:21:52] Um so it never goes dry. With our depth
there will be some fluctuation um
[2:21:56] absolutely um but it has not
historically been a dry wetland.
[2:22:01] » Councillor Edwards.
>> Yes uh is that too too too much of a
[2:22:06] burden?
Uh
[2:22:09] I can envision this being tapered. It's
not just going to go in and drop down.
[2:22:14] So it it's going to be
>> Absolutely.
[2:22:16] » approximately what percentage that you
would be using? Like
[2:22:21] I've seen where where where they'll
they'll put a building envelope on it.
[2:22:24] Could you maybe lay it out for staff
that this is what your your your plan
[2:22:28] is?
>> In terms of the locations of the the
[2:22:31] deepest portions?
Uh I don't want to make a number up
[2:22:35] right now so I don't have it cuz the
detailed design has not been done but
[2:22:38] you are correct there'll be varying
depths throughout the wetland and
[2:22:41] that'll be detailed through the
restoration plan into the detailed
[2:22:44] design. Um
>> Yeah I was going to say
[2:22:48] » Uh can I ask our head of construction?
[2:22:53] » So just echo what Paulo was saying as
well with the flow and to get the right
[2:22:56] flows through the detailed design there
will be an analysis done of the channels
[2:23:00] and where it actually implements the
best flow for the water moving through
[2:23:04] it. So there will be deeper sections
which will inhabit and and accelerate
[2:23:07] some of the flow and then the shallower
sections which won't which all ties back
[2:23:11] to the environmental impact.
>> We'll just add the the aspirations to
[2:23:16] obviously facilitate the different plant
growths within the wetlands are being
[2:23:20] achieved um in different sections of the
wetland and that has been a big part of
[2:23:24] our restoration plan and it's in the net
benefit as part as well. So it's not
[2:23:29] I would just like to say it's not an
either or. You know permitting the
[2:23:32] depths up to 3 m isn't negating the the
plant and aquatic life that's being
[2:23:36] asked for by by the SLR and by staff.
We're asking for basically a combination
[2:23:41] to obviously see the vision that we're
bringing forward. So uh we we think the
[2:23:44] vision can be uh successfully
implemented with the ability to have
[2:23:48] some leeway to go up to 3 m in some
locations.
[2:23:51] » Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[2:23:52] » Councillor Roberts.
[2:23:57] » Thank you, Chair, and through to you
with a comment.
[2:24:00] Um
the word recreation is not appropriate
[2:24:03] in this case.
It's educational.
[2:24:06] And it's experience.
And you're not going to have uh people I
[2:24:12] I believe, correct me if I'm wrong,
we're not going to have people with
[2:24:15] floaties or
out there trying to swim in the swamp.
[2:24:21] Sorry for that word.
We're going to have something that I see
[2:24:25] my
see my grandchildren.
[2:24:28] You know, they're after like my my
8-year-old grandchild wants a a pair of
[2:24:32] microscope.
So, she can look at the bugs and that
[2:24:36] that are and I see that type of habitat.
So, I'm thinking that
[2:24:40] that um
we could maybe put a a little definition
[2:24:46] around
what recreation means within this area.
[2:24:51] And what the
the the applicant or would would would
[2:24:57] try to enforce or monitor, ensure that
it happens. They talk they talk about it
[2:25:01] being educational. And I think it's a
great educational thing for the people
[2:25:05] that have never seen this.
So, there's my comments.
[2:25:10] » Councillor Zavitz and Councillor
>> Thank you, Chair, and you to again to
[2:25:14] Paul. I guess in terms of the word
recreation, um
[2:25:18] why do I envision this skating in the
winter months? Is that something that
[2:25:23] you will do on here? Will that it will
freeze and become
[2:25:27] I do see it being recreational to quite
honest, it's a centerpiece. Am I
[2:25:32] wrong?
>> Uh we see it being obviously a
[2:25:35] centerpiece of of I think education and
aesthetics and and functionality. I I've
[2:25:40] never had a discussion about a skating
rink. I don't know if the flows if it
[2:25:43] would freeze over. I'm happy to take
that back and if there was an
[2:25:46] aspiration, we will absolutely look at
that.
[2:25:48] Um but we I can honestly say we haven't
had that discussion yet. I will just add
[2:25:52] one thing in terms of kind of debating
the depth. There's There's What we're
[2:25:57] trying to do here is obviously create a
new
[2:26:00] a new and improved situation that has a
diversity of aquatic life as I said and
[2:26:04] plant life. The deeper dredging in some
locations actually facilitate the
[2:26:07] ability for larger fish as well. So it's
a trade-off. You might have in some
[2:26:11] locations not as much plant but you have
more fish habitat. So again, I don't
[2:26:15] ever want this to be seen as an either
or. It's just a trade-off the type of
[2:26:18] life that you're creating in there in
terms of the environment.
[2:26:21] But we will absolutely take that back
and if there's an opportunity for winter
[2:26:25] activations, we would certainly look at
that.
[2:26:31] » Councillor McIntyre and then Councillor
Mazin.
[2:26:34] » Okay. Um
this is close to my heart because
[2:26:40] I really like and appreciate swamps.
Swamps are the most productive ecosystem
[2:26:46] we have in our world because energy is
just constantly moving and constantly
[2:26:52] creating.
What we're doing here is we're taking a
[2:26:56] swamp and we're making it into a
wetland. And as long as we're clear that
[2:27:01] that's what we're doing, okay.
But we are losing what we had as a swamp
[2:27:07] and we're losing that ecosystem and
we're losing the energy that goes with
[2:27:10] that ecosystem.
I really
[2:27:15] appreciated um
the analysis that was done in the report
[2:27:20] from SLR about the difference between a
swamp and a wetland and what we would
[2:27:25] have to do if we're going to go ahead
with this, how how we would have to
[2:27:30] amend the process so that we can retain
the aspects of the swamp.
[2:27:36] » Councillor Mazin.
>> Okay, thank you. It turned
[2:27:40] » You have one comment and then kind of a
question as to process just to get I
[2:27:44] think the discussion focused again on
the one the three meter piece.
[2:27:49] I'm just going back to
Ms. Crowder's report, page 11 of the
[2:27:54] report where it talks about the four
pieces of or four recommendations that
[2:28:02] came from the SR SLR
recommendations and the fourth one
[2:28:07] specifically says, "Restrict guest
access to the new wetland area to ensure
[2:28:11] disturbance to this area is minimized.
To this end, no motorized access should
[2:28:17] be allowed and fishing activity in the
new wetland area needs to be strictly
[2:28:21] controlled during all times of the
year." So, I think there's some already
[2:28:25] some guided by
the environmental expert. They've
[2:28:29] already
given some guidance as to what that
[2:28:32] would look like and feel like. So, I'm
somewhat satisfied with that piece.
[2:28:37] I think what I'd like to know is how do
we advance the discussion and get some
[2:28:41] conclusion on the
the the
[2:28:45] the number one piece, which is that
three meters. Do we need to have a
[2:28:49] another motion put forward or is this an
amendment or how do we get
[2:28:54] that to be the conversation?
Ms. Crowder.
[2:28:58] » Through you, Chair, to Council Mazin.
So, the way that
[2:29:03] the
report or or the recommendation the
[2:29:06] resolution was read was to require the
implementation of SLR's recommendations,
[2:29:13] which stipulates the two meter depth.
So, if this committee wishes to permit a
[2:29:18] depth greater than two meters, we would
need a revised
[2:29:22] resolution.
[2:29:26] » CEO Pink.
>> Thank you. Just for clarity though, that
[2:29:30] that is the zoning amendment resolution
that coming next. Right now, we're
[2:29:33] still, I think, considering the official
plan amendment. That's the tabled
[2:29:37] resolution to amend the official plan.
As we heard from both the, uh, delegate,
[2:29:41] Miss Crowder,
um, these matters could be dealt with
[2:29:43] through site plan and the holding
provision. Um, and that, uh, revision
[2:29:47] could be considered when we consider the
next zoning amendment resolution.
[2:29:52] » So, is it fair to say then that we don't
need a reser- resolution at this point?
[2:29:58] » Not at this point. I think, again, if we
could provide, uh, clear direction to
[2:30:01] staff, we can have the resolution
prepared if that's the, uh,
[2:30:04] when we get to the resolution, at the
zoning amendment resolution.
[2:30:11] » So, should we should hold We should hold
the vote until we get to the bylaw?
[2:30:17] CAO Pink?
>> Yeah.
[2:30:20] » Right.
[2:30:22] Councillor Mazin?
>> Perhaps I'm getting confused, but now,
[2:30:27] um, I understand, uh, what staff CAO
Pink was just walking us through, but
[2:30:31] I'm just not not clear as to what our
next step needs to be as it relates to
[2:30:35] the wetland on the OP then.
What
[2:30:37] » Let me ask Miss Crowder a question. Of
the other items that we have on the list
[2:30:41] that you sent me,
[2:30:45] are they to be addressed
in the OP or in the bylaw?
[2:30:51] » Through you, Chair. Um,
I'm also slightly confused, so I'm going
[2:30:55] to defer to CAO Pink, but there are,
like, the the flood plain, the wetland
[2:31:00] piece, and the front yard setback. Those
are all amendments to the official plan,
[2:31:04] but it sounds like we have tabled the
official plan amendment piece, but I'm
[2:31:09] going to defer to
>> CAO Pink, can you help us here?
[2:31:13] » Sorry, I think I might have caused more
confusion than I apologize. It's perhaps
[2:31:16] just the old planning principles that we
deal with official plan first, then
[2:31:20] zoning. So, I was strictly speaking just
from a procedural process of the
[2:31:24] resolutions before you. Right now, the
resolution that's been tabled is an
[2:31:27] official plan amendment. As you heard
from Ms. Crowder and Ms. Bustard, uh the
[2:31:31] change I think that's being requested uh
would be in the next resolution uh to
[2:31:35] consider with respect to the zoning. So,
it'll be dealt with at the site plan
[2:31:37] stage.
Uh again, um if committee could give us
[2:31:41] some indication of whether uh
we're comfortable with the revised
[2:31:45] wording that's been requested, then
staff can prepare the amended resolution
[2:31:49] when it comes to that point in the
meeting.
[2:31:51] So, I think that's really the decision
before you.
[2:31:53] Um sorry to confuse it. Um
again, we can make the necessary changes
[2:31:58] if we get an indication from committee.
>> Uh I think Does that Does that mean that
[2:32:04] we should be moving on to the bylaw now?
[2:32:10] » No.
[2:32:13] No,
and again, sorry to confuse. I think
[2:32:15] you're going through sort of six main
issues. I think we continue to work
[2:32:19] through those, uh get indication on each
of those, and then staff will prepare
[2:32:22] the resolutions as necessary depending
on what you decide on each.
[2:32:27] » How do we do it without having a
resolution?
[2:32:31] » We can do formal resolutions on each if
you if you wish. We can do that as well.
[2:32:35] » So, we could have a formal resolution on
whether we accept uh up to 3 ft.
[2:32:40] meters
[2:32:46] » Through you, chair, if I may.
>> Yeah.
[2:32:49] » I think I understand the the
recommendation to implement the
[2:32:52] recommendations of SLR is as part of the
holding provision under the zoning
[2:32:58] application. So, that is why Ms. CAO
Pink rightfully pointed out that we'll
[2:33:04] deal with that amendment at that time.
But, what we are looking for from
[2:33:08] committee right now is whether you are
supportive of amending the official plan
[2:33:13] to permit development within and
adjacent to the flood plain, and then we
[2:33:17] would deal or sorry, the wetland, and
then we'll deal with the depth amendment
[2:33:21] at a later time, but it would be good if
you could give us an indication on your
[2:33:25] supporter or not.
[2:33:28] » So, that would mean Councilor Masson.
[2:33:35] So, that I think
Can you suggest if we were in favor
[2:33:42] of
3 m versus 2, what would the what would
[2:33:47] the resolution be at this moment?
[2:33:51] » Through you, Chair. The resolution at
this moment is whether to permit the
[2:33:55] development in the flood in the wetland
or adjacent to the wetland
[2:34:00] as a whole.
And then we would deal with the depth
[2:34:03] through the zoning component of the
application. Or, if committee wanted to
[2:34:08] be clear and deal with it all right now,
we could have a resolution drawn up that
[2:34:13] states that
committee in endorse or not development
[2:34:18] within and adjacent to the wetland
provided this be the depth.
[2:34:22] » All right. I think that sounds very
good. Thank you. Councilor Masson.
[2:34:25] » I would put forward the motion to
capture whatever
[2:34:29] was just said there if somebody would
second. Well, that's what this is a
[2:34:33] logical flow. We have to make that
decision.
[2:34:36] » All right.
>> Thank you.
[2:34:38] » All right. So, we will let the brain
trust write this up for us.
[2:34:44] So, another give us another probably
minimum 5 minutes.
[2:44:05] » Committee, if we could uh sit down.
[2:44:16] I'm going to blame Robert's Rules of
Order for this.
[2:44:19] Um
if the committee
[2:44:23] so we're dealing with development in the
wetland. If the committee
[2:44:28] is happy with allowing development in
the wetland
[2:44:32] then we don't have to do anything
because that's what
[2:44:36] the applicant has applied to do. If we
don't want to have development in the
[2:44:41] wetland, then we need a resolution to
say so.
