Okay, good evening everyone. We're going to call tonight's meeting
to order. Can I start with an approval of the
Agenda, please Councillor Andrews and Councillor Prendergast all in favor,
and that is carried. Were there any disclosures of director
indirect pecuniary interests tonight. Not seeing any. I will ask
that you all rise if you're able for the Singing
of our National Anthem.
Lord. To. Love. In. All of us. Coming.
With. Lord, we see. The rise. The true nor strong.
And free. From. Far. And my. O Canada. We stand
on God for the glory.
Hus and free. We stand on God.
For. Thee. Stand on. God.
For. The. Acknowledge
the treaty lands and territory of the Williams treaty nations
and of the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation. We
also recognise the Defen County is the traditional territory of
the Wendat and the Honoshoune and is home to many
indigenous people today. Tonight, I just wanted to take a
moment before we get into our meeting to recognise to
everybody that today is our last meeting of council for
this term. With that, we do have a number of
our members who are running for re - election, but
we do have one to my left who is not.
So I wanted to take just a moment to thank
Councillor Andy McIntosh for his almost 40 years of public
service, 30 of those years working for the fire department
and eight, of course, being a member of council and
a former deputy mayor. Andes dedication to the community is
unparalleled. And I just really want to wish him all
the best in his retirement and thank him for all
of his work towards our community. So thank you, Andy.
Okay, so tonight's meeting is being aired on Public Television
and or streamed live and maybe taped for later public
broadcaster webcast. All members of the Public are permitted to
speak to statutory public meeting agenda items in accordance with
the relevant act. Any delegation request received at least seven
days in advance of the meeting will be afforded five
minutes to speak. Any member wishing to speak at the
meeting will be afforded three minutes to the item during
the open forum portion of that item. All members of
the Public are welcome to submit correspondence to any item
on the agenda, which will be considered Public Information and
entered into the Public Record. Items received for inclusion by
the clerks division on or before the date of this
meeting will be included on the published agenda. All information
submitted or provided during the meeting or registration will be
considered Public Information and entered into the Public Record. Tonight's
agenda includes just one statutory matter if you would like
to speak to tonight's statutory matter. Please call 1647 -
374 - 4685 and enter meeting ID 971 - 85137426
followed by the pound sign twice, or you can attend
the meeting by clicking on the Registration link included on
the published agenda. If you wish to be notified of
the decision of any of the matters listed on the
agenda, please contact the clerks division with your name, phone
number, mailing address, and email address referencing the specific matter
by email to clerk's department at orangeville. ca or by
calling 519 - 941 - 0440 extension 7303. All information
submitted or provided during the meeting or registration will be
considered public information and entered into the public record. We'll
now move into the statutory matter for tonight's meeting. Idem
7. 1 is regarding the official Plan Review. Staff have
confirmed that notice was provided in accordance with the Planning
Act for this item. I will now call upon Michael,
principal at www. architect and planners to provide a presentation.
Come on up. Thank you. The floor is yours.
Can we just go there? Mike is on. Okay. My
name is Michael Mathis. I'm a principal with WW -
Plus P Architects and Planners. I'm a Land Use Planner
and Urban Designer by training and I'm pleased to be
here to speak to you tonight and give you an
update on the official plan review process that we're undertaking.
Um, this also satisfies a statutory requirement as you're aware
under the Planning Act as part of our requirements to
update the official plan. Next slide. Okay, so in terms
of agenda, essentially want to provide you an update on
the project and the work that we've completed today. There's
four phases in our project and we're complete phase one
and partway through phase two. Um, and then, uh, hold
some time toward the end of course for discussions, questions,
and answer, uh, welcome all comments and feedback on our
process. Next slide. Okay, so why update the official plan?
Um, this may be obvious to many of you, but,
um, one of the principal reasons to update the official
plan is that it's required under the planning act. It
needs to be completed every 10 years when a municipality
has newly adopted an official plan. And then every five
years thereafter. So, um, new list to say Orangeville's due
for an update and refresh of its an official plan.
Um, the broader reason why you would want to review
and update it, of course, is that things change. Uh,
since it's initially being adopted. So there's a new realities,
new challenges and opportunities that are confronting Orangeville today. Um,
and the review and update of the official plan is
an opportunity to recognise those and kind of martial our
resources as we move forward. Next slide. There's been a
fair bit of work that's been done so far. And
many of you will be well aware of this. So
the town lasts completed a significant review and update of
its official plan back in 2009. And then per the
requirements of the planning act began a process to update
its official plan about five years after that. In the
time that followed the initial restart of our initial start
of that process to review and update the official plan.
There were some significant changes to provincial planning policy. Um,
many of you would have also heard about those through
Bill, one of those 109 and others. Um, there were
changes to the growth plan as well too. Those were
consolidated into, um, uh, the provincial planning statement. So some
significant changes around the planning context that underpins the official
plan had transpired. This caused the town to pause the
review process for updating its official plan. And in the
meantime, the county undertook an update of its official plan.
And since then, the county has completed that process. The
provincial planning context is stabilized. So really the time is
right for Orangeville to complete the review and update. Um,
so that brings us to this year. We began our
work beginning in March, I believe of this year. Um,
and met with the steering committee for the official plan
review and update in, in April. Next slide. So I
mentioned that we have a four phase, uh, division of
labour. Um, we're partway through phase one, which is really
about setting the stage for our work. Um, phase one
involved a detailed review and analysis of the planning context,
including the official plan itself, but also the upper level
policy documents that it needs to comply with. Um, and
through phase one, which also included a fair bit of
engagement and focus groups. And I know a number of
you were a part of those focus groups. Um, we
collected feedback on what's working well today. Where are there
opportunities for improvement with the official plan? And what's the
path that, that we want to take going forward? So
that sets us up now for phase two, uh, which
we're currently in and the subsequent phases. In phase two,
um, our principal activity is developing a recommendations report where
we're doing a little bit deeper dive on some of
the key issues and matters that we identified in phase
one. And I'll get into those a little bit later.
