[4:13] Okay, good evening everyone. We're going to call tonight's meeting
[4:15] to order. Can I start with an approval of the
[4:17] Agenda, please Councillor Andrews and Councillor Prendergast all in favor,
[4:20] and that is carried. Were there any disclosures of director
[4:24] indirect pecuniary interests tonight. Not seeing any. I will ask
[4:27] that you all rise if you're able for the Singing
[4:29] of our National Anthem.
[4:47] Lord. To. Love. In. All of us. Coming.
[4:58] With. Lord, we see. The rise. The true nor strong.
[5:04] And free. From. Far. And my. O Canada. We stand
[5:12] on God for the glory.
[5:23] Hus and free. We stand on God.
[5:33] For. Thee. Stand on. God.
[5:43] For. The. Acknowledge
[5:53] the treaty lands and territory of the Williams treaty nations
[5:56] and of the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation. We
[5:58] also recognise the Defen County is the traditional territory of
[6:01] the Wendat and the Honoshoune and is home to many
[6:04] indigenous people today. Tonight, I just wanted to take a
[6:08] moment before we get into our meeting to recognise to
[6:10] everybody that today is our last meeting of council for
[6:13] this term. With that, we do have a number of
[6:16] our members who are running for re - election, but
[6:18] we do have one to my left who is not.
[6:21] So I wanted to take just a moment to thank
[6:24] Councillor Andy McIntosh for his almost 40 years of public
[6:27] service, 30 of those years working for the fire department
[6:30] and eight, of course, being a member of council and
[6:33] a former deputy mayor. Andes dedication to the community is
[6:37] unparalleled. And I just really want to wish him all
[6:39] the best in his retirement and thank him for all
[6:41] of his work towards our community. So thank you, Andy.
[6:50] Okay, so tonight's meeting is being aired on Public Television
[6:53] and or streamed live and maybe taped for later public
[6:55] broadcaster webcast. All members of the Public are permitted to
[6:58] speak to statutory public meeting agenda items in accordance with
[7:02] the relevant act. Any delegation request received at least seven
[7:06] days in advance of the meeting will be afforded five
[7:08] minutes to speak. Any member wishing to speak at the
[7:10] meeting will be afforded three minutes to the item during
[7:13] the open forum portion of that item. All members of
[7:16] the Public are welcome to submit correspondence to any item
[7:18] on the agenda, which will be considered Public Information and
[7:21] entered into the Public Record. Items received for inclusion by
[7:24] the clerks division on or before the date of this
[7:26] meeting will be included on the published agenda. All information
[7:29] submitted or provided during the meeting or registration will be
[7:32] considered Public Information and entered into the Public Record. Tonight's
[7:35] agenda includes just one statutory matter if you would like
[7:39] to speak to tonight's statutory matter. Please call 1647 -
[7:42] 374 - 4685 and enter meeting ID 971 - 85137426
[7:50] followed by the pound sign twice, or you can attend
[7:52] the meeting by clicking on the Registration link included on
[7:54] the published agenda. If you wish to be notified of
[7:57] the decision of any of the matters listed on the
[7:59] agenda, please contact the clerks division with your name, phone
[8:01] number, mailing address, and email address referencing the specific matter
[8:05] by email to clerk's department at orangeville. ca or by
[8:08] calling 519 - 941 - 0440 extension 7303. All information
[8:14] submitted or provided during the meeting or registration will be
[8:16] considered public information and entered into the public record. We'll
[8:20] now move into the statutory matter for tonight's meeting. Idem
[8:23] 7. 1 is regarding the official Plan Review. Staff have
[8:27] confirmed that notice was provided in accordance with the Planning
[8:29] Act for this item. I will now call upon Michael,
[8:32] principal at www. architect and planners to provide a presentation.
[8:36] Come on up. Thank you. The floor is yours.
[8:54] Can we just go there? Mike is on. Okay. My
[8:57] name is Michael Mathis. I'm a principal with WW -
[9:00] Plus P Architects and Planners. I'm a Land Use Planner
[9:03] and Urban Designer by training and I'm pleased to be
[9:06] here to speak to you tonight and give you an
[9:08] update on the official plan review process that we're undertaking.
[9:12] Um, this also satisfies a statutory requirement as you're aware
[9:16] under the Planning Act as part of our requirements to
[9:19] update the official plan. Next slide. Okay, so in terms
[9:24] of agenda, essentially want to provide you an update on
[9:30] the project and the work that we've completed today. There's
[9:32] four phases in our project and we're complete phase one
[9:37] and partway through phase two. Um, and then, uh, hold
[9:41] some time toward the end of course for discussions, questions,
[9:44] and answer, uh, welcome all comments and feedback on our
[9:48] process. Next slide. Okay, so why update the official plan?
[9:54] Um, this may be obvious to many of you, but,
[9:57] um, one of the principal reasons to update the official
[10:00] plan is that it's required under the planning act. It
[10:03] needs to be completed every 10 years when a municipality
[10:07] has newly adopted an official plan. And then every five
[10:10] years thereafter. So, um, new list to say Orangeville's due
[10:14] for an update and refresh of its an official plan.
[10:17] Um, the broader reason why you would want to review
[10:20] and update it, of course, is that things change. Uh,
[10:23] since it's initially being adopted. So there's a new realities,
[10:27] new challenges and opportunities that are confronting Orangeville today. Um,
[10:31] and the review and update of the official plan is
[10:34] an opportunity to recognise those and kind of martial our
[10:38] resources as we move forward. Next slide. There's been a
[10:43] fair bit of work that's been done so far. And
[10:45] many of you will be well aware of this. So
[10:47] the town lasts completed a significant review and update of
[10:51] its official plan back in 2009. And then per the
[10:55] requirements of the planning act began a process to update
[10:59] its official plan about five years after that. In the
[11:04] time that followed the initial restart of our initial start
[11:08] of that process to review and update the official plan.
[11:12] There were some significant changes to provincial planning policy. Um,
[11:16] many of you would have also heard about those through
[11:20] Bill, one of those 109 and others. Um, there were
[11:24] changes to the growth plan as well too. Those were
[11:27] consolidated into, um, uh, the provincial planning statement. So some
[11:33] significant changes around the planning context that underpins the official
[11:37] plan had transpired. This caused the town to pause the
[11:42] review process for updating its official plan. And in the
[11:46] meantime, the county undertook an update of its official plan.
[11:51] And since then, the county has completed that process. The
[11:55] provincial planning context is stabilized. So really the time is
[11:58] right for Orangeville to complete the review and update. Um,
[12:02] so that brings us to this year. We began our
[12:05] work beginning in March, I believe of this year. Um,
[12:09] and met with the steering committee for the official plan
[12:12] review and update in, in April. Next slide. So I
[12:17] mentioned that we have a four phase, uh, division of
[12:20] labour. Um, we're partway through phase one, which is really
[12:23] about setting the stage for our work. Um, phase one
[12:28] involved a detailed review and analysis of the planning context,
[12:32] including the official plan itself, but also the upper level
[12:35] policy documents that it needs to comply with. Um, and
[12:39] through phase one, which also included a fair bit of
[12:42] engagement and focus groups. And I know a number of
[12:45] you were a part of those focus groups. Um, we
[12:48] collected feedback on what's working well today. Where are there
[12:51] opportunities for improvement with the official plan? And what's the
[12:55] path that, that we want to take going forward? So
[12:59] that sets us up now for phase two, uh, which
[13:02] we're currently in and the subsequent phases. In phase two,
[13:06] um, our principal activity is developing a recommendations report where
[13:11] we're doing a little bit deeper dive on some of
[13:13] the key issues and matters that we identified in phase
[13:16] one. And I'll get into those a little bit later.
