[0:25] Madam Clerk, the time is 7:00 p.m. on

[0:28] Tuesday, June 23rd, 2026.

[0:31] I'd call this council meeting to order.

[0:34] But first, the land acknowledgement.

[0:37] The town of Aurora acknowledges that the

[0:39] Anishinaabe lands on which we live and

[0:41] work are the traditional and treaty

[0:44] territory of the Chippewas of Georgina

[0:46] Island, as well as many other nations

[0:48] whose presence here continues to this

[0:50] day.

[0:52] As the closest First Nation community to

[0:54] Aurora, we recognize the special

[0:56] relationship the Chippewas have with the

[0:58] lands and waters of this territory.

[1:01] They are the water protectors and

[1:03] environmental stewards of these lands,

[1:05] and as a municipality, we join them in

[1:07] these responsibilities.

[1:10] We further acknowledge that Aurora is

[1:12] part of the treaty lands of the

[1:13] Mississaugas and Chippewas, recognized

[1:16] through Treaty Number 13, as well as the

[1:19] Williams Treaties of 1923.

[1:22] A shared understanding of the rich

[1:23] cultural heritage that has existed for

[1:25] centuries, and how our collective past

[1:28] brought us to where we are today, will

[1:30] help us walk together into a better

[1:32] future.

[1:35] I please have a motion to approve the

[1:37] revised agenda, including delegation

[1:40] items 6.3 to 6.6.

[1:45] Councillor Gilliland.

[1:51] I guess it's Thompson.

[1:53] Any questions or comments on the agenda?

[1:56] » Mr. Chair.

[2:00] » Uh I wanted to um

[2:04] request to add a delegate.

[2:08] Um

[2:11] name is Bailey Lester. It's regarding

[2:14] animal services incident and a of

[2:17] significant public interest.

[2:23] » Madam Chair,

[2:24] um

[2:25] question two is that this would be a 2/3

[2:28] council vote.

[2:31] » Through you, Mr. Chair. This requires a

[2:33] 2/3 um

[2:35] vote by council and I have something

[2:37] prepared for council's consideration. I

[2:39] would just recommend that you do this

[2:41] separately from the approval of the

[2:43] agenda so because it requires 2/3 while

[2:46] the approval of the agenda only requires

[2:49] a simple majority vote. So, um

[2:52] the motion that Council Gallo has

[2:55] proposed would be worded something like

[2:58] that section 32 A3 and nine of the

[3:03] procedure bylaw be waived to permit an

[3:05] additional delegation item as 6.

[3:10] uh seven or

[3:13] 6.7 uh relating to uh the

[3:18] the matter that um

[3:19] the delegates wish to speak to.

[3:23] » That seems kind of long and complicated.

[3:24] Can I just say that uh is there

[3:27] something more simple?

[3:30] » Uh

[3:32] let me place it on the on the screen for

[3:35] you to read.

[3:36] » Okay.

[3:52] Councilor Gardner, did you have

[3:53] something to comment before our our

[3:55] weekly uh

[3:57] separate edition?

[4:03] Sorry, you're on mute.

[4:08] » Sorry. Thank you. I I have something to

[4:11] comment on the agenda, but I believe

[4:13] that uh

[4:14] to add somebody to the delegation, we

[4:18] need to have a 40 to a procedure bylaw.

[4:21] We need to have a 2/3 vote. Is that

[4:24] correct, Madam Clerk?

[4:27] » Clerk?

[4:29] » That's correct.

[4:30] » Yes, yes, we do.

[4:31] » Complicated for a reason.

[4:34] Thank you.

[4:37] » Okay, so on Counselor Gallo's request,

[4:42] so we need a 2/3 majority vote

[4:45] at the rules of procedure.

[4:47] Sir, could you put that back on uh Madam

[4:49] Clerk?

[4:58] That section 32A

[5:01] number three and

[5:02] nine of the procedure bylaw be waived to

[5:04] permit an additional delegation as item

[5:07] 6.7

[5:09] and

[5:10] that would be Bailey Lester.

[5:13] So, call the vote. All those four.

[5:16] » Excuse [laughter] me. Excuse me.

[5:19] » Yes, Counselor Gardner?

[5:24] » Why would we waive the procedural bylaw?

[5:27] We never waive the procedural bylaw to

[5:30] have a delegation added. I I believe

[5:32] there's enough members at the

[5:35] on Zoom

[5:36] to have that 2/3 vote.

[5:40] So, I would ask you do that.

[5:42] » We're having the vote right now.

[5:46] » To waive the procedure

[5:46] » You're requesting

[5:47] » Okay, I'm I'm against I'm against waving

[5:49] the procedure by-law.

[5:52] » If I could take a moment to explain

[5:56] » Madam

[5:57] » So,

[5:58] the

[6:00] the delegation does not is not in order

[6:03] because it wasn't

[6:06] um

[6:06] the under our procedure by-law,

[6:09] um

[6:09] each subject must be related to a

[6:12] business item on the agenda. So, that's

[6:15] why the delegation was not included on

[6:17] the agenda. For for council to hear the

[6:22] delegation tonight, you have to wave the

[6:24] procedure by-law to allow the delegates

[6:27] to speak. So, that's why you require um

[6:30] waving of the procedure by-law. And

[6:32] uh

[6:34] um

[6:35] in the in the in the other case in the

[6:36] general normal cases where you didn't um

[6:41] wave the procedure by-law, that was

[6:43] because

[6:45] uh

[6:46] the [clears throat] clerk's office asked

[6:48] to add additional delegates beyond the

[6:51] limit of two

[6:53] delegations per council meeting. So,

[6:56] that doesn't require uh waving of the

[6:58] procedure by-law. And all we require is

[7:01] a consent from council. This aspect does

[7:05] require waving of the procedure by-law

[7:06] because the procedure by-law does not

[7:09] allow for any delegations outside of the

[7:12] matter that is on the agenda.

[7:15] » Thank you for that explanation. I

[7:16] understand.

[7:19] » Thank you, Madam Clerk. Uh if you could

[7:21] put that back on and uh

[7:24] I'll put that to the floor again.

[7:34] Okay, so the motion

[7:35] section 32A

[7:38] number three and nine of the procedure

[7:40] by-law be waved to permit additional

[7:42] delegation as item 6.7

[7:45] and that is Bailey Lester.

[7:48] All those in favor?

[7:52] That passes.

[7:55] Any declarations of pecuniary interest?

[7:57] » Mr. Mr. Chair, sorry.

[7:59] » Yes.

[8:00] » I did just in terms of the agenda.

[8:02] Um, just a quick statement if you'll

[8:05] allow me.

[8:06] » Thank you, Councillor Gallo.

[8:07] » Gallo.

[8:08] » Um,

[8:09] before we proceed, I'd like to note that

[8:12] for the record, I am participating

[8:14] virtually in the council chambers this

[8:16] evening.

[8:17] While the respect the members

[8:19] may choose to attend electronically, I

[8:21] do not agree with the interpretation of

[8:23] the procedure bylaw that was used to

[8:25] move this meeting from town hall to a

[8:27] fully virtual format.

[8:29] In my view, section 20D addresses the

[8:32] location of meetings and does not

[8:34] clearly provide the authority to convert

[8:37] a regular council meeting into a fully

[8:39] virtual meeting under

[8:41] these circumstances. I believe public

[8:43] meetings should be accessible and

[8:45] transparent as possible, which is why I

[8:48] chose to attend the council chambers

[8:49] this evening. I appreciate the residents

[8:52] who have taken the time to follow

[8:53] tonight's proceeding whether online or

[8:57] in town hall.

[9:00] » Thank you, Councillor Gallo. Um,

[9:03] Madam Clerk, uh, do you have any

[9:05] comments to, uh,

[9:07] Councillor Gallo's comments?

[9:14] » Yes, um, and it's what was supplied

[9:16] through email, um, that the mayor has

[9:19] authorized the decision to move the

[9:23] council meeting and audit committee

[9:25] meeting to fully virtual with no public

[9:28] attendance and that's permitted under

[9:30] section 20D1

[9:32] of the procedure bylaw.

[9:34] Uh, and then, um,

[9:36] uh,

[9:37] under Section 20 I 6 of the Procedure

[9:40] Bylaw, the clerk prescribes the method

[9:43] of the virtual attendance, which is the

[9:46] Zoom meeting.

[9:49] » Thank you, Madam Clerk.

[9:51] Okay, I'm going to move on to pecuniary

[9:53] interest.

[9:57] » Excuse me.

[9:57] » Councilor know you you have a pecuniary

[9:59] interest?

[10:00] » No.

[10:01] No, uh, but I did say I had something to

[10:04] add

[10:06] when you asked for the approval of the

[10:08] agenda. So, I

[10:09] » Go ahead, Councillor Gillan.

[10:10] » Thank you, Council Coun- Thank you,

[10:13] Councillor Kim and Mr. Chair.

[10:16] Um, in my opinion, there's nothing in

[10:18] our Procedure Bylaw that allows Council

[10:20] to hold this Zoom meeting.

[10:23] I'm very familiar with the section that

[10:25] was quoted and uh,

[10:27] it's actually appears in the Procedure

[10:30] Bylaw because of something happened in

[10:33] uh, my first term of Council and has

[10:35] nothing to do

[10:37] with video meetings. And I would also

[10:39] like to say this is the second last

[10:42] Council meeting of our Council term.

[10:46] And I believe that it would have been

[10:48] right to hold this meeting in the

[10:49] Council Chamber and it would be

[10:51] respectful to the residents we

[10:54] represent, not on Zoom. Thank you.

[11:01] » Moving on.

[11:03] Definitions of pecuniary

[11:04] » Mr. Chair, if I could

[11:05] » Yes, go ahead, Councillor

[11:06] » I'm sorry to interrupt. Um, I think we

[11:09] missed approving the agenda with the

[11:12] additional um, delegation request.

[11:17] If we could just go back and um, get a

[11:20] vote.

[11:23] » Is there a mover and a seconder for the

[11:26] agenda revised agenda, please?

[11:30] Councillor Gillan.

[11:32] Councillor Thompson

[11:34] All those in favor?

[11:37] That carries.

[11:39] Thanks for the reminder, uh

[11:41] Madam Clerk.

[11:44] Declarations of pecuniary interest

[11:49] Seeing none.

[11:52] We move on to community presentations.

[11:58] Okay, so we have one presentation.

[12:02] Sparrow Ayres, youth programmer,

[12:04] regarding John West Memorial Leaders of

[12:07] Tomorrow Scholarship Award.

[12:09] If you can please state your name, and

[12:11] be reminded that you have 10 minutes for

[12:13] your presentation.

[12:16] » So,

[12:17] sorry about that. How's Is my voice

[12:18] coming through okay?

[12:20] » Yep, I can hear you loud and clear.

[12:22] » Awesome.

[12:23] So, I'm Sparrow Ayres. I am the youth

[12:25] programmer for the town of Aurora.

[12:28] Good evening, members of council,

[12:29] distinguished guests, family members,

[12:31] friends, and everyone joining us here

[12:32] this evening. It is always a privilege

[12:35] to gather and celebrate the incredible

[12:37] young people who call Aurora home.

[12:39] Over the past year, our community has

[12:41] continued to demonstrate what makes

[12:43] Aurora such a special place to live,

[12:45] work, and grow. Whether through

[12:47] community events, volunteer initiatives,

[12:49] artistic achievements, athletic

[12:51] accomplishments, or acts of service,

[12:54] Aurora's youth continue to lead by

[12:55] example and remind us that the future of

[12:57] our community is in very capable hands.

[13:01] Tonight, we have the opportunity to

[13:02] recognize two outstanding young leaders

[13:05] through the John West Memorial Leaders

[13:07] of Tomorrow Scholarship Award.

[13:09] This award honors students who have

[13:11] demonstrated exceptional leadership,

[13:13] service, character, and commitment to

[13:16] making life better for others.

[13:19] This year's recipients embody the values

[13:21] that John West championed throughout his

[13:23] life, community service, compassion,

[13:26] leadership, and a dedication to helping

[13:28] others succeed.

[13:30] Through their actions, they have

[13:31] strengthened our community and inspired

[13:33] those around them.

[13:34] It is my honor to share a little bit

[13:36] about each of our winners' remarkable

[13:38] journeys.

[13:39] Our first winner is Catherine Wang.

[13:42] Catherine's story is one of inclusion,

[13:44] collaboration, and advocacy.

[13:47] Throughout her time at Dr. G.W. Williams

[13:49] Secondary School, she has consistently

[13:51] sought opportunities to bring people

[13:53] together and create meaningful

[13:54] connections within her school and

[13:56] community.

[13:57] As student council president, she

[13:59] recognized that many student groups

[14:00] shared common goals, but often worked

[14:02] independently of one another.

[14:04] Rather than accepting that as reality,

[14:06] she helped foster a culture of

[14:08] collaboration, encouraging clubs to

[14:10] combine their talents and resources to

[14:12] create stronger and more impactful

[14:13] initiatives for students.

[14:16] Her passion for inclusion extends far

[14:18] beyond student government. As co-founder

[14:20] of the Asian Students Association,

[14:23] Catherine helped create opportunities

[14:24] for students to celebrate cultural

[14:26] diversity, challenge stereotypes, and

[14:28] build greater understanding amongst her

[14:30] peers.

[14:31] Through educational initiatives and

[14:33] community events, she worked to ensure

[14:35] that students from every back-

[14:36] background felt represented, respected,

[14:39] and welcomed.

[14:40] One of Catherine's most meaningful

[14:42] contributions involved helping create an

[14:44] art gallery and workshop program focused

[14:46] on raising awareness and acceptance of

[14:49] individuals with autism spectrum

[14:50] disorder.

[14:51] Through art, education, and direct

[14:54] engagement with children and their

[14:55] families, she helped foster a more

[14:57] inclusive environment where everyone

[14:58] felt valued and supported.

[15:01] Perhaps most importantly, Catherine has

[15:03] demonstrated the courage to stand up for

[15:05] others, even when doing so is difficult.

[15:08] Whether advocating for cultural

[15:09] understanding or challenging

[15:11] discriminatory behavior, she has so-

[15:13] shown that true leadership means using

[15:15] your voice to create positive change.

[15:18] This fall, Catherine will continue her

[15:19] educational journey at my own alma

[15:21] mater, McMaster University. Go

[15:23] Marauders.

[15:24] With her, she brings the values of

[15:26] service, inclusion, and leadership that

[15:28] have already made such an positive

[15:30] impact here in Aurora.

[15:33] Catherine, we are incredibly proud of

[15:34] everything you've accomplished and

[15:36] grateful for the difference you have

[15:37] made in our community. Congratulations.

[15:41] Our second winner is Alyssa Premiani.

[15:44] Alyssa's story is one of compassion,

[15:46] resilience, and service to others.

[15:49] Throughout her high school years at

[15:50] Cardinal Carter High School, Alyssa has

[15:52] consistently demonstrated that

[15:54] leadership is not defined by titles, but

[15:56] by actions.

[15:57] Whether supporting younger students,

[15:59] mentoring future leaders, or creating

[16:01] opportunities for children to thrive,

[16:03] she has made helping others the

[16:05] foundation of her work.

[16:07] Alyssa's commitment to community service

[16:09] is deeply personal. Inspired by

[16:11] supporting her younger brother through

[16:13] leukemia treatment, she transformed a

[16:15] difficult family experience into

[16:17] opportunities to help others facing

[16:19] similar challenges.

[16:21] Through her business, Alyssa Nicole

[16:23] Designs, she has donated handmade

[16:25] gemstone bracelets to pediatric oncology

[16:28] patients and youth involved in mental

[16:30] health programs, providing comfort,

[16:32] encouragement, and hope to young people

[16:34] during difficult times.

[16:36] She has also volunteered with the Super

[16:38] Sophia Project, helping prepare care

[16:40] packages for children in hospitals and

[16:42] ensuring they feel supported and cared

[16:44] for.

[16:45] Closer to home, Alyssa has become a

[16:47] familiar face within Aurora's recreation

[16:49] programs.

[16:51] Over the past few years, I have had the

[16:52] pleasure of working alongside Alyssa as

[16:54] both a volunteer and now a program

[16:56] leader with the town.

[16:57] She has helped create positive and

[16:59] inclusive experiences for children and

[17:00] youth through sports, dance, camps, and

[17:03] community events.

[17:05] Her ability to make participants feel

[17:07] welcomed, valued, and confident reflect

[17:09] the type of leader our community is

[17:11] proud to celebrate.

[17:13] What is perhaps most impressive is her

[17:15] ability to balance her achievements

[17:16] while remaining focused on helping

[17:18] others.

[17:19] Whether mentoring future leaders,

[17:21] supporting children in rec programs, or

[17:23] giving back to families facing medical

[17:25] challenges, Alyssa consistently uses her

[17:28] talents to improve the lives of those

[17:29] around her.

[17:31] This fall, Alyssa will attend York

[17:33] University, where there is no doubt she

[17:36] will continue to build upon her passion

[17:37] for leadership, entrepreneurship, and

[17:39] community service.

[17:41] Alyssa, thank you for the kindness,

[17:43] determination, and compassion you have

[17:45] brought to the Aurora community.

[17:47] We are excited to see where your journey

[17:49] takes you and look forward to the impact

[17:50] you will continue to make in the future.

[17:54] To our recipient To our recipients, your

[17:56] accomplishments are impressive, but it's

[17:58] your character, your commitment to

[18:00] others, and your willingness to lead

[18:02] through service that truly set you

[18:03] apart.

[18:04] The Town of Aurora mayor and council are

[18:06] incredibly proud of everything you've

[18:08] achieved and all that you've contributed

[18:10] to our community.

[18:11] It is our honor to recognize you as the

[18:13] recipients of the 2026 John West

[18:16] Memorial Leaders of Tomorrow Scholarship

[18:18] Award.

[18:19] Congratulations.

[18:21] As I said earlier, Aurora's future is

[18:23] bright because of young leaders like

[18:25] you.

[18:26] Wherever life takes you next, know that

[18:28] you will always have a home here that is

[18:30] proud of your accomplishments and

[18:32] excited to celebrate your future

[18:33] successes. Congratulations again.

[18:38] » Thank you so much to everyone, the Town

[18:40] of Aurora and the scholarship community

[18:42] for the This is truly an honor and I'm

[18:44] incredibly grateful um for the John West

[18:46] Memorial Leaders of Tomorrow

[18:48] Scholarship, and this award will really

[18:50] help me uh pursue my future education.

[18:52] And also, um I'm just truly honored and

[18:55] grateful for everyone's support. Thank

[18:56] you so much.

[19:03] » Thank you, Sparrow, and congratulations

[19:06] to Alyssa and Catherine.

[19:09] Uh Uh, may I have a motion to receive

[19:12] the presentation?

[19:15] Councilor Reese.

[19:16] Councilor Gardner.

[19:19] Any questions or comments

[19:22] for Adela?

[19:23] Councilor Dillon.

[19:28] » Thank you. Um, wow, that was very

[19:30] inspiring.

[19:32] Um, I just had a a very quick question

[19:34] and that was about your crystal

[19:37] bracelets. Do you have an example with

[19:39] you of one right now, what they look

[19:41] like?

[19:42] Um, I'm sure that these are items that

[19:45] really put a cheer on someone's face and

[19:47] I'm just really curious about your um,

[19:50] talents and if you could share maybe a

[19:52] little bit more about these bracelets

[19:54] and then maybe where we could buy them

[19:56] if we really wanted to uh, purchase

[19:57] some.

[19:59] » Yes, thank you so much. Actually, I have

[20:01] a couple here. Um, show.

[20:04] » [laughter]

[20:05] » I make a bunch of different types, um,

[20:08] depending

[20:08] » Nice.

[20:09] » Uh,

[20:10] different preferences and um,

[20:13] I actually uh, was part of the Richmond

[20:16] Hill's um,

[20:17] I did a bunch of the Hillcrest Mall

[20:19] events and also um, the Ribfest and I

[20:22] sold them at a lot of different

[20:23] community events.

[20:25] Um, and I also have uh, also sold online

[20:28] on Shopify and on Instagram where I

[20:31] share a lot of my designs. Um, and yeah,

[20:34] I'm really happy that um, they resonate

[20:36] with a lot of people and a lot of a lot

[20:38] of like community members and uh, family

[20:41] friends, everyone's very supportive and

[20:43] it's really been uh, brought a lot of

[20:46] like light and um, joy to people's days

[20:48] too. So, I'm really grateful for um, all

[20:51] the support.

[20:54] » Councilor Dillon.

[20:55] » Thank you. Perfect. Well, if you could

[20:57] let us know what your Instagram handle

[20:59] is or your Shopify and or um, I think

[21:02] it'd be great and the public can uh,

[21:04] definitely you check it out.

[21:07] » Yes, my Instagram um handle is

[21:09] alyssa.nicole.designs.

[21:12] Um and then my Shopify um

[21:16] is alyssanicoledesigns. And if you type

[21:19] in Shopify, it should come up. And then

[21:21] also on Etsy, I've started to um also

[21:23] sell there. And it's also just my um

[21:26] business name, alyssanicoledesigns.

[21:29] » Perfect, that's awesome. And I know that

[21:31] we're online and when your name's not

[21:32] popping up, we don't all remember.

[21:34] » Oh, yes.

[21:34] » I'm sure there's different ways to spell

[21:37] your name. So, just spell it out once

[21:39] and then that way people will remember.

[21:41] » It is a l i s s a. And then Nicole, n i

[21:47] c o l e. And designs, d e s i g n s.