Um, and starting to flesh out what the detail and
the content will be that we'll recommend being included in
the official plan. And then in phase three and phase
four, we draft and then finalise the official plan. Along
the bottom, you'll see the number of opportunities for engagement
in this process. Um, today being one of those opportunities.
And then I'll call your attention to a further, uh,
public information centre that we're going to be hosting in
September on September 22nd in the lobby just behind us
as well too. That'll set us up to, uh, begin
drafting the details of the official plan through the fall.
And then, uh, beginning early next year in January will
again, be going back out to our focus groups, our
steering committee, um, and then the public as well too
to collect their feedback on the draft official plan. Next
slide. So to give you a little bit more detail
on the work that we've completed today, um, we organised
that detailed review and analysis that I mentioned into kind
of, uh, five background papers. So, uh, they're dealing with
kind of overall policy review and conformity update. Another one's
dealing with residential development matters. Uh, land use and retail.
One's dealing with employment. So industrial lands and these types
of activities. And then another one's dealing with natural heritage
matters. So, uh, woodlands, Wetlands, um, and conservation of that
habitat and those resources. Um, and again, those papers essentially
set out a bit of a terms of reference and
a bit of a checklist for us as we move
forward in terms of things that we need to fix
and improve in the official plan. Next slide. So what
I'd like to do now is just give you a
little bit more detail, uh, on some of these papers.
Um, so that you have a bit of a sense
of some of our findings. Um, they're fairly detailed. They're
available on our project website now. And I believe, uh,
some of you would have been circulated on them. Um,
so this is really just a snapshot of the content
within those papers. But to give you a bit of
a flavour. So from a natural heritage system perspective, one
of the first things that our team noticed, and we
were supported in this by another consulting called North South
Environmental. We noticed that the mapping between, um, the county
official plan, the conservation authorities mapping and then the towns
mapping was a little bit different. And the gaps between
it. So the kind of truest representation of the, on
the ground reality of those, uh, heritage systems is the
conservation authorities mapping. So the recommendation there is to, is
to follow the conservation authorities mapping. The county is actually
undertaking some of this work right now. And that should
dovetail well with our process. So we're anticipating using the
counties updated mapping through its OPA number five, uh, to
inform the final version of Orangeville's official plan. Um, some
other observations on the natural heritage side include, um, a
need to adopt what's called a systems - based approach
to policy. So when the official plan was originally drafted
in 1987, the approach to regulating natural heritage was a
little bit different. Nowadays, subject experts encourage us to follow
what's called a systems - based approach. So looking at
these things, not in isolation, but as part of, you
know, a greater whole, uh, appropriately. There's also some opportunity
to just improve the clarity of policy overall with respect
to natural heritage resources. Um, and that should make it
easier for staff too when they're implementing the official plan.
Um, especially as it relates to development of new areas
where often they're coming up against kind of woodlands and
wetlands, um, and, and needing to define what those areas
are and how those should be conserved through development. So
definite opportunity to kind of improve the clarity of those
policies. Next slide. Okay. Getting into the economic side. So,
um, in terms of employment lands, um, you know, what
you'll see on this slide and then also the following
slide is that there's, um, call it kind of strong
demand for, uh, industrial land are very low kind of
industrial vacancy rate. And again, we were supported in this
by another consultant called Parcel Economics. He's a part of
the team. So the key takeaway here is that there's
a lack of, um, of available, uh, adequately sized sites
that have good access to the highway. Um, so they
called them lack of shovel ready sites. There are kind
of undeveloped employment lands within Orangeville's municipal boundary. But simply
put, they're kind of in the wrong spot. They don't
have good enough access to the highway and they're not
kind of desirable from that perspective. Um, as you're all
well aware, um, Orangeville doesn't have a lot of available
LAM for development. Um, and it's been undertaking a process
to explore expanding its municipal boundary. Um, one of the
findings from our employment analysis is that when that happens,
consideration should be brought to where employment lands should live
as part of that expanded boundary. That needs to be
part of the consideration and not just housing. And that
backs up the work that the growth management study was
finding as well too. So not, not kind of a
new conclusion in that respect. This may sound a little
bit counterintuitive, but there are employees, you know, I'm saying
on the one hand, you don't have enough employment lands.
It's in the wrong location. But some of the employment
lines you do have, um, they're maybe not the, they're
in the right location for, uh, employment development. So they
should be redesignated for residential uses, which can help Orangeville
meet another one of its needs, which is providing more
land for residential development. So there's a little bit of
a balancing out there that can happen. Um, so for
instance, those would be lands around Hanson Boulevard, which are
currently designated for employment, but should be redesignated for residential
to align with the county OP. Um, but then also
in the, in the northwest corner of the town along
County Road 16, the employment lads there that again, they're
not, they don't have great access. So those could be
redesignated for residential. Excuse me. Next slide. In terms of
commercial land. Uh, again, kind of very, very, uh, strong
demand overall and low vacancy rate is kind of one
of the key findings here. Um, nevertheless, when, when parcel
kind of dug into the numbers and looked at how
much commercial land ought to be supplied and supported by
the population of Orangeville and the surrounding area, uh, parcel
found that there was, uh, kind of, it was very
well supplied. Let's put it that way from a commercial
space perspective. So they're kind of key takeaway was don't
add a lot of new commercial space. Right. So there
isn't a need based on, you know, current population and
projective population to add large new retail nodes or power
centres. Rather, the takeaway here is to build on what's
already working well and continue to strengthen and cultivate that.