[13:19] Um, and starting to flesh out what the detail and
[13:22] the content will be that we'll recommend being included in
[13:25] the official plan. And then in phase three and phase
[13:29] four, we draft and then finalise the official plan. Along
[13:34] the bottom, you'll see the number of opportunities for engagement
[13:37] in this process. Um, today being one of those opportunities.
[13:42] And then I'll call your attention to a further, uh,
[13:44] public information centre that we're going to be hosting in
[13:47] September on September 22nd in the lobby just behind us
[13:51] as well too. That'll set us up to, uh, begin
[13:54] drafting the details of the official plan through the fall.
[13:58] And then, uh, beginning early next year in January will
[14:02] again, be going back out to our focus groups, our
[14:05] steering committee, um, and then the public as well too
[14:08] to collect their feedback on the draft official plan. Next
[14:12] slide. So to give you a little bit more detail
[14:17] on the work that we've completed today, um, we organised
[14:20] that detailed review and analysis that I mentioned into kind
[14:23] of, uh, five background papers. So, uh, they're dealing with
[14:29] kind of overall policy review and conformity update. Another one's
[14:33] dealing with residential development matters. Uh, land use and retail.
[14:42] One's dealing with employment. So industrial lands and these types
[14:45] of activities. And then another one's dealing with natural heritage
[14:48] matters. So, uh, woodlands, Wetlands, um, and conservation of that
[14:54] habitat and those resources. Um, and again, those papers essentially
[14:58] set out a bit of a terms of reference and
[15:00] a bit of a checklist for us as we move
[15:02] forward in terms of things that we need to fix
[15:04] and improve in the official plan. Next slide. So what
[15:10] I'd like to do now is just give you a
[15:12] little bit more detail, uh, on some of these papers.
[15:16] Um, so that you have a bit of a sense
[15:17] of some of our findings. Um, they're fairly detailed. They're
[15:22] available on our project website now. And I believe, uh,
[15:26] some of you would have been circulated on them. Um,
[15:29] so this is really just a snapshot of the content
[15:32] within those papers. But to give you a bit of
[15:34] a flavour. So from a natural heritage system perspective, one
[15:39] of the first things that our team noticed, and we
[15:41] were supported in this by another consulting called North South
[15:45] Environmental. We noticed that the mapping between, um, the county
[15:51] official plan, the conservation authorities mapping and then the towns
[15:56] mapping was a little bit different. And the gaps between
[15:58] it. So the kind of truest representation of the, on
[16:05] the ground reality of those, uh, heritage systems is the
[16:09] conservation authorities mapping. So the recommendation there is to, is
[16:13] to follow the conservation authorities mapping. The county is actually
[16:18] undertaking some of this work right now. And that should
[16:21] dovetail well with our process. So we're anticipating using the
[16:25] counties updated mapping through its OPA number five, uh, to
[16:30] inform the final version of Orangeville's official plan. Um, some
[16:35] other observations on the natural heritage side include, um, a
[16:39] need to adopt what's called a systems - based approach
[16:42] to policy. So when the official plan was originally drafted
[16:45] in 1987, the approach to regulating natural heritage was a
[16:50] little bit different. Nowadays, subject experts encourage us to follow
[16:55] what's called a systems - based approach. So looking at
[16:59] these things, not in isolation, but as part of, you
[17:02] know, a greater whole, uh, appropriately. There's also some opportunity
[17:11] to just improve the clarity of policy overall with respect
[17:14] to natural heritage resources. Um, and that should make it
[17:17] easier for staff too when they're implementing the official plan.
[17:21] Um, especially as it relates to development of new areas
[17:24] where often they're coming up against kind of woodlands and
[17:28] wetlands, um, and, and needing to define what those areas
[17:31] are and how those should be conserved through development. So
[17:36] definite opportunity to kind of improve the clarity of those
[17:39] policies. Next slide. Okay. Getting into the economic side. So,
[17:47] um, in terms of employment lands, um, you know, what
[17:51] you'll see on this slide and then also the following
[17:54] slide is that there's, um, call it kind of strong
[17:57] demand for, uh, industrial land are very low kind of
[18:01] industrial vacancy rate. And again, we were supported in this
[18:05] by another consultant called Parcel Economics. He's a part of
[18:08] the team. So the key takeaway here is that there's
[18:13] a lack of, um, of available, uh, adequately sized sites
[18:18] that have good access to the highway. Um, so they
[18:21] called them lack of shovel ready sites. There are kind
[18:24] of undeveloped employment lands within Orangeville's municipal boundary. But simply
[18:30] put, they're kind of in the wrong spot. They don't
[18:32] have good enough access to the highway and they're not
[18:34] kind of desirable from that perspective. Um, as you're all
[18:39] well aware, um, Orangeville doesn't have a lot of available
[18:43] LAM for development. Um, and it's been undertaking a process
[18:48] to explore expanding its municipal boundary. Um, one of the
[18:52] findings from our employment analysis is that when that happens,
[18:56] consideration should be brought to where employment lands should live
[19:02] as part of that expanded boundary. That needs to be
[19:05] part of the consideration and not just housing. And that
[19:08] backs up the work that the growth management study was
[19:12] finding as well too. So not, not kind of a
[19:14] new conclusion in that respect. This may sound a little
[19:19] bit counterintuitive, but there are employees, you know, I'm saying
[19:22] on the one hand, you don't have enough employment lands.
[19:25] It's in the wrong location. But some of the employment
[19:27] lines you do have, um, they're maybe not the, they're
[19:30] in the right location for, uh, employment development. So they
[19:33] should be redesignated for residential uses, which can help Orangeville
[19:38] meet another one of its needs, which is providing more
[19:41] land for residential development. So there's a little bit of
[19:44] a balancing out there that can happen. Um, so for
[19:47] instance, those would be lands around Hanson Boulevard, which are
[19:51] currently designated for employment, but should be redesignated for residential
[19:54] to align with the county OP. Um, but then also
[19:58] in the, in the northwest corner of the town along
[20:01] County Road 16, the employment lads there that again, they're
[20:05] not, they don't have great access. So those could be
[20:07] redesignated for residential. Excuse me. Next slide. In terms of
[20:15] commercial land. Uh, again, kind of very, very, uh, strong
[20:20] demand overall and low vacancy rate is kind of one
[20:24] of the key findings here. Um, nevertheless, when, when parcel
[20:29] kind of dug into the numbers and looked at how
[20:31] much commercial land ought to be supplied and supported by
[20:35] the population of Orangeville and the surrounding area, uh, parcel
[20:39] found that there was, uh, kind of, it was very
[20:42] well supplied. Let's put it that way from a commercial
[20:46] space perspective. So they're kind of key takeaway was don't
[20:51] add a lot of new commercial space. Right. So there
[20:55] isn't a need based on, you know, current population and
[20:58] projective population to add large new retail nodes or power
[21:03] centres. Rather, the takeaway here is to build on what's
[21:06] already working well and continue to strengthen and cultivate that.