[21:53] » Perfect. Thanks so much.

[21:54] Congratulations.

[21:56] » Thank you.

[21:58] » Yes, Councillor Lee.

[22:01] » Yes, thank you. Um

[22:03] I really want to thank the coordinator

[22:06] for for bringing the names forward to

[22:07] us. It was a great presentation tonight.

[22:09] And I of course congratulate both uh

[22:12] the Catherine and Alyssa. Sorry you

[22:14] couldn't be here in person. It's always

[22:17] nice to see people who are leaders in

[22:19] this community and entrepreneurs like

[22:21] you are. So, uh thanks for all the work

[22:24] you do and congratulations on your

[22:27] awards.

[22:31] » Any Councillor Lee? Any anyone else?

[22:38] » So, I just want to congratulate again

[22:41] Alyssa and Catherine

[22:43] um

[22:45] for

[22:46] young people like you to have

[22:49] um

[22:50] the empathy that you do because the

[22:52] leadership you don't have effective

[22:53] leadership unless you have empathy for

[22:56] those around you. And these days to get

[22:59] anywhere in life, to get a job or

[23:01] whatever.

[23:03] Having a high emotional IQ is is always

[23:05] up there. And uh for you guys to have it

[23:07] at this young an age is pretty

[23:09] extraordinary. So, just want to thank

[23:11] you and keep it up and

[23:13] uh best wishes in your future endeavors

[23:16] and and school.

[23:21] Okay, so I'll call the vote. All in

[23:23] favor?

[23:26] And that passes.

[23:27] » Mr. Chair, I'm I'm sorry [clears throat]

[23:29] to interrupt one more time. We have to

[23:31] do the recorded votes through the

[23:33] eSCRIBE portal. So, um Julia is going to

[23:37] send out the

[23:39] uh the votes

[23:41] and present the motion on the screen and

[23:42] then we'll go we'll do that.

[23:45] » Thanks for reminding us. So, everyone,

[23:46] if you have your eSCRIBE on

[23:49] uh on your iPad or any other

[23:53] form, if you could vote through eSCRIBE.

[24:09] » Awaiting Councillor Gilliland's vote.

[24:11] » Okay.

[24:19] Okay, that passes.

[24:21] Thank you again, Sparrow, Alyssa, and

[24:23] Catherine.

[24:26] Okay, so we're moving on to delegations.

[24:28] We have six this evening.

[24:31] Delegation 6.1, Corey Jackson,

[24:35] resident regarding item 8.8.2,

[24:38] application for OPA and ZBA on 16003

[24:42] Yonge Street, 255 and 219 Old Yonge

[24:45] Street.

[24:46] Please state your name and please be

[24:49] reminded that you have 5 minutes for

[24:50] your delegation and you'll see the timer

[24:53] on the top of your screen.

[25:02] Corey?

[25:02] » Mr. Chair, I've I'm just letting Corey

[25:06] into the meeting. Just taking a couple

[25:08] minutes right now.

[25:10] » Sure.

[25:23] » Corey, if you could hear us, could you

[25:26] turn on your

[25:30] » Hello.

[25:33] » Good evening.

[25:34] Good.

[25:34] We can hear you, Corey.

[25:37] You can begin when you're ready. You

[25:38] have 5 minutes.

[25:41] » I'm hearing an echo.

[25:49] » Do you hear an echo now?

[25:54] » Hello.

[25:56] Is [clears throat] that Is that a little

[25:57] better?

[25:59] » Uh I can hear a slight echo, but uh

[26:02] it doesn't uh

[26:04] prevent me from hearing you.

[26:06] » I'm hearing a really bad echo.

[26:10] » Corey, this is Anne. Do you have YouTube

[26:13] running in the background?

[26:17] » Hold on.

[26:21] I've I've uh aware of that. That turned

[26:23] it off.

[26:26] » Are you still hearing an echo now?

[26:29] » Is that better?

[26:31] I'm still hearing an echo.

[26:35] » [music]

[26:37] » Anne, any other suggestions?

[26:39] » Maybe Counselor Kim, you have to mute

[26:40] yourself.

[26:44] » Okay, I'm going to mute it right now. If

[26:45] you can uh

[26:47] speak again now.

[26:54] » Is that happening at my end?

[27:03] » I muted myself and I'm still hearing an

[27:06] echo, but just slightly. It might be

[27:07] more on your end than us hearing it from

[27:09] our end.

[27:14] » [music]

[27:20] » I don't have the

[27:22] meeting on in on any other device in the

[27:25] background.

[27:26] Should I try going to another part of

[27:28] the house?

[27:32] » And should we

[27:35] give Corey

[27:37] 5 minutes and move on to the next

[27:39] » Maybe counselor Reese has to mute as

[27:41] well. I think everybody has to mute.

[27:44] Except for the speaker, maybe.

[27:46] » Okay, so everyone go on mute, please.

[27:48] And Corey, if you can start in 3

[27:50] seconds.

[27:59] » Hold on, I'll just adjust this window.

[28:02] Is that better?

[28:08] And people can hear me now?

[28:11] Okay, so I'll begin then, shall I?

[28:15] Okay.

[28:16] Good evening.

[28:18] My name is Corey Jackson.

[28:20] I speak in reference to the application

[28:23] for OPA and ZBA 1600 3 Young Street and

[28:27] 255 and 219 Old Young Street.

[28:30] » [snorts]

[28:30] » In the 8 MHBC planning justification

[28:34] report dated April 2025,

[28:37] page 34,

[28:39] there is a description of the site of

[28:41] these subject lands as having a

[28:42] so-called challenging topography. It

[28:45] suggests that the proposed

[28:47] multi-residential building

[28:50] placement the multi-residential building

[28:53] placement integrate seamlessly with the

[28:55] surrounding landscape.

[28:57] This is blatantly untrue.

[29:00] At five stories plus mechanical level on

[29:02] the rooftop, it is evident even from the

[29:05] concept drawing that this building will

[29:07] be squashed

[29:09] right up into the highest section of the

[29:11] subject lands.

[29:13] It will dwarf on its south border every

[29:15] neighboring condo residents on Tara Hill

[29:17] Circle beside it.

[29:20] Amendments to the original proposal by

[29:22] the applicant were noted at the town

[29:24] meeting on June 2nd, 2026.

[29:28] These amendments are nowhere near making

[29:29] the integration of this building

[29:31] seamless.

[29:33] The core issue remains the same. It is

[29:35] still a five-story building that is too

[29:37] massive for the physical constraints of

[29:40] the land.

[29:41] Good planning requires harmonious

[29:44] relationship between a building's mass

[29:47] and the physical capabilities of its

[29:49] site.

[29:50] According to town of Aurora zoning bylaw

[29:53] 6000

[29:55] -17, the performance standards for an

[29:58] RA2 zone represent the established

[30:01] threshold for safe, sustainable

[30:04] apartment development.

[30:06] » [clears throat]

[30:07] » The applicant is requesting seven major

[30:10] performance standard release.

[30:12] Number one, a 66% reduction in front

[30:15] yard setback, 9 m to 3 m. Number two, a

[30:19] 91% reduction in the stair to property

[30:22] line safety buffer, 4.5 m to 0.4 m.

[30:27] Number three,

[30:29] a 40% increase in structural yard

[30:32] encroachment limits, 2 m to 2.8 m.

[30:36] Number four, a 50% reduction in front

[30:39] landscape strip width,

[30:42] 3 m to 1.5 m.

[30:45] » [snorts]

[30:45] » Number five, a 14% narrowing of standard

[30:48] driveway safety lanes 3.5 m to 3 m.

[30:52] Number six, a 14% reduction in standard

[30:55] parking maneuvering aisles 7 m to 6 m.

[30:59] Number seven, an 82% reduction of

[31:01] mandatory mandatory indoor amenity space

[31:05] allocations

[31:06] 50% down to 9%.

[31:11] Evaluated cumulatively, these variations

[31:14] demonstrate that this proposed building

[31:16] could not by any stretch of the

[31:18] imagination integrate seamlessly into

[31:21] the low-rise established neighborhood.

[31:24] Indeed, the lack of a so-called

[31:26] so-called seamless quality will very

[31:29] likely increase as time goes on.

[31:32] As one example, should this proposed

[31:34] building be constructed, the long stand

[31:37] of mature cedar trees on its south

[31:39] property line would be inevitably

[31:41] compromised.

[31:43] Even with the aforementioned amendments,

[31:46] the root system of these cedar trees

[31:48] would suffer

[31:50] with the construction of the proposed

[31:51] building's large underground multi-car

[31:55] garage.

[31:57] » [cough]

[31:58] [clears throat]

[31:58] » Excuse me.

[32:01] » [snorts]

[32:01] » In addition, the designated regional

[32:03] green land system, which comprises more

[32:06] than half of the subject lands, look

[32:08] more like wetlands to me.

[32:11] This is the area on a very large section

[32:13] of the subject lands on the southeast

[32:15] corner of the Young Street St. John's

[32:17] Sideroad intersection.

[32:20] I personally

[32:21] have walked beside this corner several

[32:24] times a week over a period of years

[32:27] and can can attest to this directly.

[32:31] Even in the driest weather, this area is

[32:33] a wet and marshy bog.

[32:36] To say the least, issues of potential

[32:38] flooding and water damage caused by this

[32:41] proposed building would not longer

[32:44] would not long render it seamlessly

[32:46] integrated

[32:48] to the Terra Hill commun- uh circle

[32:50] community nor to the extended community

[32:53] generally.

[32:55] Thank you.

[33:01] » Thank you, Corey. Can I have a mover and

[33:04] a seconder

[33:06] to receive and refer the comments of the

[33:08] delegation?

[33:12] Okay, Counselor Gallo.

[33:13] Counselor

[33:15] Gardner.

[33:17] Any questions or comments

[33:19] for the delegate?

[33:25] Counselor Gardner.

[33:31] » Uh

[33:32] » [clears throat]

[33:33] » Thank you very much for coming forward

[33:35] with this information. It it sounds to

[33:38] me like you're extremely

[33:40] uh familiar and aware of this property.

[33:44] And uh

[33:46] I I I didn't know some of the things

[33:48] that you said. So, thank you very much.

[33:51] I I do agree

[33:53] with

[33:54] uh what you've said. Thank you.

[33:56] » Thank you.

[33:57] Thank you, Wendy.

[34:02] » Are there any other questions or

[34:03] comments?

[34:06] I've seen none. I'll call the vote.

[34:11] This will be on the e-scrap.

[34:43] » Councillors Weese and Gilliland, please.

[34:47] » Not showing.

[34:49] Yes.

[35:01] » Councillor Weese, please.

[35:03] » It's not showing here. My vote's yes.

[35:08] » Yeah, if you can just

[35:10] put that as a yes. Oh, there we go.

[35:16] Thank you, Corey.

[35:18] Okay, next delegation 6.2

[35:21] Kim Curry, resident, regarding the same

[35:24] item 8.8.2

[35:27] for OPA and ZBA on 16,003 Young Street,

[35:31] 255 and 219 Old Young Street.

[35:34] Please state your name, and please be

[35:36] reminded that you have 5 minutes for

[35:38] your delegation, and again, you'll see

[35:40] the timer on the top of the screen.

[35:51] » Good evening, everybody. My name is Kim

[35:53] Curry. I'd like to thank you for giving

[35:55] me the opportunity to speak tonight.

[35:58] The development that we're discussing is

[36:01] about taking down two single-family

[36:04] homes and replacing them with 140-plus

[36:07] homes.

[36:08] I understand the need for more housing,

[36:11] but I have serious concerns about the

[36:13] way this is being approached.

[36:15] First, I'd like to talk about safety.

[36:19] Adding a high number of residents to a

[36:21] small, quiet neighborhood will

[36:23] inevitably increase traffic.

[36:26] More cars means more congestion, more

[36:30] difficulty for emergency vehicles, and

[36:32] greater risk for pedestrians, especially

[36:35] children and seniors.

[36:38] These are not small issues.

[36:40] They directly affect our day-to-day

[36:42] lives.

[36:43] There are school buses traveling along

[36:46] Old Yonge, a retirement building on the

[36:49] other side of St. John's,

[36:51] the new girls school on the other side

[36:53] of Yonge,

[36:55] people walking and riding bikes and

[36:57] accessing the trail system.

[37:00] It's already extremely difficult to

[37:02] cross the road without compounding the

[37:04] issue.

[37:06] 30 years ago, a child was tragically

[37:09] struck and killed on Old Yonge at O'Hara

[37:12] as they exited a school bus.

[37:15] I cannot begin to imagine what that

[37:17] family went through,

[37:19] and it breaks my heart at the thought of

[37:20] that possibly happening again.

[37:23] A number of years later, there was a car

[37:26] accident on Old Yonge due to poor line

[37:29] of sight and on-street parking.

[37:32] As a result, I requested that the town

[37:34] designate the stretch of Old Yonge north

[37:37] of Tara Hill as no parking.

[37:40] More recently,

[37:42] I had a conversation with the mayor

[37:44] about the volume and speed of traffic in

[37:47] the general area.

[37:49] At the time, I suggested we needed a

[37:51] speed camera, especially in the wetland

[37:54] area.

[37:56] The intersection at Yonge and St. John's

[37:58] Sideroad has been a called a hotspot for

[38:01] accidents, and there's a Reddit thread

[38:04] discuss discussing the problem.

[38:08] With all of the developments in the

[38:09] vicinity, traffic is getting worse and

[38:12] worse, and safety is being compromised.

[38:17] There are also environmental concerns

[38:19] that can't be ignored.

[38:21] While building more housing is

[38:23] important, this does not automatically

[38:25] mean every project is environmentally

[38:28] friendly.

[38:29] Construction itself comes with

[38:31] significant environmental costs.

[38:34] More materials, more waste on a project

[38:37] of this scale.

[38:38] Protection of the existing wetland and

[38:41] tree canopy needs to be taken seriously.

[38:45] If it's not carefully managed, the

[38:48] development will increase noise, worsen

[38:51] local air quality, and put more strain

[38:54] on local green space and animals.

[38:58] We've talked a lot about consideration

[39:00] for the character and livability of the

[39:02] neighborhood. I'll just reiterate

[39:04] reiterate that low-rise areas are

[39:08] designed to be quieter, greener, and

[39:11] more community-oriented.

[39:13] Introducing a large building adds the

[39:15] risk of overshadowing homes, reducing

[39:19] privacy,

[39:20] and fundamentally changing the feel of

[39:23] the neighborhood.

[39:25] With all of that said, I'm not opposed

[39:28] to growth.

[39:29] I'm suggesting smart and responsible

[39:32] growth.

[39:33] I recognize that this project is being

[39:35] pushed forward due to its proximity to

[39:38] the Young Street Corridor,

[39:40] but this, in my opinion, is a

[39:42] technicality. Since the proposed

[39:45] building is not on Young Street, it's

[39:47] along Old Young.

[39:50] The piece of land that fronts Young is

[39:52] not designed for pedestrians and does

[39:55] not have the infrastructure to sustain

[39:57] it.

[39:59] Further, as we've heard in other

[40:01] meetings, sidewalks cannot be created

[40:03] without negatively impacting the

[40:05] wetland.

[40:08] I jog along that stretch of Young

[40:10] sometimes, and it's very scary with the

[40:12] traffic blasting past.

[40:15] While that's my choice, developing a

[40:17] building will be forcing pedestrians

[40:19] onto Young Street.

[40:22] We all want a sustainable future, but

[40:25] that future must also be safe,

[40:27] balanced, and respectful of the

[40:29] community.

[40:31] If the plan change was to build

[40:33] townhouses, the new development would

[40:36] pose fewer safety risks for the

[40:38] residents, environmental protections

[40:41] could be better implemented,

[40:43] and it could be better integrated with

[40:45] the existing neighborhood.

[40:48] I urge council to listen to residents

[40:51] and consider whether the apartment-style

[40:53] development truly serves the best

[40:56] interests of this neighborhood and

[40:57] future residents.

[40:59] Please consider revising the development

[41:02] plan for consideration at a future

[41:04] planning meeting.

[41:11] » Thank you, Kim.

[41:14] I have a little issue to receive and

[41:15] second a proof of the comments of the

[41:17] delegation.

[41:19] Council Johnston.

[41:21] Council Giancola.

[41:23] Any questions or comments for the

[41:24] delegate?

[41:31] Council Gardner.

[41:42] » Sorry, Council Kim. I think I'm muted.

[41:46] » We can hear you.

[41:47] » Oh, fantastic. Um

[41:51] to the delegate, I know it's hard to get

[41:53] up and make a delegation.

[41:56] And um

[41:59] you're very sincere in what you're

[42:01] saying, and

[42:03] like the former delegate, I think you've

[42:05] made a lot of excellent points. Thank

[42:08] you for coming forward.

[42:09] » Thank you.

[42:11] Thank you.

[42:15] » It dissolves her questions.

[42:20] Thank you very much, Kim.

[42:22] So, I'll call the vote to all in favor.

[42:26] Oh, and

[42:27] please grab. Keep on forgetting.

[43:01] » Councillor Gardner, please.

[43:03] Uh thank you. I don't have anything on

[43:05] my screen. It's a yes.

[43:12] » That carries.

[43:16] Moving on to delegation 6.3, Trish Lear,

[43:19] resident, regarding the same item,

[43:21] 8.8.2.

[43:25] If you could please state your name, and

[43:26] be reminded that you have 5 minutes,

[43:29] and you'll see the timer on the top of

[43:31] your screen. Thank you.

[43:35] » Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of

[43:37] council.

[43:38] Uh my name is Trish Lear, and I'm a

[43:40] resident of Aurora. I'm here tonight to

[43:43] provide you with some facts behind why

[43:44] squeezing a five-story mass into the

[43:46] buildable portion of 16003 Young and

[43:50] 255-219

[43:52] Young Street is a direct hazard to

[43:55] residents, and as is and is quite simply

[43:58] a textbook case of poor planning.

[44:00] Good planning requires a harmonious

[44:02] relationship between a building's mass

[44:05] and the physical capabilities of the

[44:06] site.

[44:07] I didn't look at opinions. I looked at

[44:10] the math using the town of Aurora's own

[44:12] legislated baseline standards.

[44:15] The applicant is not asking for one or

[44:17] two minor tweaks. They're demanding

[44:19] seven major performance standard reliefs

[44:22] simultaneously. I'm going to list five

[44:25] and I'll let the numbers speak for

[44:26] themselves.

[44:27] They want to cut the front yard setback

[44:29] by 66%

[44:31] 9 m to 3 m. They're requesting a 14%

[44:35] reduction of standard driveway safety

[44:37] lines to 20 m 20 cm either side and a

[44:41] 14% reduction in standard parking

[44:44] maneuvering aisles.

[44:45] Narrowing the operational lanes prevents

[44:48] standard fire equipment or ambulances

[44:50] from easily moving through the site

[44:52] under high stress emergency

[44:54] conditions

[44:56] posing a massive safety hazard to the

[44:58] residents of the new building.

[45:00] They want to slash the required front

[45:02] landscape strip in half 3 m to 1 and 1/2

[45:05] m.

[45:06] They want to reduce the mandatory indoor

[45:08] amenity space for residents by a

[45:10] staggering 82%

[45:13] taking it down from a healthy 50% to

[45:16] just 9%.

[45:18] And to make the building fit, they're

[45:20] pushing the concrete structural stairs

[45:21] to within 40 cm.

[45:24] That's a small small distance. That's a

[45:27] 91% reduction in the town safety back

[45:31] buffer 4 and 1/2 m to 40 cm.

[45:35] Individually, these are substantial.

[45:37] Cumulatively, they're a mathematical

[45:40] proof that the building's physicality

[45:43] suffocates the buildable land on the

[45:45] site.

[45:46] The project can only exist with

[45:47] systematically underperforming on

[45:49] municipal standards designed to protect

[45:52] public safety and occupant livability.

[45:56] Look at the site's functionality. The

[45:58] safety buffer between the structural

[46:00] stairs and the public property line

[46:02] exists to protect both the public.

[46:04] Reducing the buffer between the concrete

[46:06] stairs and the property line from 4 and

[46:08] 1/2 m to just down to 40 cm

[46:11] creates blind spots for pedestrians,

[46:14] eliminates any physical recovery zone

[46:16] for winter slips, and guarantees that

[46:19] private maintenance and entry condition

[46:21] will spill over into and create

[46:23] blockages. It's a textbook example of

[46:26] overbuilding where public safety and

[46:28] accessibility are compromised simply

[46:30] because the building footprint takes up

[46:32] too much of the buildable lot.

[46:35] The applicant attempts to justify these

[46:38] massive safety and zoning restrictions

[46:40] by claiming this is a regional corridor

[46:42] development. But looking at York

[46:44] Region's own criteria, this is a total

[46:47] illusion.

[46:49] There's no reasonable and direct walking

[46:51] distances between the regional corridor

[46:53] street frontage. It's not a desired and

[46:56] appropriate location for

[46:57] intensification.

[46:59] This is not compatible with and well

[47:01] transition to adjacent or adjoining

[47:03] lands.

[47:04] Because of the site's severe western

[47:06] slope and EP zoning, they cannot build

[47:09] on Yonge Street.

[47:10] Instead, their application explicitly

[47:13] asks to deem old Yonge Street as the

[47:15] front lot line. Doesn't that mean that

[47:18] the building is no longer on the

[47:19] regional corridor?