Right. So there's good kind of commercial development and a
lot of Broadway. That's one scale of development. I think
through the official plan review, we want to see how
we can continue to nurture that and cultivate that. Um,
some of the larger kind of power centres around Highway
10, um, perhaps over time, some of those could be
redeveloped. The large surface parking lots may support other uses
as well too. So there's opportunity for that. And as
that occurs, the finding is, let's not create a lot
of new commercial area. Let's just make better use of
the land that we have and diversify the uses there.
Next slide. Okay. From a residential perspective, definitely heard that
there's a need for more affordable housing options and just
more housing options in general within the town. Um, you
know, this is something that came across loud and clear
from a number of focus groups that we had as,
as well, uh, with different members of the community and
also council. We also observed that some of the existing
policies of the official plan make it a little bit
more complex for residential development. And I'm talking about grade
related residential development, like detached home semi - detached homes
townhouses. Some of the policies around that are maybe a
little more complicated than, than they need to be to
achieve some of the outcomes that we think the town
would be looking for. So we think the opportunity to
simplify those and make it a little bit easier to,
uh, develop that form of housing while still achieving what
the town is looking for. Um, you know, to give
you an example of it, and I'll show you a
slide later on. There's kind of five divisions of residential
density. And it's quite fine grain, right? So I think
there's definitely an opportunity to consolidate that, uh, through the
official plan amendment. Um, we also found, um, that residential
growth is increasingly going to rely on medium and high
density housing form. So predominantly townhouse is also some apartment
buildings as well too. Um, a large part of that
is driven by the lack of kind of available land
within the town of Orangeville. So can't necessarily build out
right now need to build up. Um, which is really
a tremendous opportunity to make good use of the available
municipal services at the town does have. Um, certainly on
a, on a kind of cost per linear square foot
basis, it's better for, um, municipality building up and intensifying.
Um, so in terms of recommendations, again, we're, we're looking
to provide clear direction to encourage that medium density and
higher density residential development in appropriate locations. Part of that
is kind of refining how we look at intensification within
the town. And I'll show you some mapping on that
in a few slides. Um, and then also just wanting
to streamline our overall approach to residential development to line
up with provincial policy as well, too. Next slide. Okay.
So in terms of policy review and conformity update, um,
one of the kind of key changes that's affecting our
work right now, uh, is coming to us through Bill
98. And that's introduced to the planning act, a standardized
set of requirements for an official plan that will be
common to all municipalities within the province. Um, so kind
of an exciting moment for land use planning because it's,
it's a bit of a big change. Um, and a
standardization across the province. Um, and it does mean that
we need to kind of relook at, um, some of
the, um, you know, particular, particularities of the official plan.
So for instance, with land use, um, on the slide
in front of you in the chart, you'll see on
the right column, there's a number of different commercial designation.
So central business district, general commercial neighbourhood commercial restricted commercial
mixed use neighbourhood makes use commercial service commercial. Several of
those allow for residential development and non - residential development.
Not all of them do. I think the service commercial
does not. So under Bill 98, there's one designation. It's
mixed use areas. So there was a reason at one
point in time when council thought it appropriate to have
these many different designations. Right. So part of our work
now is to unpack what the objectives of those designations
are and see where the map them on to the
mixed use designation. Or do they belong somewhere else? So
just to give you a bit of a sense, that's
some of the work that We're under taking now in
phase two. And we'll be continuing in phase three. I
think I've covered much of the key takeaways from the
policy paper, maybe just to say that, uh, I mentioned
the growth management, uh, study that is informing our work.
Also the transportation master plan, uh, we're, we're kind of
closely following its recommendations as well too. And that'll come
across in our recommendations report. Um, maybe the last point
kind of on this side that I'll add is that
we've, uh, begun a conversation with the county, um, in
terms of our alignment with the Bill 98 structure. And
they're broadly supportive of it. We brought that to the
steering committee previously. Um, members of the steering committee acknowledged,
yes, this is the way to go. So that's great.
We will be meeting with MMAH later this week, I
believe, again, to continue that conversation of how do we
align with that structure. It's fairly new. So the only
two municipalities that I'm aware of in the province that
have followed that structure, um, so it's a little bit
exciting to be kind of blazing a new trail in
that respect. Next slide. And just to show you what
that structure is. So on the, on the right, that
is the table of content of, um, of, of the
official plan under Bill 98. And we've just circled in
red a couple of, um, of chapters of it, so
to speak that aren't currently within the orangeville official plant.
So just to make it clear for everyone, this isn't
a radically different way of doing planning. Most official plans
across the province broadly contain the same content. But Bill
98 will standardize them. And as you can expect, there's
a few gaps between it and the official plan today.
So that's all this slide calls out. Next slide. Okay.
I'll show you a few pictures and then we can
get to some QA. So these are really just meant
to illustrate some of the themes that I was discussing
earlier. And this map here, um, overlays the county's employment
lands designation in the orange hatch on top of the
town's employment land designation in the purple below. And you
can see that generally it lines up, but there's some
areas where it doesn't. So, um, again, around handsome boulevard,
it's not designated in the county's OP. It is in
the towns. We need to fix that. That's not a
surprise to anyone. There's the employment land again along County
Road 16. Um, that was recommended for removal in the
land needs assessment as well as our employment land study.
So we'll be looking to take that out through the
OP review and update. We'll also need to coordinate that
with the county since it is currently mapped in the
county's official plan. So the technical alignment exercise that we
need to do with the county, what we've already begun,
those conversations with them. And then just to say that
there are little, uh, little peculiarities with, with the OP
is you'd expect can kind of accumulate over time. So
for instance, we're just calling out a very small parcel
that is designated as employment lads. Um, not sure exactly
why it's that way. So we'll be digging into that.