[21:10] Right. So there's good kind of commercial development and a
[21:14] lot of Broadway. That's one scale of development. I think
[21:16] through the official plan review, we want to see how
[21:18] we can continue to nurture that and cultivate that. Um,
[21:21] some of the larger kind of power centres around Highway
[21:24] 10, um, perhaps over time, some of those could be
[21:27] redeveloped. The large surface parking lots may support other uses
[21:31] as well too. So there's opportunity for that. And as
[21:35] that occurs, the finding is, let's not create a lot
[21:39] of new commercial area. Let's just make better use of
[21:42] the land that we have and diversify the uses there.
[21:46] Next slide. Okay. From a residential perspective, definitely heard that
[21:54] there's a need for more affordable housing options and just
[21:58] more housing options in general within the town. Um, you
[22:02] know, this is something that came across loud and clear
[22:05] from a number of focus groups that we had as,
[22:08] as well, uh, with different members of the community and
[22:11] also council. We also observed that some of the existing
[22:16] policies of the official plan make it a little bit
[22:18] more complex for residential development. And I'm talking about grade
[22:22] related residential development, like detached home semi - detached homes
[22:26] townhouses. Some of the policies around that are maybe a
[22:29] little more complicated than, than they need to be to
[22:32] achieve some of the outcomes that we think the town
[22:35] would be looking for. So we think the opportunity to
[22:38] simplify those and make it a little bit easier to,
[22:41] uh, develop that form of housing while still achieving what
[22:45] the town is looking for. Um, you know, to give
[22:48] you an example of it, and I'll show you a
[22:50] slide later on. There's kind of five divisions of residential
[22:54] density. And it's quite fine grain, right? So I think
[22:57] there's definitely an opportunity to consolidate that, uh, through the
[23:00] official plan amendment. Um, we also found, um, that residential
[23:06] growth is increasingly going to rely on medium and high
[23:09] density housing form. So predominantly townhouse is also some apartment
[23:14] buildings as well too. Um, a large part of that
[23:17] is driven by the lack of kind of available land
[23:20] within the town of Orangeville. So can't necessarily build out
[23:23] right now need to build up. Um, which is really
[23:26] a tremendous opportunity to make good use of the available
[23:29] municipal services at the town does have. Um, certainly on
[23:33] a, on a kind of cost per linear square foot
[23:36] basis, it's better for, um, municipality building up and intensifying.
[23:43] Um, so in terms of recommendations, again, we're, we're looking
[23:46] to provide clear direction to encourage that medium density and
[23:50] higher density residential development in appropriate locations. Part of that
[23:55] is kind of refining how we look at intensification within
[23:58] the town. And I'll show you some mapping on that
[24:01] in a few slides. Um, and then also just wanting
[24:05] to streamline our overall approach to residential development to line
[24:09] up with provincial policy as well, too. Next slide. Okay.
[24:16] So in terms of policy review and conformity update, um,
[24:20] one of the kind of key changes that's affecting our
[24:24] work right now, uh, is coming to us through Bill
[24:26] 98. And that's introduced to the planning act, a standardized
[24:30] set of requirements for an official plan that will be
[24:34] common to all municipalities within the province. Um, so kind
[24:38] of an exciting moment for land use planning because it's,
[24:41] it's a bit of a big change. Um, and a
[24:43] standardization across the province. Um, and it does mean that
[24:47] we need to kind of relook at, um, some of
[24:50] the, um, you know, particular, particularities of the official plan.
[24:56] So for instance, with land use, um, on the slide
[24:59] in front of you in the chart, you'll see on
[25:02] the right column, there's a number of different commercial designation.
[25:06] So central business district, general commercial neighbourhood commercial restricted commercial
[25:11] mixed use neighbourhood makes use commercial service commercial. Several of
[25:15] those allow for residential development and non - residential development.
[25:21] Not all of them do. I think the service commercial
[25:23] does not. So under Bill 98, there's one designation. It's
[25:29] mixed use areas. So there was a reason at one
[25:32] point in time when council thought it appropriate to have
[25:35] these many different designations. Right. So part of our work
[25:38] now is to unpack what the objectives of those designations
[25:42] are and see where the map them on to the
[25:46] mixed use designation. Or do they belong somewhere else? So
[25:49] just to give you a bit of a sense, that's
[25:51] some of the work that We're under taking now in
[25:53] phase two. And we'll be continuing in phase three. I
[25:58] think I've covered much of the key takeaways from the
[26:02] policy paper, maybe just to say that, uh, I mentioned
[26:05] the growth management, uh, study that is informing our work.
[26:09] Also the transportation master plan, uh, we're, we're kind of
[26:13] closely following its recommendations as well too. And that'll come
[26:17] across in our recommendations report. Um, maybe the last point
[26:21] kind of on this side that I'll add is that
[26:23] we've, uh, begun a conversation with the county, um, in
[26:26] terms of our alignment with the Bill 98 structure. And
[26:30] they're broadly supportive of it. We brought that to the
[26:33] steering committee previously. Um, members of the steering committee acknowledged,
[26:37] yes, this is the way to go. So that's great.
[26:39] We will be meeting with MMAH later this week, I
[26:42] believe, again, to continue that conversation of how do we
[26:45] align with that structure. It's fairly new. So the only
[26:49] two municipalities that I'm aware of in the province that
[26:52] have followed that structure, um, so it's a little bit
[26:54] exciting to be kind of blazing a new trail in
[26:57] that respect. Next slide. And just to show you what
[27:04] that structure is. So on the, on the right, that
[27:07] is the table of content of, um, of, of the
[27:11] official plan under Bill 98. And we've just circled in
[27:14] red a couple of, um, of chapters of it, so
[27:19] to speak that aren't currently within the orangeville official plant.
[27:23] So just to make it clear for everyone, this isn't
[27:26] a radically different way of doing planning. Most official plans
[27:30] across the province broadly contain the same content. But Bill
[27:34] 98 will standardize them. And as you can expect, there's
[27:38] a few gaps between it and the official plan today.
[27:40] So that's all this slide calls out. Next slide. Okay.
[27:46] I'll show you a few pictures and then we can
[27:48] get to some QA. So these are really just meant
[27:51] to illustrate some of the themes that I was discussing
[27:54] earlier. And this map here, um, overlays the county's employment
[28:00] lands designation in the orange hatch on top of the
[28:04] town's employment land designation in the purple below. And you
[28:08] can see that generally it lines up, but there's some
[28:11] areas where it doesn't. So, um, again, around handsome boulevard,
[28:17] it's not designated in the county's OP. It is in
[28:19] the towns. We need to fix that. That's not a
[28:22] surprise to anyone. There's the employment land again along County
[28:27] Road 16. Um, that was recommended for removal in the
[28:32] land needs assessment as well as our employment land study.
[28:37] So we'll be looking to take that out through the
[28:40] OP review and update. We'll also need to coordinate that
[28:44] with the county since it is currently mapped in the
[28:47] county's official plan. So the technical alignment exercise that we
[28:51] need to do with the county, what we've already begun,
[28:54] those conversations with them. And then just to say that
[28:58] there are little, uh, little peculiarities with, with the OP
[29:01] is you'd expect can kind of accumulate over time. So
[29:05] for instance, we're just calling out a very small parcel
[29:08] that is designated as employment lads. Um, not sure exactly
[29:12] why it's that way. So we'll be digging into that.