[47:21] It doesn't meet the criteria listed for

[47:22] regional corridor. Instead, it forces an

[47:25] entire physical massing onto old Yonge

[47:27] Street, which is a narrow, historic,

[47:30] low-density residential roadway that's

[47:33] not designed for this density.

[47:35] Members of council,

[47:37] an overdevelopment of this magnitude on

[47:39] this site does not constitute good

[47:41] planning. It forces a building away from

[47:44] its intended regional and transit

[47:45] corridor.

[47:47] It compromises resident safety, and it

[47:50] wipes out mandatory livability

[47:52] standards, and harms a historic

[47:54] neighborhood.

[47:55] I urge you to stand by the high

[47:57] standards established in Aurora's

[47:59] comprehensive zoning bylaw.

[48:01] Please reject this application this

[48:03] evening as is and demand development

[48:06] that fits the physical constraints of

[48:09] that piece of land.

[48:11] Thank you very much for your time and

[48:12] your leadership.

[48:19] » Thank you, Trish.

[48:21] May I have a mover and a seconder to

[48:22] receive and refer the comments of the

[48:24] delegation?

[48:26] Councillor Gilliland,

[48:28] Councillor Weese,

[48:31] any questions or comments for the

[48:32] delegate?

[48:37] Councillor Gardner?

[48:39] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can you hear me?

[48:42] » Yes.

[48:44] » Um

[48:46] again to this delegate, thank you for

[48:49] adding your view and your experience to

[48:52] this

[48:54] uh application and thank you very much

[48:57] for coming forward.

[49:05] » And Mr. Thomas, any questions?

[49:09] Okay, seeing none.

[49:11] Thank you very much, Trish. I'll call

[49:13] the vote. All in favor are Sorry, it'll

[49:16] be on eScribe.

[49:40] » Councillor Gardner?

[49:42] I can't see the direction to vote, so

[49:46] I'm a yes.

[49:53] » Harris?

[49:54] Yes. you.

[49:58] Move to delegation 6.4, Mr. Rocco

[50:00] Marsillo,

[50:03] regarding the same item, 8.8.2,

[50:06] regarding 16003 Yonge Street and 255 and

[50:09] 219 Old Yonge Street. Please state your

[50:12] name and be reminded that you have 5

[50:14] minutes for your delegation and you'll

[50:16] see the timer on the top.

[50:19] » Uh good evening. Can you hear me?

[50:23] » Yes, we can hear you.

[50:24] » Uh good evening, Mayor and members of

[50:27] Council. Uh thank you for the

[50:29] opportunity to speak tonight regarding

[50:30] the proposed development of 16003 Yonge

[50:33] Street.

[50:35] I'd like to thank the developer and our

[50:37] planning department for considering the

[50:39] environmental and heritage impact this

[50:41] proposal encounters and tailoring the

[50:44] project to suit these priorities.

[50:46] I am here on behalf of concerned

[50:48] residents and myself. We're asking

[50:50] Council to carefully consider the real

[50:53] impacts this development will have on

[50:54] our community, in particular traffic

[50:57] flow, pedestrian safety, and

[50:59] accessibility.

[51:01] While this project is being presented as

[51:03] a development on Yonge Street and

[51:05] positioned within a major transit

[51:07] corridor, the reality is quite

[51:09] different.

[51:10] This development does not have direct

[51:12] functional access to Yonge Street.

[51:15] Instead, all vehicle traffic, vehicle

[51:17] traffic, and pedestrian movement will be

[51:20] funneled through Old Yonge Street, which

[51:22] is a road that is already heavily

[51:23] congested and faces significant traffic

[51:26] challenges today.

[51:28] This distinction does matter.

[51:31] A major transit corridor should provide

[51:33] direct, safe, and efficient access to

[51:35] the transit and and infrastructure. In

[51:38] this case, residents, visitors, delivery

[51:41] vehicles, emergency services will depend

[51:44] on Old Yonge Street, creating additional

[51:46] pressure on an already strained roadway.

[51:51] Residents are deeply concerned about

[51:52] what this means for traffic congestion,

[51:54] especially during peak hours.

[51:57] More importantly, there's some serious

[51:59] unanswered questions about pedestrian

[52:01] safety.

[52:02] How will pedestrians safely access the

[52:04] intersections of Young and St. John's?

[52:07] At present, there is no clear sidewalk

[52:09] infrastructure or complete pedestrian

[52:12] network that would allow residents to

[52:14] safely walk from transit businesses or

[52:16] services.

[52:20] Without sidewalks and safe pedestrian

[52:22] connections, it's difficult to justify

[52:25] this as a transit supportive

[52:26] development. Sidewalks and pedestrian

[52:29] pedestrian accessibilities are not minor

[52:31] details. They are fundamental

[52:33] requirements for a project of this

[52:35] scale.

[52:36] Before moving forward, residents are

[52:38] asking for greater clarity clarity from

[52:40] the developer.

[52:42] What specific traffic mitigation

[52:43] measures are being proposed to divert or

[52:46] reduce pressure on the Old Young Street?

[52:49] How will pedestrian access be safely

[52:51] established?

[52:53] What infrastructure improvements are

[52:55] being committed to before this

[52:56] development proceeds?

[52:59] Growth is important. Housing is needed,

[53:02] but growth must be planned responsibly.

[53:05] It must prioritize safety,

[53:07] infrastructure, and quality of life of

[53:09] the existing and the future residents.

[53:13] We ask council to ensure the critical

[53:15] concerns are addressed before any

[53:17] approvals are considered. I'm asking

[53:19] that this development plan be revised

[53:21] and come back to a future planning

[53:23] meeting for consideration. Thank you for

[53:25] your time.

[53:32] » Thank you very much. May I

[53:34] move on in a second or two to receive

[53:36] and refer the comments of the

[53:37] delegation?

[53:39] Councillor Gallo, Councillor Councillor

[53:41] Gallo, Councillor Gilliland.

[53:44] Any questions or comments for the

[53:46] delegate?

[53:50] Councillor Lewis.

[53:54] » Thank you. And

[53:56] I should just hear you clearly now.

[53:58] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[53:59] » Uh you're on mute, Councillor Lewis.

[54:16] » I have it now.

[54:17] So, let me thank you

[54:19] once again, Mr. Marcelo.

[54:21] I neglected to thank the others because

[54:24] I know we're going to have a few more.

[54:27] I've seldom seen

[54:29] such a thorough

[54:31] review of a planning application that

[54:34] I've seen from the four of you here.

[54:37] I've been ticking off the boxes here,

[54:39] and I want to thank you all for the work

[54:40] that you've done

[54:42] to bring this forward to council.

[54:48] » Thank you, Councillor Lewis.

[54:50] Councillor Gallo or sorry, Councillor

[54:52] Gardner.

[55:00] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for

[55:02] sharing this meeting. Not an easy

[55:04] meeting.

[55:05] Um

[55:06] I also thank Mr. Marcelo.

[55:09] Uh I know he cares a lot about this

[55:13] area.

[55:14] Um

[55:16] in fact, he cares so much about this

[55:17] area and the others in this area that

[55:20] he's running for council.

[55:23] So, um

[55:24] you thank you for coming forward with

[55:27] the other people who

[55:29] have already spoken.

[55:31] I appreciate your thoughts.

[55:35] Thank you.

[55:37] » Thank you, Councillor Granger.

[55:39] Any other comments?

[55:43] I'll call the votes.

[55:44] Beyond He Scribe.

[56:04] And that carries.

[56:08] Moving on to delegation 6.6.

[56:11] Mr. Shawn Dean, Budget Voice Aurora,

[56:14] regarding

[56:15] items 8.2.3, 8.2.5,

[56:19] 8.4.2,

[56:20] 8.7.2,

[56:22] and 9.4.

[56:25] » Mr. Chair, I think

[56:26] I think you missed

[56:28] You missed one.

[56:29] » Did I? Oh, sorry, sir.

[56:32] Thanks, Councillor Gallo. Um

[56:33] delegation 6.5, excuse me.

[56:36] Uh Mr. Oz Kamal, President of MHBC

[56:40] Planning,

[56:41] regarding the same 8.8.2

[56:45] for 1603 Young Street, 255 and 219 Old

[56:48] Young Street.

[56:50] If you would please state your name, and

[56:51] be reminded that you have 5 minutes for

[56:53] your delegation,

[56:55] and the timer will be on the top of the

[56:56] screen.

[57:09] » Sorry, just making sure. Can you hear

[57:10] me?

[57:11] » Yes. We can hear you.

[57:13] » Thank you.

[57:14] Um

[57:15] I I think I I have a presentation. I

[57:17] just want to make sure that that's

[57:18] pulled up.

[57:34] Thank you. Um, I'll get started now.

[57:37] Um,

[57:38] good [clears throat] evening and thank

[57:39] you for having us here tonight. Uh, my

[57:41] name is Oskar Mall. I'm I'm a registered

[57:43] professional planner with MHBC Planning

[57:45] um, assisting with the planning

[57:46] approvals for the lands located at 16003

[57:49] Young Street and

[57:51] uh, 219 and 255 Old Young. Um, I've

[57:54] appeared before this council uh, for the

[57:55] public meeting for this application in

[57:57] November and attended the committee

[57:59] meeting earlier this month as well.

[58:01] Um, be before we begin um, I'd like to

[58:04] acknowledge the extensive planning

[58:05] process that has brought us here today.

[58:07] Um, this process I just want to

[58:09] reiterate a little bit of history. This

[58:11] process began in early 2024

[58:13] during which we worked with the

[58:14] conservation authority over the course

[58:16] of a year to establish the property

[58:19] developable limits uh, of this site and

[58:22] protect the environmental features. Um,

[58:24] from there it was then that we uh,

[58:27] prepared and submitted an application

[58:29] um, in April 2025, conducted public

[58:32] engagement throughout the fall, and made

[58:33] our final submission in the spring of

[58:35] this year.

[58:36] Um, we've received substantial feedback

[58:38] through this process and um,

[58:41] we've uh, which has helped shape the

[58:43] vision. It's it's helped change the

[58:45] building um, helped um,

[58:47] flag um, major concerns and

[58:49] considerations. So tonight council is

[58:51] considering the official plan and zoning

[58:53] bylaw amendment applications recommended

[58:54] for approval by staff and endorsed by

[58:56] committee earlier this month.

[58:58] Together these applications establish a

[59:00] framework to permit a five-story

[59:02] residential building and the relocation

[59:04] of the existing red house, the heritage

[59:06] house that sits on 16003 today.

[59:09] I note that the approval tonight is not

[59:11] the end of this process. Uh, there's

[59:12] still a whole site plan approval process

[59:14] where we get into the real nitty-gritty

[59:16] details um, where additional design

[59:18] refinements can occur. Next slide,

[59:19] please.

[59:23] The proposed residential building will

[59:24] provide 148 residential units ranging

[59:26] from one to three bedroom apartments.

[59:29] Access to the apartment will be provided

[59:31] through an existing driveway along Young

[59:32] Street that will connect to two levels

[59:34] of underground parking. An amendment has

[59:37] been incorporated into the bylaw to

[59:38] allow for a reduction in the width of

[59:40] the driveway lanes from 3.5 to 3 m. The

[59:43] appropriateness of the driveway has been

[59:45] studied through our transportation study

[59:47] which concluded that the lane widths are

[59:49] sufficient and has also been reviewed by

[59:52] town and regional staff concluding the

[59:53] same. Emergency access There's also a

[59:56] secondary emergency access only that's

[59:59] provided on Old Young and again that is

[1:00:01] only for emergency access.

[1:00:03] So in the case of an emergency that

[1:00:05] access can be used otherwise it's only

[1:00:07] through the Young Street access.

[1:00:10] Indoor and outdoor amenity will be

[1:00:12] provided through the proposed

[1:00:13] development including an expansive

[1:00:14] rooftop terrace. While the development

[1:00:17] does meet the overall amenity

[1:00:19] requirements an amendment was required

[1:00:21] to reduce the proportion of indoor

[1:00:22] amenity area and this amendment is a

[1:00:25] appropriate given the development is

[1:00:26] primarily comprised of larger units two

[1:00:29] and three bedroom

[1:00:31] what most of which include

[1:00:33] private patios or balconies

[1:00:35] that provide the additional amenity

[1:00:38] living space that would complement the

[1:00:41] substantial outdoor amenity space.

[1:00:44] The proposal provides for a walkway that

[1:00:46] runs along the frontage of Old Young

[1:00:48] Street. Um

[1:00:49] This is a private walkway provided on

[1:00:53] Old Young and continues along the

[1:00:54] southern interface of the development

[1:00:55] and the walkway will provide safe

[1:00:57] connect connection to Old Young Street

[1:01:00] and and from there you can go across the

[1:01:02] street down the sidewalks and south to

[1:01:05] transit.

[1:01:07] Municipal sidewalk is not currently

[1:01:09] provided on Old Young Street on the west

[1:01:11] side. However, we are dedicating the

[1:01:12] land to the municipality should the town

[1:01:15] choose to provide a sidewalk in the

[1:01:16] future. So there's a 4.5 m widening

[1:01:18] being given Um, which is the um, main

[1:01:22] reason why a lot of our setback

[1:01:24] requirements um, seem so close to old

[1:01:26] Yonge it's because we have to give up a

[1:01:28] lot of um, frontage.

[1:01:31] Through the development of the existing

[1:01:32] red house, um, which is located at 16003

[1:01:36] Yonge Street, um, that's going to be

[1:01:37] relocated to the north end of the site

[1:01:39] and the building will be restored to its

[1:01:41] original use as a single family

[1:01:42] residential uh, house. And this

[1:01:44] relocation was endorsed by the heritage

[1:01:46] committee.

[1:01:48] Um, there are several site specific

[1:01:49] amendments that are being uh, required

[1:01:52] to implement the development. The need

[1:01:54] for these amendments doesn't mean that

[1:01:56] the proposal is inconsistent um, with

[1:01:58] the uh, town's vision for growth, but

[1:02:01] rather that the town zoning bylaw um,

[1:02:03] was primarily originally designed for

[1:02:06] more um, single detached greenfield

[1:02:08] development and and so we've made

[1:02:10] modifications to adapt it to

[1:02:12] appropriately address infill development

[1:02:14] such as the one proposed here.

[1:02:16] Next slide, please.

[1:02:18] There has been

[1:02:23] Can I continue or do I have to stop or?

[1:02:27] » No, please continue.

[1:02:28] » Thank you. There has been extensive

[1:02:29] public engagement for the proposal

[1:02:31] including an open house, a public

[1:02:33] meeting in the fall and in in in

[1:02:34] addition to that more informal small

[1:02:36] group discussions with residents

[1:02:37] throughout the application process.

[1:02:40] Feedback received at these meetings led

[1:02:41] to several meaningful design

[1:02:43] refinements. Um, first we reduced the

[1:02:45] unit count, uh, reduced from 152 to 148.

[1:02:48] We increased the parking supply to

[1:02:50] ensure that we had one parking space per

[1:02:51] unit. Um, through the public engagement

[1:02:54] opportunity uh, opportunities one of the

[1:02:56] reoccurring concerns

[1:02:57] » Slowly wrap up, please.

[1:02:59] » Sure. One of the major concerns was the

[1:03:01] south interface.

[1:03:03] Um, we we stepped back the underground

[1:03:06] garage, the um, the the terraces that

[1:03:09] are on the ground floor and stepped back

[1:03:11] even further the fourth and fifth floor

[1:03:13] and you can see those changes on that

[1:03:15] screen above.

[1:03:16] Uh next slide, please.

[1:03:21] And what we also did is we went out and

[1:03:22] surveyed the actual cedar hedge. Make

[1:03:25] sure we got the proper heights, the

[1:03:26] proper grades, and and and delineated

[1:03:28] where um cuz we heard privacy and

[1:03:31] overlook was a concern. The image on the

[1:03:33] left shows um a a visual diagram looking

[1:03:36] from the fourth and fifth floors, so

[1:03:38] what you would see, which is

[1:03:39] » Awesome. Can you wrap

[1:03:40] up in like

[1:03:42] » Two sentences? Next slide, please.

[1:03:46] » I'm happy to do a motion to extend.

[1:03:48] » It's It's okay. I'm I'm I'm at the tail

[1:03:50] end. To conclude, we support staff's

[1:03:51] recommendation to approve the official

[1:03:53] plan and zoning bylaw amendment on the

[1:03:55] basis that the proposal enables

[1:03:56] appropriate intensification along a

[1:03:58] regional corridor, is respectful and

[1:04:00] compatible with the surrounding context,

[1:04:03] represents good planning, and represents

[1:04:05] good planning. I appreciate you

[1:04:07] listening, and thank you for your

[1:04:08] indulgence in letting me go over time.

[1:04:10] Happy to answer questions.

[1:04:13] » Thanks, Iris. May I have a motion

[1:04:15] received and refer to the comments of

[1:04:17] the delegation.

[1:04:19] Councilor Gardner.

[1:04:21] Councilor Gillam.

[1:04:23] Any comments or questions?

[1:04:29] Councilor Gallo.

[1:04:34] » Did you see me?

[1:04:40] Uh um just a a question about um

[1:04:43] some of the delegates

[1:04:44] » Well, if I can

[1:04:46] if I can uh

[1:04:48] uh interrupt you, if you wouldn't mind

[1:04:50] blurring your your screen because we

[1:04:52] can't have signs and placards

[1:04:54] uh while we have

[1:04:56] a council meeting. So, if you can just

[1:04:57] blur the background, please.

[1:05:00] » If someone can show me how, I'm happy to

[1:05:02] do that.

[1:05:07] » Madam Clerk, can you

[1:05:09] provide some guidance

[1:05:11] on how to do that?

[1:05:27] Or Julia or can any staff help Councilor

[1:05:30] Gallo on how to blur the screen on Zoom?

[1:05:37] » Councilor Gallo, in the stop video

[1:05:40] button, there's a little up arrow.

[1:05:43] » Where where?

[1:05:45] » In the bottom left corner, there's a

[1:05:46] mute button and a stop video.

[1:05:49] And on the stop video, there's an up

[1:05:51] button. If you hit the little up button,

[1:05:53] the arrow up,

[1:05:54] there's a menu that opens

[1:05:58] and it allows you to blur your

[1:05:59] background.

[1:06:03] Don't hit the actual button, just the up

[1:06:05] arrow. And then a little menu will pop

[1:06:07] up and it'll say blur my background.

[1:06:09] Right now, you're not on video.

[1:06:12] » Yeah.

[1:06:15] Yeah, I see it. It's uh

[1:06:18] It's like the second to the left. It's a

[1:06:20] video icon and then there's instead of a

[1:06:22] drop down, there's an

[1:06:24] up

[1:06:25] arrow.

[1:06:26] » I don't have it.

[1:06:28] » And then it'll say give you the option

[1:06:30] of blur my background or auto frame my

[1:06:32] video.

[1:06:37] » At least get the idea.

[1:06:38] » I don't get it. Just have to hit more.

[1:06:42] You hit more and then video and effects.

[1:06:45] The bottom right.

[1:07:00] » Okay, there you go.

[1:07:02] Thank you, Councilor Gallo.

[1:07:05] » Um

[1:07:07] The the one of the delegates or a few of

[1:07:09] them had spoken to

[1:07:11] traffic.

[1:07:12] Um

[1:07:14] can you speak to the studies that were

[1:07:16] done as well as

[1:07:18] uh the sidewalk on the

[1:07:22] on the east side.

[1:07:24] Um you had mentioned that I think you're

[1:07:27] leaving a right away there,

[1:07:29] but you're leaving it up to the town to

[1:07:30] install that in the future time.

[1:07:33] » Sure.

[1:07:34] » Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[1:07:35] » Nice.

[1:07:37] Thank you through you, Mr. Chair.

[1:07:39] Um there there was several Actually,

[1:07:41] there was a

[1:07:42] a lot of studies that were done for

[1:07:43] this.

[1:07:44] Um noise studies, arborist report, um

[1:07:47] servicing study, uh traffic study was

[1:07:50] done, reviewed by town staff, and

[1:07:52] reviewed by the region, and was um was

[1:07:54] deemed adequate, and and they both

[1:07:57] signed off on that. Um we did slope

[1:07:59] stability assessments, environmental

[1:08:00] impact studies, uh vegetation management

[1:08:03] reports.

[1:08:05] Um we we did a full plethora of studies,

[1:08:08] revised those studies based on comments

[1:08:10] received, had those reviewed, and

[1:08:12] everything was signed off on. Now, the

[1:08:14] um the sidewalk issue

[1:08:17] uh that you just raised. So, what we're

[1:08:19] doing is

[1:08:20] and a lot of the reasons that our

[1:08:22] building seems a lot closer than it is

[1:08:23] is it was through the application

[1:08:25] process that uh town staff advised that

[1:08:28] the right of way width of Old Yonge on

[1:08:31] our side of the street on the west side

[1:08:34] didn't have the appropriate right of way

[1:08:36] width. So, what happens in an

[1:08:38] application is you give up that right of

[1:08:40] way width, the appropriate amount, so

[1:08:41] that the full 20 m is given on Old

[1:08:44] Yonge. So, previously, I think it was

[1:08:46] about 16 m, which is likely why you

[1:08:49] didn't have the sidewalk on the west

[1:08:51] side. Um so, through this application,

[1:08:53] we're giving up 4 and 1/2 m of our

[1:08:56] frontage into the site um in order to

[1:08:59] allow for the ability for a sidewalk.