But, um, it doesn't really make a ton of sense
to designate a tiny little parcel like that as employment
lands. Much of the purpose of this designation is to
create separation from it and other residential uses namely. So,
so anyway, just a little detail that we need to
address. Next slide. Again, to kind of highlight an emphasize
some of the kind of fine - grained nature of
some of the land use designation. So these are all
of the different commercial designations that I mentioned a couple
slides ago kind of mapped out across the town and
bolded. Um, so under Bill 98, these will sift into
likely one of two categories, the mixed use of the
mixed use commercial. Um, so again, part of the work
that we're undertaking now is determining which one makes the
most sense. The neighborhood's designation, which is the main kind
of residential designation for Bill 98. It does also allow
for some commercial development. So some of these very isolated
kind of light blue neighbourhood commercial blocks where you may
have a corner store, a small business. Some of those
may end up in neighbourhoods. Um, but, you know, the
more conversation to be had about those. We're not at
a point today where we're recommending that these kind of
designations or changes in land use happen. That's very much
kind of the work that we're embarking on now. But
just to give you a bit of a sense of
where we're headed. Next slide. From an intensification perspective, I
mentioned the opportunity to kind of, um, uh, rationalize this.
Um, there are some just simple updates that need to
be made. So I think since the last official plan
review and update, there's been development. That's good. That's what
we want. Um, some of the lands that are designated
as green field. I have since been developed. So we
need to update those. Um, and those are kind of
called out on the map. Um, the OP also identifies
a number of discrete parcels kind of spread across the
town, um, as intensification areas. And it's not clear kind
of what determined or what went into determining those as
intensification areas. Generally, it's kind of underdeveloped or undeveloped lots,
which is fine. Um, but the best practice from a
planning perspective would really be to speak to a broader
area or a set of principles that would be where
you'd want kind of intensification to occur. And typically it's
where we have the best road access, the best public
transit access and the best access to public services and
facilities. So, um, in broad strokes, it's largely going to
be Broadway in First Street as the major intensification areas.
And then highway 10 and some of the commercial lands
around that also presenting kind of a strong case for
intensification. I think overall though, especially with the lack of
developible land that Orangeville has, all areas should allow for
some intensification. So we'll definitely be making that as part
of the framework within the official plan. And part of
the dialogue going forward. Next slide. And then one last
image just to kind of, um, illustrate the, again, that
kind of fine grain approach to density that currently lives
within the official plan. So, um, these are sort of
overlays on a residential designation, which is, you know, low
density multiple, low density residential and so on. Um, and
this is what I was saying in terms of being
very kind of particular and specific about where these uses
occur. This is more like what we would want to
see in kind of a zoning bilaw, for instance, where
you're very specific lot by lot in terms of what
gets developed. I think from an official plan perspective, it's
an opportunity to take a bit of a step back
and set some of the principles and be clear about
those for what, what type of development should happen and
where. Um, and then allow the zoning by a lot
to kind of do its work. So just to say
that under Bill 98, we've got kind of one designation
of play with, which is neighbourhoods. Um, but we don't
want to gloss over, you know, either some of the
unique aspects of these neighbourhoods. So how do we do
that? You know, that's what we're kind of working on
right now. Um, and welcome feedback on this. Next slide.
We've had a number of conversations that have fed into
today. So I mentioned a number of focus groups that
we've undertaken through the spring and early into the summer.
Um, we've also been engaging with local First Nations, so
Mississaugas is a credit First Nation. Um, Hodenenosone development institute
in Sargina Jibway nation. Um, and those conversations will kind
of repeat again, um, we're expecting for that to occur
in early next year once we have a draft official
plan and something for people to react to. Um, but
all the feedback from these events has helped to inform
our work and we'll continue to do so. Next slide.
Okay. I'll wrap it up pretty quickly here. But just
to give a bit of a flavour of what we've
heard really, you know, kind of we're in consulting on
a lot of different topics. So maybe starting from a
development perspective. I've heard from some that parking requirements are
a little bit too high feel it makes it harder
to create housing. Um, also, uh, you know, a recognition
that there's some inconsistency between employment lad uses and county
policies. So we spoke a little bit about that. I
think from a housing and social services perspective heard a
lot about a need for a more, uh, robust, affordable
housing policy framework and a clear kind of definition of
affordable housing. And definitely like just overall in a need
for more housing options. So recognising it's not all about
kind of policy, but also a need to kind of
bring market forces to bear on that. Um, I think
from a, you know, kind of from ecological perspective as
well too. Um, you know, a recognition that there's many
important features in the town that need to be conserved.
Um, uh, and, and, and a lot of interest in
that as well too. Next slide. I think that, oh,
okay. Next steps. Um, I've already spoken a little bit
about this. So we've gone over what we've done in
phase one. There's been a fair bit of work today.
We're here tonight for our statute story special counsel meeting.
Um, and then in phase two, as I mentioned, we're
working on a recommendations report right now. That'll be available
later this fall. We're going to be having a public
information centre, as I mentioned, uh, September 22nd. Um, so
hope to see folks there as well too to provide
their feedback. Um, and then again, this all leads into
phase three where we really start drafting the official plan
update in earnest kind of beginning in October. Next slide.
That's it. Thank you very much for your presentation. Um,
we have no registered get delegates for this item. So
we'll move straight into verbal comments during the meeting. I
understand that there was somebody who potentially joined online. So
if that online person wishes to speak, please dial star
nine to raise your hand. So I'll give you a
second to do that. Nothing from. No. Okay. So we'll
now ask then if there are any members of the
public present who wish to speak to this item, a
reminder that you're afforded three minutes to present your information.