[2:44:46] With respect to the 3 m, we will deal
with that in the bylaw.
[2:44:52] All right? So So there So the debate
right now is anybody on committee want
[2:44:58] to propose a resolution to not allow
development in the wetland.
[2:45:05] Okay.
No, we don't need anything. There's no
[2:45:08] resolution.
All right, so there's no
[2:45:12] Right.
[2:45:17] » Um
Uh
[2:45:20] Ms. Crowder,
uh front yard setbacks and vegetative
[2:45:24] buffer.
That also is part of the OP.
[2:45:30] And I think it's the same sort of
position, I would think. If we
[2:45:37] I'll let you explain it.
>> Through you, Chair. Yes, so the official
[2:45:41] plan OPA 56 includes provisions that
speak to required front yard setbacks
[2:45:46] and requirement for vegetative buffers.
So the applicant has applied to amend
[2:45:51] those sections of the official plan.
Staff, flood plain issues aside, I'm
[2:45:57] just put that caveat, are um
supportive of the proposed amendment
[2:46:02] provided the um
provided a site-specific schedule is
[2:46:06] added to the amendment that specifies
the exact extent location and extent of
[2:46:12] buildings and structures that are within
that required setback, so it wouldn't be
[2:46:15] a blanket permission for a zero-foot
setback. And also vegetative buffers
[2:46:20] would only be permitted to be reduced in
specific extents and locations.
[2:46:24] Um this is already written into staff's
recommendation. So if committee is on
[2:46:30] board with that approach, we don't need
to do any kind of resolutions right now.
[2:46:34] However, if committee disagrees and
would like to see something different,
[2:46:38] then we would look to you to put a
motion on the on the floor.
[2:46:42] Thank you very much. All right,
committee, was it was Did everybody
[2:46:45] understand that?
Good. So, is there any desire
[2:46:51] to have things other than what Ms.
Crowder has told us about having a
[2:46:56] specific um uh attachment that says
where
[2:47:02] where the setback can be minimized and
how much setback there can be.
[2:47:09] All right.
[2:47:12] So, I think
we've agreed with that. All right.
[2:47:18] The next item is timing of construction
and sequencing of relative to the
[2:47:23] wastewater treatment.
Ms. Crowder, walk us through that.
[2:47:28] » Through you, Chair. Um this is more so
just a It's not an official plan
[2:47:33] amendment, um but it is sort of a big
component of the proposal and an ask of
[2:47:38] the applicant that the development of
the treatment plant be permitted to
[2:47:42] occur concurrently with development of
buildings and structures. We have gone
[2:47:46] over um the risks that are involved with
that and the precautionary measures that
[2:47:51] are being taken in the form of the
conditions put into the resolution
[2:47:54] before you. Um so, this is just sort of
an opportunity for committee to voice
[2:48:00] their opinions on this matter, and if
anybody were to have concerns, um you
[2:48:04] could propose um
any kind of amendments at this point.
[2:48:08] » So, again, as as with the previous two,
if committee
[2:48:13] wanted the treatment plant built ahead
of the development, we would have to
[2:48:17] have a resolution
>> That's right.
[2:48:19] » changing that. Otherwise, we leave it as
it is.
[2:48:21] » That's right.
>> Mayor Kelly.
[2:48:24] » Thank [clears throat] you, and through
you. I I um
[2:48:27] just one quick comment first. You said
ahead of the development. I think it's
[2:48:31] concurrent, isn't it, really?
>> No, what I was saying that is that if we
[2:48:34] didn't
we didn't like them being concurrent and
[2:48:39] wanted to go back to
uh the process where the has to be built
[2:48:43] first, then we would need a resolution.
>> Okay.
[2:48:46] » Fair enough.
>> Fair enough.
[2:48:47] » Uh that's fine, yeah.
>> Okay.
[2:48:55] All right, so I don't see any at
um appetite for a resolution.
[2:49:01] The next item on our list is staff
housing, Ms. Crowder.
[2:49:06] » Uh through you, Chair. So, staff housing
is a component that is listed within OPA
[2:49:11] 56 as being required um in the initial
phase of of development to support um
[2:49:19] the
um employment opportunities that would
[2:49:22] be um
produced from the wellness center and
[2:49:25] the other restaurants and buildings that
are proposed. Um the applicant is
[2:49:31] proposing that instead of staff housing
being built in the phase one lands that
[2:49:36] they utilize the existing Cleveland's
House buildings and facilities to house
[2:49:41] staff until such time as they um do
build specific staff housing buildings
[2:49:47] as part of a future phase.
Um staff have recommended that within
[2:49:52] the master development agreement, a
provision be included which um states
[2:49:56] that the owner agrees and um
a well, agrees to develop staff housing
[2:50:02] in future phase um plans.
And
[2:50:07] they we've um discussed this with the
proponent and they have agreed to that.
[2:50:11] So, um
the resolution as written before you
[2:50:14] today includes all of that
recommendation. So, if you are all in
[2:50:18] agreement, um you don't need to do
anything, but if anybody has any
[2:50:21] concerns, you could raise those now.
[2:50:25] » Committee?
[2:50:30] Next item is the height of proposed
buildings.
[2:50:35] » Through you, Chair. Um so, there within
OPA 56, it does stipulate um that height
[2:50:41] of building should not exceed 16 m.
I think it's 16. Um, and however, that
[2:50:49] there is some leeway for prominent um
buildings or structures
[2:50:54] to create a sense of um
I don't remember the exact words. I
[2:50:58] don't want to get it wrong.
>> [laughter]
[2:51:01] » Um, but there are um four buildings and
structures proposed as part of the
[2:51:06] development which do exceed that height.
Um, staff acknowledge that the official
[2:51:12] plan amendment OPA 56 is largely
supportive of this. Um, there is one
[2:51:17] building that we did just want to get
committee's um
[2:51:20] temperature on is which is the viewing
tower. It is proposed to be 121 ft in
[2:51:27] height. Um, and just for reference, uh
the typical mono pine that you see in
[2:51:32] the community is 100 ft. So this is this
would be the most prominent building on
[2:51:37] the lake. So we did just want to
um flag this for committee, and if you
[2:51:42] do wish to see a reduction in that
height, now would be the time to
[2:51:47] um
to let us know that.
[2:51:50] » Scrader, can you
um
[2:51:53] tell us what the the dimensions of it
are other than the height of
[2:51:58] I think it was
[2:52:01] So 15 by 15 ft roughly.
[2:52:07] » And could we just find out
are there stairs inside to take that
[2:52:11] walk?
>> Kent.
[2:52:13] » Are there stairs inside?
[2:52:17] » Obviously.
>> I mean, this is an architectural feature
[2:52:20] as is I'm Manuela McLaughlin in terms of
creating the topography of the village.
[2:52:23] Uh there will be some stairs inside.
Whether it's access to the general
[2:52:27] public, I I don't know if that's been
determined. I will just say on the
[2:52:30] height, please also remember the very,
very substantial grade differences
[2:52:34] between us and the JW Marriott that sits
up on the hill. So, when you talk about
[2:52:38] the height as being the highest on the
lake, you also have to consider the
[2:52:41] established grade. It'll be dwarfed
compared to when you turn into the bay
[2:52:44] and you see the JW Marriott up on the
hill. So, from a from an aesthetics
[2:52:48] point of view, it's going to be quite
modest and and it's a very, very small
[2:52:51] feature that's just going to add to the
architectural language of the village.
[2:52:55] Thank you.
>> [laughter]
[2:52:58] » All right, uh Counselor Kent.
>> I guess just to follow up, I was
[2:53:01] wondering if if it isn't for
people to walk in and see the view,
[2:53:07] what's the point of it?
[2:53:11] » Uh thank you very much.
>> Mr.
[2:53:13] » Uh if you look at the totality of the
renderings, I don't think we brought
[2:53:15] them back up. You can just see it. See
the architectural language up there of
[2:53:18] creating some visual points. Obviously,
one of the starting points when uh our
[2:53:22] architect Neil uh McLaughlin was looking
at it was that view. I know when I sat
[2:53:26] on the steering committee, we talked
about the view from the canoe. So, the
[2:53:28] uh the intent for the cabins was really
to nestle them in the into the trees.
[2:53:33] They really disappear. And then you have
that one moment when you turn into the
[2:53:36] bay and you see the village and a lot of
natural materials. And obviously, Abby's
[2:53:40] Bakery that sits there now, we want to
replace the uh the steeple. And so, we
[2:53:44] saw the steeple, the chimney, and the
tower feature just creating these three
[2:53:47] vertical elements that kind of create uh
articulation uh on that view corridor
[2:53:52] with obviously the sloped roofs and the
natural materials there. So, it's an
[2:53:56] it's a decision from an architectural
point of view. Um and we think that it
[2:54:00] adds to kind of the uh creating a
placemaking. Thank you.
[2:54:08] » Committee, any other questions?
[2:54:14] Um it's kind of remind me if we are
happy with the
[2:54:18] 151 ft we
>> Through you, Chair. Um 121 ft.
[2:54:24] » Sorry, 121, yeah.
>> Um so, if committee is okay with that
[2:54:29] number,
um, then we don't need to do anything.
[2:54:33] If committee wanted to change that
number, that would be an item to deal
[2:54:37] with at the zoning bylaw stage of of
things.
[2:54:42] » We could leave that or we can get a
general sense, um, here.
[2:54:46] Would anybody be wanting to make a
amendment to not allow 121 feet?
[2:54:53] Counselor Zavitz.
>> If I might just a question picking up on
[2:54:56] the mono pine comment. Is that is a mono
pine 100 feet self-induced? I mean, is
[2:55:02] that the height of the mechanical piece
of this whole thing or is that a height
[2:55:06] that has been decided by us that that's
where
[2:55:10] we won't see or is that a tree line? So,
I'm I'm just interested in the
[2:55:14] juxtaposition of that.
>> Ms. Crowder.
[2:55:18] » Through you chair.
Mono pines, they typically build them in
[2:55:25] two or three specific heights and it's
because they provide different functions
[2:55:29] at those different heights. In Muskoka
Lakes, we've typically seen 100 feet one
[2:55:35] ones. They do go higher, but the ones
that we have seen come forward are
[2:55:38] typically that 100 feet. It is above the
tree line. You can see them poking up.
[2:55:43] » Okay.
[2:55:47] Any other comments?
[2:55:50] All right.
The last one on our list is the parking.
[2:55:58] Ms. Crowder.
>> Through you chair.
[2:56:02] So, the proposal before committee,
when compared to our zoning bylaw
[2:56:08] requirements for parking, the proposed
parking supply is deficient
[2:56:13] um
by a significant amount.
[2:56:17] The
traffic impact assessment originally
[2:56:21] contemplated all just under 400 spaces.
However, at as things progressed, the
[2:56:28] design changed to provide 171 spaces
on-site,
[2:56:34] um which the traffic engineer still says
is acceptable, um
[2:56:38] keeping in mind that the peer review
process of that is still ongoing. But, I
[2:56:43] think staff acknowledged that the
particular property owner owns many of
[2:56:48] the surrounding lands. So, we're not
concerned with that parking supply not
[2:56:53] being provided on the subject lands, so
long as parking is provided as this
[2:56:59] develops.
Um so, we are recommending that a
[2:57:02] provision be included within the master
development agreement that they owner
[2:57:06] agrees to provide that parking as
development progresses. Um so, if
[2:57:13] committee is comfortable with that
approach,
[2:57:15] um we don't need to do anything right
now, but if committee is concerned, then
[2:57:21] you know, let us know.
>> Chair Kelly.
[2:57:23] Thank you and through you. Just uh for
clarification, uh Ms. Crowder, on that
[2:57:27] last one, the parking that that is
provided that's not on the subject lands
[2:57:32] has to be on land
co-owned or or owned by the same
[2:57:36] uh owner? And you can't you can't rent
land? I There's a reason I'm asking this
[2:57:41] question, and it's not here
[clears throat] now, but it will be. Ms.
[2:57:44] Crowder.
>> Yeah.
[2:57:45] Through you, Chair. Um yes, it would
need to be owned by the proponent um to
[2:57:51] be attributed to this situation, and
there is a provision in the zoning bylaw
[2:57:55] that stipulates that the lands have to
be within a certain distance of of the
[2:58:00] property.
Um so, that would be an expectation as
[2:58:03] well.
[2:58:06] » Right, Committee.
Uh Councillor Berry.
[2:58:09] » Uh thank you and through you. I'm just
going to make a a comment to the
[2:58:12] planners because this is not like
everywhere else. Um there's a huge
[2:58:17] proportion of the
the the uh habitants
[2:58:23] um, of of the the uh the township that
would likely come if they're day
[2:58:29] tripping to the community come by boat.
Um, and they're not parking their car,
[2:58:35] they're going to park their boat. So,
I'm I'm just want to make sure that the
[2:58:40] the planners have thought about this is
a little different
[2:58:43] um, and it it's it's not going to have
the same kinds of requirements. There
[2:58:48] are many people that come for the you
know, that are here seasonally
[2:58:53] um, that avoid their car at all costs.