[29:15] But, um, it doesn't really make a ton of sense
[29:17] to designate a tiny little parcel like that as employment
[29:20] lands. Much of the purpose of this designation is to
[29:23] create separation from it and other residential uses namely. So,
[29:29] so anyway, just a little detail that we need to
[29:33] address. Next slide. Again, to kind of highlight an emphasize
[29:40] some of the kind of fine - grained nature of
[29:44] some of the land use designation. So these are all
[29:47] of the different commercial designations that I mentioned a couple
[29:50] slides ago kind of mapped out across the town and
[29:54] bolded. Um, so under Bill 98, these will sift into
[30:01] likely one of two categories, the mixed use of the
[30:04] mixed use commercial. Um, so again, part of the work
[30:07] that we're undertaking now is determining which one makes the
[30:11] most sense. The neighborhood's designation, which is the main kind
[30:15] of residential designation for Bill 98. It does also allow
[30:20] for some commercial development. So some of these very isolated
[30:24] kind of light blue neighbourhood commercial blocks where you may
[30:27] have a corner store, a small business. Some of those
[30:30] may end up in neighbourhoods. Um, but, you know, the
[30:35] more conversation to be had about those. We're not at
[30:37] a point today where we're recommending that these kind of
[30:40] designations or changes in land use happen. That's very much
[30:43] kind of the work that we're embarking on now. But
[30:46] just to give you a bit of a sense of
[30:47] where we're headed. Next slide. From an intensification perspective, I
[30:55] mentioned the opportunity to kind of, um, uh, rationalize this.
[31:00] Um, there are some just simple updates that need to
[31:02] be made. So I think since the last official plan
[31:06] review and update, there's been development. That's good. That's what
[31:09] we want. Um, some of the lands that are designated
[31:13] as green field. I have since been developed. So we
[31:16] need to update those. Um, and those are kind of
[31:18] called out on the map. Um, the OP also identifies
[31:22] a number of discrete parcels kind of spread across the
[31:26] town, um, as intensification areas. And it's not clear kind
[31:30] of what determined or what went into determining those as
[31:35] intensification areas. Generally, it's kind of underdeveloped or undeveloped lots,
[31:41] which is fine. Um, but the best practice from a
[31:44] planning perspective would really be to speak to a broader
[31:47] area or a set of principles that would be where
[31:50] you'd want kind of intensification to occur. And typically it's
[31:53] where we have the best road access, the best public
[31:56] transit access and the best access to public services and
[32:00] facilities. So, um, in broad strokes, it's largely going to
[32:04] be Broadway in First Street as the major intensification areas.
[32:09] And then highway 10 and some of the commercial lands
[32:12] around that also presenting kind of a strong case for
[32:15] intensification. I think overall though, especially with the lack of
[32:20] developible land that Orangeville has, all areas should allow for
[32:24] some intensification. So we'll definitely be making that as part
[32:27] of the framework within the official plan. And part of
[32:31] the dialogue going forward. Next slide. And then one last
[32:37] image just to kind of, um, illustrate the, again, that
[32:41] kind of fine grain approach to density that currently lives
[32:45] within the official plan. So, um, these are sort of
[32:49] overlays on a residential designation, which is, you know, low
[32:54] density multiple, low density residential and so on. Um, and
[32:59] this is what I was saying in terms of being
[33:01] very kind of particular and specific about where these uses
[33:04] occur. This is more like what we would want to
[33:07] see in kind of a zoning bilaw, for instance, where
[33:10] you're very specific lot by lot in terms of what
[33:13] gets developed. I think from an official plan perspective, it's
[33:17] an opportunity to take a bit of a step back
[33:19] and set some of the principles and be clear about
[33:21] those for what, what type of development should happen and
[33:25] where. Um, and then allow the zoning by a lot
[33:28] to kind of do its work. So just to say
[33:31] that under Bill 98, we've got kind of one designation
[33:34] of play with, which is neighbourhoods. Um, but we don't
[33:37] want to gloss over, you know, either some of the
[33:40] unique aspects of these neighbourhoods. So how do we do
[33:44] that? You know, that's what we're kind of working on
[33:46] right now. Um, and welcome feedback on this. Next slide.
[33:54] We've had a number of conversations that have fed into
[33:56] today. So I mentioned a number of focus groups that
[33:59] we've undertaken through the spring and early into the summer.
[34:03] Um, we've also been engaging with local First Nations, so
[34:06] Mississaugas is a credit First Nation. Um, Hodenenosone development institute
[34:10] in Sargina Jibway nation. Um, and those conversations will kind
[34:15] of repeat again, um, we're expecting for that to occur
[34:19] in early next year once we have a draft official
[34:21] plan and something for people to react to. Um, but
[34:24] all the feedback from these events has helped to inform
[34:27] our work and we'll continue to do so. Next slide.
[34:33] Okay. I'll wrap it up pretty quickly here. But just
[34:35] to give a bit of a flavour of what we've
[34:37] heard really, you know, kind of we're in consulting on
[34:43] a lot of different topics. So maybe starting from a
[34:45] development perspective. I've heard from some that parking requirements are
[34:49] a little bit too high feel it makes it harder
[34:52] to create housing. Um, also, uh, you know, a recognition
[34:57] that there's some inconsistency between employment lad uses and county
[35:02] policies. So we spoke a little bit about that. I
[35:05] think from a housing and social services perspective heard a
[35:09] lot about a need for a more, uh, robust, affordable
[35:13] housing policy framework and a clear kind of definition of
[35:17] affordable housing. And definitely like just overall in a need
[35:21] for more housing options. So recognising it's not all about
[35:25] kind of policy, but also a need to kind of
[35:27] bring market forces to bear on that. Um, I think
[35:31] from a, you know, kind of from ecological perspective as
[35:35] well too. Um, you know, a recognition that there's many
[35:38] important features in the town that need to be conserved.
[35:42] Um, uh, and, and, and a lot of interest in
[35:45] that as well too. Next slide. I think that, oh,
[35:50] okay. Next steps. Um, I've already spoken a little bit
[35:53] about this. So we've gone over what we've done in
[35:56] phase one. There's been a fair bit of work today.
[35:59] We're here tonight for our statute story special counsel meeting.
[36:03] Um, and then in phase two, as I mentioned, we're
[36:05] working on a recommendations report right now. That'll be available
[36:09] later this fall. We're going to be having a public
[36:12] information centre, as I mentioned, uh, September 22nd. Um, so
[36:16] hope to see folks there as well too to provide
[36:20] their feedback. Um, and then again, this all leads into
[36:24] phase three where we really start drafting the official plan
[36:26] update in earnest kind of beginning in October. Next slide.
[36:32] That's it. Thank you very much for your presentation. Um,
[36:37] we have no registered get delegates for this item. So
[36:40] we'll move straight into verbal comments during the meeting. I
[36:43] understand that there was somebody who potentially joined online. So
[36:46] if that online person wishes to speak, please dial star
[36:49] nine to raise your hand. So I'll give you a
[36:51] second to do that. Nothing from. No. Okay. So we'll
[36:58] now ask then if there are any members of the
[36:59] public present who wish to speak to this item, a
[37:02] reminder that you're afforded three minutes to present your information.