And it does have to do with this item. So
was there anybody here who wished to speak to that?
Come on up.
And same as always name and address for the record
and we'll get it on for you. Oh, sorry. There
you go. Matthew Smith, 38. McCarthy Street. In regards to
the rezoning of the employment lands to residential in the
Northwest part of the town. Is that considered a normal
practice, a best practice, especially considering we're kind of my
word starved for industrial land? Should we really be removing
that from the zoning and converting it to residential zoning?
Thank you. Thank you. Brenda, do you want to speak
to that? Yeah, sure. Thank you Mayor Posten. Through you,
it's a practice that is expected to happen through a
process like this. Like we've had a consultant team not
only with the growth management study, but also now with
the official plan review, both come to the same conclusion
regarding those lands. And yes, they're designated employment. Yes, we
need employment land as part of future forecast. But the
reality is those lands are not realistic to achieve those
demands. And there to redesignate them. And in doing so,
you achieve other objectives. You provide more land for housing,
which we also need to provide for. Thank you for
your comments. Thank you. Was there anybody else in the
gallery who wish to speak to this item. Not seeing
any. Okay. So next then I would like to acknowledge
that we did not receive any written comments on this
item. So we'll move straight into questions for members of
council. Councillor Prendergast. Actually. Councillor Andrews. They switched away
the lineup here tonight. Thank you very much, your worship.
And I guess our delegation, you have the opportunity to
go back to the microphone because we're going to be
asking you some questions and posing some comments as well.
Thank you, worship. Michael again, truly a pleasure to have
you back. Uh, we had the opportunity to engage with
your firm and yourself, uh, during the June 9th. Focus
group session. And that was really a productive opportunity for
the economic development committee, which I chair. And this really
falls very much under economic development. Um, you know, we
take a look at where some of this will end
up leading our municipality for the next 30 years. I
think it's critical for us for each one of us
who have various representation and our files this term to
align ourselves accordingly. So I do have a comment, uh,
and a question or a couple of questions. Um, I
think what was really interesting was not only the amount
of information that you've been able to generate so far,
but the amount of work that your firm has done
in collaboration with Mr. Ward and Ms. Russell and the
team there. And this really is, I think, providing us
a roadmap to where we eventually will be. There's also
some other factors that we're having to deal with as
we know most recently this past weekend. We had some
potential wins change within our country. And we still don't
know what the effects will be two years out, three
years out or 10 years out. Um, that will be,
I guess, determined by a different level of government. Having
said that, you know, looking at the complexities we have
on number one, another file of mine affordable, attainable housing.
So I'll talk to that in a second. Uh, employment
lands, where they are and where they could be eventually,
if we look at other options. The third, of course,
is commercial space, which you highlighted in your report up
to this point, where we may have maybe too much
commercial space. That's what, you know, when I read between
the lines, that's what I was hearing and emerging theme.
But at the same time, I think what we need
to do is take a look at how we can
best utilise what we have based on what we know
today, but also prepare for what we may see coming
over the horizon and be that from a patriotic perspective,
which I think is going to be embraced even more
so in the coming months and coming years. Um, moving
into some things specifically in what you've highlighted so far
was in fact the ortainable housing. And so again, I
think that really what I was trying to get from
maybe you this evening is not necessarily where it aligns
with the official plan. And again, Mr. Ward or Ms.
Russell may be able to also provide some points of
reference. But it's really a matter of taking a look
at how can we attract additional investment in our community.
So that's, I think, part of the question. And the
other is that definition that you even highlighted that in
your presentation, what is that definition from your perspective of
affordable housing? And then I have a couple other questions
or worship. Thank you for the comment, Councillor Andrews and
also for the question. Um, yeah, absolutely hear you in
terms of the shifting economic realities. And I think it
behooves the official plan. And as a tenant of good
planning practice, flexibility is key. Um, of course, we can't
be too flexible. So it's actually really about balance. And
the simple answer to it. So not all unfold and
we'll, we'll, we'll work with yourself and other members of
council too. And, you know, as a time comes to
kind of get that balance right. Um, in terms of
definition for affordable housing, we haven't landed on one yet.
Um, so some of that works still is to come.
I think from, from our perspective, it makes sense to
index it to income. Um, so you want to, you
know, and then how much as a percentage of your
income, do you want to be spending on affordable housing
is, you know, I think CMHC uses 30 percent or
so. There's, uh, there are different ways of looking at
it depending on, uh, kind of local income levels. Like
in some areas 30 percent is kind of still not
realistic. So the need to kind of find tune it.
So don't have the definition right now. I think that's,
that's very much part of our work beginning in phase
two with the recommendations report. I appreciate your candidness on
that. And I think just to kind of zero in
on that particular item, I think it is very difficult
for us to define it here at a local level.
Yet it is the individuals, the consumer who will determine
the affordability as well. One example that I just wanted
to highlight be that to you and publicly. And I
may have mentioned this to you during our economic development
focus. Um, there is a new development just south of
Paris Sound called the Nest. It is really garnering quite
a bit of national, I guess, attention because of the
fact that they decided not to take a look at
was defined of affordable. They came up with a price
point that was deemed to be affordable. So you can
actually buy a single detached home. For 399, 000 dollars.