[1:09:02] And the sidewalk, um,

[1:09:04] like the details of the sidewalk, that

[1:09:06] can be that can be fleshed out through a

[1:09:07] future again I as I was saying at the

[1:09:09] beginning, this is just to allow for the

[1:09:12] built form to take place. Um, we still

[1:09:14] have a whole another process to go

[1:09:16] through with staff at site plan. And at

[1:09:18] that time if if um, one of the

[1:09:21] requirements through site plan was a

[1:09:22] sidewalk, that's something we'll take

[1:09:24] back and talk to the client about it how

[1:09:25] we how we can try to address that. Maybe

[1:09:28] there's

[1:09:29] some sort of cost share arrangement or

[1:09:30] something that can be addressed through

[1:09:32] site plan approval. Um, we understand

[1:09:35] what what the residents are saying. Um,

[1:09:37] it starts with making sure you have the

[1:09:39] adequate right of way and the town is

[1:09:41] getting that free and clear through this

[1:09:43] application.

[1:09:46] » Okay, thank you. I'll I'll be speaking

[1:09:48] to Mr. Ramuna once the applicant the

[1:09:50] item comes up.

[1:09:53] » Thank you. I believe uh, Counselor

[1:09:54] Gilliland had her hand up.

[1:10:02] » Thank you. Just quick question I guess

[1:10:04] and we will probably talk to you about

[1:10:06] the report but um, for my understanding

[1:10:09] um, through Mr. Chair to the delegate,

[1:10:12] um, there was quite a few um,

[1:10:15] changes that were made through the

[1:10:18] community planning sessions

[1:10:20] um, including reducing some of the

[1:10:22] residential units and um,

[1:10:26] increasing some of the parking and so

[1:10:27] forth. Um, if you could just kind of

[1:10:30] just kind of reiterate a bit of that

[1:10:32] because I just want to remind everybody

[1:10:33] we went through a lengthy process with

[1:10:35] public planning and everything to get

[1:10:36] here

[1:10:37] and uh, I I certainly don't want to be

[1:10:39] taking a step back because

[1:10:41] when we kind of get this far, I feel

[1:10:43] like we should have already been

[1:10:44] addressed a lot of these basic items and

[1:10:47] so

[1:10:48] um,

[1:10:49] to Mr. Chair

[1:10:50] uh, to the delegate was it Mr. Oz? Is

[1:10:53] that what it says there? Um, if you

[1:10:55] could just kind of speak to that because

[1:10:57] uh, I I think people need to be reminded

[1:10:58] of, you know, all the extra um, changes

[1:11:01] that you have made and the fact that

[1:11:03] there's more net developable

[1:11:05] um,

[1:11:05] not net developable, but there's more

[1:11:07] environmental protection lands that have

[1:11:09] been awarded to the project and so

[1:11:10] forth. I think these things need to be

[1:11:12] highlighted.

[1:11:13] » Uh, yes, thank thank you. Uh, through

[1:11:15] you, um,

[1:11:17] Chair, to Councillor Gallant. Um, thank

[1:11:19] you for that. The So,

[1:11:22] this was this wasn't a uh, um, this

[1:11:25] process has taken, um, a long time. And

[1:11:28] and one of the first things that we had,

[1:11:30] um, dealt with, um, and I and I've spoke

[1:11:32] to this before was the conservation, um,

[1:11:34] issue.

[1:11:35] And making sure that the appropriate

[1:11:37] development, uh, if there was any

[1:11:39] development, uh, making sure that we

[1:11:41] understood that with the conservation

[1:11:42] authority. So, we went through an

[1:11:43] extensive uh, I remember walking the

[1:11:46] site two, uh, three times now. Um, and

[1:11:49] twice with the conservation authority,

[1:11:51] making sure that we got it right, making

[1:11:53] sure that the development limit was set,

[1:11:54] making sure that the conservation

[1:11:55] authority was satisfied

[1:11:58] with the development limit as it related

[1:12:00] to the environmental. Um, so that was

[1:12:03] that was priority one. If if there was

[1:12:05] no development here, then we wouldn't be

[1:12:06] here. Um, and but what we did is we

[1:12:09] figured out that there was some

[1:12:11] development opportunity here, um, and

[1:12:14] then but the majority of it was on 16003

[1:12:17] Young. And and we, uh, looked at that,

[1:12:20] um, that heritage building and looked at

[1:12:23] the heritage value of it and it has

[1:12:25] heritage value.

[1:12:27] However, um, there's uh, there's

[1:12:29] structural issues with that building

[1:12:30] from not being used for a long time. So,

[1:12:32] our our second priority was making sure

[1:12:36] that a, could we salvage the building,

[1:12:38] and does it make more sense to put it at

[1:12:40] a more notable location. And and through

[1:12:43] our um, our our our our um,

[1:12:47] consultants, ERA Architects, um, with

[1:12:50] the help of town staff, we developed a

[1:12:52] heritage plan for that building. Um

[1:12:55] without those two things, we wouldn't

[1:12:57] have even gone anywhere with an

[1:12:58] application. So, if we didn't think that

[1:13:01] we could make that work and and and

[1:13:03] establish the environmental limit, um we

[1:13:06] wouldn't have development here.

[1:13:08] And then um once we thought we had a

[1:13:10] great like a a great heritage plan,

[1:13:13] um we we developed that. Um we worked

[1:13:16] together with town staff. Um and then

[1:13:19] then we saw what we had left. So, we

[1:13:22] looked after the environment, we looked

[1:13:23] after the heritage building cuz those

[1:13:24] were priorities, and then we looked at

[1:13:26] what we had left.

[1:13:28] And um

[1:13:29] what we did is we had a and I think I've

[1:13:32] mentioned this before, previous owners

[1:13:34] wanted something sub

[1:13:36] something

[1:13:37] much more substantial that I wasn't

[1:13:38] supporting. Um we got to the point of a

[1:13:41] five-story building here.

[1:13:43] Um and and what we heard from the

[1:13:46] community meeting uh the original

[1:13:47] community meeting when we first

[1:13:49] submitted was the southern interface and

[1:13:52] making sure that the southern interface

[1:13:54] um

[1:13:55] preserved the cedar hedge. So, the

[1:13:57] original and it wasn't the building

[1:13:59] setback itself. The building setback is

[1:14:01] 6.6 m. It's the um but it's the root

[1:14:05] system. And that was a that was an

[1:14:07] epiphany for me because I didn't realize

[1:14:10] um

[1:14:10] how important that was. So, what we did

[1:14:12] is we we sent our arborist back out. And

[1:14:14] what we did is we pulled the building

[1:14:16] back away

[1:14:18] after our arborist and our surveyor um

[1:14:20] properly surveyed the the tree line,

[1:14:23] that that cedar hedge. And what we did

[1:14:25] is we made sure that we had the 3. uh

[1:14:29] 3.7 m uh root system protected, plus we

[1:14:32] added um a a little bit more because we

[1:14:35] know that we have to go underground, and

[1:14:37] we want to make sure that that

[1:14:38] underground wall doesn't impact the root

[1:14:40] system, either.

[1:14:41] So, that's why you see a 4.5 m setback

[1:14:45] um at the at at that's just to the

[1:14:47] outdoor terrace area, but the building

[1:14:49] setback is 6.6 so that we could make

[1:14:51] sure that the cedar hedge um, is

[1:14:54] preserved, is maintained. We also

[1:14:56] proposed a fence along that edge. Um, we

[1:15:00] um, we increased the width of the

[1:15:02] landscaped area.

[1:15:04] We heard um, people's concerns about um,

[1:15:08] residents of that building being able to

[1:15:10] go in and out of the building. So we

[1:15:12] made sure we had a walkway along the the

[1:15:14] southern edge and the the easterly face

[1:15:17] on um, Old Young um, for the residents

[1:15:20] so that they did have a place to kind of

[1:15:21] go out, maybe walk their pets and they

[1:15:24] have access from there to go to the the

[1:15:27] the greater neighborhood. Um,

[1:15:29] we heard the concerns about the um,

[1:15:32] privacy and overlook. So we actually

[1:15:35] went out and laser surveyed the height

[1:15:37] of the tree I like I've never even done

[1:15:38] that before in 20 plus years, but we did

[1:15:40] it and we got the accurate heights and

[1:15:43] we transpose that on one of the slides

[1:15:45] that I showed you earlier. And then we

[1:15:47] depicted people on the balcony and what

[1:15:50] their field of view would be. So you

[1:15:51] could see that A, we've preserved the

[1:15:53] cedar hedge. We pulled the building

[1:15:56] um, we pulled the the fourth and fifth

[1:15:59] floor. Originally it was 2.4 m to the to

[1:16:02] the south base. We've it's now it or

[1:16:05] originally it was like on the fourth and

[1:16:06] fifth floor it was 9 m. We pulled it

[1:16:07] back to 13 m. So you have 13 m away from

[1:16:11] the fourth and fifth floor when you look

[1:16:12] at it from that angle,

[1:16:14] you're looking at the rooftops of the

[1:16:16] townhouses. You're not looking at

[1:16:17] anyone's backyard. So there was a lot of

[1:16:20] thought and and I I um, I

[1:16:24] I I've have to say like I applaud our

[1:16:27] client on this cuz they are um, they're

[1:16:30] not a Toronto builder. They're in

[1:16:32] Aurora. They live in Aurora.

[1:16:34] Um, they own businesses in Aurora and

[1:16:36] and they want to see this like they

[1:16:38] wanted to make sure that this did fit

[1:16:40] within um,

[1:16:42] the the character of Aurora. So, we we

[1:16:45] pulled the fourth and fifth floor back.

[1:16:46] We pulled the terraces back. We

[1:16:48] increased that setback to the south

[1:16:50] interface. We provided a walkway for our

[1:16:53] building. We made sure that the town has

[1:16:55] the ability to provide a sidewalk in the

[1:16:57] future.

[1:16:58] While looking after the heritage house

[1:17:00] and while looking after the environment,

[1:17:02] a lot of good moves were done here. And

[1:17:04] that's why I say like with confidence

[1:17:06] that this is good planning.

[1:17:08] Sir Gillon?

[1:17:09] » Thank you. I I appreciate that. I think

[1:17:11] it was

[1:17:12] worth revisiting all the the positive

[1:17:15] things as well. I mean, obviously,

[1:17:17] well, we can't be pleased about

[1:17:18] everything or please everyone. Um but I

[1:17:21] am actually kind of uh happy to learn

[1:17:24] that the property owner is an Auroran

[1:17:27] and owns businesses here. So, I think

[1:17:28] that it does make it a little bit uh

[1:17:31] more extra special in the sense that

[1:17:32] they're very cognizant of wanting to

[1:17:34] have good stewardship in the way that

[1:17:36] you develop. Um through Mr. Chair, um do

[1:17:39] or through Mr. Chair, do you think I

[1:17:41] could ask Madam Clerk to pull up that

[1:17:43] slide he was uh the delegate was

[1:17:45] referring to with the laser just so I

[1:17:47] can see

[1:17:48] what um

[1:17:50] uh she he was referring to and the

[1:17:51] public could see what they were he was

[1:17:53] referring to.

[1:17:54] » Yeah. Um Madam

[1:17:57] Madam Clerk or Julia, can you put that

[1:17:59] slide up?

[1:18:00] » It's slide 405.

[1:18:06] » Bear with me. I'll bring that up

[1:18:07] momentarily.

[1:18:08] » Thank you.

[1:18:13] » I am very interested in the fact that,

[1:18:15] you know, you did use that laser. I know

[1:18:16] you did step it back. I I do appreciate

[1:18:19] when you did meet with the community

[1:18:21] that you did uh you know, you listened

[1:18:23] and you made some changes that were

[1:18:24] pretty significant. Uh but my not only

[1:18:27] reducing the amount of units, but also

[1:18:29] uh of the density, but also the the

[1:18:31] setbacks. And I think that was really

[1:18:33] important. I think that was a major

[1:18:34] concern on the southern side is the

[1:18:36] making sure that they didn't like they

[1:18:37] had people that were over

[1:18:39] over overpowering them or or looking

[1:18:41] over and and I think that was a major

[1:18:43] concern for a lot of us as well in

[1:18:46] council.

[1:18:47] » That's right. So, on your left you can

[1:18:49] see so what we did is we had um

[1:18:52] so in order to create this image and and

[1:18:55] a lot of times what you'll see is a

[1:18:57] stock tree image or something like that.

[1:19:00] What we did is we measured the width of

[1:19:01] that cedar hedge. We measured the height

[1:19:03] of the cedar hedge.

[1:19:05] And then and then we we stepped like the

[1:19:08] we just I we kept stepping the building

[1:19:11] back until you were seeing the roofline.

[1:19:14] And and and and and so we just made sure

[1:19:17] that anyone who's on on basically the

[1:19:20] third floor is looking into the cedar

[1:19:22] hedge and anyone on the fourth floor or

[1:19:24] fifth floor you can see we've stepped

[1:19:26] back the fifth floor and the fourth and

[1:19:28] fifth floors like substantially back. Um

[1:19:31] and them standing on the edge of their

[1:19:33] outdoor terrace

[1:19:35] um would only be looking from their

[1:19:37] viewpoint to the like you can see that

[1:19:39] they're basically looking at the

[1:19:40] roofline.

[1:19:42] So, I've just never seen it done that

[1:19:44] accurately before and and I honestly

[1:19:46] like I have to applaud our team for

[1:19:47] doing it and and and and and doing that.

[1:19:49] I know it's not to your point it's not

[1:19:51] going to address all the comments, but

[1:19:53] um it wasn't any stock images or

[1:19:55] anything like that. It was actually

[1:19:56] properly like looked at and

[1:19:57] investigated.

[1:20:00] » Perfect. Thank you. I I do appreciate

[1:20:02] that and I wanted to have this up on the

[1:20:04] screen to kind of see cuz I

[1:20:06] kind of impressed that you took the

[1:20:08] actuals of the the current trees foliage

[1:20:12] at the vegetation there and actually

[1:20:14] applied it and did some math to try and

[1:20:17] um accommodate the community. So, I I do

[1:20:19] appreciate that and I I hope that um

[1:20:22] also sits well with the community as

[1:20:24] well. Thanks so much. Appreciate it.

[1:20:26] » Thank you.

[1:20:28] Thanks, Councillor Bielinski.

[1:20:29] Any other comments or questions?

[1:20:34] Councillor Lewis.

[1:20:40] » Yes, thank you.

[1:20:42] And I can attest to the work that the

[1:20:44] planner and the architect has done.

[1:20:47] Um

[1:20:48] for the first time we brought the

[1:20:50] architects in and we

[1:20:52] had a

[1:20:52] community information meeting that was

[1:20:55] rather informal and we've come back

[1:20:57] another number of times and I agree with

[1:21:00] um Councillor Gilliland that there's

[1:21:02] been a lot of work and effort done in

[1:21:04] here and I want to thank uh

[1:21:06] uh Mr. Kamal for the work that has been

[1:21:09] done on this. I do however listen to the

[1:21:12] um

[1:21:13] the residents and I know some of the

[1:21:15] issues that they still have regardless

[1:21:17] of the effort that's been put into here.

[1:21:19] So I just wanted him to know that we

[1:21:22] really appreciate the extra effort that

[1:21:24] is being done in order to get this

[1:21:26] application through.

[1:21:29] » Thank you.

[1:21:30] » Councillor Lewis.

[1:21:32] Any other questions for the delegate?

[1:21:37] Thanks Oz. Uh that was great

[1:21:39] information. Appreciate all the efforts

[1:21:40] you and your team have done for the

[1:21:43] application. So with that I'll bring it

[1:21:45] to

[1:21:46] » Thank you.

[1:21:47] » To a vote on eScribe.

[1:22:12] » Councillor Gartner, please.

[1:22:17] » I vote yes.

[1:22:28] » Councillor Gartner

[1:22:44] » I'm a yes. Thank you.

[1:22:52] » No, I didn't go.

[1:22:56] » And

[1:22:58] a reminder that

[1:23:00] we need to have our videos on during

[1:23:02] Council meetings.

[1:23:03] We move to delegation 6.6, Mr. Shawn

[1:23:07] Dean, budget voice of Aurora

[1:23:09] regarding items 8. 2.3, 8.2.5, 8.4.2,

[1:23:15] 8.7.2, and 9.4.

[1:23:19] Please state your name and be reminded

[1:23:21] that you have 5 minutes for your

[1:23:22] delegation, and the timer will let you

[1:23:25] know.

[1:23:30] You're on mute, Mr. Dean.

[1:23:37] » Yes, good evening, Mr. Chair, Council,

[1:23:39] those in chambers, and those online. Uh

[1:23:41] my name is Shawn Dean, and I appreciate

[1:23:43] the approval of the extra delegations,

[1:23:45] and I will uh endeavor to be as quick as

[1:23:49] I can with all of the uh

[1:23:52] agenda items tonight. Um

[1:23:55] it's important for me to uh be a part of

[1:23:57] my community and share my my voice, and

[1:24:00] um

[1:24:01] in in this uh day and age on the record

[1:24:03] as well. So, I maybe I'll I'll jump

[1:24:06] ahead to

[1:24:08] uh the meeting schedule for the

[1:24:09] remainder of the Council term. That's 8

[1:24:13] uh 4 2. Um it's it's regrettable that uh

[1:24:17] tonight there's so many, like 41 items

[1:24:19] on the agenda,

[1:24:21] and it just puts unwelcome pressure on

[1:24:23] everyone who chooses to participate and

[1:24:26] it brings a lot of fatigue and it's and

[1:24:28] it's hard anyone who's delegated just to

[1:24:30] prepare for one item let alone having

[1:24:33] our part-time counselors prepare for 41

[1:24:35] items even though they they might have a

[1:24:37] deeper history than an average delegate.

[1:24:40] So in order to

[1:24:42] I I guess

[1:24:44] wish there was

[1:24:46] a way to spread this out and in fact

[1:24:49] cramming asking staff asking for

[1:24:53] July meetings to be cancelled also puts

[1:24:56] extra pressure on everyone tonight and a

[1:24:59] lot of these items tonight with the

[1:25:01] audit and budget committee

[1:25:03] are near and dear to my heart. So I

[1:25:08] I guess

[1:25:10] also want to ask you know why is it that

[1:25:13] staff is worried about being a lame duck

[1:25:16] in October

[1:25:19] and September but not next month in

[1:25:21] July.

[1:25:22] So I'll let you ponder that. I'll move

[1:25:24] on to

[1:25:26] my my first item the

[1:25:28] the long-term asset management funding

[1:25:30] where

[1:25:32] all of a sudden our asset management or

[1:25:36] our tax-funded contributions to the

[1:25:37] fiscal strategy need to double

[1:25:40] and I I guess my concern for this and

[1:25:43] Mr. Mayor is not here tonight but for

[1:25:44] the other members of the financial

[1:25:46] advisory committee counselor

[1:25:49] Kim and counselor Thompson

[1:25:51] you know the mayor had and you get to

[1:25:52] see the detailed budgets the the mayor

[1:25:54] had stated with respect to Victoria Hall

[1:25:57] that going over budget would not impact

[1:26:00] the tax levy and yet here we are

[1:26:03] tonight about to approve increasing

[1:26:08] you know the tax levy because of all of

[1:26:10] the capital budget projects and going

[1:26:12] over budget on Victoria Hall 350% and

[1:26:15] the multi-use path, 50%.

[1:26:18] Um it does not help. And I have a

[1:26:22] question for on on the document,

[1:26:25] it was stated that there's there's no

[1:26:27] alternatives. Um

[1:26:30] and I think you know, that's that's very

[1:26:32] concerning to increasing taxes. There's

[1:26:35] no alternatives. Like budget discipline

[1:26:37] would be a great alternative um going

[1:26:39] forward and closing the funding gap,

[1:26:41] having a a larger community discussion.

[1:26:45] Um you know, if there's no alternatives,

[1:26:47] there's no hope. We have you know,

[1:26:49] unsustainable tax increases with with

[1:26:51] the levels of spending that keep getting

[1:26:54] added and and the funding gap of 15 or

[1:26:57] 14 and 1/2 million dollars a year.

[1:27:00] The

[1:27:02] So, we and with 8,000 homes, um

[1:27:06] you know, on slated uh for development

[1:27:09] and not knowing if

[1:27:11] you know, growth pays for growth, this

[1:27:14] is this requires really a a serious

[1:27:16] conversation and some some alternatives,

[1:27:19] not no alternatives.

[1:27:22] The

[1:27:25] Uh year-end development charges, I I

[1:27:27] guess uh that that ties into my my

[1:27:30] comment and having additional

[1:27:32] alternatives for development charges.

[1:27:34] There's We we can There's all sorts of

[1:27:37] ways we can adjust development charges

[1:27:40] and having, you know, the province

[1:27:43] request extra

[1:27:45] um administration

[1:27:47] uh by municipalities

[1:27:50] um for a a very small small

[1:27:55] uh discount, um which doesn't translate

[1:27:58] to a lower house price, um does not make

[1:28:00] any sense. So, I I really think this

[1:28:03] requires a a bigger conversation.

[1:28:06] Um my my last point is with uh the waste

[1:28:09] management contract. Why is it that a

[1:28:12] 10-year contract requires an extra year

[1:28:15] and a half to go to tender? Should we

[1:28:17] not have Should staff not have looked at

[1:28:18] this a year and a half ago?

[1:28:20] Um through you know, three at the 7-year

[1:28:23] mark. It's a 10-year contract. Why do we

[1:28:26] Why do we need to approve it tonight as

[1:28:29] well when the contract doesn't expire

[1:28:31] until December of 2027.