[37:05] And it does have to do with this item. So
[37:07] was there anybody here who wished to speak to that?
[37:09] Come on up.
[37:19] And same as always name and address for the record
[37:21] and we'll get it on for you. Oh, sorry. There
[37:24] you go. Matthew Smith, 38. McCarthy Street. In regards to
[37:29] the rezoning of the employment lands to residential in the
[37:32] Northwest part of the town. Is that considered a normal
[37:36] practice, a best practice, especially considering we're kind of my
[37:40] word starved for industrial land? Should we really be removing
[37:44] that from the zoning and converting it to residential zoning?
[37:48] Thank you. Thank you. Brenda, do you want to speak
[37:51] to that? Yeah, sure. Thank you Mayor Posten. Through you,
[37:58] it's a practice that is expected to happen through a
[38:01] process like this. Like we've had a consultant team not
[38:04] only with the growth management study, but also now with
[38:07] the official plan review, both come to the same conclusion
[38:09] regarding those lands. And yes, they're designated employment. Yes, we
[38:13] need employment land as part of future forecast. But the
[38:16] reality is those lands are not realistic to achieve those
[38:19] demands. And there to redesignate them. And in doing so,
[38:24] you achieve other objectives. You provide more land for housing,
[38:27] which we also need to provide for. Thank you for
[38:30] your comments. Thank you. Was there anybody else in the
[38:32] gallery who wish to speak to this item. Not seeing
[38:35] any. Okay. So next then I would like to acknowledge
[38:39] that we did not receive any written comments on this
[38:42] item. So we'll move straight into questions for members of
[38:45] council. Councillor Prendergast. Actually. Councillor Andrews. They switched away
[38:55] the lineup here tonight. Thank you very much, your worship.
[38:57] And I guess our delegation, you have the opportunity to
[38:59] go back to the microphone because we're going to be
[39:01] asking you some questions and posing some comments as well.
[39:07] Thank you, worship. Michael again, truly a pleasure to have
[39:10] you back. Uh, we had the opportunity to engage with
[39:14] your firm and yourself, uh, during the June 9th. Focus
[39:18] group session. And that was really a productive opportunity for
[39:20] the economic development committee, which I chair. And this really
[39:24] falls very much under economic development. Um, you know, we
[39:27] take a look at where some of this will end
[39:29] up leading our municipality for the next 30 years. I
[39:32] think it's critical for us for each one of us
[39:34] who have various representation and our files this term to
[39:39] align ourselves accordingly. So I do have a comment, uh,
[39:43] and a question or a couple of questions. Um, I
[39:45] think what was really interesting was not only the amount
[39:47] of information that you've been able to generate so far,
[39:50] but the amount of work that your firm has done
[39:52] in collaboration with Mr. Ward and Ms. Russell and the
[39:55] team there. And this really is, I think, providing us
[39:58] a roadmap to where we eventually will be. There's also
[40:02] some other factors that we're having to deal with as
[40:04] we know most recently this past weekend. We had some
[40:07] potential wins change within our country. And we still don't
[40:11] know what the effects will be two years out, three
[40:14] years out or 10 years out. Um, that will be,
[40:16] I guess, determined by a different level of government. Having
[40:19] said that, you know, looking at the complexities we have
[40:21] on number one, another file of mine affordable, attainable housing.
[40:26] So I'll talk to that in a second. Uh, employment
[40:29] lands, where they are and where they could be eventually,
[40:32] if we look at other options. The third, of course,
[40:35] is commercial space, which you highlighted in your report up
[40:38] to this point, where we may have maybe too much
[40:41] commercial space. That's what, you know, when I read between
[40:45] the lines, that's what I was hearing and emerging theme.
[40:48] But at the same time, I think what we need
[40:49] to do is take a look at how we can
[40:51] best utilise what we have based on what we know
[40:54] today, but also prepare for what we may see coming
[40:57] over the horizon and be that from a patriotic perspective,
[41:01] which I think is going to be embraced even more
[41:03] so in the coming months and coming years. Um, moving
[41:07] into some things specifically in what you've highlighted so far
[41:11] was in fact the ortainable housing. And so again, I
[41:15] think that really what I was trying to get from
[41:18] maybe you this evening is not necessarily where it aligns
[41:21] with the official plan. And again, Mr. Ward or Ms.
[41:24] Russell may be able to also provide some points of
[41:27] reference. But it's really a matter of taking a look
[41:29] at how can we attract additional investment in our community.
[41:33] So that's, I think, part of the question. And the
[41:36] other is that definition that you even highlighted that in
[41:39] your presentation, what is that definition from your perspective of
[41:43] affordable housing? And then I have a couple other questions
[41:46] or worship. Thank you for the comment, Councillor Andrews and
[41:52] also for the question. Um, yeah, absolutely hear you in
[41:55] terms of the shifting economic realities. And I think it
[41:59] behooves the official plan. And as a tenant of good
[42:01] planning practice, flexibility is key. Um, of course, we can't
[42:06] be too flexible. So it's actually really about balance. And
[42:10] the simple answer to it. So not all unfold and
[42:14] we'll, we'll, we'll work with yourself and other members of
[42:16] council too. And, you know, as a time comes to
[42:19] kind of get that balance right. Um, in terms of
[42:22] definition for affordable housing, we haven't landed on one yet.
[42:26] Um, so some of that works still is to come.
[42:29] I think from, from our perspective, it makes sense to
[42:33] index it to income. Um, so you want to, you
[42:37] know, and then how much as a percentage of your
[42:39] income, do you want to be spending on affordable housing
[42:42] is, you know, I think CMHC uses 30 percent or
[42:45] so. There's, uh, there are different ways of looking at
[42:49] it depending on, uh, kind of local income levels. Like
[42:52] in some areas 30 percent is kind of still not
[42:55] realistic. So the need to kind of find tune it.
[42:57] So don't have the definition right now. I think that's,
[43:00] that's very much part of our work beginning in phase
[43:03] two with the recommendations report. I appreciate your candidness on
[43:08] that. And I think just to kind of zero in
[43:10] on that particular item, I think it is very difficult
[43:13] for us to define it here at a local level.
[43:16] Yet it is the individuals, the consumer who will determine
[43:19] the affordability as well. One example that I just wanted
[43:22] to highlight be that to you and publicly. And I
[43:24] may have mentioned this to you during our economic development
[43:27] focus. Um, there is a new development just south of
[43:31] Paris Sound called the Nest. It is really garnering quite
[43:33] a bit of national, I guess, attention because of the
[43:37] fact that they decided not to take a look at
[43:39] was defined of affordable. They came up with a price
[43:42] point that was deemed to be affordable. So you can
[43:45] actually buy a single detached home. For 399, 000 dollars.
[43:50] Which is really remarkable when you take a look at
[43:52] the bill. Now it doesn't come with basements and that's
[43:54] for another conversation. But just a reference point. The other
[43:57] piece that was highlighted was in fact, the complexity of
[44:00] some of our industrial space that we have. And you
[44:02] did highlight in this preliminary report also some of the
[44:06] areas where we do have some potential growth. But again,
[44:10] this is something that I'm also very much familiar with
[44:12] where we have some challenges in relationship to the intermodal
[44:17] connection or the close proximity to highway 10. I think
[44:20] that the opportunity is to take a look at something
[44:22] that might be closer towards the arteries where most of
[44:25] our transportation network occurs. And if there is that flexibility
[44:29] moving ahead, and again, the more conversation happening in the
[44:33] not too distant future. And just to zero in on
[44:36] one other part that was part of my file, which
[44:38] was equity diversity inclusion, you talked about your indigenous connections.