Which is really remarkable when you take a look at
the bill. Now it doesn't come with basements and that's
for another conversation. But just a reference point. The other
piece that was highlighted was in fact, the complexity of
some of our industrial space that we have. And you
did highlight in this preliminary report also some of the
areas where we do have some potential growth. But again,
this is something that I'm also very much familiar with
where we have some challenges in relationship to the intermodal
connection or the close proximity to highway 10. I think
that the opportunity is to take a look at something
that might be closer towards the arteries where most of
our transportation network occurs. And if there is that flexibility
moving ahead, and again, the more conversation happening in the
not too distant future. And just to zero in on
one other part that was part of my file, which
was equity diversity inclusion, you talked about your indigenous connections.
And I know that, you know, from a municipality, we
went through quite a lengthy exercise, even two previous term
trying to land on our land acknowledgement and trying to
zero in on exactly appropriate conversations with the appropriate indigenous
representation. So my question to you is how did you
determine your indigenous engagement so far a part of this,
uh, this study. Now, thank you for the question. Um,
we don't do it alone. It's a simple answer. So,
um, we interface with the county of Dufferin early on.
And they've recently completed their official plan review and update.
So, uh, we reached out to them through Brandon and
Larissa, uh, for, for a contact list and recommendations on
who to speak to. So that's one thing that we
looked at. We also look at who the treaty rights
holders are. I think from an engagement perspective and definitely
from an indigenous engagement perspective, it's important to recognise that
treaty rights holders have a privilege place or ought to
have a privilege place in conversations. Um, so we wanted
to make sure that we were, we were covering our
bases in that respect. And the two treaty rights holders
is I understand them. Our seguginajibway nation and Mississaugas of
the credits First Nation. I say as I understand, because
I'm not a lawyer. I'm not an expert in treaties.
So I'm doing my best a little bit with the
information available. Um, but that isn't to say we shut
ourselves off from other First Nations. So we also spoke
with the Hodnosone Development Institute. And I understand Laurissa reached
out to, I think every, every nation that county, uh,
put us in touch with. Yeah. I think that's appreciative
to hear because I think it's very important to have
as much engagement as possible as much as there may
be differences of opinion within some of the different bands
and the leaders. But consensus building is part of this
whole process. And again, I appreciate you being here this
evening and the answers you provided to the questions I've
had. That's all I have. Thank you, Councillor Andrews. Councillor
Sherwood. Yes. Thank you, worship. Um, I just wanted to
make a couple of comments in my observation listening to
your presentation. I'm quite concerned about, um, the proposed recommendation
about the employment lands and converting them to residential. And
another comment that you made that kind of, um, struck
me was about, um, not building as much commercial as
well. So those are the two tax classes that if
we, if we send them, if we make them residential
properties, we're then putting more of the tax burning on
the residential properties. We need commercial. We need industrial lands
because they help carry the brunt of the tax increases
to give more relief to our residential. Don't get me
wrong. I'm all for residential growth, but I'm really hesitant
on giving up such lands that, first of all, we're
in dire need. That's all we ever hear is, oh,
you know, we, we need more industrial land to help
with that tax burden on the residential properties. So in
this recommendation, would those, um, lands, and this may go
to staff or whoever. When the recommendation comes, I guess
in the spring of 2027 for final approval, will the
B a resignation change the zoning on those employment lands
to residential? Does that automatically happen or is that another
process that would change the zoning of the lands during
a different process? And I'm not sure who wants to
answer that. Mr. Ward, do you want to take it?
Yeah, yeah, sure. Through you Mayor Post, I can attempt
to answer that. So through this process, they could be
redesignated. Um, there's also a county approval involved at the
end of the day that this amendment or this new
official plan does go to the county for approval. We
started those conversations with them at this stage about what
that means in terms of redesignating that area from employment
to non - employment uses. And I think we know
and appreciate that we need employment land for long -
term growth. That's something we've talked about for as long
as I've been here and even prior to that. But
I think the reality we're looking at is we need
not just employment land. We need the right employment land.
And I think those land in that area are showing
over time that they're not right for that use. So
it makes sense to consider e designating the mouseware. Um,
with that said, I think it's going to put pressure
on how do we find more land to accommodate employment
that we need for the long - term growth. Yeah.
So, um, respectfully, Mr. Ward, I disagree only because I
feel that we need to protect a little bit of
employment land that we have hopefully something could come along
that would be a good fit within the neighbourhood. Again,
all I keep thinking is we have such a high
ratio of the residential's paying and supporting the tax bill.
And we need to still do whatever we can to
drive in employment and wherever that may be. And also
not stop commercial. Because really, I find if we look
at our vacancies, we don't have a lot of vacant
commercial. So I don't know why we would want to
put the brakes on developing commercial because they also help
support the tax base and give a relief to the
residential. So that's just my comment. I would, I would
think that if we could, um, land some, you know,
a whole pile of land somewhere, whether it's be through
annexation to develop a big employment land park, that would
be ideal. And I would support those other lands off
of Hansen or the other areas that you mentioned to
residential. That's just my own, my own personal input. Mr.
War, do you have anything that you want to add
there? Sure. Again, through you Mayor Post, very good comments.
We'll certainly take that back as we move forward. Because
at the end of the day, it's about moving forward
with a policy framework to sort of spell out what
council and the community want to see happen over the
long term and our growth, our future growth. Um, quite
frankly, we found the recommendations very interesting on the commercial
land needs. Um, just anecdotally from our observation, we know
that commercial uses are in high demand. We saw some
of the findings in the report that vacancies low demand
is high. Um, but what's intriguing is a lot of
that demand comes from outside visitors. And in looking at
the demand for our population base where actually have far
more land than what we need. So the balance or
the delta is providing for, um, outside residents. Visitors or
commuters travelling through, et cetera. So I think it's an
interesting junction for us to look at those commercial uses.