Hop in a boat to go anywhere. And so, I
[2:58:59] think we need to make sure that that's
that's taken into account especially for
[2:59:02] the the the village where we're we're
apt to see some fairly, you know, local
[2:59:06] traffic.
>> Ms. Crowder.
[2:59:09] » Sorry, through you chair, I might to
counselor Berry. Yes, that is definitely
[2:59:14] um, a consideration that we have and the
zoning bylaw actually allows us to
[2:59:20] account for boat parking from the
required parking calculations. In this
[2:59:25] case, the number of boat slips is not
solidly known at this point because the
[2:59:32] detailed design hasn't been carried out.
So, the exact number that can be
[2:59:36] accounted for isn't um, isn't known at
this time. However, as those details
[2:59:42] come out, if we'll have a greater sense
for how many spaces are being provided
[2:59:46] on the water versus how many on land and
um,
[2:59:50] we can proceed from that point.
>> Counselor Roberts.
[2:59:55] I recall the
the rights that were given a few years
[2:59:59] ago to the bay that that parking slips
were significant.
[3:00:05] And I am I'm guessing that they're going
to be much less than that of right.
[3:00:11] Ms. Crowder.
>> Through you chair, uh to counselor
[3:00:14] Berry.
>> So, there is a site-specific bylaw on
[3:00:17] the lands that permits a certain length
and width of dock.
[3:00:22] It doesn't have a specific boat slip
number in it, but it does have that
[3:00:27] length and width, which, you know, when
you do the math, you can get an idea of
[3:00:30] how many slips can be incorporated into
there. So, when staff bring the bylaw
[3:00:37] forward to
committee or council for consideration,
[3:00:42] that's when you will see those details
of length, width,
[3:00:47] shoreline structure permissions. And if
I may just speak to Ms. Bustard's
[3:00:53] comment earlier about
concern for when the bylaw would come
[3:00:57] forward, it is staff's intention to
bring the bylaw forward as soon as
[3:01:01] possible following this meeting. It's
not our intent to bring it 6 months
[3:01:05] later, so yeah.
[3:01:09] » Councillor Edwards.
>> Concerning the the boat dockage,
[3:01:16] I think there was a guarantee that
islanders that are using it for island
[3:01:21] access were were guaranteed to
keep their spots. Is that right?
[3:01:25] » Ms. Bustard.
[3:01:29] » Thank you very much. Yes, we have
continued to provide spaces and rent to
[3:01:34] the islanders, and we will continue to
do so.
[3:01:37] And I believe Ms. Craddock can correct
to me, but some of those arrangements
[3:01:40] will be stipulated through the master
development agreement. May I add
[3:01:44] something on the parking?
The one thing that I'm just a little bit
[3:01:47] confused with this motion is we did put
forward a site-specific zoning bylaw
[3:01:51] that obviously was proposing a reduced
parking rate. So, one thing I'd like
[3:01:55] just to clarify, your your bylaw does
not take into consideration a lot of the
[3:01:59] shared ratios that other jurisdictions
do. And I think you're speaking to it. A
[3:02:03] lot of people who are going to be
parking on this site are going to be
[3:02:05] using a multitude of the facilities.
Someone renting a cabin will then walk
[3:02:09] to the village and walk to the wellness
center. Someone will take their boat and
[3:02:12] go there and use the trails. Uh so, we
had proposed to reduce parking supply.
[3:02:16] Ms. Crowder is correct that the the
first submission was in the range of 360
[3:02:20] spaces. Uh the reason it got reduced to
171
[3:02:23] uh predominantly was tree preservation.
We went back after our first submission
[3:02:27] and really looked at how we can maintain
more trees throughout the site and be a
[3:02:30] bit more selective on where we were
actually paving. Um and then we went
[3:02:35] back to our traffic consultant BA Group
and they did a robust analysis and said
[3:02:39] this is actually justified at the 171
with all the shared trips. So, we've put
[3:02:43] that forward and we're proposing to
enshrine that in policy
[3:02:47] um understanding that there will be
further discussions through the master
[3:02:50] development agreement and site plan. The
only thing I'm asking for clarification
[3:02:53] on is I don't want to be in a situation
where something gets passed today that
[3:02:57] requires us to build the amount of
parking as per your bylaw and we're just
[3:03:02] basically utilizing more paving when we
could be obviously having open space and
[3:03:05] tree preservation if it's not needed.
So, understand that this might be a
[3:03:09] future discussion point, but I want to
make sure there's leeway for that. Thank
[3:03:12] you.
>> Ms. Crowder, can you comment on that?
[3:03:16] » Yes, through you, Chair. I'm just
getting to that section of my report.
[3:03:19] Just one moment.
[3:03:25] Thank you. Um yes, so
acknowledging the request to um permit
[3:03:32] a reduction in parking spaces, staff um
are recommending that that component be
[3:03:37] approved provided a clause is
incorporated into the master development
[3:03:41] agreement, which states that the parking
will be compensated for on the
[3:03:46] surrounding lands in some capacity. So,
it doesn't stipulate that every single
[3:03:51] space must be accounted for, but I think
the hope and expectation is that on the
[3:03:56] surrounding lands if at as this
progresses, we realize there is a need
[3:04:00] for parking, that the proponent would
agree to provide for that parking on
[3:04:05] their surrounding lands.
>> And does it does it require that it has
[3:04:08] to meet our bylaw or we needs to do
studies to figure out what is the
[3:04:13] appropriate level?
>> Through you, Chair. So, the way it's
[3:04:16] written, my understanding is that it
would not need to meet the requirements
[3:04:20] of our bylaw. It's more so as we move
through the site plan control stage and
[3:04:25] see how things are developing out, if
there is a deficiency in parking and
[3:04:29] it's proving to be a problem, then the
owner agrees through that master
[3:04:32] development agreement that they will
look at providing parking on the
[3:04:35] abutting lands.
>> Ms. Busker, is that the clarification
[3:04:39] you were looking for?
>> Uh yes, that's okay with us. Thank you.
[3:04:42] » Thank you.
[3:04:46] And so, just to summarize,
if we agree with
[3:04:51] if we don't have any changes to what's
been said about parking, we don't have
[3:04:54] to do anything at the moment. All right.
>> That's right. Thank you.
[3:05:01] » Scarlett, let's come to the end of our
list.
[3:05:05] I think it's time to come back to the
original resolution.
[3:05:11] And
Deputy Clerk, could you tell us
[3:05:14] just walk us through that process?
I think I know it, but
[3:05:19] let you do it.
>> Thank you, uh
[3:05:22] Chair Bosma.
[3:05:25] I I'm happy to screen share and uh any
in particular the second resolution. The
[3:05:30] first resolution is basically a motion
to bring the
[3:05:34] the motion we originally tabled to
remove that from the table, so it can
[3:05:38] now be presented onto the floor. And
then from there, there will be a
[3:05:43] resolution which I will screen share
that will substitute the original main
[3:05:46] motion with the second one.
So, just give me a moment and with any
[3:05:50] luck, I'm printing and will be ready to
go.
[3:05:59] So,
>> We were told nobody.
[3:06:21] » This is the first one.
>> Yeah. Thank you.
[3:06:24] » And I'm going to read it, right?
>> Yes, please.
[3:06:27] » All right. So, the first one is quite
simple and we're not going to put it on
[3:06:30] this on the screen.
>> No, in my opinion, it's not necessary.
[3:06:34] » I agree, too.
Yeah. Uh moved by Councillor Bury,
[3:06:37] seconded by Councillor Edwards. Be it
resolved that the motion regarding
[3:06:41] official plan amendment application
OPA-64
[3:06:46] it be taken from the table.
Any debate?
[3:06:51] Those in favor?
Thank you.
[3:06:53] Next one we are going to put it up on
the screen.
[3:07:03] All right, can we zoom in a little so
people can see it?
[3:07:05] » Thank you.
>> All right.
[3:07:07] Um moved by Councillor Mazin, seconded
by Councillor Zavitz.
[3:07:11] Be it resolved that the main motion
regarding official plan amendment
[3:07:15] application
[3:07:18] number or the com- number of companies,
two
[3:07:21] 6666940
Ontario Inc. land and 266
[3:07:26] 5556
Ontario Inc. be substituted with the
[3:07:31] following. Be it resolved that the
official plan application amendment,
[3:07:35] those company numbers,
be revised to include a schedule to
[3:07:40] sections C1.5.4.3,
C1.5.4.4,
[3:07:46] and C1.5
[3:07:49] .4.5, which demonstrates the specific
location and extent where building
[3:07:54] struct- building {slash} structures are
permitted within the front yard setback,
[3:07:59] and where we where the required 15 m
shoreline vegetative buffer is permitted
[3:08:03] to be reduced, and that the revised OPA
be adopted by the township, and the
[3:08:10] record be forwarded to the District
Municipality of Muskoka for approval.
[3:08:17] » Ms. Gradauer, could you just walk us
through what that middle paragraph just
[3:08:21] meant? Just to be sure that everybody
understands.
[3:08:24] » Absolutely, through you, Chair. Um so,
that middle paragraph there essentially
[3:08:29] states that um we you would be approving
the amendment, um and that schedules
[3:08:36] would be attached to that amendment,
which specify the exact location and
[3:08:40] extent where development within the
flood plain and adjacent Sorry,
[3:08:45] development within the wetland and
adjacent to the wetland would be
[3:08:49] permitted, um the proposed front yard
setbacks, and the proposed vegetative
[3:08:55] buffer. So, these would be site-specific
um schedules attached to the amendment
[3:09:00] that would specify those locations and
extents, rather than permitting blanket
[3:09:04] permissions across the whole lands.
[3:09:08] » Committee,
is there any misunderstanding there?
[3:09:12] Do we have any debate on that? Any
further debate, I should say.
[3:09:17] Seeing none, I call the question. All
those
[3:09:20] » in favor.
[3:09:23] » Any opposed?
[3:09:26] That carries.
[3:09:30] And I think it's safe to say we're done
with the official plan.
[3:09:34] We will take a break for lunch, and
we'll be back at 1:00 and discuss the
[3:09:38] bylaw.
[3:09:47] It's pretty short and sweet.
Do you want to do the bylaw now?
[3:09:50] » David
>> Well
[3:09:52] » I'm sorry.
>> Go.
[3:09:53] » No, no. I think you can have lunch.
>> Yeah, okay. That's good.
[3:09:56] » So, why would we do this?
>> I knew we were too.
[3:10:00] » I I don't know. I just thought
It's fine.
[3:10:34] » Just like to remind everybody we should
not be discussing this.
[3:10:37] » Okay.
[3:10:41] » I understand it.
[3:15:34] » Mhm.
[3:44:19] » Mhm.
[3:59:39] » Mhm.
[4:02:32] » Back to order at 1:00.
[4:02:37] Committee.
The next on the agenda is to go through
[4:02:41] the bylaw
related to this application.
[4:02:47] Um it is a two-page bylaw, but it covers
a lot and I think it's worth reading
[4:02:53] rather than assuming everybody has read
it in detail. And it covers
[4:02:58] a number of the things that we've
already covered.
[4:03:01] After that, I will ask Emily just to
have a
[4:03:04] real brief run through of it what it
means to from a staff point of view and
[4:03:09] and its relationship or or their
discussions with the applicant. Then
[4:03:15] we'll open it up for discussion.
[4:03:18] It's long, but pay attention.
Um
[4:03:24] can we put it up on the screen?
We will work on that while I'm reading
[4:03:27] it.
>> Third and fourth piece of the
[4:03:28] resolution.
[4:03:32] » Moved by Mayor Kelly, seconded by
Councillor Zavitz, be it resolved that
[4:03:35] zoning by-law application amendment ZBA
22/23
[4:03:41] to company names be approved in part
subject to the approval of OPA 64,
[4:03:47] approval of the submitted amendment to
the District Official the District
[4:03:50] Muskoka Official Plan and subject to the
following.
[4:03:54] The draft zoning by-law amendment be
submitted by the applicant not
[4:03:59] Sorry, let me start that again. That the
draft
[4:04:03] zoning by-law amendment submitted by the
applicant not be adopted and that staff
[4:04:09] be directed to prepare an implementing
zoning by-law amendment for
[4:04:13] considerations at a future council
meeting that incorporates the holding
[4:04:17] provisions, {comma} floodplain related
and other applicable recommendations
[4:04:22] contained in
plan uh report plan 2026-092
[4:04:28] as modified by any direction of the
planning committee.
[4:04:33] That a holding H provision
be placed on the subject lands for the
[4:04:37] following.
That A developers group agreements
[4:04:43] is/are entered into wherein one or more
proponents within the full service area
[4:04:49] shown on
schedule on a schedule to the by-law
[4:04:53] contribute equitably towards the
provisions
[4:04:56] of the municipal sewage services and
municipal water services to the
[4:05:01] satisfaction of the District
Municipality of Muskoka and the Township
[4:05:05] of Muskoka Lakes.
That a satisfactory master development
[4:05:09] agreement in accordance with section C-
C1.7.2-
[4:05:18] Got two Yeah, sorry, I'm not quite sure.
Is that ongoing number?
[4:05:24] » I don't think so.
>> C- C1.7.2-
[4:05:28] C
>> Okay, all right.