[44:45] And I know that, you know, from a municipality, we
[44:47] went through quite a lengthy exercise, even two previous term
[44:51] trying to land on our land acknowledgement and trying to
[44:54] zero in on exactly appropriate conversations with the appropriate indigenous
[44:59] representation. So my question to you is how did you
[45:01] determine your indigenous engagement so far a part of this,
[45:05] uh, this study. Now, thank you for the question. Um,
[45:10] we don't do it alone. It's a simple answer. So,
[45:13] um, we interface with the county of Dufferin early on.
[45:16] And they've recently completed their official plan review and update.
[45:20] So, uh, we reached out to them through Brandon and
[45:23] Larissa, uh, for, for a contact list and recommendations on
[45:26] who to speak to. So that's one thing that we
[45:29] looked at. We also look at who the treaty rights
[45:32] holders are. I think from an engagement perspective and definitely
[45:35] from an indigenous engagement perspective, it's important to recognise that
[45:38] treaty rights holders have a privilege place or ought to
[45:41] have a privilege place in conversations. Um, so we wanted
[45:45] to make sure that we were, we were covering our
[45:47] bases in that respect. And the two treaty rights holders
[45:50] is I understand them. Our seguginajibway nation and Mississaugas of
[45:54] the credits First Nation. I say as I understand, because
[45:57] I'm not a lawyer. I'm not an expert in treaties.
[46:00] So I'm doing my best a little bit with the
[46:02] information available. Um, but that isn't to say we shut
[46:05] ourselves off from other First Nations. So we also spoke
[46:07] with the Hodnosone Development Institute. And I understand Laurissa reached
[46:11] out to, I think every, every nation that county, uh,
[46:15] put us in touch with. Yeah. I think that's appreciative
[46:18] to hear because I think it's very important to have
[46:20] as much engagement as possible as much as there may
[46:23] be differences of opinion within some of the different bands
[46:26] and the leaders. But consensus building is part of this
[46:28] whole process. And again, I appreciate you being here this
[46:31] evening and the answers you provided to the questions I've
[46:34] had. That's all I have. Thank you, Councillor Andrews. Councillor
[46:40] Sherwood. Yes. Thank you, worship. Um, I just wanted to
[46:43] make a couple of comments in my observation listening to
[46:46] your presentation. I'm quite concerned about, um, the proposed recommendation
[46:51] about the employment lands and converting them to residential. And
[46:56] another comment that you made that kind of, um, struck
[47:00] me was about, um, not building as much commercial as
[47:04] well. So those are the two tax classes that if
[47:08] we, if we send them, if we make them residential
[47:12] properties, we're then putting more of the tax burning on
[47:16] the residential properties. We need commercial. We need industrial lands
[47:20] because they help carry the brunt of the tax increases
[47:25] to give more relief to our residential. Don't get me
[47:30] wrong. I'm all for residential growth, but I'm really hesitant
[47:35] on giving up such lands that, first of all, we're
[47:39] in dire need. That's all we ever hear is, oh,
[47:41] you know, we, we need more industrial land to help
[47:45] with that tax burden on the residential properties. So in
[47:48] this recommendation, would those, um, lands, and this may go
[47:53] to staff or whoever. When the recommendation comes, I guess
[47:58] in the spring of 2027 for final approval, will the
[48:02] B a resignation change the zoning on those employment lands
[48:08] to residential? Does that automatically happen or is that another
[48:11] process that would change the zoning of the lands during
[48:15] a different process? And I'm not sure who wants to
[48:18] answer that. Mr. Ward, do you want to take it?
[48:21] Yeah, yeah, sure. Through you Mayor Post, I can attempt
[48:23] to answer that. So through this process, they could be
[48:26] redesignated. Um, there's also a county approval involved at the
[48:30] end of the day that this amendment or this new
[48:32] official plan does go to the county for approval. We
[48:34] started those conversations with them at this stage about what
[48:38] that means in terms of redesignating that area from employment
[48:41] to non - employment uses. And I think we know
[48:45] and appreciate that we need employment land for long -
[48:47] term growth. That's something we've talked about for as long
[48:50] as I've been here and even prior to that. But
[48:53] I think the reality we're looking at is we need
[48:55] not just employment land. We need the right employment land.
[48:58] And I think those land in that area are showing
[49:00] over time that they're not right for that use. So
[49:04] it makes sense to consider e designating the mouseware. Um,
[49:08] with that said, I think it's going to put pressure
[49:10] on how do we find more land to accommodate employment
[49:13] that we need for the long - term growth. Yeah.
[49:18] So, um, respectfully, Mr. Ward, I disagree only because I
[49:23] feel that we need to protect a little bit of
[49:25] employment land that we have hopefully something could come along
[49:29] that would be a good fit within the neighbourhood. Again,
[49:32] all I keep thinking is we have such a high
[49:35] ratio of the residential's paying and supporting the tax bill.
[49:40] And we need to still do whatever we can to
[49:43] drive in employment and wherever that may be. And also
[49:48] not stop commercial. Because really, I find if we look
[49:52] at our vacancies, we don't have a lot of vacant
[49:54] commercial. So I don't know why we would want to
[49:56] put the brakes on developing commercial because they also help
[50:00] support the tax base and give a relief to the
[50:03] residential. So that's just my comment. I would, I would
[50:07] think that if we could, um, land some, you know,
[50:12] a whole pile of land somewhere, whether it's be through
[50:15] annexation to develop a big employment land park, that would
[50:21] be ideal. And I would support those other lands off
[50:24] of Hansen or the other areas that you mentioned to
[50:27] residential. That's just my own, my own personal input. Mr.
[50:31] War, do you have anything that you want to add
[50:32] there? Sure. Again, through you Mayor Post, very good comments.
[50:37] We'll certainly take that back as we move forward. Because
[50:39] at the end of the day, it's about moving forward
[50:40] with a policy framework to sort of spell out what
[50:44] council and the community want to see happen over the
[50:47] long term and our growth, our future growth. Um, quite
[50:50] frankly, we found the recommendations very interesting on the commercial
[50:54] land needs. Um, just anecdotally from our observation, we know
[50:58] that commercial uses are in high demand. We saw some
[51:01] of the findings in the report that vacancies low demand
[51:04] is high. Um, but what's intriguing is a lot of
[51:07] that demand comes from outside visitors. And in looking at
[51:10] the demand for our population base where actually have far
[51:14] more land than what we need. So the balance or
[51:16] the delta is providing for, um, outside residents. Visitors or
[51:22] commuters travelling through, et cetera. So I think it's an
[51:24] interesting junction for us to look at those commercial uses.