[1:28:35] So, this decision can be left to the

[1:28:37] next term of council. There's a lot of

[1:28:39] questions that I have. I'm sure council

[1:28:41] has. They haven't had an opportunity to

[1:28:42] ask them. But,

[1:28:44] the Why Why are there not We're there

[1:28:47] We're creating risk. Um

[1:28:49] you know, not having alternatives. Why

[1:28:51] can't we go to tender now? It's It's not

[1:28:53] doesn't take long to

[1:28:55] uh produce a tender.

[1:28:57] Uh especially with artificial

[1:28:58] intelligence assistance. So, the

[1:29:03] uh

[1:29:05] Also, the the additional

[1:29:07] uh

[1:29:08] uh terms of 1-year and 2-year. Why do we

[1:29:11] need to approve both at the same time?

[1:29:14] So, these These are just some some uh

[1:29:18] questions. Uh bear with me 1 second.

[1:29:24] And the competitive bid process, if we

[1:29:26] don't have competitive bids available at

[1:29:28] the 10-year mark, then you know, we we

[1:29:31] put our Aurora at risk. Are there not

[1:29:33] options to have Aurora independently get

[1:29:36] um extensions from third-party

[1:29:38] contractors?

[1:29:40] Um for 1-year extensions. And the This

[1:29:43] document also implies that

[1:29:45] um the town is or the staff has already

[1:29:47] decided um that they want to go ahead

[1:29:49] with automatic uh arms uh

[1:29:52] or

[1:29:53] and giving GFL time to purchase

[1:29:55] vehicles. This does not make sense. That

[1:29:58] that is not a concern of a of a

[1:30:00] purchaser. The cost um

[1:30:04] you know, of of their suppliers. So,

[1:30:06] there's there's all these questions that

[1:30:08] and for that reason I I I would suggest

[1:30:11] and recommend that council just

[1:30:13] um

[1:30:14] leave this for the next term of council

[1:30:17] when there's opportunities for more

[1:30:18] questions if there's no more meetings

[1:30:20] for the rest of the year.

[1:30:22] Thank you for your time.

[1:30:26] » Okay.

[1:30:27] May I have a motion to receive and refer

[1:30:29] the comments of the delegation.

[1:30:33] Councillor Gallo, Councillor

[1:30:35] Thompson.

[1:30:37] Any questions or comments for the

[1:30:39] delegate?

[1:30:45] Being none, I'll call a vote on East

[1:30:47] Gwillimbury.

[1:31:03] That carries.

[1:31:07] Okay, that leads us to our last

[1:31:11] delegation, 6.7.

[1:31:14] Bailey Lester.

[1:31:20] Please state your name and you're

[1:31:21] reminded that you have 5 minutes for

[1:31:23] your delegation and again, the timer is

[1:31:25] on the top. Thank you.

[1:31:28] » Thank you. Good evening. My

[1:31:30] My name is Bailey and this is my mother,

[1:31:32] Michelle.

[1:31:33] Um we are here to uh address the

[1:31:35] situation that had happened on May the

[1:31:37] 4th. Uh he knew the friendly family

[1:31:40] Rottweiler was killed at the end of two

[1:31:41] catch poles by two of Aurora's animal

[1:31:44] control officers in my family home's

[1:31:45] driveway. And we are here to share with

[1:31:48] each of you personally our experience

[1:31:50] and how it continues to affect our

[1:31:51] lives.

[1:31:53] Looking back on May the 4th, I was

[1:31:55] coming to visit my mom with my daughter

[1:31:56] as we planned to go for an evening

[1:31:57] stroll and to get ice cream. Two stray

[1:32:00] dogs had wandered onto her property and

[1:32:02] my mom had then secured and leashed at

[1:32:04] the time of my arrival.

[1:32:06] I had asked my sister to care for my

[1:32:08] daughter as I went to assist my mom with

[1:32:09] both of the dogs.

[1:32:11] Both dogs were calm, friendly, and

[1:32:13] exhibited zero aggression towards us. We

[1:32:15] could pet them and have them sitting

[1:32:16] close against us without hesitation.

[1:32:20] I called Aurora Animal Services fully

[1:32:22] believing in my heart that I was doing

[1:32:24] the right thing.

[1:32:25] I am now trying to forgive myself for

[1:32:27] making this tragic decision.

[1:32:30] I trusted that those responding would be

[1:32:32] professional, fully trained, and

[1:32:34] knowledgeable on how to use any

[1:32:35] equipment, including catch poles. I

[1:32:38] fully expected them to handle the dogs

[1:32:39] in a humane manner and then safely have

[1:32:42] them reunited with their families.

[1:32:44] What was to occur and to be witnessed by

[1:32:46] my family and neighbors was a nightmare.

[1:32:49] Something that I would never wish on

[1:32:50] anybody to experience. What was done to

[1:32:52] Heenu was completely avoidable.

[1:32:55] Multiple failures of basic dog handling

[1:32:57] protocols, such as removing from the van

[1:33:00] an already secured animal, resulted in

[1:33:02] this beautiful, friendly dog losing his

[1:33:04] life in such a cruel manner.

[1:33:08] We have had three very experienced

[1:33:09] animal control officers contact us, as

[1:33:12] well as Dr. Mark Dilworth, DVM, a highly

[1:33:15] respected veterinarian, who has publicly

[1:33:17] spoken out about how this was handled by

[1:33:19] the town of Aurora employees.

[1:33:22] The overly aggressive manner and lengthy

[1:33:24] strangling as people screamed for them

[1:33:25] to stop is forever playing over and over

[1:33:27] in my mind.

[1:33:29] The event has forever changed us,

[1:33:31] leaving us deeply shaken, confused, and

[1:33:33] traumatized. Both my mother and I are in

[1:33:35] therapy, learning how to deal with what

[1:33:37] we witnessed and dealing with our own

[1:33:38] feelings of guilt that we have

[1:33:40] contributed to Heenu's death by trusting

[1:33:42] people that have no business in this

[1:33:44] field.

[1:33:46] The killing of Heenu has galvanized many

[1:33:48] here and beyond. The entire situation

[1:33:51] from start until now has been so badly

[1:33:53] and coldly handled by the management of

[1:33:55] Aurora.

[1:33:57] Trying to make uh he knew the guilty

[1:33:59] party in this scenario in order to

[1:34:00] protect yourselves has he left not just

[1:34:03] me but most of the individuals discussed

[1:34:06] it in Sodden. Our trust in

[1:34:09] Aurora Animal Control has been forever

[1:34:11] shaken.

[1:34:13] And with retaining K9 Foundations to be

[1:34:15] the independent investigator shows a

[1:34:17] lack of goodwill and a pure desire for

[1:34:19] the truth.

[1:34:20] K9 Foundations and especially the two

[1:34:22] individuals identified to conduct the

[1:34:24] interviews and investigation are peers

[1:34:26] of Aurora Animal Control Services.

[1:34:29] They are not impartial in any way.

[1:34:31] They have also publicized record of

[1:34:33] using the Dog Owners Liability Act to

[1:34:35] Dola and which has been critic-

[1:34:37] criticized of unfairly punishing dogs

[1:34:39] when zero aggression has been proven.

[1:34:41] The town of Aurora management has

[1:34:43] continued to be vague and

[1:34:44] non-transparent using a loud due process

[1:34:46] as the excuse. But the continued

[1:34:49] detachment is only deepening the

[1:34:50] feelings of anger and distrust.

[1:34:53] The anger and outrage from people is

[1:34:54] palpable. This is only growing as we

[1:34:56] look for justice for Himeu. I ask this

[1:34:59] council and this town's management to be

[1:35:01] courageous and ask the difficult

[1:35:03] questions internally of hiring and

[1:35:05] training standards and of your crisis

[1:35:07] management approach to listen to what

[1:35:08] the constituents are saying and asking

[1:35:10] of you. Thank you.

[1:35:17] » Thank you, Bailey.

[1:35:19] Can I have a mover or seconder to

[1:35:20] receive and refer the comments?

[1:35:25] Councilor Lewis, Councilor Gilliland.

[1:35:28] Any questions or comments for the

[1:35:29] delegate?

[1:35:37] Seeing none.

[1:35:39] Councilor Lewis.

[1:35:44] » Um I want to thank you for the

[1:35:47] delegation and how difficult this is,

[1:35:49] how tram- traumatic it's been to your

[1:35:52] family and your friends.

[1:35:54] Um I want you to know that

[1:35:57] this council

[1:35:58] hears you.

[1:36:00] And if I can just simply ask the

[1:36:02] question, what you're looking for is

[1:36:04] transparency on this and you want some

[1:36:07] something done in the near future and

[1:36:10] not have this drawn out because you're

[1:36:12] in in such trauma. Is that basically

[1:36:14] what you said here today?

[1:36:17] » Sorry, what was the question there,

[1:36:19] counselor Davis?

[1:36:20] » Are you you're really asking us to have

[1:36:23] transparency in this investigation?

[1:36:26] » Right.

[1:36:27] » Objectivity in the investigation and

[1:36:30] some

[1:36:31] have it done in a timely manner.

[1:36:33] » Gillen?

[1:36:34] » That's it.

[1:36:36] I appreciate that. I That's everybody's

[1:36:38] goal here, I believe.

[1:36:40] Thank you for the delegation.

[1:36:45] » [clears throat]

[1:36:46] » Hey Steen, no further questions or

[1:36:48] comments.

[1:36:50] I'll call the vote on e-vote.

[1:36:52] Sorry, uh

[1:36:56] e-vote.

[1:37:15] » Councillor Gillenland, please.

[1:37:26] » Mr. Harris.

[1:37:30] That moves us into the consent agenda.

[1:37:34] Are there any items

[1:37:36] in the consent agenda section 7 to be

[1:37:39] pulled for

[1:37:40] separate discussion and voting?

[1:37:45] I'll start

[1:37:46] on my left of the screen.

[1:37:49] Councillor Gartner, do you have anything

[1:37:51] to pull from the consent agenda?

[1:37:53] Actually, you know what? I

[1:37:55] Sure, go ahead. Councillor Gartner.

[1:38:07] Sir, you're on mute.

[1:38:21] » Okay.

[1:38:23] So, we're talking about

[1:38:25] um

[1:38:27] » Section seven?

[1:38:29] » No, I have nothing from section seven.

[1:38:31] Thank you.

[1:38:32] » Thank you. Councillor Gallo.

[1:38:37] » Just have a question about 7.1.

[1:38:41] » Okay.

[1:38:48] Okay. Anything else that needs to be

[1:38:50] pulled in the consent agenda?

[1:38:54] Okay.

[1:38:57] So, may I have a motion to approve the

[1:38:58] remaining items that have not been

[1:39:00] pulled?

[1:39:04] Okay. Councillor Gallo, Councillor

[1:39:06] Thompson.

[1:39:10] All in favor?

[1:39:12] Actually, we need to

[1:39:13] e- scribe.

[1:39:35] Yeah, it carries.

[1:39:37] 7.1, Councillor Gallo, would you like to

[1:39:40] move it?

[1:39:43] Okay. A seconder?

[1:39:48] Councillor Walsh.

[1:39:51] Go ahead, Councillor Gallo.

[1:39:57] Split up for a second.

[1:40:06] Um my question to you to staff, um under

[1:40:12] call to order

[1:40:14] on the second page, page 16 the top,

[1:40:17] it refers [clears throat] to

[1:40:19] uh it says prior to consideration of

[1:40:22] community presentations 5.1 council

[1:40:24] consent to the wave the provisions of

[1:40:26] the procedural bylaw to permit

[1:40:28] additional delegations

[1:40:30] uh item 6.5 Yang Yu, owner of a new uh

[1:40:34] pet Rottweiler

[1:40:36] the death.

[1:40:37] Uh my question is there was a uh a

[1:40:40] motion,

[1:40:41] a secondary, and a vote to that. And why

[1:40:44] is that not part of the minutes?

[1:40:49] And clerk?

[1:40:54] » Thank you, uh

[1:40:55] Mr. Chair. So, Councillor Gallo, I can

[1:40:58] review the video from the May 26th

[1:41:02] meeting and make an amendments to the

[1:41:05] minutes.

[1:41:06] Um

[1:41:07] if so if the motion was missed, but um

[1:41:11] if there was a mover, a secondary, and a

[1:41:13] vote was called, it should be recorded

[1:41:15] in the minutes.

[1:41:17] » Okay. I I've reviewed the video and

[1:41:19] there is, but I'll wait for you to make

[1:41:21] those adjustments. That was it.

[1:41:26] » Okay. Any other comments or questions on

[1:41:28] item 7.1?

[1:41:35] Seeing none.

[1:41:36] » Um excuse me.

[1:41:38] » Councillor Gallo.

[1:41:39] » Council Kim, I'm sorry. What did you Are

[1:41:42] you asking for anything in the eights?

[1:41:44] » Uh, no, yeah, we're just holding on.

[1:41:46] 7.5.

[1:41:47] » Thank you.

[1:41:48] » Okay. So, it'll be on key vote.

[1:41:52] I'm sorry, uh, e-scribe.

[1:42:15] That carries.

[1:42:19] Okay, moving on to

[1:42:22] agenda items uh, our section eight

[1:42:25] community whole meeting report, June

[1:42:27] 2nd.

[1:42:28] Um,

[1:42:29] any items in section eight to be pulled

[1:42:33] for separate discussion?

[1:42:35] And

[1:42:36] just remember any new comments or

[1:42:38] questions that we haven't discussed in

[1:42:41] community the whole.

[1:42:43] Um,

[1:42:44] you know, Council Gardner, you normally

[1:42:46] pull something. So, if you don't mind,

[1:42:48] I'll just go to you first.

[1:42:51] » Um,

[1:42:53] uh, 8.2.3.

[1:42:59] 8.5.1.

[1:43:07] 8.8.1.

[1:43:13] 8.8.3.

[1:43:19] » Okay.

[1:43:25] Anyone else

[1:43:26] needing anything to be pulled?

[1:43:31] » I do.

[1:43:33] » Councillor Weeks?

[1:43:34] » Yes.

[1:43:35] 8.4.1 [clears throat]

[1:43:38] 8.8.2

[1:43:41] » [clears throat]

[1:43:43] » Okay.

[1:43:49] Anyone else?

[1:43:51] » Could you read out what's been pulled,

[1:43:53] please?

[1:43:55] » Sure.

[1:43:59] 8.2.3

[1:44:03] 8.4.1

[1:44:09] 8.5.1

[1:44:13] 8.8.1

[1:44:16] 8.8.2

[1:44:18] and 8.8.

[1:44:21] 3

[1:44:23] » Um could you add 8.

[1:44:27] 5.2

[1:44:31] » Okay. 8.5.2

[1:44:33] » Thank you.

[1:44:36] » Mr. Chair, could you add

[1:44:38] 8.4.2, please?

[1:44:40] » Okay. 8.4.2

[1:44:57] » Mr. Chair, can you uh

[1:44:59] list for me the the items that were not

[1:45:01] pulled?

[1:45:05] » Um of course.

[1:45:07] I I see Councillor Thompson and

[1:45:10] Councillor Gillan with their hand up,

[1:45:12] but I can read out the ones that were

[1:45:14] not pulled.

[1:45:16] » Okay.

[1:45:17] » Is that the is Okay. It's 8.1.

[1:45:21] 1 8.2.1

[1:45:23] 8.2.2

[1:45:25] 8.2.4

[1:45:27] 8.2.5

[1:45:32] 8.7.1,

[1:45:33] 8.7.2,

[1:45:35] 8.8.4.

[1:45:39] Or that's it for this section 8.

[1:45:42] » Okay.

[1:45:43] Councilor Thompson.

[1:45:45] » Can you pull 8.8.4, please?

[1:45:48] » Okay.

[1:45:59] Okay.

[1:46:00] Uh Heather, did you say anyone else

[1:46:02] raised their hands?

[1:46:06] » I believe I saw Councilor Gilliland's

[1:46:08] hand up.

[1:46:09] » Councilor Okay, go ahead, Councilor

[1:46:10] Gilliland.

[1:46:11] » Uh thank you. I think

[1:46:13] everything's been pulled.

[1:46:15] I just hope that we're

[1:46:17] not going to be repeating ourselves

[1:46:19] based on what we all discussed last

[1:46:21] week. Um hopefully it's uh kept to new

[1:46:23] information. Thanks.

[1:46:30] » For the remaining items,

[1:46:32] um

[1:46:33] not pulled.

[1:46:37] So, first can I can I have a motion to

[1:46:40] approve the remaining items? That's

[1:46:41] 8.1.1, 8.2.1, 8.2.2, 8.2.4, 8.2.5,

[1:46:49] 8.7.1, 8.7.2,

[1:46:51] and 8.8.2.

[1:46:54] They were not pulled for separate

[1:46:55] discussion. Can I have a mover and a

[1:46:57] seconder, please? Councilor Gilliland.

[1:46:59] » Excuse me.

[1:47:01] » Councilor Gilliland.

[1:47:03] Yes, Councilor Gardner.

[1:47:04] » I'm sorry for interrupting. I believe

[1:47:07] 8.8.2

[1:47:09] was pulled.

[1:47:10] » Yes, that was pulled.

[1:47:11] » Okay, thank you.

[1:47:12] » Okay.

[1:47:14] Okay, so for those items that were not

[1:47:15] pulled,

[1:47:16] um all in favor?

[1:47:18] Uh actually, we'll

[1:47:20] do the e-scribe. Sorry.

[1:47:30] » Pardon me, um

[1:47:33] Mr. Chair, we are missing a seconder. I

[1:47:35] believe Councillor Gilliland was the

[1:47:36] mover.

[1:47:38] » I think it was Councillor Gallo, I

[1:47:39] believe.

[1:48:25] Okay, that carries.

[1:48:32] So, if everyone is in agreement, I would

[1:48:36] like to

[1:48:38] discuss 8.8.2 first given the amount of

[1:48:41] delegation on that topic.

[1:48:44] So, if

[1:48:45] » Thank you.

[1:48:47] » If everyone is in agreement, we'll

[1:48:50] discuss that first. Can I have a mover

[1:48:52] and a seconder, please?

[1:48:56] Councillor Gilliland

[1:49:05] Can I have a seconder? Oh, Councillor

[1:49:07] Lewis.

[1:49:10] Thank you.

[1:49:14] Questions or comments on the

[1:49:18] Councilor Wese?

[1:49:21] » Uh yes, I

[1:49:22] Thank you for bringing this forward on

[1:49:25] behalf of the

[1:49:27] the residents.

[1:49:28] As [clears throat] I said, I wanted to

[1:49:29] thank the architects for all the time

[1:49:31] that they've had on this.

[1:49:33] Um

[1:49:34] They've shown a willingness to listen to

[1:49:36] the council and the adjustments to make

[1:49:38] the application reduce density and to

[1:49:41] set back the setbacks with respect to

[1:49:42] traffic flow, etc. With the emergency

[1:49:45] route on Old Young

[1:49:48] However, there is a number of items that

[1:49:49] remain that the delegates did a

[1:49:51] fantastic job of bringing forward.

[1:49:54] Um I'm certainly concerned with the

[1:49:56] traffic flow in this high commuter area.

[1:49:58] It was brought up.

[1:50:00] Um there was a discussion about a

[1:50:02] traffic study

[1:50:03] that was asked for, but it didn't

[1:50:05] appear. I think the delegate

[1:50:08] um the planner suggested that a traffic

[1:50:11] study was done by the region, and it but

[1:50:14] there hasn't been one I don't think done

[1:50:16] by the town. So, I'd like to

[1:50:18] uh ask the staff

[1:50:20] while we're here, if there hasn't in

[1:50:22] fact been a traffic study about Young

[1:50:25] Street, particularly about the right in

[1:50:28] and right out that it may have on Old

[1:50:31] Young Old Young Street itself. So,

[1:50:33] through you to uh perhaps Mr. Ramuno. I

[1:50:37] don't know if uh

[1:50:39] Ms. Fleming is on. I don't know what

[1:50:41] who's on tonight. So,

[1:50:44] through you.

[1:50:47] » Is there any staff member who can

[1:50:48] respond to that, please?

[1:50:53] » Certainly, through you, Mr. Chair. Um

[1:50:55] Councilor

[1:50:57] Wese, yes, the traffic study has been

[1:50:59] completed, and as the applicant

[1:51:02] identified, a number of different

[1:51:03] background studies have been reviewed by

[1:51:06] uh not only town staff, but regional

[1:51:07] staff. So, as that portion of Young

[1:51:10] Street and where the existing driveway

[1:51:12] is is under the jurisdiction of the

[1:51:14] region. They took a close close look at

[1:51:17] the uh uh the traffic study in that

[1:51:19] intersection design. One of the

[1:51:21] conditions that the region is imposing

[1:51:23] on all new developments with access onto

[1:51:25] regional road is to restrict uh turning

[1:51:28] movements into to a right in right out

[1:51:31] uh situation. So, uh they have no

[1:51:33] objection to the uh proposal and the

[1:51:35] design of that access. Again, it's not

[1:51:37] really going to change. It is where uh

[1:51:40] you know, it's the existing access. I

[1:51:42] just want to remind council that served

[1:51:44] the uh existing uh you know, restaurant,

[1:51:47] the old Oakland Hall, which has a

[1:51:49] commercial designation on that property

[1:51:51] of 1600

[1:51:53] Old Young Street. It was there for

[1:51:55] years. So, it has a commercial

[1:51:57] designation and zoning. Uh that driveway

[1:51:59] served that um uh that establishment,

[1:52:02] and it will uh it will be the main

[1:52:04] access uh for this proposed development.