[4:05:30] With section C 1.7.2-C
[4:05:34] 1.7.7
of OPA 56 and matters detailed within
[4:05:40] the staff report plan 2026-092
be entered into between between the
[4:05:45] Township of Muskoka Lakes
just and
[4:05:49] Sorry, I'm having a
hard time this afternoon. The District
[4:05:53] Municipality of Muskoka and the owner
company two company numbers.
[4:05:58] Issuance of required provincial
environmental compliance approvals for
[4:06:02] all water treatment, water distribution,
waste water treatment and waste water
[4:06:07] collection infrastructure by the
Ministry of the Environment,
[4:06:11] Conservation and Parks for the
construction
[4:06:14] of the required municipal water and
sanitary sewage sewer infrastructure for
[4:06:18] the Minett
special policy area.
[4:06:23] An agreement with the District
Municipality of Muskoka has been entered
[4:06:27] into and registered on that title
pertaining to the design and
[4:06:30] construction for the municipal water and
sanitary sewer infrastructure required
[4:06:35] to support the development including but
not limited to the following:
[4:06:39] the provincial the provision of
financial securities,
[4:06:44] the requirement of the developer
to obtain at their sole expense all
[4:06:48] required provincial approvals including
but not limited to the following:
[4:06:53] municipal drinking water works permit,
municipal drinking water license and a
[4:06:58] permit to take Wait.
to take water for all water treatment,
[4:07:03] water distribution, waste water
treatment and waste water collection
[4:07:07] infrastructure by the Ministry of the
Environment, Conservation and Parks for
[4:07:11] the operation of the required municipal
water and sanitary sewer infrastructure
[4:07:15] structure for the Minett special policy
area before start of operation or
[4:07:20] results through
connection permits
[4:07:24] to connect to municipal water and
sanitary sewer infrastructure are made.
[4:07:29] That's a really long sentence.
The requirement for the developer to
[4:07:33] ensure that any rental agreements made
and or any lease or rental agreements to
[4:07:38] include terms identifying the occupancy
will be contingent upon the fall
[4:07:44] following the developer obtaining the
required provincial approvals,
[4:07:47] construction of the necessary water and
sanitary sewer infrastructure, and
[4:07:52] the requirement for the developer to
obtain the necessary connection permits
[4:07:57] for the dis-
district municipality of Muskoka prior
[4:08:00] to connection to the municipal water and
sanitary sewer infrastructure.
[4:08:04] The submission of a wetland compensation
and net benefit and enhancement report
[4:08:09] response memo to address the comments of
the peer review prepared by SLR
[4:08:14] Consulting Limited dated June 17th, 2026
to the satisfaction of the Township of
[4:08:19] Muskoka Lakes and the District
Municipality of Muskoka.
[4:08:23] The subject's land be required to obtain
site plan approval and that a sat-
[4:08:27] satisfactory site plan agreement be
entered into the
[4:08:31] into and registered on title along with
securities for matters including but not
[4:08:35] limited to implementation of the
recommendations made
[4:08:39] within the EIS and peer review responses
prepared by Azimuth Environmental
[4:08:44] Consulting Inc.
wetland compensation and net benefit and
[4:08:48] enhancement report prepared
Oh, I'm sorry. Just read that. Uh uh
[4:08:53] uh
[4:08:56] Sorry, guys.
Wetland compensation and net benefit and
[4:09:00] enhancement report prepared by Azimuth
Environmental Consulting and associated
[4:09:04] peer reviews prepared by SLR Consulting
pertaining to the protection,
[4:09:09] compensation, and net benefit of
significant natural features on and
[4:09:12] adjacent to the subject lands and other
matters as detailed in staff report plan
[4:09:17] 2026-092
and OPA 56. And finally,
[4:09:22] the submission of an identified traffic
impact brief or stamped letter from
[4:09:27] a professional engineer which confirms
that the opposed 0 m setback from
[4:09:33] Juddhaven Road bracket District Road 28
will not represent will not present any
[4:09:39] operation or functional concerns from a
transportation per
[4:09:42] perspective. And confirms that the
existing right-of-way along Juddhaven
[4:09:47] Road is 26 m in width consistent with
the requirements of the District of
[4:09:52] Muskoka.
Ms. Crowder,
[4:09:56] could you net that out for us?
[4:10:00] But seriously, too, you know, what what
what is before us and and where are we
[4:10:04] agreement and what are the actual
decisions are before us?
[4:10:09] » Through you, Chair. Um yes, so lengthy
um resolution, but essentially this
[4:10:15] incorporates um that
staff bring forward a bylaw for
[4:10:22] council's consideration um that will be
drafted by staff over the next few
[4:10:27] weeks. I would like to bring it forward
to the special council meeting in July
[4:10:32] um if all works out that way, that would
be wonderful. And you would have that
[4:10:37] bylaw for your review and consideration.
Um and then ultimately would be making a
[4:10:43] decision on that bylaw at that council
meeting. So, that's the first component
[4:10:48] of that resolution.
And the bylaw would be drafted um to
[4:10:53] reflect the decisions made here today as
it pertains to the floodplain, the
[4:10:57] wetland, and other matters that we've
discussed.
[4:11:00] And the second part of this bylaw or
this sorry, this resolution is the
[4:11:04] incorporation of holding provisions. Um
and what would be included within those
[4:11:09] holding, um, provisions. So, we have the
developers group agreement and the
[4:11:13] master development agreement, both of
which are laid out in the, um, OPA 56.
[4:11:18] And, uh, the master development
agreement is currently under works with
[4:11:22] the proponent, um, in the draft stage.
Provincial approvals, the district's,
[4:11:27] um, requirements have been incorporated
in here as it relates to the water and
[4:11:31] waste water treatment plant.
Um, and then essentially that site plan
[4:11:37] approval be, um,
that that process be implemented and the
[4:11:43] consultants continue working together,
the environmental consultants,
[4:11:47] um, and that essentially the, the
measures set forth would be implemented
[4:11:52] through the site plan control process.
Um,
[4:11:56] and then there's also another district
condition about the traffic impact
[4:11:59] brief. The items that have been
requested or that we have heard may want
[4:12:05] to be amended would include, um, the
depth of dredging.
[4:12:10] So, if that is a matter that, um, this
committee wishes to amend, cuz as of
[4:12:15] right now,
um, the motion reads that the
[4:12:19] recommendations put forth by SLR be
implemented. So, that would be the 2 m
[4:12:23] depth. So, if that's something that
committee wants to change, um, there is
[4:12:27] a resolution prepared to reflect that.
And the second is the traffic impact
[4:12:33] brief, um, and the right of way along
Jud Haven Road.
[4:12:37] The district and the proponent have
discussed this item and have agreed to
[4:12:42] wording,
um, that has also been put in a
[4:12:45] resolution for you. Um,
to discuss. So, that's sort of a summary
[4:12:51] here. Um, we can also go through exactly
what the wording of the, those
[4:12:55] amendments are should committee be
interested in doing so.
[4:12:58] » And, um,
there wasn't a mention, I think, of uh,
[4:13:03] the 26 m versus the 20 m. Is it
>> Through you
[4:13:07] » need to correct for that as well?
>> Through you, Chair. So, that's the item
[4:13:11] about the right of way with Judhaven
Road that I mentioned. So, it is in the
[4:13:15] in the resolution there.
>> Ms. Bustard, um
[4:13:18] do you have any
anything you'd like to say about
[4:13:23] what we have in this resolution?
>> Uh thank you very much for the
[4:13:27] opportunity. I I mean, we've talked at
length about it. Our our request just
[4:13:31] remains that there would be the
opportunity to dredge up to 3 m
[4:13:34] with the extent and and details being
defined through detailed design. And Ms.
[4:13:39] Crowder just specified that Judhaven is
more just administrative. It just right
[4:13:43] now says that the right of way is 26
when it's currently only 20. So, the
[4:13:47] confirmation is that it can be widened
up to 26. So, it's more just a language
[4:13:51] correction more than anything else.
>> That's very well.
[4:13:53] » Thank you very much. But all other
conditions we're in full agreement with.
[4:13:56] Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[4:13:58] Councillor Adams.
>> Uh thank you and through you.
[4:14:01] How do we table the motion of the
2 m to 3 m?
[4:14:06] Thank you.
>> We have We have a draft.
[4:14:09] » a mover and a seconder.
>> Well, we
[4:14:12] » Yeah, are we
>> First of all, before we get to that
[4:14:15] are there any questions?
>> Chair,
[4:14:19] pardon me. Um I did see Curtis Zefritz
on the screen, manager of planning. So,
[4:14:23] I don't know if he wanted to speak to
the district condition.
[4:14:27] » Good afternoon, sir.
>> Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, uh through
[4:14:31] you. No, I would just want to be
available should the committee have any
[4:14:34] questions about any of the district
conditions. So, I just had my my video
[4:14:39] camera on just to be available.
>> All right. Thank you very much.
[4:14:42] » Thank you.
>> All right. So, where were we We were at
[4:14:46] Does anybody have any questions?
All right. Now we can have the debate.
[4:14:50] Is there any debate
other than we need a resolution passed?
[4:14:56] Right?
We have a draft resolution.
[4:15:00] » Yeah.
Technically, I should have a mover and a
[4:15:02] seconder.
On that resolution, I preferably
[4:15:07] » I think I saw this hand up and then that
hand. So,
[4:15:10] um
moved by Councillor Mezen, seconded by
[4:15:13] Councillor Zavitz.
[4:15:16] » So, that's the wording now.
People will write on this.
[4:15:19] » Pardon?
>> Sorry.
[4:15:20] » That's wording. I'll give you the
correct wording to sign.
[4:15:57] » Okay, committee, let me
let me read this
[4:16:00] resolution.
[4:16:03] Moved by Councillor Edwards, seconded by
[4:16:08] Sorry.
[4:16:11] » Okay.
[4:16:18] » Be it resolved that
Sorry, moved by Councillor Mezen,
[4:16:22] seconded by Councillor Zavitz.
Be it resolved that the resolution as
[4:16:25] amended be amended as follows:
to add
[4:16:31] in order
to create an open water and shallow
[4:16:35] marsh wetland feature not exceeding 3 m
in depth
[4:16:39] after the words wetland compensation and
net benefit and enhancement report
[4:16:44] prepared by Azimuth Environmental
Consulting Inc. in the second last
[4:16:48] bullet.
And that the words
[4:16:51] quote, that existing right of way along
Juddhaven Road is 26 m in width,
[4:16:57] consistent with the requirements of the
District of Muskoka official plan, end
[4:17:01] quote, in the last bullet be replaced
with, quote, that the right of way is or
[4:17:08] allows for the future expansion to 26 m
consistent with the requirements of the
[4:17:13] District of Muskoka official plan.
[4:17:17] That's the resolution. Do we have any
[4:17:22] Any questions or debate?
Going to call the question. All those in
[4:17:26] favor.
Okay. Carries. Any opposed?
[4:17:31] Okay.
[4:17:42] All right. We move on to the next item
agenda.
[4:17:45] Agenda item.
Um first of all, thank you to staff on
[4:17:51] this file.
Thank you for the applicants.
[4:17:55] And uh
thank you to committee
[4:17:59] for being such a obedient committee.
[4:18:05] There we go.
A cooperative and understanding
[4:18:08] committee. All right. So, the our next
item
[4:18:13] Mayor Mayor Kelly.
Thank you very much. And uh I just want
[4:18:17] to say one quick thing. This, you know,
it's a huge day
[4:18:21] uh for us and I think it's a huge uh
vote of confidence in the future of our
[4:18:26] township and particularly up in Minett.
Um I spoke earlier about uh stepping
[4:18:31] back two or three paces and addressing
more than the very well-documented
[4:18:36] planning issues. And I'm really, really
pleased with how this thing was dealt
[4:18:40] with. There There was great questions,
great debate and discussion.
[4:18:45] Um and so I couldn't be more proud.
I know there will be some negative
[4:18:49] blowback on some of the issues. Some
people are going to disagree with us,
[4:18:53] but I can tell you at the foundation of
every good decision is process, and
[4:18:58] we've we I think executed well against a
really good process, good plan. So,
[4:19:03] thank you all on behalf of the rest of
the constituents of this township.
[4:19:12] » Actually, committee, we have
We have one more thing to do, and that
[4:19:16] is we need to approve the main motion as
amended. Everybody All those in favor?
[4:19:23] Thank you. All right.
[4:19:33] All right, so
[4:19:39] Without further ado, we move on to
the Bala Legion file.
[4:19:52] » Okay, thank you, Chair Bosworth.
The next applications to be heard today
[4:19:57] are concurrent zoning bylaw amendment
application ZBA 2226
[4:20:02] and official plan amendment application
OPA 67 in the name of the Royal Canadian
[4:20:07] Legion. The subject lands are known
municipally as 1011 Maple Avenue.
[4:20:12] Next slide, please.
[4:20:16] As committee may recall, these
applications were originally heard last
[4:20:19] month on June 11th, where the
applications were deferred by planning
[4:20:23] committee for staff to undertake a
review and analysis of submissions
[4:20:26] received in response to the
applications.