[51:28] The team is saying make better use of them, diversify
[51:31] the use framework. And I think that's the direction we're
[51:33] going to be taking from a land use, uh, permission
[51:36] perspective, but also too, I think it's an opportunity to
[51:39] look at your commercial areas and decide going forward. Do
[51:43] we want to continue that position and try to strengthen
[51:46] the regional attractiveness for commercial activity? Or do we want
[51:51] to make better use and focus more on the residential
[51:53] need. Thank you, Mr. Ward. Uh, Councillor Pendergast. Thank you,
[52:01] Mayor Post through you. I'm just going to get what
[52:04] I prepared here queued up. I think it's important that
[52:08] we recognise how consequential this exercise is. So the official
[52:12] plan can be like a visioning document, but it's really
[52:16] important, I think, because it is the legal planning framework
[52:19] that future councils, planners, developers. And ultimately tribunals rely on
[52:23] when decisions are challenged. So we saw this most recently
[52:26] with the York Street matter and how important strong local
[52:30] planning policy can be. Whatever vision that we have for
[52:33] Orangeville in 2056, this is where it needs to be
[52:36] clearly articulated. For us to protect it. And at first
[52:41] when I first joined council, I wasn't sure of how
[52:43] important an official plan is until we went to the
[52:46] York Street decision. And because within our official plan, York
[52:50] Street was mentioned previously two, three times going back 10
[52:53] years. That's, I think one of the primary elements that
[52:57] led to our success. So whatever goes into this plan,
[53:00] we need to make sure it's well written. So I'm
[53:03] going to lead into my next question. Uh, so my
[53:05] first question rather, as we develop the new official plan,
[53:08] how are we ensuring that these policies are not just
[53:10] simply statements of intent, but are written with enough clarity
[53:14] and strength to withstand development pressure and scrutiny at the
[53:18] Ontario Land Tribunal. Maybe that's just like a hypothetical, you
[53:23] know, like I just, I just want to think about
[53:24] that. Okay. I'll go with the next one. Um, secondly,
[53:29] be times when priorities do compete, looking forward 10, 20
[53:33] years, intensification, heritage, employment lands, natural heritage, infrastructure capacity, groundwater
[53:39] protection. So when those priorities do come into conflict, uh,
[53:44] what will the official plan tell the future council or
[53:47] the OLT? What does Orangeville consider fundamental to protect? And
[53:52] what are we willing to compromise? So those are maybe
[53:55] some things worth thinking about. And then lastly, um, of
[53:59] concern to me is the Orangeville Wetland complex that was
[54:03] designated for development. It was in the image Highway 10,
[54:08] just south of Island Lake. Okay, sorry. Did you consult
[54:14] the credit valley conservation authority when developing this plan. Yeah.
[54:21] Go ahead, Michael. Okay. No, that's a good question. And,
[54:24] uh, important to clarify. So right now it's designated as
[54:28] a green field. And we recognise that it shouldn't be
[54:32] that because it's natural heritage. So we're not the images
[54:35] that I showed are just analytical. They're not recommended schedules.
[54:40] That's not what the official plan should look like. To
[54:43] your point, that's part of the Wetland complex. So just
[54:47] to be clear about that, yeah, absolutely. So I think
[54:49] that's an issue that we can rectify through the official
[54:52] plan review is kind of what you're flagging. Just a
[54:56] further strengthen that recently a study came out that an
[55:00] urban area is Wetlands mitigate flood risk by up to
[55:03] 38 percent. Would it be possible solidifying that Wetland as
[55:06] part of natural essential infrastructure, not letting it be developed
[55:11] on further. Orange will exist on a flood plane. And
[55:15] this is part of our resilience, a municipal climate adaptation.
[55:19] So this is our chance to make sure that area,
[55:22] which is known for flooding. Doesn't get paved over in
[55:26] the future. Oh, and one more question. I'm just sorry.
[55:30] Sure. Go ahead. No. Without inclusionary zoning being allowed, we
[55:35] won't actually satisfy the needs of people that live in
[55:37] Orangeville. If we redesignate that employment land residential. The people
[55:42] that live in Orangeville right now are downsizing seniors and
[55:47] people that are starting out. Are there any types of
[55:49] zoning that we could use to maybe just keep it
[55:53] for senior use. Go ahead, Michael. Oh, sorry. Um, are
[56:00] there any types of zoning categories that are just explicitly
[56:03] for seniors. That's my question. Yeah. It's a, it's a
[56:08] good question. Um, so in terms of like in terms
[56:13] of creating spaces for seniors, um, folks who are downsizing,
[56:18] um, one of the, one of the things that we
[56:20] would recommend is, again, really leaning into the apartment and
[56:24] multifamily typology, definitely through the land use, we want to
[56:28] allow for things like retirement residences for folks that want
[56:32] that, but there's also a lot of seniors and folks
[56:35] who are downsizing who aren't quite ready for that. And
[56:37] then long - term care home might be another kind
[56:39] of typology, which was kind of at the furthest end
[56:42] of that scale. Um, we wouldn't typically kind of zone
[56:46] an area just for kind of one particular use. We
[56:49] want to allow a little bit of flexibility, but I
[56:51] think to your point about, you know, creating space for,
[56:54] for seniors and people in our community who really need
[56:57] it, I think we can take, you know, a look
[57:00] at how we do that in a way that, yeah.
[57:03] Can I just reply? This term of council, we saw
[57:07] land that was supposed to be mixed use right by
[57:10] Kurtz Mill. And it was supposed to have, I'm sorry,
[57:13] supposed to. It was going to have seniors housing. It
[57:16] was going to be mixed use. That's what we were
[57:19] told. Then it ended up not being mixed use. And
[57:22] now is just going to be dense, intensified townhouses. So
[57:26] I guess what I'm asking is how do we protect
[57:29] this land and make sure it actually is mixed use?
[57:33] Because I don't think that's good enough because we've seen
[57:35] this already happen. So it's just a comment statement. Thank
[57:40] you. Anybody want to comment on anything there? Mr. Ward,
[57:45] are you looking at me with eye contact there? Yes.
[57:48] Go ahead. No, I don't have anything further. Uh, we
[57:50] can take that back. The comment earlier about clear defensible
[57:54] policies is well taken. It's a fine balance. I think
[57:57] we've got to move forward with. And I think the
[58:00] province is showing us what their standardized approach that maybe
[58:04] municipalities are getting too fine grain with the policy detail.
[58:07] And we need to give a little more flexibility with
[58:10] land use. Policy writing, so to speak. An example of,
[58:15] um, how policies can be maybe too prescriptive versus two
[58:20] general is intensification. On one hand, you could have general
[58:23] directive policies saying where and how it should happen. And
[58:26] then the other approach is a more prescriptive. Here are
[58:29] the areas where it does intensification. That can happen here,
[58:31] here they cannot or maybe not to that extent. But
[58:34] here the areas we're intensification should happen. I think that
[58:37] can be misleading because it gives an impression that these
[58:41] are the only areas we're intensification makes sense, but there
[58:44] may be other areas where, you know, it meets the
[58:46] objectives, but they're just not shown as such on a
[58:50] map. So that's an example where policies get maybe two
[58:53] fine - grained versus the more generalistic approach. So long
[58:57] story short is we've got to take this all back
[58:59] and give you something ultimately. And the community something that
[59:03] they're going to feel is reliable and defensible and very
[59:05] clear. Thank you, Mr. Ward. Can I just say. Um,
[59:10] so growth is inevitable. Uh, and the purpose of the
[59:14] plan is just simply not to accommodate the growth, but
[59:16] to decide on what kind of community we want in
[59:19] the future. And thank you for all the hard work
[59:21] you've done so far on this. And I look forward
[59:23] to seeing what comes out of it. Thank you. Deputy
[59:26] Mayor Taylor. Oh, I thought you forgot me. Um, thank
[59:32] you, your worship. Um, I'd like to make a couple
[59:34] of comments and then I do have a few questions.