[1:52:07] The Old Young Street access is strictly

[1:52:10] a uh

[1:52:11] emergency access, similar to uh um the

[1:52:14] emergency access that it was uh there to

[1:52:17] that served the uh Oakland Hall

[1:52:19] restaurant.

[1:52:21] » Thank you. Uh that answers the question.

[1:52:23] I I haven't seen the study, and it

[1:52:25] wasn't in the report, but yeah, I trust

[1:52:27] that you you have done it, and staff has

[1:52:30] looked at it.

[1:52:31] Um

[1:52:32] the sidewalk issue and pedestrian

[1:52:34] connectivity still remains a problem for

[1:52:36] me,

[1:52:37] uh as well as the safety.

[1:52:39] And the delegate, uh Mr. Kamal,

[1:52:42] mentioned that

[1:52:44] there was a right of way or a sidewalk

[1:52:48] um right of way on Young Street on the

[1:52:53] uh

[1:52:54] east side

[1:52:55] that is either being planned, or he made

[1:52:59] reference to it, and it's the first time

[1:53:01] I've heard it. So, could you

[1:53:03] tell me a little bit about that, because

[1:53:05] it's really at the heart of the regional

[1:53:07] corridor which is at issue here

[1:53:10] um because the regional corridor should

[1:53:13] have the infrastructure available for it

[1:53:16] and it's not there now. So my question

[1:53:18] is

[1:53:20] um

[1:53:20] where are we with respect to the

[1:53:23] sidewalk that will be important for uh

[1:53:28] resident movement or transit uh going

[1:53:31] particularly going north.

[1:53:36] » Mr. Lumina?

[1:53:36] » Through through you sir, Mr. Lumina I

[1:53:38] assume.

[1:53:40] » Certainly through you uh

[1:53:43] Chair uh Kim. So the question of the

[1:53:46] sidewalk um

[1:53:48] there is an existing sidewalk on the old

[1:53:50] on the east side of Old Yonge Street. Uh

[1:53:52] what the uh

[1:53:54] uh Mr. Kamal mentioned was as part of

[1:53:56] the future site plan application if

[1:53:58] Council were to approve the OP and

[1:54:00] zoning application, the next step would

[1:54:02] be for the applicant to submit a formal

[1:54:04] site plan application where we'll deal

[1:54:06] with some of the engineering and uh

[1:54:09] uh architectural details. That's where

[1:54:11] we would impose a condition on that site

[1:54:13] plan for the construction of a uh a

[1:54:17] sidewalk along the west side of Old

[1:54:19] Yonge along the frontage of the subject

[1:54:22] lands um out to the existing sidewalk

[1:54:26] along St. John's. So that would provide

[1:54:28] then um that uh pathway for you know any

[1:54:32] residents on the west side of Old Yonge

[1:54:35] to go uh north to uh St. John's and then

[1:54:38] west to the intersection at Yonge and

[1:54:39] St. John's and cross uh to the west side

[1:54:43] of uh Yonge Street where there is a uh

[1:54:46] you know a sidewalk and a trail system

[1:54:47] cuz currently on east side of Yonge

[1:54:49] Street proper there isn't a proper

[1:54:51] sidewalk, there is just that you know

[1:54:53] little strip of asphalt uh along the

[1:54:56] curb along the curb lane.

[1:54:58] But that would be a condition of uh plan

[1:55:00] that we would impose at a future

[1:55:02] » Yes, I'm

[1:55:02] » Aware of that and thank you for that,

[1:55:04] but what I'm really thinking about with

[1:55:06] with the regional corridor because the

[1:55:09] um the requirement there is to have some

[1:55:11] sidewalk infrastructure that would be on

[1:55:13] the east side of Yonge Street.

[1:55:16] There's no way for people to have any

[1:55:19] pedestrian access on the east side of

[1:55:22] Yonge Street cuz there's no sidewalk

[1:55:23] there and the the delegate made mention

[1:55:27] that they had

[1:55:29] uh

[1:55:30] uh have a a right of way, I think, about

[1:55:33] 4 m, he said, there, but my question to

[1:55:37] you is and I'm I'm happy to see that

[1:55:39] because there's space for it, but is

[1:55:41] there space for that 4-m right of way

[1:55:45] uh as you go north because that's all

[1:55:47] environmentally protected land. So, I I

[1:55:49] have a difficulty seeing how 4 m are

[1:55:52] going to be pulled off of the roadway

[1:55:54] and and and encroach on that

[1:55:57] environmental land unless I'm mistaken

[1:55:59] on that. Can you help me with that

[1:56:00] through your um

[1:56:02] Councilor Kim?

[1:56:04] » Mr. Mayor.

[1:56:05] » Yes, through you, Mr. uh

[1:56:07] Mr. Chair. So, no, the applicant was

[1:56:09] speaking to a uh of I think he mentioned

[1:56:11] a 4-m 4.5-m right of way that the town

[1:56:14] would take along the frontage of the

[1:56:16] subject lands um

[1:56:19] uh along Old Yonge Street, not Yonge

[1:56:21] Street. Old Yonge Street. So, that's

[1:56:23] where we would then secure land for a

[1:56:26] sidewalk along Old Yonge Street.

[1:56:29] » Okay, I was just

[1:56:30] » Excuse me.

[1:56:30] » Uh the region has region has no plans

[1:56:33] for a

[1:56:34] uh

[1:56:35] uh

[1:56:35] for reconstruction of uh Yonge Street

[1:56:38] proper at this point, but it is one of

[1:56:40] their, you know, future uh projects if

[1:56:43] uh for the next phase of the

[1:56:45] uh Viva dedicated uh transitway.

[1:56:49] » Okay. Um

[1:56:51] I know what we're doing in the south of

[1:56:53] Aurora with the regional corridors.

[1:56:57] And there seems to be some discussion

[1:56:58] about the regional corridor here

[1:57:01] and density as well as the servicing of

[1:57:04] the regional corridor on the east side

[1:57:08] of Yonge Street.

[1:57:09] So, um

[1:57:12] I I know the the problem we have here is

[1:57:15] we're trying to

[1:57:17] impose

[1:57:19] regional corridor

[1:57:20] density etc. on this side, but we don't

[1:57:23] really have a true regional corridor.

[1:57:25] So, and I have a bit of a problem with

[1:57:28] that.

[1:57:29] Um

[1:57:32] The other issue that I have bring

[1:57:33] forward is the compatibility

[1:57:36] issue with the neighborhood and the

[1:57:38] transition.

[1:57:39] I mean, we're going in that whole area

[1:57:41] we have a lot of single family homes.

[1:57:44] And as a result of that, we are have

[1:57:46] this large building over on the other

[1:57:49] side where there's no transition at all.

[1:57:52] And so, I understand where they come

[1:57:55] from. Their their neighborhood has a

[1:57:59] single family dwellings typically in

[1:58:02] that area, and now we're

[1:58:05] we're looking at increased density

[1:58:07] through regional corridor. So,

[1:58:10] um I understand their problem with this.

[1:58:13] Um I also have a problem with the

[1:58:16] intersection at um

[1:58:19] at Yonge and St. Johns.

[1:58:21] I mean, what we have now is 65 St. Johns

[1:58:24] that has a number of new uh development

[1:58:27] that's underway.

[1:58:29] And we're talking about 148

[1:58:31] people here. We know that there's

[1:58:33] something on the north side of St. Johns

[1:58:36] in the old Allen lot area, but we

[1:58:39] haven't seen an application as yet.

[1:58:41] And I

[1:58:42] I really feel that the

[1:58:45] traffic safety is going to be an issue

[1:58:47] in that area. And if it's not an issue

[1:58:49] now, it will be in the future. And

[1:58:53] before I leave,

[1:58:55] what I want to make a comment about is

[1:58:56] something that we always have a comment

[1:58:59] about and about and it's never

[1:59:02] accomplished is the whole issue of

[1:59:05] affordability.

[1:59:06] We haven't had any of

[1:59:08] this being considered affordable, have

[1:59:11] we? Has the developer come to you and

[1:59:14] said that he wants to do even 10%, not

[1:59:18] even meeting the 25% of a official plan

[1:59:20] was being affordable. Has there been any

[1:59:22] chance to take some of these units and

[1:59:25] try to help make them affordable or

[1:59:28] using the 30%

[1:59:31] of

[1:59:32] the gross income of an individual?

[1:59:36] Through you, Mr. Ramundo, I just want to

[1:59:38] know if there's been a discussion about

[1:59:39] affordability.

[1:59:41] » Mr. Ramundo?

[1:59:43] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, Council Luis,

[1:59:47] and we always have that discussion

[1:59:50] when an applicant comes in with a

[1:59:52] a formal site plan application, so we

[1:59:54] can deal we can

[1:59:55] deal with the the actual details of unit

[1:59:58] sizes and how they're configured. So,

[2:00:00] that's certainly something that the

[2:00:01] applicant is aware of moving forward.

[2:00:04] But, just based on

[2:00:06] rationale laid out in

[2:00:08] in our staff report, you know, we

[2:00:10] identify this type of built form as

[2:00:12] providing the additional opportunities

[2:00:14] for

[2:00:15] varying unit housing types and smaller

[2:00:18] units.

[2:00:21] » Mr. Luis?

[2:00:23] » All right. I'll I'll take that as a no

[2:00:25] because

[2:00:26] unless we have it in writing and we have

[2:00:28] it that they're interested in doing it,

[2:00:30] it's not going to be affordable

[2:00:32] according to our

[2:00:33] affordability index. So, thank you.

[2:00:36] That's all I have.

[2:00:43] » Anyone else with comments or questions?

[2:00:48] Mr. Yellin?

[2:00:50] » Thank you.

[2:00:51] Um just to the uh

[2:00:56] sidewalk issue.

[2:00:58] Is there Is there a echo?

[2:01:04] I don't hear anything.

[2:01:10] » Okay, hold on.

[2:01:19] » Sorry. Okay. Just to the uh sidewalk

[2:01:23] issue.

[2:01:25] Um

[2:01:28] I I've heard that there's a

[2:01:29] right-of-way. I've heard that there's an

[2:01:31] an interest in doing it. I understand

[2:01:33] it's probably done through the site plan

[2:01:36] process,

[2:01:37] um but I I haven't heard

[2:01:40] uh with any

[2:01:41] certainty who's going to pay for it.

[2:01:45] Uh through you, Mr. Chair, through Mr.

[2:01:47] Romulo,

[2:01:48] um

[2:01:49] is the intent

[2:01:51] as

[2:01:53] we no longer deal with site plans,

[2:01:56] uh that the developer will be paying for

[2:02:00] that sidewalk.

[2:02:02] Mr. Romulo.

[2:02:04] » Uh

[2:02:05] through you, Mr. Chair, Council Gallo.

[2:02:07] Yes, so I think what you heard the

[2:02:09] applicant say is they've already set

[2:02:11] aside the land requirement, the land

[2:02:13] that frontage. That would be a condition

[2:02:15] of approval. Um he mentioned about, you

[2:02:17] know, perhaps having a discussion about

[2:02:19] sharing the cost, but, you know, what my

[2:02:22] condition moving forward would be that

[2:02:24] uh the this application, this applicant,

[2:02:27] if it's approved at the site plan stage,

[2:02:29] then not only would they give the

[2:02:31] uh provide the land, but it would also

[2:02:33] be their cost to construct the the

[2:02:35] sidewalk at the time of the construction

[2:02:37] of the proposal.

[2:02:41] » And sorry, through you to Mr. to Mr.

[2:02:43] Ramuno, how do we ensure that that

[2:02:46] happens?

[2:02:48] Um

[2:02:50] Do you need something from us because

[2:02:51] I'm prepared to make an amendment to

[2:02:53] that uh extent if if necessary.

[2:02:56] Um if you'll go on record saying that

[2:02:58] once you approve the site plan that it's

[2:03:00] a condition that they are responsible to

[2:03:03] pay for that, then

[2:03:04] I'll be satisfied with that.

[2:03:07] » Mr. Ramuno?

[2:03:08] » Through you, Mr. uh

[2:03:09] um chair, yes. Yes, no, you've heard me

[2:03:11] and this is sort of a typical condition

[2:03:13] that we would impose and uh it would

[2:03:16] also be at the expense of expense of the

[2:03:18] applicant.

[2:03:22] So, no need for a uh you know,

[2:03:23] direction. I've I've heard counsel, but

[2:03:25] it's something that uh staff was was

[2:03:27] already considering.

[2:03:30] » That's it for now, Mr. Chair.

[2:03:36] » Thank you. Uh

[2:03:37] Councillor Waite for a second time.

[2:03:44] » Thank you. And along that same line, uh

[2:03:47] we had a discussion before about the um

[2:03:50] pedestrian walkway crosswalk at Old

[2:03:53] Yonge

[2:03:54] uh because the um

[2:03:57] residents there are going to be using

[2:03:59] that as a front door and pedestrian uh

[2:04:02] exit and entrance.

[2:04:04] Uh but there's no safe way to get across

[2:04:06] a busy road such as Old Yonge. So, my

[2:04:09] question is uh we had that discussion

[2:04:12] about uh a crosswalk not necessarily

[2:04:15] signalized, but at least lit that would

[2:04:18] be at the uh

[2:04:20] um at the expense

[2:04:22] of the

[2:04:23] uh developer.

[2:04:25] And it can be anywhere, but as as long

[2:04:28] as it attaches to the sidewalk that

[2:04:30] Councillor Gallaway is talking about and

[2:04:32] will have safe access across Old Yonge

[2:04:37] to the east side.

[2:04:39] So, through you

[2:04:41] to Mr. Ramuno, whether that conversation

[2:04:44] has happened.

[2:04:47] » Ramuno?

[2:04:49] Through you, Mr. Chair. Yes, and as you

[2:04:51] know, our engineering staff are

[2:04:52] conducting a a town-wide pedestrian

[2:04:55] crossing study. So, they're looking at

[2:04:58] potential

[2:04:59] areas in town for a pedestrian

[2:05:02] crosswalk

[2:05:03] crosswalks. Um I can't say I can't say

[2:05:07] to council now whether, you know, a

[2:05:09] crosswalk would be warranted in this

[2:05:11] location, but it's something that we'll

[2:05:12] certainly look at. The other thing to

[2:05:14] keep in mind is I think, you know, uh

[2:05:16] community and council is aware that the

[2:05:18] region has initiated a pilot project

[2:05:20] over a year ago with respect to

[2:05:22] restricting left-hand turn movements

[2:05:24] from

[2:05:26] Old Yonge onto St. John's. Um and, you

[2:05:29] know, they'll they'll be looking at

[2:05:31] moving forward with perhaps longer-term

[2:05:35] uh turn restrictions in that location as

[2:05:37] well. So, it's something that we're

[2:05:39] speaking to the region about with

[2:05:40] respect to

[2:05:42] that intersection, but our staff are

[2:05:43] looking at

[2:05:45] town-wide pedestrian crossing study.

[2:05:48] » Thank you.

[2:05:50] » Nothing.

[2:05:53] » Thank you. Uh

[2:05:56] Anyone else with comments or questions?

[2:06:01] Okay.

[2:06:03] I'll call the vote.

[2:06:04] » Excuse me. Excuse me, Mr. Chair.

[2:06:07] » Yes.

[2:06:08] » Hi.

[2:06:09] » [clears throat]

[2:06:10] » Um I do have some comments.

[2:06:18] I I think that the developer has done

[2:06:20] everything they can

[2:06:23] to

[2:06:25] make this building

[2:06:28] as good as it can be to fit in with the

[2:06:30] neighborhood.

[2:06:32] Um, they've gone to unusual

[2:06:35] lengths.

[2:06:37] But, there's a basic fact, and the basic

[2:06:40] fact is that

[2:06:42] this

[2:06:43] building is too large

[2:06:46] for this neighborhood. There's no

[2:06:49] compatibility with the neighborhood.

[2:06:51] There's no transition.

[2:06:54] Um, it is not certainly doesn't fit the

[2:06:58] intent

[2:06:59] of the regional transit corridor.

[2:07:03] And, um

[2:07:05] Mr. Romano, I can't find the email, was

[2:07:07] talking to us about how our current

[2:07:09] bylaw is, um

[2:07:13] is based on greenfield development, and

[2:07:16] now we're moving into a new phase,

[2:07:20] more urban development. Well,

[2:07:23] we always go by the bylaw that's in

[2:07:25] place.

[2:07:27] I've been asking for the bylaws to be

[2:07:29] changed.

[2:07:30] I don't

[2:07:32] I would say a couple of years with

[2:07:34] respect to

[2:07:35] the the accessory dwellings

[2:07:39] on, uh

[2:07:41] in the stable neighborhood area.

[2:07:44] Anyway, we don't we have this bylaw, and

[2:07:47] this bylaw is what we have to go on.

[2:07:50] And, this development

[2:07:52] does not conform to this bylaw.

[2:07:55] And, it doesn't conform to the York

[2:07:58] region

[2:08:00] corridor policy. It It's just that

[2:08:02] simple.

[2:08:03] And then, if we add on to that all the

[2:08:05] comments from

[2:08:07] the residents in the neighborhood,

[2:08:10] uh

[2:08:11] I There's

[2:08:13] I don't see how we could possibly

[2:08:16] approve this development.

[2:08:18] So,

[2:08:22] I thank the developer. I Really, they've

[2:08:24] done amazing work. It's just This is not

[2:08:27] not the right property for that

[2:08:29] building.

[2:08:30] Thank you.

[2:08:35] » Thank you, Councillor Gardner.

[2:08:38] Anyone else with any further questions

[2:08:39] or comments?

[2:08:43] Seeing none, I'll call the vote on East

[2:08:46] Grant.

[2:09:08] That carries.

[2:09:12] Case closed.

[2:09:14] We are past our health break. Uh it's

[2:09:17] 9:10, so we will take our 10-minute

[2:09:19] health break and we will return at 9:20.

[2:09:24] Thank you.

[2:16:09] » Mhm.

[2:18:04] » Mhm.

[2:18:59] » Okay, the 10 minutes are up.

[2:19:01] If you're back at your desk, if you

[2:19:03] could put your

[2:19:04] your video on please.

[2:19:17] » I think John's back.

[2:19:22] At least he's over there.

[2:19:26] » Okay, thank you.

[2:19:34] » Enjoy the rest of your meeting

[2:19:36] here.

[2:19:51] » Is everybody back here?

[2:19:54] » I haven't seen it.

[2:19:56] » I see three videos on. I think uh one

[2:19:59] three videos on. I need one more.

[2:20:05] » Oh, I see.

[2:20:10] You, John.

[2:20:12] Nicholas is here.

[2:20:17] » My audio is on.

[2:20:22] » Wendy just stepped out, so she should be

[2:20:24] back very soon.

[2:20:25] I don't know where Rachel is.

[2:20:29] » Can you turn on your video, Councillor

[2:20:31] Wase?

[2:20:38] » Yeah, I'll put my video on. Okay.

[2:20:44] » There you go.

[2:20:48] » Councillor Yarrow is back.

[2:20:50] » Okay.

[2:20:52] » Can you put your video put your video

[2:20:53] on? That's how he's telling whether

[2:20:55] we're in our seats.

[2:20:59] » We'll move on

[2:21:01] to

[2:21:04] » The volume.

[2:21:05] » 8.2.3

[2:21:09] I believe Councillor Gardner, if you

[2:21:11] pull that

[2:21:14] » Uh yes.

[2:21:19] I have four minutes.

[2:21:21] » Yeah, would you like to move it?

[2:21:23] » One.

[2:21:25] » I will.

[2:21:27] » Okay, and a secondary, please?

[2:21:35] Okay, Councillor

[2:21:37] Wase, thank you.

[2:21:40] Okay, go ahead, Councillor Gardner.

[2:21:50] » I'm mute.

[2:21:52] » Okay.

[2:21:54] Um

[2:21:55] Is Mr. Serio uh

[2:21:57] in attendance?

[2:21:59] » Yes, he is.

[2:22:02] » Great.

[2:22:04] Thank you.

[2:22:06] Um,

[2:22:08] through Mr. Chair,

[2:22:10] I've had some

[2:22:13] uh

[2:22:14] some confusion, I'll say,

[2:22:17] about our long-term

[2:22:20] asset management funding strategy.

[2:22:24] So,

[2:22:25] for clarity, this is what I take it as.

[2:22:29] That

[2:22:31] we are for the next 4 years,

[2:22:34] the these strategy is to increase

[2:22:39] the budget by 0.25

[2:22:42] for each of the next 4 years.

[2:22:47] And

[2:22:48] at that point, we will be

[2:22:51] uh

[2:22:52] putting 2%

[2:22:54] on the tax levy for

[2:22:58] um

[2:22:59] for infrastructure needs.

[2:23:03] And then after that, say

[2:23:06] uh we we need to I'm sorry, this is not

[2:23:10] This is not Mr. Serio. I'm so sorry.

[2:23:14] Uh this is

[2:23:16] um

[2:23:17] This

[2:23:18] So, and then over the report says then

[2:23:20] over

[2:23:22] this strategy is going to take place

[2:23:24] over 15 years. So, that means for the

[2:23:28] next 11 years, it's going to be

[2:23:31] increased by 2.25

[2:23:34] 0.25%.

[2:23:36] And so, at the end of all of these 15

[2:23:39] years,

[2:23:40] we will be at 4.75

[2:23:44] percent

[2:23:45] uh of the tax [clears throat] levy to go

[2:23:48] to our infrastructure needs.

