[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.

Special Public Meeting

Agenda

Transcript