[4:20:29] As part of the deferral, a revised
proposal was requested, which
[4:20:33] demonstrates a reduction in height and
density and provides a satisfactory
[4:20:37] parking solution before approval can be
considered.
[4:20:40] Next slide, please.
[4:20:43] The amended proposal has removed a story
from the proposed multi-use building.
[4:20:48] This results in a reduction in height
from 72.2 ft to 54 ft.
[4:20:53] This change in height largely addresses
staff's concern as it relates to height,
[4:20:57] noting that the existing site-specific
bylaw on the lands permits a building
[4:21:01] height of 55 ft.
Next slide, please.
[4:21:06] The amended proposal has reduced the
number of units from 128 to 106.
[4:21:12] This changes the unit per hectare ratio
from 170 units per hectare to 137 units
[4:21:18] per hectare.
Staff acknowledge that this is still a
[4:21:21] significant numerical variation from the
existing policy, which permits 70 units
[4:21:26] per gross hectare.
The remaining policies within the
[4:21:29] official plan speak to the character of
the area. Considering that the parking,
[4:21:33] lot coverage, height, and other
attributes are now supportable by staff,
[4:21:38] staff are of the opinion that the number
of units within the building would not
[4:21:41] change the character from a built form
perspective.
[4:21:45] From an intensity of use perspective,
staff refer to the technical studies
[4:21:49] which provide justification for the
development and are subject peer review
[4:21:52] through the utilization of a holding
provision.
[4:21:56] Staff do note, however, that the built
form of the site, meaning the building
[4:22:00] plus the parking, will occupy most of
the subject lands, leaving minimal green
[4:22:04] space or ability to revegetate.
Any available area will be required to
[4:22:09] be revegetated through the site plan
control process.
[4:22:13] Next slide, please.
The amended proposal increased the
[4:22:17] amount of on-site parking from 56 spaces
to 121 spaces.
[4:22:22] 43 of these spaces will be underground,
and 78 will be at grade.
[4:22:27] This is a significant improvement over
the previous iteration of the proposal,
[4:22:31] which would provide for one space per
residential unit plus 15 spaces for
[4:22:36] visitors, the Legion, medical clinic,
etc.
[4:22:39] Staff acknowledge that there are
surrounding public parking areas, which
[4:22:43] could aid in the need for parking during
the day.
[4:22:46] However, staff remain of the opinion
that the parking justification report
[4:22:50] leaves unresolved concerns.
These concerns need to be addressed
[4:22:54] prior to lifting of the holding
provision.
[4:22:57] The proposal seeks to provide five
barrier-free parking spaces, where 12
[4:23:01] accessible units are proposed.
Staff question the adequacy of the
[4:23:05] proposed amount of barrier-free spaces
when these numbers don't align.
[4:23:10] Further, the proposed Legion facilities,
by nature of their use, draw users to
[4:23:14] the establishment who may who may
require barrier-free spaces.
[4:23:19] The Township's comprehensive zoning
bylaw requires a minimum of 13 13
[4:23:23] barrier-free spaces,
and staff recommend that this number be
[4:23:27] upheld.
Next slide, please.
[4:23:31] Since the time of the original public
meeting, one letter of support and two
[4:23:35] letters of opposition have been
received. These comments were forwarded
[4:23:38] to committee prior to today's meeting,
one of which was forwarded this morning.
[4:23:43] As it was received this morning.
It is staff's opinion that the concerns
[4:23:47] noted in the original letter of
opposition, the one forwarded to you
[4:23:52] earlier on,
um is addressed through revisions to the
[4:23:55] applications to reduce density and that
the parking justification study be
[4:23:59] revised to address staff's concerns as
noted in the original staff report.
[4:24:06] Staff have prepared a detailed report
for committee's consideration and
[4:24:09] recommend the following:
that official plan amendment 67, as
[4:24:13] amended, be revised to reflect the
amended applications as detailed in the
[4:24:17] staff report, and that the revised OPA
be adopted by the Township and the
[4:24:21] record forwarded to the District
Municipality of Muskoka for approval.
[4:24:25] Staff further recommend that zoning
bylaw amendment application ZBA 2226, as
[4:24:30] amended, be approved subject to the
following.
[4:24:34] That the draft bylaw and associated
schedules be revised to reflect the
[4:24:38] amended applications as detailed in the
staff report.
[4:24:42] That the draft bylaw be revised to
require that 13 of the proposed parking
[4:24:46] spaces be barrier-free spaces in
accordance with the requirements of the
[4:24:50] Township's comprehensive zoning bylaw as
amended.
[4:24:53] And that revisions be made to the draft
bylaw to first amend section 2D to state
[4:24:59] that the parking justification report be
to satisfactorily address staff comments
[4:25:03] instead of being peer-reviewed.
And second, remove section 2G being that
[4:25:09] the lands receive site plan approval
prior to the lifting of the holding
[4:25:12] provision.
Staff have no further comments at this
[4:25:15] time. They're happy to answer any
questions from committee. Thank you.
[4:25:19] » Thank you very much.
Mr. Hunter.
[4:25:24] You have the floor.
[4:25:29] » Thank you, Chair, and good afternoon. Uh
my name is James Hunter, the planner and
[4:25:33] project manager for the applicant on
behalf of Morgan Planning and
[4:25:36] Development. Um we talked about
>> James, I I will be uh I'll be generous
[4:25:41] with the 5 minutes today.
>> Oh, no, I don't need 5 minutes. I
[4:25:43] appreciate it.
Um I'm just jumping up to say that we
[4:25:47] would like to thank staff uh first and
foremost for everything that they've
[4:25:49] worked uh with us on this proposal. It's
been uh quite a process to get to this
[4:25:53] stage, and the applicant really
appreciates that. And second, thank you
[4:25:56] to you, Council Committee, for hearing
us uh in the previous meeting and this
[4:26:00] meeting. Um we brought forward a
application and a proposed development
[4:26:04] that we're very excited about. Uh with
our second submission, we made some
[4:26:07] pretty substantial changes to get to
this point. Um in addition to that, the
[4:26:11] parking uh landscape comments that were
provided in the report, um we do
[4:26:15] support, and we can address that through
the holding provision. So, um in
[4:26:18] summary, uh thank you for the
recommendation, and I'm happy to answer
[4:26:21] any questions directed my way.
>> Thank you very much.
[4:26:26] Committee, what questions do we have for
the applicant and Ms. Crowder?
[4:26:32] Councilor Roberts.
>> Hey, I I I clarity on the parking.
[4:26:39] So, there's 137
units
[4:26:42] in in in that that's just the units. The
No, 102.
[4:26:47] So, you must
The
[4:26:49] 100 Go ahead.
>> Through you, Chair, if I may, to
[4:26:52] Councilor Roberts, there are 106 units
proposed. The density ratio
[4:26:59] is 170 Sorry, 137 units per gross
hectare.
[4:27:05] The lands are less than a hectare, which
is why there's
[4:27:08] those numbers are different, but it's
106 units proposed.
[4:27:11] » 106, okay. So, I thank you for for
clarifying that for me. I made a
[4:27:14] mistake. So, there's 106
residential units.
[4:27:20] But, there's also
the Legion um
[4:27:24] facility that the traditionally is
have had on spot.
[4:27:31] And that will require more parking
when the events happen.
[4:27:36] And then we have um 13 barrier-free
um
[4:27:42] uh spots.
[4:27:44] Are the 13
the that 13 barriers speed uh
[4:27:49] places which could be used 24 hours a
day by people that
[4:27:54] live in the [clears throat] complex
and
[4:27:58] require parking.
>> Ms. Crowder.
[4:28:00] » Through you, Chair, uh to Councilor
Roberts, so
[4:28:04] of the proposed parking supply, which is
121 spaces, 13 of those staff are
[4:28:10] recommending be barrier-free. Now, the
township's
[4:28:15] um
jurisdiction over this would be This is
[4:28:18] the number of parking spaces required,
this is the number that have to be
[4:28:21] barrier-free. Um
potentially through site plan
[4:28:25] agreements, we could stipulate that
those those spaces need to be for the
[4:28:29] residents of the of the um residential
component.
[4:28:35] Um
we've done something similar in the past
[4:28:38] with um cash in lieu of parking
applications,
[4:28:41] but as of right now, we have not worked
that into our recommendation. So, if
[4:28:45] that's something that committee would
like to see happen, that those spaces be
[4:28:48] dedicated to the residents, um then that
could be something that's brought
[4:28:53] forward. But as of right now, the way
the resolution is is written, that would
[4:28:57] not be a requirement.
So, those spaces would be available to
[4:29:01] the public, essentially.
>> Mhm.
[4:29:04] Thank you.
[4:29:06] Councillor Nishikawa.
>> Thank you. I just wanted to comment on
[4:29:11] the
three buildings I've been involved with
[4:29:14] through the district and accessible
parking,
[4:29:18] that it wasn't
[4:29:21] um
it wasn't just for
[4:29:25] the residents when we did the accessible
parking numbers. It was
[4:29:29] quite frankly visitors as well. So, I
just didn't want to get
[4:29:33] hung up on trying to manage
the users of the
[4:29:39] Legion itself as opposed to the
residents.
[4:29:44] » It's still a little still a little
a little unclear in my mind. First First
[4:29:48] of all,
does the 121 include the 13?
[4:29:54] » Through you, Chair. As currently
proposed, they are proposing five
[4:29:58] barrier-free spaces,
>> Right.
[4:30:00] » which would be five of the 121. What
staff are recommending is that
[4:30:06] 13 of the 121 be barrier-free.
>> And were you also suggesting that we
[4:30:12] could make those barrier-free
available only to the residents?
[4:30:18] » Through you, Chair. I think the question
was raised as to whether they would be
[4:30:22] dedicated to the residential units. We
have not written that that needs to
[4:30:27] happen in our staff report. We have just
noted that the zoning bylaw requires
[4:30:32] this number of barrier-free units based
on the number of units and the gross
[4:30:36] floor area of the other uses proposed.
If committee wants to see those
[4:30:41] dedicated to the residential units,
that's something that could be
[4:30:44] discussed. But as of right now, we're
not recommending that, no.
[4:30:47] » And and what do we have with respect to
visitor parking? No visitor parking?
[4:30:53] » Through you.
Um the proposal as currently drafted,
[4:30:57] there would be 15 spaces that would be
associated with visitor parking. And
[4:31:04] that is if
every unit had a space that was
[4:31:08] occupied, it would leave 15 spaces left
over for visitors, but that would also
[4:31:12] be for the Legion itself, the medical
clinic, and um the office spaces.
[4:31:19] » Mr. Under.
>> Yeah, thank you. And through the Chair,
[4:31:21] just to help uh Ms. Crowder out. So,
once we get the official plan amendment
[4:31:25] and zoning bylaw amendment in place
after this, we're going to work with
[4:31:27] staff on the site plan approval site
plan control process. Um something we
[4:31:31] haven't highlighted enough through our
application is that a percentage of
[4:31:34] these units are going to be accessible.
So, when we design this building for
[4:31:37] site plan approval, to uh Counselor
Roberts' point, um we will allocate
[4:31:42] accessible spaces to those units in
addition to visitor and residents. So,
[4:31:47] um we're essentially setting uh minimum
of five. We would like to get to the 13
[4:31:52] that staff suggested. If we can, we will
exceed that number. Um it just depends
[4:31:56] on how the the site design goes at the
site plan approval. And then the number
[4:32:00] of accessible units cuz we would
obviously want to target a one-to-one
[4:32:03] ratio for those units for those
accessible spaces. So, ultimately the
[4:32:07] current 121 um would provide for that,
but we do hope to expand the parking. I
[4:32:11] just want to make that clear that we do
plan to increase these numbers uh
[4:32:14] through our site plan control.
[4:32:17] » Committee, any other questions do we
have?
[4:32:22] Councilor Mazan.
[4:32:25] » Thank you and through you and just again
on the parking piece
[4:32:29] confirming that the
process will allow for
[4:32:34] um
parking all to be within their
[4:32:39] uh
their property footprint.
[4:32:42] And that of the public space would
remain
[4:32:45] for transient use, meaning
for events. Like I think somebody
[4:32:50] brought up events and things like it
like it's being used today but not for
[4:32:53] overnight parking.
>> Schroeder.
[4:32:56] » Through you, Chair. Um am I correct that
Councilor Mazan, you're referring to the
[4:33:01] lot across the across the way?
>> Thank you and through you. I think what
[4:33:05] I'm just I think a concern that has been
brought up and we've experienced before
[4:33:09] in other areas of the township is um
public lands are used as overnight
[4:33:14] parking spots. It can create real
conflict within the community and I'm
[4:33:18] just I'm actually picking up on the the
question Mayor Kelly had asked earlier
[4:33:22] on. Just making sure that
the parking will be satisfied in this
[4:33:26] process for this particular
um development on its own lands or
[4:33:32] versus relying on public lands. We just
don't want to create a conflict. We've
[4:33:37] already lived through this conflict
many times.
[4:33:40] » Ms. Schroeder.
>> Through you, Chair. Um to Councilor
[4:33:43] Mazan. So the main um thing that staff
were looking at when it came to the
[4:33:48] residential component is that each
residence have at least one space and
[4:33:52] that has been resolved. The question of
whether there are enough spaces on the
[4:33:56] lands to satisfy the more public use
being the Legion facilities and any
[4:34:01] events they may have um is a bit more
sub
[4:34:06] uh
I always get subjective and objective
[4:34:08] mixed up. But, um the parking plans that
we have before us say that the parking
[4:34:14] supply is satisfactory for that.