[2:23:51] I just I'm just not sure I'm

[2:23:53] understanding that properly. And of

[2:23:56] course the it goes to um

[2:23:59] this uh

[2:24:00] Rachel Van Wainwright.

[2:24:07] » Miss Rachel Wainwright Lancaster.

[2:24:10] » Rachel Wainwright Lancaster. [laughter]

[2:24:12] Uh, through you Mr. Chair. Yes, uh

[2:24:14] you're a little bit confused on that one

[2:24:16] Councillor Gardner.

[2:24:17] Based on this is an option for the next

[2:24:19] council to consider and and it's based

[2:24:21] on the way that the AMP was presented to

[2:24:23] us when it came forward a couple of

[2:24:25] years ago. And what it suggested is a 2%

[2:24:29] annual increase in the AMP to meet

[2:24:32] infrastructure needs over time. So it

[2:24:34] doesn't mean that once you get to 2% you

[2:24:37] would need to keep on adding another

[2:24:38] 2.25 every single year. It would just

[2:24:41] stay at two if council if the future

[2:24:44] council decided to go with that option.

[2:24:48] It would not go above 2%.

[2:24:51] » Oh. Okay.

[2:24:53] But it because it says it's a 15-year

[2:24:56] plan.

[2:24:58] So

[2:24:59] that was confusing. So it'll just

[2:25:04] you you go ahead, please.

[2:25:07] » Thank you, Councillor.

[2:25:07] » Uh, through you Mr. Chair, be 2% a year

[2:25:11] for 15 years.

[2:25:13] But it's just proposing an option to get

[2:25:16] to that 2% with 0.25% increases on an

[2:25:19] annual basis.

[2:25:25] » So it means it will take 3 years

[2:25:29] to get to the point where we're charging

[2:25:33] where it is becoming 2%.

[2:25:37] You said I believe you said something

[2:25:39] like so that we don't cause any

[2:25:42] shocks or hardship. That is 0.25. So,

[2:25:47] it it means that in

[2:25:49] in 20

[2:25:51] What year would that be?

[2:25:55] In 2030,

[2:25:58] we would

[2:26:00] be at the 2% and we would carry it on

[2:26:04] from there

[2:26:05] for 15 years

[2:26:07] or for another 11 years.

[2:26:12] But it's still is it's still this coming

[2:26:15] uh

[2:26:16] for 2027,

[2:26:18] it'll be uh

[2:26:21] 1.25.

[2:26:23] It will reach that 2%.

[2:26:25] It'll take 4 years to get there.

[2:26:29] Is that correct?

[2:26:32] » With that, Councillor?

[2:26:34] » Uh through you, Mr. Chair, yes, that's

[2:26:36] correct. It would increase to that under

[2:26:38] this proposal, it could increase to that

[2:26:40] over that 4-year period.

[2:26:44] » Um

[2:26:44] » Again, the next Council would have to

[2:26:46] weigh in on that.

[2:26:46] » Yes. Oh, yes, of course.

[2:26:48] Um yes, it's a strategy. Um thank you.

[2:26:54] So, if we do this,

[2:26:57] will we be able to cover

[2:27:00] all of the

[2:27:02] backlog that we have

[2:27:07] in our in our for our asset management

[2:27:09] plans, where all the things that we

[2:27:11] say we need?

[2:27:13] Will it be able to cover all of those

[2:27:16] things?

[2:27:19] » With that, Councillor?

[2:27:21] » Through you, Mr. Chair. So, by doing an

[2:27:24] annual increase such as this, it will

[2:27:26] give us the opportunity over a time to

[2:27:28] address that backlog

[2:27:30] um until we get to more sustainable

[2:27:33] funding, whether it be through

[2:27:35] additional through the levy or through

[2:27:36] other governmental like other levels of

[2:27:39] government support, it will take time

[2:27:41] until that backlog is addressed and it

[2:27:43] might increase a little bit before it

[2:27:44] begins to decrease.

[2:27:53] » Uh

[2:27:54] I guess what I'm asking is this strategy

[2:27:56] going to keep us healthy

[2:27:58] with respect to our needs

[2:28:03] our asset management needs.

[2:28:07] Because you do mention

[2:28:11] you know, new things come on every year

[2:28:14] and that we have a backlog now of 15

[2:28:17] million. So, is this strategy going to

[2:28:21] take care of all of that?

[2:28:24] This way I think it's a

[2:28:27] » Through Mr. Chair, there's multiple ways

[2:28:28] that this can be dealt with as well. So,

[2:28:31] even if when we look at the backlog

[2:28:33] today, we can also look at the

[2:28:34] performance of assets that we want to

[2:28:36] maintain and the life of those assets

[2:28:38] and how we manage and maintain them over

[2:28:39] time. Um you have to remember that when

[2:28:42] we did the

[2:28:43] original asset management plan, a lot of

[2:28:45] the assumptions were based on more of a

[2:28:47] financial asset life and the asset

[2:28:49] management team and engineering now is

[2:28:51] looking at it on a more comprehensive

[2:28:53] behavior of the way the assets are

[2:28:55] actually performing over time. So, there

[2:28:57] are going to be adjustments to this

[2:28:59] plan. It is an ongoing conversation

[2:29:01] we'll be having with council over the

[2:29:02] next few years.

[2:29:07] » Councillor

[2:29:08] » Um

[2:29:09] okay. It's uh

[2:29:12] It doesn't answer the residents'

[2:29:14] questions. I mean

[2:29:16] it does say in this report there's been

[2:29:18] a decreased

[2:29:19] uh

[2:29:20] I believe decreased service level and I

[2:29:23] think residents have noticed that

[2:29:26] especially with respect to the roads.

[2:29:29] So,

[2:29:30] I don't know if this answer is going to

[2:29:33] um

[2:29:34] satisfy them, but I shall

[2:29:37] I shall give it to them. Thank you.

[2:29:41] » So, Gardner, I think my interpretation

[2:29:42] is that

[2:29:44] um

[2:29:45] raising

[2:29:49] the rates um

[2:29:51] as proposed is one of those

[2:29:54] uh

[2:29:55] ways to get to the desired result. But I

[2:29:59] believe our treasurer said that there

[2:30:00] you know different assets perform at a

[2:30:02] different uh

[2:30:05] rate and so there's a lot of

[2:30:07] combination of ways to get where we want

[2:30:09] to, but certainly um

[2:30:12] the rate increase is one of them.

[2:30:15] Uh Counselor Thompson.

[2:30:18] » If if

[2:30:21] Can I speak again?

[2:30:22] » Gardner has the floor.

[2:30:24] Go ahead, Counselor Gardner.

[2:30:26] » Thank you. That's um

[2:30:28] light of you, Counselor Thompson.

[2:30:30] Um

[2:30:32] But it's you know it says long-term

[2:30:34] asset management funding strategy. So

[2:30:38] peop

[2:30:38] it implies to me anyway and to the

[2:30:41] people that have approached me that this

[2:30:44] is the whole strategy. So this is

[2:30:48] what you're both saying is it's part of

[2:30:50] the strategy and

[2:30:52] we'll have to wait and see what else is

[2:30:55] going to be part of that strategy.

[2:30:58] That's just a comment from what I'm

[2:31:00] understanding. Thank you, Counselor

[2:31:02] Thompson.

[2:31:04] » Uh Counselor uh Gardner, Counselor

[2:31:05] Thompson.

[2:31:09] » Thank you. Um

[2:31:10] you know, certainly the long-term

[2:31:12] management of our assets isn't something

[2:31:14] new. All of us around the table have

[2:31:16] been talking about this not just this

[2:31:18] term but many terms prior to this as

[2:31:20] well.

[2:31:21] Um and this issue is not necessarily

[2:31:24] unique to us. I I think that you know,

[2:31:26] most of us just came back from a

[2:31:28] conference where they would have talked

[2:31:29] about it and they've been talking about

[2:31:30] it for many, many years. Primarily

[2:31:32] because, you know, municipalities in

[2:31:34] general, they own or maintain

[2:31:36] approximately 60% of Canada's

[2:31:38] infrastructure.

[2:31:39] You know, residents count on us for good

[2:31:41] roads and and reliable water and waste

[2:31:43] systems and quality recreational

[2:31:45] facilities and so much more. However,

[2:31:47] despite supporting the majority of our

[2:31:49] key infrastructure, municipalities must

[2:31:51] maintain these assets while receiving

[2:31:53] just 8 cents out of every tax dollar

[2:31:55] collected.

[2:31:56] I FCM, AMO, many other organizations

[2:32:00] have calculated the nice nationwide

[2:32:02] municipal infrastructure deficit around

[2:32:04] 270 billion dollars with Ontario

[2:32:06] municipalities alone facing

[2:32:08] approximately 100 billion in

[2:32:10] infrastructure needs over the coming

[2:32:11] decade.

[2:32:13] This deficit didn't happen overnight and

[2:32:14] it can't be solved overnight, nor can we

[2:32:16] do this alone. We need both the province

[2:32:19] and the federal government to increase

[2:32:20] their infrastructure funding for all

[2:32:21] municipalities.

[2:32:23] You know, and as far as I know, and

[2:32:25] well, you know, I have Mrs. Wainwright

[2:32:27] met Kessel way in, but

[2:32:30] most, if not all of the municipalities,

[2:32:32] uh have all allocated funds for uh

[2:32:35] addressing this infrastructure deficit

[2:32:37] and it's anywhere from 1 to 3% and even

[2:32:40] then, we recognize that it's not enough

[2:32:42] if less the province and the feds help

[2:32:45] out the municipalities. It's just

[2:32:46] because of the the nature of the fact

[2:32:48] that we own most, but yet get the

[2:32:51] as I said earlier, only 8 cents on the

[2:32:52] dollar

[2:32:54] from uh taxes.

[2:32:56] Um [clears throat]

[2:32:58] but I think it's important to point out

[2:33:00] that this is really just another report

[2:33:02] uh advising us of the issues. Um

[2:33:06] raising the infrastructure funding is

[2:33:08] one

[2:33:09] uh approach in which we can uh tackle

[2:33:12] this uh long-term deficit. I think

[2:33:15] council as a whole next term needs to

[2:33:17] look at all the projects and make tough

[2:33:19] decisions around

[2:33:21] um not just the repair and replacement

[2:33:23] of of assets and the timing that goes

[2:33:25] with it, but some of growth in new

[2:33:27] projects and whether or not we we need

[2:33:29] to go forward with them or focus more on

[2:33:32] the basics and make sure that we are

[2:33:34] ensuring that we take care of the assets

[2:33:36] that we have before engaging in any new

[2:33:40] plans. These are some of the structures

[2:33:42] of some of the ways in which we can

[2:33:44] address the

[2:33:46] the deficit and look at having fair

[2:33:48] broader conversations around what best

[2:33:50] to do.

[2:33:52] I know that

[2:33:54] I guess through you Mr. Chair to

[2:33:58] Rachel Wainwright Van Castle

[2:34:00] um

[2:34:02] you know, since you've come on and and

[2:34:04] and led the the the team, you know, what

[2:34:06] are some of the things you've done to

[2:34:08] implement and ensure that we are staying

[2:34:10] on top of this strategy

[2:34:12] of managing our our assets long-term so

[2:34:14] that we can address these kind of

[2:34:16] things.

[2:34:18] » Yes, Wainwright Van Castle.

[2:34:20] » Through you, Mr. Chair. So, there's a

[2:34:22] number of things that we've done, not

[2:34:24] just within finance, but within other

[2:34:25] teams as well. Some of those things is

[2:34:28] that the development of the latest asset

[2:34:30] management plan actually does identify

[2:34:32] the performance of assets, the service

[2:34:33] levels within them. It starts to

[2:34:35] identify what some of that deficit can

[2:34:37] be. The continued contributions to the

[2:34:40] fiscal strategies, that 1% that we put

[2:34:42] aside every year, that we put most of

[2:34:44] that aside for

[2:34:45] towards asset management to maintaining

[2:34:48] the assets and that continued capital

[2:34:49] work that is happening with asset

[2:34:51] management. We also implemented through

[2:34:54] the fiscal strategy and the short-term

[2:34:56] asset management strategy in September

[2:34:58] of 2024,

[2:35:00] where we redirected the funds that were

[2:35:02] to pay for ATS debt. Instead of issuing

[2:35:05] debt, we put that towards asset

[2:35:06] management and used funds from the hydro

[2:35:09] reserve to pay for the project instead.

[2:35:11] And we've also looked at any debt that

[2:35:13] we and complete if it's tax-funded debt,

[2:35:16] putting those monies towards asset

[2:35:18] management without having to further

[2:35:19] increase the levy.

[2:35:21] Other investments that council has made

[2:35:23] is um in engineering with additional

[2:35:25] asset management staff, um in facilities

[2:35:28] with additional asset management staff

[2:35:29] to really get a better understanding of

[2:35:30] our assets and be able to do that

[2:35:32] analytical work that we're doing now to

[2:35:34] be able to better determine in the

[2:35:36] future what our asset management

[2:35:38] requirements are and how our assets

[2:35:40] perform over time.

[2:35:42] So, along with this and also the

[2:35:44] investments within the finance team as

[2:35:45] well, particularly with relating to the

[2:35:48] work we're doing in more fiscal strategy

[2:35:50] work and fiscal planning and the

[2:35:51] enhancements that we've done to the

[2:35:53] budget process with the 10-year capital

[2:35:54] plan, including the reserve forecasting

[2:35:57] that we now do over a 10-year period to

[2:36:00] make sure that what we're doing is

[2:36:01] affordable and it's achievable over

[2:36:03] time. So, there are significant

[2:36:04] investments that have happened across

[2:36:06] the organization, um thanks to the

[2:36:08] decision by council over the last few

[2:36:10] terms two terms I've been here.

[2:36:13] » Thank you. And again, uh through you Mr.

[2:36:15] Chair to to to Rachel. Um

[2:36:19] I have memory serves me correct, we were

[2:36:21] one of the earlier adopters of bringing

[2:36:23] on an asset management plan and in fact

[2:36:25] some other municipalities looked at what

[2:36:26] we were doing from a strategy

[2:36:28] perspective.

[2:36:29] Um so, perhaps you can speak a little

[2:36:30] bit to that as well as just, you know,

[2:36:32] confirmation that this is not just an

[2:36:34] Aurora pro- problem that, you know, many

[2:36:37] municipalities, uh not just in York

[2:36:39] Region, but across the province, you

[2:36:41] know, are struggling to maintain their

[2:36:42] infrastructure.

[2:36:45] » Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[2:36:47] » Through you, Mr. Chair. So, finding a

[2:36:49] municipality that is fully funded for

[2:36:51] their infrastructure is uh very rare. I

[2:36:53] suspect there's maybe maybe one or two

[2:36:55] across the entire

[2:36:56] um Ontario out of 444 municipalities.

[2:37:00] Most municipalities are in the situation

[2:37:02] we are in or they're even in a worse

[2:37:03] situation where they don't have the

[2:37:05] funding, they haven't had the

[2:37:06] investments towards asset management

[2:37:08] that we've been making on an annual

[2:37:09] basis. So, there's still a lot of work

[2:37:12] to be done. We were early adopters,

[2:37:14] especially with the the 1% fiscal

[2:37:17] strategy levy, because that's enabled us

[2:37:18] to start working towards our asset

[2:37:20] management journey. And across Ontario,

[2:37:23] there was a requirement for asset

[2:37:25] management plans to be completed. And

[2:37:28] the final completion date was supposed

[2:37:30] to be, I believe, July of 2025. And we

[2:37:32] had ours done a year in advance of that.

[2:37:35] So, we were ahead of the curve on that.

[2:37:37] And looking at those short-term plans in

[2:37:39] 2024 to start contributing more to asset

[2:37:42] management in more creative ways, rather

[2:37:43] than just levy increases.

[2:37:46] » Thank you. So, I mean, you know, not to

[2:37:49] to downplay the report. I mean, it it

[2:37:51] certainly is concerning

[2:37:54] that, you know, we need to look at these

[2:37:55] kind of

[2:37:56] options in order to address the the

[2:37:58] deficit gap that we have.

[2:38:01] And there's going to need to be further

[2:38:03] conversations in the next term of

[2:38:04] council that to to to address this and

[2:38:07] continue to to fight this. But, it is a

[2:38:10] bit of an uphill climate, and it's an

[2:38:11] uphill climate that all municipalities

[2:38:13] face.

[2:38:14] You know, and and you know, I'm

[2:38:16] certainly been grateful the time I've

[2:38:18] been on council that

[2:38:20] you know, we've had staff like like

[2:38:22] Rachel and her team that continue to be

[2:38:24] progressive and trying to find ways to

[2:38:26] to address this and stay on top of this

[2:38:27] and keep us informed and give us these

[2:38:29] options so that we don't fall further

[2:38:31] behind.

[2:38:32] Thank you.

[2:38:35] » Is Councillor Johnston

[2:38:38] Any other comments or questions?

[2:38:44] Yeah. All the votes.

[2:38:47] I'll be scratched, please.

[2:39:11] » It It gives

[2:39:15] Next item is

[2:39:18] 8.4.1.

[2:39:24] And I believe

[2:39:28] that was uh Counselor Gardner as well,

[2:39:30] if I'm

[2:39:31] not mistaken.

[2:39:40] Counselor Gardner, did you want to move

[2:39:42] this?

[2:39:44] » Yes, I would.

[2:39:47] Yes, I would. Thank you.

[2:39:49] » Okay. Seconded?

[2:39:53] Counselor Reese?

[2:39:55] Counselor Gardner?

[2:39:57] » Um

[2:39:59] I

[2:40:00] Counselor Kim, I I didn't pull this one.

[2:40:03] I believe it was Counselor Reese.

[2:40:07] » Yeah, that's true.

[2:40:08] » So, he may want to start.

[2:40:11] » Hope we can uh

[2:40:12] reverse that.

[2:40:15] Counselor Reese?

[2:40:17] » Thanks, happy to do it.

[2:40:18] » Let me move it.

[2:40:20] Counselor Gardner will second it.

[2:40:22] » Thank you.

[2:40:23] » Okay.

[2:40:24] Please go ahead, Counselor Reese.

[2:40:26] » I've um I'd spoken to um

[2:40:29] this the Cerial and uh

[2:40:33] Mr. Ray

[2:40:35] about this.

[2:40:36] Um I felt that there was not enough

[2:40:38] urgency on this with the uh

[2:40:41] recommendation that was made before.

[2:40:44] And so, there was amendment that was uh

[2:40:46] provided. And so, I'd like to see that

[2:40:49] the you can get the amendment uh up

[2:40:51] there on the report so other council can

[2:40:54] see it and then I'll speak to it.

[2:41:01] So, I think the clerk has it or maybe uh

[2:41:03] uh

[2:41:06] Mr. Day.

[2:41:06] » Mr. Clerk.

[2:41:08] » Happy cereal.

[2:41:11] » Amendment.

[2:41:18] » I can display my screen.

[2:41:38] » So, the report uh thank you for doing

[2:41:41] that.

[2:41:42] Um

[2:41:43] the report was really about renovation

[2:41:46] and the value of renovation and that's

[2:41:48] never been a discussion or a problem. Um

[2:41:52] what we have in this town are 12,000 or

[2:41:54] so people that are renters.

[2:41:57] Most of them are in rental buildings

[2:42:00] that are relatively new.

[2:42:03] They're not vulnerable to an eviction

[2:42:05] because the landlord would like to

[2:42:08] uh evict them and uh renovate their

[2:42:12] place. And the problem with that is that

[2:42:15] many of these older buildings

[2:42:17] are uh affordable.

[2:42:20] And that's why people are living in

[2:42:22] them. Uh they don't mind not having

[2:42:23] granite. They don't and all the other

[2:42:25] amenities.

[2:42:27] And so, the purpose of this is to number

[2:42:30] one um have a part-time contract

[2:42:34] administrative support person to

[2:42:36] administer and support the program

[2:42:39] um as well as staff coming back no later

[2:42:42] than Q4 of 2027

[2:42:44] for the implementation of a program and

[2:42:47] proposing next steps. That will include

[2:42:49] a bylaw.

[2:42:51] Um so, there's not much different here

[2:42:53] except the moving of the uh the person

[2:42:58] who's going to administer this, have

[2:43:00] them involved as a tenant support

[2:43:03] person.

[2:43:05] Uh learn about the development of the

[2:43:07] bylaw,

[2:43:08] work with the bylaw and uh our legal

[2:43:12] team,

[2:43:14] and bring a bylaw back to us so that it

[2:43:17] can be implemented. And the purpose of

[2:43:20] that bylaw is to make sure that when

[2:43:23] a an eviction occurs

[2:43:26] and the eviction occurs because of a

[2:43:31] an updating,

[2:43:33] that the tenants are protected. We have

[2:43:35] to protect the

[2:43:38] affordable rental properties that we

[2:43:41] have now, and this is simply a way to do

[2:43:44] it.

[2:43:45] So, I'm in favor of this support pilot

[2:43:48] project with a part-time administrative

[2:43:51] support that's uh

[2:43:53] being funded out of the tax

[2:43:54] stabilization, and I think that we've

[2:43:56] had a conversation with Ms. Rainwater By

[2:43:58] Castle about doing that.

[2:44:00] And then that person working with bylaw

[2:44:03] and our legal team to bring the

[2:44:06] um bylaw back for council's

[2:44:08] consideration

[2:44:10] in the next term. I would prefer

[2:44:13] that this comes before Q4 of 2027.

[2:44:17] Um but um at least no later than Q4 of

[2:44:21] 2027.