The team is saying make better use of them, diversify
the use framework. And I think that's the direction we're
going to be taking from a land use, uh, permission
perspective, but also too, I think it's an opportunity to
look at your commercial areas and decide going forward. Do
we want to continue that position and try to strengthen
the regional attractiveness for commercial activity? Or do we want
to make better use and focus more on the residential
need. Thank you, Mr. Ward. Uh, Councillor Pendergast. Thank you,
Mayor Post through you. I'm just going to get what
I prepared here queued up. I think it's important that
we recognise how consequential this exercise is. So the official
plan can be like a visioning document, but it's really
important, I think, because it is the legal planning framework
that future councils, planners, developers. And ultimately tribunals rely on
when decisions are challenged. So we saw this most recently
with the York Street matter and how important strong local
planning policy can be. Whatever vision that we have for
Orangeville in 2056, this is where it needs to be
clearly articulated. For us to protect it. And at first
when I first joined council, I wasn't sure of how
important an official plan is until we went to the
York Street decision. And because within our official plan, York
Street was mentioned previously two, three times going back 10
years. That's, I think one of the primary elements that
led to our success. So whatever goes into this plan,
we need to make sure it's well written. So I'm
going to lead into my next question. Uh, so my
first question rather, as we develop the new official plan,
how are we ensuring that these policies are not just
simply statements of intent, but are written with enough clarity
and strength to withstand development pressure and scrutiny at the
Ontario Land Tribunal. Maybe that's just like a hypothetical, you
know, like I just, I just want to think about
that. Okay. I'll go with the next one. Um, secondly,
be times when priorities do compete, looking forward 10, 20
years, intensification, heritage, employment lands, natural heritage, infrastructure capacity, groundwater
protection. So when those priorities do come into conflict, uh,
what will the official plan tell the future council or
the OLT? What does Orangeville consider fundamental to protect? And
what are we willing to compromise? So those are maybe
some things worth thinking about. And then lastly, um, of
concern to me is the Orangeville Wetland complex that was
designated for development. It was in the image Highway 10,
just south of Island Lake. Okay, sorry. Did you consult
the credit valley conservation authority when developing this plan. Yeah.
Go ahead, Michael. Okay. No, that's a good question. And,
uh, important to clarify. So right now it's designated as
a green field. And we recognise that it shouldn't be
that because it's natural heritage. So we're not the images
that I showed are just analytical. They're not recommended schedules.
That's not what the official plan should look like. To
your point, that's part of the Wetland complex. So just
to be clear about that, yeah, absolutely. So I think
that's an issue that we can rectify through the official
plan review is kind of what you're flagging. Just a
further strengthen that recently a study came out that an
urban area is Wetlands mitigate flood risk by up to
38 percent. Would it be possible solidifying that Wetland as
part of natural essential infrastructure, not letting it be developed
on further. Orange will exist on a flood plane. And
this is part of our resilience, a municipal climate adaptation.
So this is our chance to make sure that area,
which is known for flooding. Doesn't get paved over in
the future. Oh, and one more question. I'm just sorry.
Sure. Go ahead. No. Without inclusionary zoning being allowed, we
won't actually satisfy the needs of people that live in
Orangeville. If we redesignate that employment land residential. The people
that live in Orangeville right now are downsizing seniors and
people that are starting out. Are there any types of
zoning that we could use to maybe just keep it
for senior use. Go ahead, Michael. Oh, sorry. Um, are
there any types of zoning categories that are just explicitly
for seniors. That's my question. Yeah. It's a, it's a
good question. Um, so in terms of like in terms
of creating spaces for seniors, um, folks who are downsizing,
um, one of the, one of the things that we
would recommend is, again, really leaning into the apartment and
multifamily typology, definitely through the land use, we want to
allow for things like retirement residences for folks that want
that, but there's also a lot of seniors and folks
who are downsizing who aren't quite ready for that. And
then long - term care home might be another kind
of typology, which was kind of at the furthest end
of that scale. Um, we wouldn't typically kind of zone
an area just for kind of one particular use. We
want to allow a little bit of flexibility, but I
think to your point about, you know, creating space for,
for seniors and people in our community who really need
it, I think we can take, you know, a look
at how we do that in a way that, yeah.
Can I just reply? This term of council, we saw
land that was supposed to be mixed use right by
Kurtz Mill. And it was supposed to have, I'm sorry,
supposed to. It was going to have seniors housing. It
was going to be mixed use. That's what we were
told. Then it ended up not being mixed use. And
now is just going to be dense, intensified townhouses. So
I guess what I'm asking is how do we protect
this land and make sure it actually is mixed use?
Because I don't think that's good enough because we've seen
this already happen. So it's just a comment statement. Thank
you. Anybody want to comment on anything there? Mr. Ward,
are you looking at me with eye contact there? Yes.
Go ahead. No, I don't have anything further. Uh, we
can take that back. The comment earlier about clear defensible
policies is well taken. It's a fine balance. I think
we've got to move forward with. And I think the
province is showing us what their standardized approach that maybe
municipalities are getting too fine grain with the policy detail.
And we need to give a little more flexibility with
land use. Policy writing, so to speak. An example of,
um, how policies can be maybe too prescriptive versus two
general is intensification. On one hand, you could have general
directive policies saying where and how it should happen. And
then the other approach is a more prescriptive. Here are
the areas where it does intensification. That can happen here,
here they cannot or maybe not to that extent. But
here the areas we're intensification should happen. I think that
can be misleading because it gives an impression that these
are the only areas we're intensification makes sense, but there
may be other areas where, you know, it meets the
objectives, but they're just not shown as such on a
map. So that's an example where policies get maybe two
fine - grained versus the more generalistic approach. So long
story short is we've got to take this all back
and give you something ultimately. And the community something that
they're going to feel is reliable and defensible and very
clear. Thank you, Mr. Ward. Can I just say. Um,
so growth is inevitable. Uh, and the purpose of the
plan is just simply not to accommodate the growth, but
to decide on what kind of community we want in
the future. And thank you for all the hard work
you've done so far on this. And I look forward
to seeing what comes out of it. Thank you. Deputy
Mayor Taylor. Oh, I thought you forgot me. Um, thank
you, your worship. Um, I'd like to make a couple
of comments and then I do have a few questions.