However, we are recommending that that
[4:34:19] be peer-reviewed because staff do have
significant questions and concerns with
[4:34:23] that parking plan. So, provided it is
peer-reviewed and those questions
[4:34:28] answered to the satisfaction of staff,
and we would be in a position to lift
[4:34:32] the hold. However, if those questions
were not satisfactorily addressed,
[4:34:37] then we would not lift the hold.
>> Okay, Kelly.
[4:34:43] Thank you, and through you. I I just
have a couple of concerns I want to hear
[4:34:46] some answers to. And one of them is the
parking concern, and one of them is the
[4:34:50] use of a hold as a tool to remedy
a perceived shortage of of parking.
[4:34:56] Simply because
I
[4:34:59] you know,
I don't know how you can just
[4:35:02] I guess we don't allow anything to
happen until they get resolved.
[4:35:05] Otherwise, you're going to wind up with
a building with a deficiency of parking.
[4:35:08] And the real issue for me
is not the deficiency of the parking,
[4:35:11] it's what that does to the surrounding
neighborhood and the residents. We had a
[4:35:15] uh
young gentleman in here earlier this
[4:35:18] morning who was a store owner in the
near near area. He's counting on people
[4:35:21] being able to park in or near
uh
[4:35:24] proximity to his store and walk in and
buy stuff and get out. And we can't uh
[4:35:30] in good conscience saddle him with the
responsibility of looking out at the
[4:35:35] cars that have nowhere else to park and
have to sit there all the time. So,
[4:35:38] that's a big issue. Uh I don't know once
the cat's out of the bag how you solve
[4:35:42] that one. I'll throw out the other
question, and whoever wants to answer it
[4:35:46] can answer it. Um I was in attendance
[clears throat] when the first
[4:35:50] announcement was made, and and I don't
see um Mr. Mills here right now, but uh
[4:35:56] there was certainly a lot of buzz and a
lot of interest. And I think there were
[4:35:59] a lot of people who put funds up uh to
secure some right of first refusal or
[4:36:05] whatever it is to get a spot in the new
building. I want to understand whether
[4:36:10] or not the nature of the building has
stayed consistent throughout.
[4:36:14] Is [clears throat] it still uh what
people thought they were buying into?
[4:36:18] Has it changed either by financing or
other commitments that may have been
[4:36:22] made? Uh has the nature of the uh
the building changed so that there's any
[4:36:28] concern but that
there's still a big demand for this uh
[4:36:32] product in the market.
>> So, there's two questions. I'll let
[4:36:36] counselor or sorry,
Ms. Crowder um
[4:36:39] answer the first one.
>> Thank you through you, Chair.
[4:36:42] » Back to holding effectiveness for
>> Yeah. Yeah, so when staff read the
[4:36:48] traffic study, which also speaks to
parking,
[4:36:51] um there were major
concerns that were noted. Um namely that
[4:36:56] the areas used as comparators simply
aren't comparative to our area. You
[4:37:01] know, we Bella doesn't have any public
transit. So, to compare against only
[4:37:06] areas with public transit
doesn't make a lot of sense. So, we have
[4:37:12] posed, I think, four or five very big
questions that need to be addressed
[4:37:17] before we would ever be in a position
where we would lift that hold. So, yeah,
[4:37:22] you cannot apply for your building
permits until the hold is lifted. Um so,
[4:37:27] we would not be in a position where this
building is built and then we're not
[4:37:31] satisfied.
>> Ms. Crowder, the second question about
[4:37:34] the nature of the building.
>> Yeah, so through the chair to to Mayor.
[4:37:39] Um the nature of the building has
remained the same. For a second
[4:37:41] submission, there's been a slight
internal redesign to drop the number of
[4:37:44] units and also to increase the parking.
Um but the original commitments and
[4:37:48] trust is all actually grow and our
remain. So,
[4:37:51] um
also it's very important, sorry, just on
[4:37:53] the first topic for the parking. So, the
the parking study we did that was
[4:37:56] provided in support of the first
application, uh that specifically looked
[4:38:01] at the 56 on-site parking spaces and
then our proposals for off-site or
[4:38:05] shared parking spaces. Since that time
we've more than doubled the parking on
[4:38:08] the site. We also have access to uh
approximately 81 across the street and
[4:38:12] then we have adjacent owners agreements
for about 40 spaces.
[4:38:16] So, the parking study originally um said
that our site was efficient. Now,
[4:38:22] speaking with consultants, we haven't
had time to update that, so that's what
[4:38:24] this on hold is on the zoning. And that
is a standard process, so as as Ms.
[4:38:29] Crowder said, uh we have to update that
study and provide it to staff for
[4:38:33] confirmation before we can lift that
zone.
[4:38:37] » Follow up, Mr. Kelly.
>> Just a quick follow up and thank you for
[4:38:39] that. Thank you for the information.
Uh [clears throat] the the adjacent and
[4:38:43] across the street parking
um is part of my concern and you
[4:38:48] probably heard my
uh focus on parking uh this morning. Um
[4:38:54] my understanding, uh Ms. Crowder,
correct me if I'm wrong or I should
[4:38:58] go ahead and correct me now. I'm
probably going to be wrong. Uh but uh
[4:39:01] » [laughter]
>> is that
[4:39:03] my understanding [clears throat] is that
the parking really has to be on land
[4:39:08] owned by the same uh uh owner as the
building and I don't know that you I
[4:39:12] know in the adjacent spaces you're
looking at, I think it's leased facility
[4:39:15] uh leased land and I don't know what you
have across the street.
[4:39:18] » Mr. Honor.
>> Yes, Mr. Chair, today Mr. Kelly. So,
[4:39:22] to clarify, there's 121 parking spaces
on site and 43 of those are underground,
[4:39:27] 78 are at grade. So, all of the parking
is accommodated on site. The way that
[4:39:31] the Legion has historically operated is
street parking, minimal on site and then
[4:39:36] the 81 spaces across the street. All of
that will be maintained and actually
[4:39:39] increased on our site. Um something that
we discussed in last meeting that we'd
[4:39:43] like to work with the township on is
improved street parking in the area. So,
[4:39:47] if we're a development working with the
municipality um along Maple and
[4:39:50] surrounding areas to improve those spots
so that it's not only for us for
[4:39:54] festivals, etc. that it's improved for
everyone. So, that's a large component
[4:39:58] of our project. Um so, when we look at
the rough numbers, I mean, we're we're
[4:40:01] looking at a total between the residents
and the visitors, we're probably in the
[4:40:05] 250 to 270 parking spaces with events,
which is significant considering we
[4:40:11] started at about 100. So, across our
site between the shared agreements and
[4:40:15] offsite, we've almost tripled the
parking or exceeded triple the parking.
[4:40:19] Um and our parking space originally
supported that. So, as Ms. Crowder said,
[4:40:22] um the increase hasn't been addressed
through the parking justification
[4:40:26] justification study. Um that is going to
be done to remove the zone hold.
[4:40:34] » Councillor Kent.
>> Can I make a call it's question. I I
[4:40:39] guess my biggest concern
I have other concerns, but
[4:40:44] is the sustainability of Bala
being able to deal with this 25%
[4:40:49] increase in population head count. This
combined with the the prior that was
[4:40:53] noted by the gentleman this morning.
It's a tiny town. It's not set up to
[4:40:57] service people properly for year-round
at that level. That number of people on
[4:41:03] a year-round basis. And I was wondering
what we as a township or what
[4:41:08] what can be done to to support the
growth if that's what the committee
[4:41:14] decides to do, but just sort of plopping
it in and doing nothing to help them
[4:41:18] with maybe
a nurse practitioner's office, a
[4:41:22] whatever is needed, additional grocery
store, you know, put the LCBO back, you
[4:41:27] know, things that need to be done to
support this community. How do we make
[4:41:30] that happen and who evaluates that?
>> Ms. Crowder, could you talk to that from
[4:41:35] a planning point of view?
>> Through you, Chair. Um to Councillor
[4:41:38] Kent, it's a great question. Um I can
answer it from
[4:41:43] the planning side of things.
We are relying on the professional
[4:41:48] guidance of provided to us by the
district and the consultant. So, the
[4:41:53] district is saying that there is
capacity to service this facility.
[4:41:59] Um
Yes.
[4:42:01] And as far as the transportation goes,
it is recommended it be peer reviewed,
[4:42:06] but provided that checks out as the as
the
[4:42:09] um
study says, it it is able to support the
[4:42:12] proposal. We do rely on those findings.
Um
[4:42:16] as far as providing facilities, this
specific proposal does propose a medical
[4:42:22] clinic within the building, um which
they're saying would have one
[4:42:25] practitioner. Um
so, something to think about, but I do
[4:42:29] appreciate your comments that as a whole
community,
[4:42:33] you know, what will this impact be?
I don't know that I have the answer
[4:42:37] specifically for you, but it is a
consideration.
[4:42:40] » Councillor Nishikawa.
[4:42:45] Councillor Nishikawa.
>> Oh, sorry. I just wanted to clarify, um
[4:42:49] what um Ms. Crowder mentioned
from the district's perspective,
[4:42:55] they were I believe I understood it to
be that the district was has room for
[4:43:01] servicing, as in sewer and water,
but nothing else. Like, they're not
[4:43:06] bringing transportation
to the area, ever, to Muskoka Lakes,
[4:43:11] quite frankly, but I'm just saying that
that it's not on the table for that we
[4:43:15] would ever get the district to And so, I
wanted just clarify that
[4:43:19] from you. Thank you.
>> Ms. Crowder.
[4:43:20] » Thank you. Thank you. Through you,
Chair, to Councillor Nishikawa. Yes, to
[4:43:23] clarify, I'm speaking solely to water
and sewer infrastructure.
[4:43:28] Thank you.
>> Councillor Zavitz.
[4:43:31] Thank you, and through you. So, I'm
happy to answer uh my good friend over
[4:43:35] there. Um you know, it it's interesting.
Uh we talk about seasonal and we talk
[4:43:40] about, you know, year-round, Um
Bala swells in those summer those peak
[4:43:46] summer months to a, you know, quite a
size.
[4:43:50] And the people that are there are
accommodated and I you know, I I as the
[4:43:54] district has identified this as a
development node as has we um with with
[4:43:59] water and sewer as some of the services.
Yes, there we're lacking in some others,
[4:44:05] but you know, I wonder if that's not a
sort of a natural growth piece as well.
[4:44:09] So, I I don't want to get too far ahead
of myself, but you know, in terms of the
[4:44:13] parking is probably my only concern if I
might and the parking in terms of the
[4:44:19] lot that we own that anyone the public
can use
[4:44:25] is that are we going to come down to
that discussion around this table? I
[4:44:29] guess in terms of, you know, if you're
including it if they're including it in
[4:44:33] their number, I mean, that's
our parking lot, right? So, that's
[4:44:38] anybody's parking lot all day and not at
night. So, I I'd like some clarification
[4:44:43] on that if I might. Screw you, chair.
>> Ms. Corriveau, I
[4:44:48] I think that question if I've got it the
counselor is having is, you know, how
[4:44:52] will the site plan
process will it involve us? I think you
[4:44:58] would like to know that and
um
[4:45:03] you how how will we know the ultimate
outcome of the parking?
[4:45:07] Is that fair, Counselor Zavitz?
>> Well, screw you. Sorry, I I thank you
[4:45:11] for that clarification.
What I'm saying is it's everyone's
[4:45:14] parking lot. So,
for them to include it in their numbers
[4:45:18] I find that a little worrisome and I
maybe that might have been a slip. Um
[4:45:22] but if if he's if you're including that
as part of the 280 whatever, that
[4:45:27] parking lot could be used for a birthday
party down the street and there could be
[4:45:31] 48 cars there. So, that's not dependable
parking is what I'm saying, 12 hours of
[4:45:36] the day.
>> Understood.
[4:45:37] » Mr. Hunter.
>> Yeah, through the chair to councilor so
[4:45:41] that's not included in any of our
parking calculations anymore just to be
[4:45:45] clear. Everything is provided on site
which was the recommendation for the
[4:45:48] reason we had the original deferral.
We're saying that if there's peak events
[4:45:52] and then we do have that 81 parking
spaces across the street. We're looking
[4:45:56] to work with the township for on site
parking improvements along the streets.
[4:45:59] There's other means that we have
available to us but as far as our
[4:46:02] development and servicing the legion
goes our transportation and our
[4:46:06] professional engineers say that we is
supported. We have reviewed that with
[4:46:09] the district and they have the same
opinion. It's just a matter of us
[4:46:12] updating that wholly into the
comprehensive revised report and getting
[4:46:16] it back to staff for our submission so.
>> If I may supplemental thank you. Chair.
[4:46:21] » Yes.
>> Thank you.
[4:46:23] Yeah, because it's also the legion's
parking lot to use right and and you
[4:46:28] have used it for
80 years.
[4:46:31] » Yeah, so
>> since the legion was built so
[4:46:33] » Yeah, through the chair.