[59:37] So, um, to me, this just drives home, um, the
[59:42] entire presentation drives home the need to expand our borders.
[59:46] Long term, that's the only thing that's going to sustain
[59:49] us and ensure that we're a vibrant community going forward.
[59:53] And I'm absolutely convinced of that. Um, the second piece
[59:56] would be the land in the north, uh, which is
[1:00:01] essentially the veterans where it's employment lands. I do agree
[1:00:05] that it's sad to give up those lands in terms
[1:00:08] of employment. But the reality is they don't connect. Um,
[1:00:13] they're off on their own. So I don't see the
[1:00:15] purpose in it. I don't know why we would have
[1:00:17] that up there. I think it would be best of
[1:00:19] it moved to residential. The 2020 hindsight pieces is we
[1:00:24] missed an opportunity years ago. And that was when Alderina
[1:00:28] was built, we should not have allowed the arena to
[1:00:31] be built where it was. That was employment lands. And
[1:00:34] if we had to made that decision, uh, as a
[1:00:36] town, we would have not this problem. So those are
[1:00:41] my comments. My questions would be, um, to you, Mr.
[1:00:46] Ward, there is a push to have new buildings built
[1:00:50] in our town. Um, you know, six, eight story buildings.
[1:00:55] And there is conversation about having commercial underneath these buildings.
[1:00:59] And I have been concerned as we go along in
[1:01:02] conversations that I've had with entrepreneurs have said, we're, we're
[1:01:06] over slotted on our commercial pieces. And that may be
[1:01:11] forcing these buildings to have commercial under the buildings isn't
[1:01:15] the wisest thing. So I'd love to understand your commentary
[1:01:18] on that. And then the second piece is, you know,
[1:01:22] it's interesting that disconnects happen. Um, but to see those
[1:01:27] strange occurrences of the county plan versus the town plan.
[1:01:31] I was wondering, how does that happen? B, what do
[1:01:34] we do moving forward to make sure that it's looked
[1:01:36] after? And I, I just love to hear your thoughts
[1:01:39] on those two items. Okay. Mr. Ward. Sure. Thank you
[1:01:44] Mayor Posten through you. So I think two questions. First
[1:01:46] one was around, um, mandating ground level commercial. Um, I
[1:01:51] think one of the findings of this exercise is showing
[1:01:53] that we've, you know, we don't need more commercial land.
[1:01:57] And also our Broadway study or Broadway corridor study sort
[1:02:01] of came to the same conclusions and that, you know,
[1:02:03] tread cautiously with mandating ground level commercials. So that's something
[1:02:07] we're going to look to as parted writing policies. It's
[1:02:10] not necessarily mandating it at grade, but maybe focusing it
[1:02:12] in key, uh, intersection nodes, et cetera. But letting sort
[1:02:16] of the market dictate elsewhere along those corridors, uh, whether
[1:02:21] it's at grade residential or back grade commercial with residential
[1:02:25] above. The next question, um, if I could just clarify
[1:02:30] what the second part of your question was, Deputy Mark?
[1:02:34] It's the county. Yeah. Thank you very much, Mr. Ward.
[1:02:36] It's the county plan versus the town plan and the
[1:02:39] conflicting, um, thoughts, I guess conflicting plans. And I guess
[1:02:46] a, the history of how that would have occurred and
[1:02:49] then B, what do we do to rectify that moving
[1:02:52] forward? And I guess C would be who, who would
[1:02:55] have jurisdiction? Would it be the town that we would
[1:02:57] accept the plan or would the county plan be the
[1:03:01] plan. Ms. Ward. Okay. Thank you for clarifying Deputy Mayor.
[1:03:05] So there's one area I think you're referring to. It's
[1:03:08] in the veterans way area. There's employment area designated in
[1:03:12] our official plan, but not the county. And the reason
[1:03:14] for that is it is of employment area in our
[1:03:18] planning document. But the policy framework is so broad and
[1:03:21] mixed use. There's a lot of non - employment uses
[1:03:24] permitted in there. So it sort of undermines that employment
[1:03:26] area designation. And the county is, is much tighter. It's
[1:03:31] more prescriptive to employment. And they recognise that, uh, range
[1:03:35] of uses permitted on a site - specific basis. So
[1:03:38] they haven't designated that as such a near official plan.
[1:03:41] And that's something we'll look to address in our update
[1:03:44] is really clean up the policy framework in that area
[1:03:46] to be reflective of sort of a mixed use neighbourhood
[1:03:49] setting, not the employment area designation. That's sort of an
[1:03:53] older policy regime. Deputy Mayor, good. Very good. Thank you.
[1:04:01] Perfect. Councillor Andrews. Thank you, Russian. But I just wanted
[1:04:05] to piggyback on what deputy mayor tailor had posed in
[1:04:09] his first question. And this is regarding ground level commercial.
[1:04:14] And through the economic development office, and this is more
[1:04:16] of a commentary. One of the challenges that I know
[1:04:18] that our economic development office is faced at times is
[1:04:21] the type of commercial space that's available versus that it's
[1:04:25] available. And so when you have specific inquiries that are
[1:04:29] coming into our community, it may be a doctor's, you
[1:04:33] know, medical practice. It could be again, a specific form
[1:04:37] of retail. And one of the, I wouldn't use the
[1:04:39] term criticisms. One of the, I guess, comets it comes
[1:04:42] from perspective entrepreneurs or those that are wanting to invest
[1:04:46] their business of choice here in our community after doing
[1:04:49] their research. This is a great community to invest in
[1:04:52] is that we don't necessarily have the appropriate sized location
[1:04:57] in the right location. So that is something I think
[1:05:00] that we probably should have as a takeaway as opposed
[1:05:04] to just saying that we have, in general terms, we
[1:05:06] have a lot of commercial space available. So I think
[1:05:09] that there are some opportunities that we can look at.
[1:05:12] And it may be dependent on where that space or
[1:05:14] that land is or whatever may be from an investment
[1:05:17] perspective takes place. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much.
[1:05:21] Was there any other questions or comments for members of
[1:05:23] council. Nope. Seeing none. Okay. So I want to thank
[1:05:28] you for being here. I want to thank you for
[1:05:29] all your time. It's been amazing to sit as part
[1:05:31] of the official plan steering committee. I've learned a ton
[1:05:34] and your firm has done some incredible work and really
[1:05:37] just seeing this important document start to come together is
[1:05:40] a really meaningful piece. So I'm looking forward to the
[1:05:42] next steps as well. So thank you very much for
[1:05:45] being here. So with that, um, council, could I get
[1:05:47] a motion please that the official plan review information report
[1:05:51] and associated comments be received for information. Please Councillor Pendergast
[1:05:54] and Councillor Sherwood all in favor. And that is carried.
[1:05:58] And a recommendation that the confirming by Law listed below
[1:06:02] be read three times and finally passed Councillor Stevens and
[1:06:05] Councillor Prendergast all in favor. And that is carried and
[1:06:08] a motion to adjourn. Councillor McIntosh and Councillor Stevens all
[1:06:12] in favor. And that is carried. Thank you for joining
[1:06:14] us this evening, everyone.