So, um, to me, this just drives home, um, the
entire presentation drives home the need to expand our borders.
Long term, that's the only thing that's going to sustain
us and ensure that we're a vibrant community going forward.
And I'm absolutely convinced of that. Um, the second piece
would be the land in the north, uh, which is
essentially the veterans where it's employment lands. I do agree
that it's sad to give up those lands in terms
of employment. But the reality is they don't connect. Um,
they're off on their own. So I don't see the
purpose in it. I don't know why we would have
that up there. I think it would be best of
it moved to residential. The 2020 hindsight pieces is we
missed an opportunity years ago. And that was when Alderina
was built, we should not have allowed the arena to
be built where it was. That was employment lands. And
if we had to made that decision, uh, as a
town, we would have not this problem. So those are
my comments. My questions would be, um, to you, Mr.
Ward, there is a push to have new buildings built
in our town. Um, you know, six, eight story buildings.
And there is conversation about having commercial underneath these buildings.
And I have been concerned as we go along in
conversations that I've had with entrepreneurs have said, we're, we're
over slotted on our commercial pieces. And that may be
forcing these buildings to have commercial under the buildings isn't
the wisest thing. So I'd love to understand your commentary
on that. And then the second piece is, you know,
it's interesting that disconnects happen. Um, but to see those
strange occurrences of the county plan versus the town plan.
I was wondering, how does that happen? B, what do
we do moving forward to make sure that it's looked
after? And I, I just love to hear your thoughts
on those two items. Okay. Mr. Ward. Sure. Thank you
Mayor Posten through you. So I think two questions. First
one was around, um, mandating ground level commercial. Um, I
think one of the findings of this exercise is showing
that we've, you know, we don't need more commercial land.
And also our Broadway study or Broadway corridor study sort
of came to the same conclusions and that, you know,
tread cautiously with mandating ground level commercials. So that's something
we're going to look to as parted writing policies. It's
not necessarily mandating it at grade, but maybe focusing it
in key, uh, intersection nodes, et cetera. But letting sort
of the market dictate elsewhere along those corridors, uh, whether
it's at grade residential or back grade commercial with residential
above. The next question, um, if I could just clarify
what the second part of your question was, Deputy Mark?
It's the county. Yeah. Thank you very much, Mr. Ward.
It's the county plan versus the town plan and the
conflicting, um, thoughts, I guess conflicting plans. And I guess
a, the history of how that would have occurred and
then B, what do we do to rectify that moving
forward? And I guess C would be who, who would
have jurisdiction? Would it be the town that we would
accept the plan or would the county plan be the
plan. Ms. Ward. Okay. Thank you for clarifying Deputy Mayor.
So there's one area I think you're referring to. It's
in the veterans way area. There's employment area designated in
our official plan, but not the county. And the reason
for that is it is of employment area in our
planning document. But the policy framework is so broad and
mixed use. There's a lot of non - employment uses
permitted in there. So it sort of undermines that employment
area designation. And the county is, is much tighter. It's
more prescriptive to employment. And they recognise that, uh, range
of uses permitted on a site - specific basis. So
they haven't designated that as such a near official plan.
And that's something we'll look to address in our update
is really clean up the policy framework in that area
to be reflective of sort of a mixed use neighbourhood
setting, not the employment area designation. That's sort of an
older policy regime. Deputy Mayor, good. Very good. Thank you.
Perfect. Councillor Andrews. Thank you, Russian. But I just wanted
to piggyback on what deputy mayor tailor had posed in
his first question. And this is regarding ground level commercial.
And through the economic development office, and this is more
of a commentary. One of the challenges that I know
that our economic development office is faced at times is
the type of commercial space that's available versus that it's
available. And so when you have specific inquiries that are
coming into our community, it may be a doctor's, you
know, medical practice. It could be again, a specific form
of retail. And one of the, I wouldn't use the
term criticisms. One of the, I guess, comets it comes
from perspective entrepreneurs or those that are wanting to invest
their business of choice here in our community after doing
their research. This is a great community to invest in
is that we don't necessarily have the appropriate sized location
in the right location. So that is something I think
that we probably should have as a takeaway as opposed
to just saying that we have, in general terms, we
have a lot of commercial space available. So I think
that there are some opportunities that we can look at.
And it may be dependent on where that space or
that land is or whatever may be from an investment
perspective takes place. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Was there any other questions or comments for members of
council. Nope. Seeing none. Okay. So I want to thank
you for being here. I want to thank you for
all your time. It's been amazing to sit as part
of the official plan steering committee. I've learned a ton
and your firm has done some incredible work and really
just seeing this important document start to come together is
a really meaningful piece. So I'm looking forward to the
next steps as well. So thank you very much for
being here. So with that, um, council, could I get
a motion please that the official plan review information report
and associated comments be received for information. Please Councillor Pendergast
and Councillor Sherwood all in favor. And that is carried.
And a recommendation that the confirming by Law listed below
be read three times and finally passed Councillor Stevens and
Councillor Prendergast all in favor. And that is carried and
a motion to adjourn. Councillor McIntosh and Councillor Stevens all
in favor. And that is carried. Thank you for joining
us this evening, everyone.