That's Sorry. Um,
[4:46:36] the legion has used that parking spot
and surrounding since it's open so the
[4:46:40] function will remain the same. We've
added it additional spaces and we're
[4:46:44] recommending further improvements for
any concerns.
[4:46:47] Um, but you're right it's a public
parking space.
[4:46:50] » Ms. Crowder.
>> Thank you, chair. Um,
[4:46:53] just to touch on that the one of the
questions or comments that staff raised
[4:46:57] about the transit study is that those
public parking spaces were being
[4:47:03] included in the justification and so we
have said
[4:47:07] no.
You know, these are public spaces. They
[4:47:11] this this your findings your
professional opinion should not be on
[4:47:14] the basis of public spaces. So that is
something that we have asked them to
[4:47:18] address.
Um, and also I did want to correct cuz I
[4:47:22] did misspeak earlier. I said that the
district has confirmed capacity.
[4:47:26] We have included in the bylaw that is
part of the hold that confirmation of
[4:47:31] capacity be received. So I just wanted
to correct myself. Thank you.
[4:47:35] » You too.
[4:47:37] Councillor Robertson and Councillor
Edwards.
[4:47:40] Okay, so
all parking is going to be within the
[4:47:44] footprint of the of the property.
And
[4:47:48] um
my concern is from the gentleman who who
[4:47:51] was at Birch retailing or whatever that
has there.
[4:47:56] When people come to visit that
establishment where there'll be a lot of
[4:47:59] visitors, they're not going to know
that
[4:48:03] there's a retail business. Oh, I got
right one right in front. I'm just going
[4:48:06] to park there and it'll choke this
gentleman's business off.
[4:48:10] How are you going to protect that?
[4:48:15] Ms. Crowder?
[4:48:17] » For you, Chair.
Um
[4:48:19] when public when spaces are public, they
are available
[4:48:24] for anyone to use um within the
specified hours within the bylaw. So,
[4:48:30] however, when spaces are
on private property,
[4:48:35] those can be reserved for certain uses.
I don't know that the applicant is
[4:48:40] proposing to do that, to specify certain
spaces for what, but for the spaces in
[4:48:44] front of the gentleman's um business, if
we're talking about spaces along the
[4:48:49] public road, those would be public and
available to anyone to park there.
[4:48:56] So, that is a consideration that, you
know, committee should be aware of.
[4:49:00] » Councillor Edwards.
Uh
[4:49:03] thank you, Mr. Chair. I I have a few.
Looking at there's uh a miscalculation,
[4:49:09] so now there's 322 spaces, so we're
deficient 201 spaces
[4:49:15] and eight eight barrier-free spaces. Is
that correct?
[4:49:19] » Ms. Crowder.
>> For you, Chair.
[4:49:21] Um to Councillor Edwards, yes, so
I made a math error in the first report
[4:49:28] and um the correct number of spaces been
included in this revised report. So, the
[4:49:34] required number of spaces based on the
uses and everything proposed is 322
[4:49:40] spaces per the township's zoning bylaw.
They are proposing 121 spaces,
[4:49:46] which means a deficiency of 201 spaces.
>> Right.
[4:49:50] Now,
I I heard mention on-street parking.
[4:49:55] I And I believe from from the uh the uh
agent.
[4:50:01] What about winter parking when we have
to plow roads and everything else like
[4:50:04] that? You hear that?
And then,
[4:50:07] do we have a parking bylaw where you can
only only uh park for so many hours?
[4:50:12] No overnight parking?
>> Ms. Croner.
[4:50:15] » Can you correct that?
>> Yeah, through you, Chair, to Councillor
[4:50:17] Edwards. Another one of the great
questions that we have asked the
[4:50:20] transportation people to look at because
that was not spoken to in the study is
[4:50:25] snow and snow removal and how that
impacts their analysis. So, that is
[4:50:31] something that we are looking for them
to address as part of the process where
[4:50:36] the hold is is invoked for the review of
the study.
[4:50:39] Um as far as the road uh parking bylaws,
I know that the lot across from the
[4:50:45] Legion is day parking only. Please
correct me if I'm wrong. Um I don't
[4:50:51] specifically know about Maple Street. Um
I imagine somebody around the table
[4:50:55] probably does. Um but we can certainly
look into it if you'd like.
[4:50:59] » Okay. And let me ask one more. There was
an approval
[4:51:03] for uh a uh senior's building there. How
many units were in there and what
[4:51:07] parking was in there? Like, it fit the
site at that time, did it not?
[4:51:12] » Ms. Croner.
>> Through you, Chair, uh to Councillor
[4:51:14] Edwards. Yes, there was an approval for
a retirement home. It was for 128 units,
[4:51:20] which was the previously proposed number
of units of this application.
[4:51:25] Um at our previous meeting we did go
into some depth about the differences in
[4:51:29] the uses a retirement home versus um
you know, the multi-use apartment
[4:51:34] building that we're talking about today.
And the number of parking spaces
[4:51:38] required for retirement home is
significantly less than the the number
[4:51:43] of required parking spaces for today's
proposal because of the use. Um so we do
[4:51:49] have those numbers, they're in the
previous staff report and I'd be happy
[4:51:52] to pull them up for you. Um but I don't
have them off the top of my head.
[4:51:56] » you. I just wonder why the the change
like they had approval for something
[4:52:00] they could put 128
people in it. Why not use what they have
[4:52:05] because I I I could myself I can't
see
[4:52:09] supplying 201 spaces somewhere else
unless they own the land, but
[4:52:15] » Committee, we're getting someone into
discussion. So when I need to read the
[4:52:18] resolution, we can continue with
questions as well.
[4:52:23] » So moved by anybody in the council
second is
[4:52:27] » I I guess it's an oversight.
[4:52:38] » Moved by Mayor Kelly, seconded by
Councillor Kent. Be it resolved that
[4:52:42] official plan amendment OPA-67
amended bracket bracket Royal Canadian
[4:52:48] Legion be revised to reflect the amended
application as detailed in staff report
[4:52:53] plan 20-26-102
[4:52:58] and that the revised OPA be adopted
by the Township and that the record
[4:53:04] forwarded to the District Municipality
of Muskoka for approval.
[4:53:09] Uh where was I? I think Mayor Kelly.
>> Thank you and through you two questions.
[4:53:15] Uh the first to uh Ms. Crowder.
Um
[4:53:19] Uh uh uh uh uh uh I actually don't know
whether the hold is something that has
[4:53:23] to come back to committee to be relieved
or lifted or whether it is an
[4:53:26] administrative act just looked after by
staff.
[4:53:29] I'm assuming it's a staff function, but
I don't Oh, it's not. It actually comes
[4:53:32] here. I'm going to ask then, if it were
your call, how many I just want to focus
[4:53:38] specifically on the number of available
parking spaces, um, on the property
[4:53:44] itself or on contiguous land owned by
the same, uh, owner. How many spaces
[4:53:49] would you need to, uh, see,
uh, before you would recommend waving or
[4:53:55] lifting that hold?
Ms. Crowder.
[4:53:58] Through you, Chair, to Mayor Kelly. Um,
it's not a specific number I would be
[4:54:02] looking for. It is the justification,
having answered our questions. So, I I
[4:54:09] don't have a specific number before you,
but when, um, we do receive a study that
[4:54:14] satisfies our questions, we would then
be come back to Council for the lifting
[4:54:20] of the hold, and we'd be able to update
you at that time, and provided everybody
[4:54:25] was comfortable with those findings,
then you would be in a position to, um,
[4:54:28] lift the hold. But, it is like a it's a
bylaw of itself to lift the hold. That's
[4:54:33] good. Thank you very much. Second
question, and it relates I don't want to
[4:54:37] get into the, uh,
uh,
[4:54:41] I really don't want to get into the
viability of the project itself. That's
[4:54:44] not where I'm going with this, and I
certainly am not making any any judgment
[4:54:48] based on whether it's attainable or
affordable.
[4:54:51] Um,
I think I've said it before, but just to
[4:54:54] be for the record, I believe any
addition to the housing stock is
[4:54:58] valuable and is
I don't particularly care, uh, whether
[4:55:02] they're attainable, affordable, or
otherwise, as long as they are new
[4:55:05] places for people to live. Um,
is there an element of this project that
[4:55:12] will be affordable. Uh that will be
under you know, rent control to the
[4:55:16] extent that it'll
maybe be something with the District of
[4:55:20] Muskoka is engaged in. And if so, I'm
just curious what proportion of that
[4:55:24] would be.
Uh Mr. Hunter.
[4:55:26] » Yes, thank you to the chair to the
mayor. Um
[4:55:29] our proposal includes a a target towards
seniors. So, to your earlier question,
[4:55:34] we're not removing the seniors
component. There's still a significant
[4:55:37] interest and a target towards those uh
residents who rent these units cuz it is
[4:55:42] a rental building.
Out of that, uh we are targeting a
[4:55:45] percentage, at least 20% to be
accessible units. So, that includes
[4:55:50] people with special needs or seniors
with needs. And then, I believe we're
[4:55:53] 33% right now for actual affordable
criteria. And I didn't bring it today,
[4:55:58] but I got a thick document through CMHC
that you have to meet all this criteria,
[4:56:03] certain kinds of rents, and very
specific targets. So, um instead of
[4:56:07] leaving this at purely a retirement
community, the 120 units, we dropped it
[4:56:11] to 106. And then, we're trying to
actually meet the needs of uh more
[4:56:14] members of the community. So,
Uh perfect. And and thank you through
[4:56:18] you. And have you had discussions at all
with the the District uh housing group?
[4:56:23] You have? Okay. Uh and
to my knowledge, and I have some
[4:56:28] knowledge of the affordable housing,
um the District reserves the right when
[4:56:34] they're engaged on a file to provide the
tenant. And those tenants may not be
[4:56:39] from Bala, they may be moved in from
elsewhere within the District. We we're
[4:56:44] aware of that. Is that a possibility?
Okay. Thank you.
[4:56:47] » Yeah, so through the chair, the the
District is involved. I mean, this uh
[4:56:51] this development, we're lucky the
clients are pretty well connected. This
[4:56:54] has gone through the province through
CMHC, through the pro- uh through the
[4:56:57] District. Um it's gone through all
levels. So, as as you mentioned, we do
[4:57:01] have the ability to not only bring in
residents from this area, but other
[4:57:04] surrounding areas who um are really in
need of affordable housing projects.
[4:57:08] Our firm works throughout the whole
district of Muskoka. There's really not
[4:57:12] a lot of availability, so there's quite
a lot of interest in this project. And
[4:57:16] also from the adult standpoint, you
know, we're we're hearing demand for
[4:57:19] this, so
yeah, it provides quite a accessibility.
[4:57:25] » Do we have any other questions?
[4:57:29] Councillor Roberts.
>> To the gentleman in the back, this is
[4:57:32] not a public meeting, so I'm afraid you
can't make comments or questions.
[4:57:37] No.
[4:57:39] » Thank you, Chair.
The The other concern I have
[4:57:44] is access to 169
and possibly the traffic jams that occur
[4:57:51] in during our peak months.
[4:57:54] What are
staff's thoughts on that?
[4:57:58] » Ms. Crowder.
>> Through you, Chair, to Councillor
[4:58:02] Roberts. So, the traffic impact brief
has been submitted, which states that
[4:58:08] there won't be an impact.
One of the requirements of the hold is
[4:58:13] that it be peer reviewed.
So, we would be looking to have that
[4:58:16] document peer reviewed and
go from there. That's right. Thank you.
[4:58:22] » Councillor Zavitz.
>> Thank you, and through you, just to
[4:58:24] speak to that to the Councillor.
There are five access egress ingress
[4:58:29] points
from there
[4:58:32] to get in and out. So, I mean, I think I
guess I counted
[4:58:35] » There's five between River Street and
other accesses, so lots of access.
[4:58:45] » Any other uh Councillor Ishikawa.
>> Well, I just wanted to One of the
[4:58:49] concerns from um the the gentleman from
Birch Park this morning was that in fact
[4:58:55] cars would be lined up in front of his
business and no one would be able to
[4:59:00] have access to his business because
waiting to make and it's the left-hand
[4:59:04] turn. We all that have that problem on
118 when we try to leave this office.
[4:59:09] Um and it's about the one eight that
that left-hand turn. So, it's a big
[4:59:14] bigger issue than this pic particular
development that the district should
[4:59:18] start addressing.
But, it is a concern of that business
[4:59:22] owner that people will be lined up
waiting to make that left-hand turn in
[4:59:27] in summer and not people won't have
access to his building. So, that's But,
[4:59:31] I don't know that
[4:59:34] we can control that through this
application.
[4:59:39] » Committee, any other questions?
Ms. Crowder, I have a question. Does uh
[4:59:44] if it has
affordable housing
[4:59:48] does that are there different parking
requirements for affordable housing?
[4:59:55] » Through you, Chair. It's a great
question. Um
[4:59:59] as of right now
we don't have any guarantee that these
[5:00:03] will be affordable units. Yes, the
intent has been stated very clearly. Um
[5:00:09] but, the township doesn't have any way
to regulate that. Um sec- the second
[5:00:15] point I would say is that our bylaw
doesn't currently account for any kind
[5:00:21] of parking differentiation between
affordable and not. I know that in um
[5:00:26] cities, there's been a big provincial
movement to lessen the parking
[5:00:30] requirements um across the board, but
particularly for situations like
[5:00:34] apartment buildings. However, I would
say those are very city specific or or
[5:00:40] larger area specific because of public
transit, which really isn't a
[5:00:44] consideration here.
>> Councillor Robert Edwards.
[5:00:51] Uh
I'm concerned about the holding.
[5:00:55] And that's simply because if they can't
do it, it just going to fall apart.
[5:00:59] If we deferred this again, could they do
some some
[5:01:04] more work on how they're going to solve
it because like I say, we pass it with a
[5:01:09] holding and they can't do it, it's going
to fall apart. But if we deferred it and
[5:01:14] they they they talked to the district
and everything else that they they may
[5:01:18] have to reduce it a little bit or do
some some some tweaking on it. Would
[5:01:23] that not be better than than a holding?
Ms. Croner?
[5:01:28] » Through you, Chair, to Councillor
Edwards. Um this project's been a little
[5:01:32] bit unique in that we have been asked to
asked to address many of these items
[5:01:38] through utilization of a hold as opposed
to deferring, specifically because it's
[5:01:44] been communicated to me by the applicant
and agent that
[5:01:49] their need for funding for this project
is dependent on a bylaw or an approval
[5:01:55] being given.
Um if the applications are deferred,
[5:01:59] they would not have that approval, so
they have requested that these be
[5:02:03] addressed via a hold provision. However,
it is committee's right to
[5:02:08] um change that direction and defer
should they wish to do so.
[5:02:12] Um
I think ultimately you would be able to
[5:02:15] accomplish either way. So um we have
been amenable to their request.
[5:02:20] » Okay, yeah.
Supplemental then?
[5:02:23] » Yes.
>> So if they're getting funding on on
[5:02:28] these units, they may not ever be
approved if they can't meet the holding.
[5:02:34] » They won't get the
[5:02:38] » Fair comment. Um Mayor Kelly.
>> Thank you and through you, I just want
[5:02:43] to address that last issue. I I really
think in this circumstance uh sticking
[5:02:47] with the hold uh we're in a really um
well, hopefully opportunistic market for
[5:02:53] people who are building uh attainable
and affordable housing and housing of
[5:02:57] any kind. There is uh I think it's a
theory so far, but tons of money
[5:03:01] available through CMHC and other
sources. And it's really uh imperative
[5:03:05] that the we get this far with the
project so that the applications can be
[5:03:10] made, the funding's process can start,
it probably takes some time while we
[5:03:15] sort out the hold on on the other side.
I frankly don't see uh the difference
[5:03:20] nothing's going to happen on the premise
until the hold is lifted. And in the
[5:03:23] meantime, because we've chosen to hold
rather than defer, um the uh
[5:03:28] organization can start the process of of
application for the funding that's
[5:03:32] available.
>> Councillor Nishikawa.
[5:03:36] » Thank you. Through um you and I
I almost I'm going to ask if we have an
[5:03:42] opinion from the district at this point.
I have
[5:03:46] been on district council where
we have approved projects we thought
[5:03:51] with with other holds on
and in fact um
[5:03:57] it CMHC actually didn't give them the
funding because the hold wasn't a
[5:04:01] guarantee that this thing was going to
get built.
[5:04:04] So, I don't know where what that looks
like, but I would love to have
[5:04:07] district's opinion uh cuz they're on the
call.
[5:04:13] » Um
[5:04:16] Mr. Hunter.
>> Yes.
[5:04:18] » We'll come to
>> I'll I'll be quick on that. So, two two
[5:04:21] important components here, like we we
need the the zoning and OPA passed with
[5:04:25] the hold. The hold gives us the freedom
and the power of the township to control
[5:04:30] matters such as traffic.
But, speaking plainly, our applicant and
[5:04:34] our owner cannot be spending any more
money, like have the traffic report
[5:04:38] updated, archaeological or sorry,
architectural. Like these are very
[5:04:41] expensive
studies and and engineers that we're
[5:04:45] paying. So,
to progress and get to point where we
[5:04:48] can do more detailed design and address
these concerns, like we need that
[5:04:51] financing and frankly though with the
promise it's just waiting to press the
[5:04:54] button. Um
so there is a commitment to that and we
[5:04:59] were I guess we're we're really
requesting that we need to have this
[5:05:02] brought forward to a motion. We we can't
have a deferral and we accept the hold
[5:05:06] and it gives staff and council the
ability to have that control before it
[5:05:10] is removed.
>> Um do we have the district was he the
[5:05:15] district planner?
>> No.
[5:05:17] » Through through you chair, um the
district is no longer online I've been
[5:05:21] told. Um all I can say is they provided
comment on the applications saying they
[5:05:28] are not opposed, but they did not
provide anything further than that.
[5:05:32] » [clears throat]
>> Mayor Kelly.
[5:05:35] Thank you and through you. I I just want
to make sure we we we know what we're
[5:05:38] voting for here. The
there's no guarantee that anybody's
[5:05:41] going to step up and fund,
but there is a guarantee that if we
[5:05:44] don't approve this with a hold, we'll
never find out. So, at least this way we
[5:05:50] can put a stake in the ground, we can
give the necessary support, the township
[5:05:55] can give the necessary support to the
owner of the building or the developer
[5:05:59] uh to start the application process
while we work through those other issues
[5:06:03] that are still going to be subject to
the hold.
[5:06:12] » All right committee, any other debate on
this?
[5:06:15] » Councillor
Edwards.
[5:06:18] » The only thing I I I'm concerned about
is we heard the business owner today say
[5:06:23] it's a problem
for him.
[5:06:26] So, if
if we're starting to lose this and that
[5:06:30] I say like we can go ahead with it. It's
not a good situation.
[5:06:35] I think we all know that. That's why
we're asking all these these questions.
[5:06:40] It was approved for
for a seniors building they could put
[5:06:43] that in they would do the housing that
that that is required and everything
[5:06:47] else say that it's the changes that's
that's what I'm concerned about.
[5:06:55] » Thank you and through you I I'm going to
stay on this one because I have a very
[5:07:01] keen interest in seeing some housing get
built around here.
[5:07:04] Um
I I think you can pick any intersection
[5:07:08] anywhere in this Township and say we're
going to build something here and people
[5:07:11] would pop out of the woodwork and say
not in my yard not near me. I don't like
[5:07:15] this. It's a it's a fact of life. There
was a very articulate I I gather that
[5:07:19] the email we all got yesterday was the
same person that spoke today. I didn't
[5:07:23] make the link.
Oh it wasn't. Oh.
[5:07:26] There was a very articulate email that
that came out yesterday late late
[5:07:30] yesterday.
You know, you you have to pay attention
[5:07:34] to these things and there was some very
good issues raised. The simple fact of
[5:07:37] the matter is at some point in time we
have to make a value judgment. Do we
[5:07:41] value the opportunity to grow the
community to to stop the aging and
[5:07:46] shrinking population base to revitalize
the economy to put people back in you
[5:07:51] know, I heard Miss
Buster this morning say or something it
[5:07:56] was actually Miss Grogan Green say
nobody has had an opportunity to work at
[5:08:00] Cleaves for
a decade or something.
[5:08:04] We got to turn this around and it's got
to start somewhere. It's got to start
[5:08:07] with a stake in the ground that says we
will build here and we will find people
[5:08:11] to live here and they will be consumers
in this marketplace and they will be
[5:08:16] workers in this marketplace and
hopefully someday they'll grow kids in
[5:08:20] this marketplace and they'll fill hockey
leagues and and
[5:08:24] church groups and so on. It's it's a
difficult thing but you're not going to
[5:08:28] find zero opposition anywhere. So
I we've had one or two. They were both
[5:08:35] well done. I thought the presentation
this morning was well-done. But I you
[5:08:40] know,
maybe help them understand that we just
[5:08:43] imported 130 new people who are going to
be
[5:08:47] buying in your store.
That may be worth losing a few parking
[5:08:51] spaces. I don't know. But by the way,
I'm not going to be too pleased if the
[5:08:55] parking is reliant on public space or
roadside space. That's
[5:09:00] This is we're not here to subsidize the
development of this thing with parking.
[5:09:04] They've got to come back under the hold.
We'll come back and we'll look. That's
[5:09:09] why I was trying to get a sense from Ms.
Crowder if there was a hard number. We
[5:09:14] will have an opportunity to decide
whether this moves ahead, whether
[5:09:18] there's sufficient parking on site that
the people who actually operate and live
[5:09:23] around the space have much less to worry
about than they think they do.
[5:09:29] » Uh Counselor Davidson, Counselor Massin.
>> Uh thank you. I would say here, here to
[5:09:32] the mayor on those comments and I would
ask for the vote, please. Thank you.
[5:09:37] » Director Crowder.
>> Okay.
[5:09:41] It's a point of order. I I think the
group has to agree to that.
[5:09:45] » You have to sort of, you know, orally
decide to ask.
[5:09:49] » Right. Um
The group has to
[5:09:53] being told by
>> There are two
[5:09:56] » We need We need two-thirds agreement to
call a vote.
[5:10:00] All those in favor of calling the vote
right now.
[5:10:06] Okay, we didn't get two-thirds.
Counselor Massin.
[5:10:09] » I would have called the vote.
>> [laughter]
[5:10:12] » I just wanted to um add and remind that
it was 2 days ago. I was trying to
[5:10:16] remind myself as I was listening when we
all sat and listened to our economic
[5:10:20] development strategy and the direct link
with and importance of adding. They
[5:10:25] focused on attainable housing within our
township. And I just think some of the
[5:10:30] questions I mean it's day egg and the
what's it called? The chicken or the egg
[5:10:34] scenario, but you know, certainly would
think that by adding housing into a a
[5:10:39] town or a community, then we are going
to start seeing some of the other
[5:10:43] businesses kind of growing and
flourishing in that area simply because
[5:10:47] you have more people
walking around and shopping. So, you
[5:10:51] know, I think it becomes these things
are all very much linked and I think to
[5:10:55] echo the comments, my my biggest focus
is to ensure that we've got the right
[5:11:00] parking to support whatever the density
and it sounds to me like we've got a
[5:11:04] very good plan in place with staff
through this holding provision to allow
[5:11:08] for that and to help the applicant get
this project financed if they can.
[5:11:15] And then I would call the vote but
>> [laughter]
[5:11:20] » Uh committee, any more questions or
comments?
[5:11:24] Are we ready to vote now?
[5:11:29] » No, I'm good.
>> I need short. I don't know if I can put
[5:11:33] it on the screen.
>> I'll read the resolution again we've
[5:11:36] requested. Moved by Mayor Kelly,
seconded by Councillor Cain.
[5:11:41] Be it resolved that the official plan
amendment OPA-67
[5:11:45] and it
is - amended bracket Royal Canadian
[5:11:48] Legion be revised to reflect the amended
application as detailed in staff report
[5:11:54] plan 2026-102
[5:11:58] and that the revised OPA be adopted by
the township and the record forwarded to
[5:12:03] the District Municipality of Muskoka for
approval.
[5:12:09] All those in favor.
[5:12:12] Any opposed?
That carries.
[5:12:20] » This is the bylaw?
>> Yes, it is.
[5:12:24] » And who's the bylaw?
All right, so now we have the That was
[5:12:28] the OP. This is the bylaw.
Uh moved by Councillor Edwards, seconded
[5:12:34] by Councillor McIntyre.
Be it resolved that zoning
[5:12:38] bylaw application amendment ZBA-22/26
amended Royal Canadian Legion be
[5:12:45] approved subject to the following:
that the draft bylaw and associated
[5:12:49] schedules be revised to reflect the
amended applications as detailed in the
[5:12:53] staff report plan 2026-102.
That the draft bylaw be revised to
[5:12:59] require that 13 of the proposed parking
spaces be required to be barrier for
[5:13:05] free spaces in accordance with the
requirement of the township's
[5:13:08] comprehensive zoning bylaw 2014-14
as amended and that revisions be made to
[5:13:14] the draft bylaw to
A, amend section two bracket or 2D to
[5:13:20] state that the parking justification
report be updated to satisfactorily
[5:13:25] address
staff's comments instead of being period
[5:13:29] reviewed and B, remove section 2G
being that the lands received site plan
[5:13:35] approval prior to the lifting of the
holding
[5:13:37] of holding H provision.
Any debate?
[5:13:43] All those in favor.
Any opposed?
[5:13:48] That carries.
[5:13:51] Where the hell
[5:14:01] Committee, we have one final
resolution here.
[5:14:06] Moved by
[5:14:10] Councillor Kent,
seconded by Mayor Kelly.
[5:14:17] Be it resolved that the special planning
committee meeting adjourn at
[5:14:22] 2:12 p.m.
The next regular planning committee
[5:14:25] meeting will be held on Thursday,
September the 17th, 2023 2026 at 9:00
[5:14:32] a.m. via an electronically and in-person
hybrid format from the council members
[5:14:36] council chambers municipality
municipal offices in beautiful downtown
[5:14:42] Port Carling, Ontario. All those in
favor?
[5:14:46] Thank you.