[2:44:23] I know the staff is interested in

[2:44:25] managing employee time, but this is an

[2:44:28] important thing for those people who are

[2:44:30] on the cusp of eviction and may become

[2:44:34] homeless as we have in some cases been

[2:44:37] uh identified through some of the

[2:44:39] delegations that have come to council.

[2:44:41] So, I hope the council can uh approve

[2:44:43] this

[2:44:44] small um amendment.

[2:44:46] And uh direct staff to start down this

[2:44:49] pathway.

[2:44:56] » Thank you, Councillor Reese.

[2:44:58] Anyone

[2:44:59] wishes to speak or comment on the

[2:45:02] amendments?

[2:45:09] » Councillor Kim, I don't think you can

[2:45:11] see my hand is raised.

[2:45:14] » I see it now. Thank you. And

[2:45:16] um Madam Clerk, it would it be

[2:45:18] okay to uh put up the amendment so we

[2:45:20] all know what we're

[2:45:22] referring to?

[2:45:25] » Yes. Uh can we get a seconder for the

[2:45:27] amendment?

[2:45:28] » Sure.

[2:45:28] » I second.

[2:45:29] » Sorry. Okay, Councillor Gardner seconds

[2:45:32] it.

[2:45:38] Okay, go ahead, Councillor Gardner.

[2:45:43] » I used to say that this

[2:45:46] is a town with a heart and

[2:45:49] I would like to

[2:45:52] prove that.

[2:45:54] Um

[2:45:56] » [clears throat]

[2:45:56] » We have

[2:45:58] a lot of vulnerable renters. I can't

[2:46:01] remember

[2:46:02] the number.

[2:46:03] It's in the thousands

[2:46:06] anyway and

[2:46:08] um

[2:46:10] they are

[2:46:13] however you look at it, at the mercy of

[2:46:15] their landlords and

[2:46:18] uh

[2:46:20] these renters, some who been renting for

[2:46:22] many years, this is their home

[2:46:25] and

[2:46:26] uh we need to protect them. So, I thank

[2:46:31] Councillor Reese very much for putting

[2:46:33] this forward.

[2:46:35] I think this is uh

[2:46:38] a small sum of money compared

[2:46:41] to

[2:46:43] um uh

[2:46:45] to the care

[2:46:47] it hopefully will take of many

[2:46:50] vulnerable people in Aurora.

[2:46:53] And uh

[2:46:55] again, thank you, Councillor Lewis. I

[2:46:57] know you've worked on this a lot and

[2:47:00] very hard.

[2:47:01] And um

[2:47:04] I think it's generally appreciated.

[2:47:16] » Anyone else with comments or questions?

[2:47:19] Uh Councillor Gilman.

[2:47:24] » Thank you. Um

[2:47:27] » [clears throat]

[2:47:28] » Um

[2:47:29] I mean I I get what we're trying to do.

[2:47:31] I'm I'm really having a hard time

[2:47:33] with this amendment. Um I'm struggling

[2:47:36] with

[2:47:37] um

[2:47:38] some of the language in here like that

[2:47:41] we are going to implement and that we're

[2:47:43] going to hire and we're

[2:47:45] raising taking funds from tax

[2:47:47] stabilization. It's

[2:47:48] to me I feel like there's still a lot of

[2:47:51] unresolved questions about

[2:47:53] um you know, whether or not this is

[2:47:56] actually going to be helping

[2:47:58] um

[2:48:00] helping the

[2:48:02] the town or the the the the problem that

[2:48:04] we have here. I'm just I just feel like

[2:48:05] there's some information there that

[2:48:06] we're still kind of missing about this.

[2:48:09] And I'm not really quite sure what that

[2:48:10] is. I feel like we're jumping the gun so

[2:48:12] fast

[2:48:13] to be implementing and approving uh

[2:48:15] hiring extra staff.

[2:48:17] Uh if this was something to where we

[2:48:19] were going to

[2:48:21] uh report back and look at what

[2:48:24] implementation would look like or what

[2:48:26] the pros and cons are of of that, I

[2:48:29] would like to see a little more

[2:48:30] information about that. I believe that

[2:48:34] um

[2:48:35] some of the big city mayors had also

[2:48:37] looked at this, which was something that

[2:48:39] was discussed and

[2:48:41] from my knowledge, cuz this has been

[2:48:43] floating around already, it's something

[2:48:45] they decided not to do for various

[2:48:48] reasons.

[2:48:49] Um and one of the biggest ones was that

[2:48:52] it could actually deter

[2:48:55] landlords from actually doing any type

[2:48:57] of improvements to any of their

[2:48:59] properties and would deter them to even

[2:49:02] wanting to

[2:49:03] make any sort of investment and could

[2:49:05] actually encourage landlords to let

[2:49:10] properties

[2:49:11] uh become disheveled or unkempt or or

[2:49:15] just no real investment at all. So, I

[2:49:18] think there's a delicate balance that

[2:49:20] can be had here. I don't know what that

[2:49:22] looks like, but I feel like we're kind

[2:49:24] of swinging the pendulum from one side

[2:49:26] to the other in a really strong way

[2:49:29] without understanding what that balance

[2:49:30] is in the middle as of yet. Um

[2:49:34] to you, Mr. Chair, to uh

[2:49:36] Mr. Ray if he's online or Mr. Serio who

[2:49:39] would like to speak to this.

[2:49:40] I just I would like a little have a

[2:49:42] little bit more staff's

[2:49:44] opinion on this

[2:49:46] as I I kind of feel like

[2:49:49] maybe staff's not in the supportive of

[2:49:52] this at this time or if you could maybe

[2:49:55] shed a little more information about

[2:49:57] what I'd said about the other

[2:49:59] municipalities or the major

[2:50:01] municipalities who did not go ahead with

[2:50:03] this and maybe explain why. And I'm

[2:50:06] sorry I'm I'm asking you a question kind

[2:50:08] of like off the cuff here without having

[2:50:09] any kind of offline first.

[2:50:14] » Correct.

[2:50:15] Thank you through you, Mr. Chair.

[2:50:17] Um Counselor Gilliland, I'll try and

[2:50:20] answer those. If I miss something, just

[2:50:22] remind me.

[2:50:23] Um so, um staff, myself, and Mr. Serio

[2:50:26] have met with Counselor Louise

[2:50:28] uh to discuss uh sort of the work that

[2:50:31] he's put in here. Um and this amendment

[2:50:34] was sort of an update to the original

[2:50:36] recommendations

[2:50:37] um which I would probably best describe

[2:50:39] as starting with dipping our toes in the

[2:50:42] water as opposed to running right in and

[2:50:44] starting to try to swim.

[2:50:46] We feel that it's an opportunity if

[2:50:49] council supports this motion and

[2:50:51] recommendation to

[2:50:54] try and gather some data and really

[2:50:56] understand

[2:50:58] what this type of program would look

[2:51:00] like and what the needs would look like

[2:51:02] over the course of the one year as

[2:51:05] opposed to the larger ask of

[2:51:08] trying to bring on enforcement staff

[2:51:10] etc.

[2:51:11] And then sort of putting the cart before

[2:51:13] the horse.

[2:51:14] In terms of your comments and questions

[2:51:17] around what other municipalities have

[2:51:20] done,

[2:51:21] it's been a mixed approach. Some of the

[2:51:23] larger municipalities have proceeded

[2:51:25] forward. The city of Toronto, the city

[2:51:28] of Hamilton, the city of Mississauga,

[2:51:30] city of Waterloo have proceeded forward.

[2:51:34] The matter is currently being studied in

[2:51:36] Sarnia.

[2:51:38] The city of St. Catharines rejected

[2:51:40] this type of program.

[2:51:43] And then to kind of view the concerns

[2:51:46] about landlords

[2:51:47] potentially not investing or not

[2:51:49] maintaining and sort of that delicate

[2:51:51] balance. We do have our property

[2:51:53] standards bylaw.

[2:51:55] So in a situation where we started to

[2:51:58] see decay, if a complaint came in or

[2:52:00] officers noted something that was

[2:52:02] you know, obvious of concern. That would

[2:52:06] be addressed through the property

[2:52:08] standards bylaw.

[2:52:10] It could potentially create a situation

[2:52:12] where the bylaw is then used to try to

[2:52:16] evict tenants to do that type of work

[2:52:18] which sort of puts us in this this

[2:52:20] circle.

[2:52:22] But the experience from larger

[2:52:24] municipalities and then and I'm drawing

[2:52:26] specifically on Toronto's experience

[2:52:28] just based on volume and then obviously

[2:52:30] we can scale down

[2:52:31] proportionally

[2:52:33] was that

[2:52:34] um they received about 650 complaints

[2:52:37] and of those complaints, uh, three of

[2:52:40] them were legitimate licensable,

[2:52:43] uh, renovictions and that information,

[2:52:46] uh, I believe is contained in either the

[2:52:47] report that came to GC on the last cycle

[2:52:50] or the initial report.

[2:52:54] » Councillor Gilliland.

[2:52:55] » Thank you.

[2:52:57] Um, okay, I have

[2:52:59] a few more questions on that.

[2:53:01] Um,

[2:53:03] first of all, I want to know, through

[2:53:05] Mr. Chair to Mr. Rey,

[2:53:08] how much time does staff need

[2:53:10] to pilot this if that is something that

[2:53:13] have moves forward

[2:53:15] to

[2:53:17] gain some insight as to whether or not

[2:53:19] this is something that's working and

[2:53:21] something really we want to do.

[2:53:24] Um, the way the motion is written right

[2:53:26] now, there is no timeline really

[2:53:29] associated with the pilot. There's no

[2:53:31] timeline associated with this contract

[2:53:33] position either.

[2:53:35] Um, if you could, uh, weigh in, that

[2:53:37] would be great. I'm not in favor of just

[2:53:39] arbitrarily

[2:53:41] hiring staff.

[2:53:42] Um, I thought we did a hiring freeze and

[2:53:45] wanted to

[2:53:46] try and, um, hold ourselves to that. So,

[2:53:49] you know, I do believe we need to be

[2:53:50] very responsible with

[2:53:53] with the staff hiring part.

[2:53:56] » Mr. Rey.

[2:53:57] » Through you, Mr. Chair, to Councillor

[2:53:58] Gilliland. So,

[2:53:59] uh, with staff reporting back at the end

[2:54:01] of, uh, at the latest at the end of

[2:54:03] 2027, Q4,

[2:54:05] um, that would be the timeline, uh,

[2:54:08] basically between the opportunity we

[2:54:10] have to complete a job description, uh,

[2:54:13] recruit for the position and then

[2:54:14] onboard that person,

[2:54:16] um, and the end of 2027 to gave gather

[2:54:19] that data.

[2:54:20] Um, so I would say that it's it's

[2:54:22] approximately going to be a a 1-year

[2:54:24] window,

[2:54:25] um, maybe a year and a half at the

[2:54:27] absolute stretch,

[2:54:29] um, to counselor Reese's initial

[2:54:31] comments.

[2:54:33] He obviously would prefer this to come

[2:54:35] back as soon as possible, um, but I

[2:54:37] think that there's relevancy in making

[2:54:39] sure that we obtain

[2:54:41] the most accurate and most detailed and

[2:54:43] relevant data.

[2:54:45] So, reporting in Q4 would probably be

[2:54:48] more opportune to paint the entire

[2:54:51] picture for council in terms of what the

[2:54:53] demand looks like, what the questions

[2:54:54] we're asking looks like, and then taking

[2:54:56] the next appropriate steps as to

[2:54:59] terminating the the potential program

[2:55:02] moving forward or asking council for

[2:55:05] their support in implementing a bylaw

[2:55:07] and potentially additional staff or

[2:55:09] remaining with what council provides us.

[2:55:14] » Councillor

[2:55:15] » Thank you.

[2:55:17] Okay, I get what you're saying and I

[2:55:19] just have again, I have so many

[2:55:20] questions. So, the other one is

[2:55:23] uh

[2:55:25] how much of an issue do we actually have

[2:55:27] in Aurora with this type of renoviction?

[2:55:30] I know we have

[2:55:31] this one example with

[2:55:33] um, this property. We've had quite a

[2:55:36] bit of delegation about this one

[2:55:38] property. And I'm I'm only saying this

[2:55:40] because I feel like again, we're we're

[2:55:41] hiring staff and we

[2:55:43] you know, a

[2:55:44] year and a half commitment.

[2:55:46] This So, it's two-part question.

[2:55:49] How big of a problem is

[2:55:51] I mean, renoviction. I'm not talking

[2:55:53] about anything else with renters or

[2:55:55] legal basements or anything like that.

[2:55:56] I'm just talking about renovictions.

[2:55:58] This What is the How much of a problem

[2:56:00] do you have?

[2:56:02] And then the second question is, can we

[2:56:03] not

[2:56:05] have staff do a pilot of sorts to figure

[2:56:08] out if this is something that

[2:56:10] um

[2:56:12] is worth us doing moving forward without

[2:56:15] hiring anybody and reporting back

[2:56:17] quickly.

[2:56:18] And then at that point doing an

[2:56:20] assessment saying, you know what? We you

[2:56:22] know, we've we've done an assessment. We

[2:56:24] feel we've got it under control what we

[2:56:25] had. It's it's not as big of a problem

[2:56:27] as we thought." Like, I don't I'm just

[2:56:28] shooting I'm just shooting from the hip

[2:56:29] here. Like, I don't know, but I feel

[2:56:31] like it's a really big step to be

[2:56:33] investing a year and a half, to maybe

[2:56:35] even 2 years, on something we really

[2:56:37] didn't know whether or not it's that big

[2:56:39] of a problem. To compare us to Toronto,

[2:56:43] um to Aurora, I I just don't think is a

[2:56:45] fair comparison. So, Mr. Ray, if you

[2:56:46] could just let me know whether or not

[2:56:48] this is something that's that if we

[2:56:50] wanted to do, we could do without hiring

[2:56:52] staff and come back and

[2:56:54] uh in you know,

[2:56:56] in 6 months and come back and and have

[2:56:59] the next term of council decide whether

[2:57:00] or not they want to make that

[2:57:01] investment.

[2:57:02] And then we'll have a good idea whether

[2:57:04] or not this is something that is a huge

[2:57:06] problem.

[2:57:09] » Mr. Ray.

[2:57:10] » Thank you, Mr. Chair, to Councillor

[2:57:11] Gilliland. So, the data that we were

[2:57:13] able to obtain from Tribunals Ontario,

[2:57:16] uh based on N13s, which are the uh run

[2:57:19] eviction

[2:57:21] notices that would be provided to

[2:57:23] tenants,

[2:57:24] uh indicate that there is uh between

[2:57:26] five to seven of those notices that have

[2:57:28] been filed in Aurora specifically over

[2:57:30] the last 5 years.

[2:57:32] Um in in relation to those specific

[2:57:35] properties without disclosing addresses,

[2:57:38] um some of them have been demolished as

[2:57:39] part of redevelopment applications and

[2:57:41] they just simply do not exist anymore.

[2:57:43] They've been replaced with intensified

[2:57:45] housing or or different uses.

[2:57:47] Um and familiarity from staff is that

[2:57:50] one address uh was uh an illegal

[2:57:53] basement apartment that uh did not

[2:57:55] return back to that type of use. Um so,

[2:57:58] I mean, on average, we're looking at

[2:58:00] probably between one to, you know, 1.2

[2:58:04] uh

[2:58:04] {quote} unquote run evictions on an

[2:58:06] annual basis.

[2:58:07] Um in terms of the your questions

[2:58:09] surrounding staffing,

[2:58:11] uh genuinely, the issue is is

[2:58:13] administratively, we need the support to

[2:58:15] help research this, write the bylaw.

[2:58:19] We are administratively stretched. We

[2:58:21] have two people at at this point

[2:58:24] and call volumes continue to increase.

[2:58:26] So, it's not something that I can really

[2:58:27] put on existing staff.

[2:58:31] It that's why we looked at this from a

[2:58:32] part-time sort of contract position

[2:58:35] so that we could at least utilize the

[2:58:37] person

[2:58:38] and then if not needed then at the end

[2:58:40] of this exercise they would they would

[2:58:42] no longer continue.

[2:58:46] » Councillor

[2:58:47] » Thank you.

[2:58:48] Okay, so from what I'm hearing is that

[2:58:52] there's been between five and seven

[2:58:55] incidents in the last

[2:58:57] five years

[2:58:58] and

[2:59:00] one of them was an illegal basement

[2:59:02] which is probably a good thing the

[2:59:04] person was no longer there because of

[2:59:06] other safety things. And then the others

[2:59:09] were because there's other development.

[2:59:11] So,

[2:59:12] and the the building doesn't even exist

[2:59:15] anymore. So, I

[2:59:18] I'm just struggling with like the

[2:59:20] the one person per year and

[2:59:24] uh

[2:59:27] I'm just I'm just struggling with the

[2:59:28] fact that we're going to be spending a

[2:59:29] lot of money on hiring new staff or

[2:59:31] something. I'm going to listen to

[2:59:32] somebody in my my other colleagues

[2:59:34] around the table with their saying. I'm

[2:59:36] really not convinced on

[2:59:38] making a big commitment like this in the

[2:59:40] way that it's written. I think if it was

[2:59:41] a bit softer then then maybe I would I

[2:59:45] would be more comfortable with it.

[2:59:50] » Thank you, Councillor.

[2:59:52] Councillor

[2:59:53] Thompson for the first time.

[2:59:55] » [clears throat]

[2:59:56] » Thank you.

[2:59:58] You know, I I think I share a little bit

[2:59:59] of that that same struggle. The

[3:00:02] the motion calls for us to implement the

[3:00:04] program, but you know,

[3:00:06] based on the report and and you know,

[3:00:09] the limited information that I have, I'm

[3:00:11] still not sure what the support pilot

[3:00:14] program can and can't do. Uh I know Mr.

[3:00:17] Ceraolo speaks about it in the in the uh

[3:00:19] the report and Mr. Ray does as well in

[3:00:21] the fact that you know, municipalities

[3:00:23] are limited in what we can do because

[3:00:26] landlord tenant law is is provincial in

[3:00:29] terms of jurisdiction

[3:00:30] um and many things are covered under the

[3:00:32] Residential Tenancy Act. And so, you

[3:00:35] know, I I'm this is where I struggle

[3:00:37] because, you know, I want to be able to

[3:00:39] manage expectations and I really don't

[3:00:41] know, you know, is this program going to

[3:00:43] achieve what we think it's going to

[3:00:45] achieve or not? Where are the

[3:00:47] limitations what it can and can't do? Um

[3:00:50] you know, I'm I'm open to pursuing it,

[3:00:53] but the language within the uh

[3:00:54] recommendation says we implement it

[3:00:56] today if it gets approved. And and to me

[3:00:59] there's still that that some of that

[3:01:00] uncertainty. Uh you know, I'd I'd love

[3:01:03] for Mr. Ray to, you know, spend a little

[3:01:05] bit more time and provide a little bit

[3:01:07] more detailed information about, you

[3:01:09] know, in terms of those objectives and

[3:01:10] those expectations of what a pilot

[3:01:12] program can achieve, what it can't

[3:01:14] achieve, and look into it because I

[3:01:16] think, you know, there are some

[3:01:17] definitive things because of the

[3:01:19] provincial

[3:01:23] legislation that really are restrict our

[3:01:25] abilities. And I wouldn't want the

[3:01:27] residents to think, "Great, the

[3:01:29] municipality now has this pilot program

[3:01:31] and that's going to help me out." Only

[3:01:32] to find out at the end of the day that

[3:01:34] no, this this program wasn't geared to

[3:01:36] be able to do that because provincial

[3:01:38] legislation takes precedence. So,

[3:01:40] perhaps through you, Mr. Chair, to Mr.

[3:01:42] Ceraolo, can she just sort of expand a

[3:01:44] little bit about

[3:01:46] um you know, the provincial legislation

[3:01:47] and and talk a little bit perhaps about

[3:01:49] some of the things that this program

[3:01:51] wouldn't be able to do?

[3:01:54] Mr. Ceraolo?

[3:01:56] Through you, Mr. Chair. I actually think

[3:01:57] the best person to have that response

[3:02:00] would be Alex, Mr.

[3:02:02] Mr. Ray.

[3:02:05] Thank you. Uh through you, Mr. Chair. Uh

[3:02:07] so, the the legislation from the

[3:02:10] province right now, there's draft

[3:02:12] legislation that could potentially deal

[3:02:14] with this uh in the future.

[3:02:16] Uh it has not received assent, and it

[3:02:18] has not currently gone through Queen's

[3:02:20] Park for royal assent. So,

[3:02:23] um based on the current provisions of

[3:02:24] the Residential Tenancies Act,

[3:02:26] um if a tenant is served with a notice

[3:02:29] uh for the purpose of eviction for

[3:02:31] renovation,

[3:02:33] um they would essentially end up before

[3:02:34] the Landlord Tenant Tribunal. Uh that

[3:02:37] process does exist right now. Uh the

[3:02:40] tenants often face significant delay at

[3:02:42] the tribunal.

[3:02:44] Um so, in speaking with Councillor Weir

[3:02:46] and trying to work through this motion,

[3:02:49] uh the thought process was is that the

[3:02:51] individual uh being requested as part of

[3:02:53] the motion

[3:02:54] uh would help liaise tenants

[3:02:58] uh to the appropriate processes, be it

[3:03:00] uh pro bono legal aid systems or

[3:03:03] ensuring that proper building permits

[3:03:04] are obtained uh in necessary cases of uh

[3:03:08] significant renovation, um and to advise

[3:03:11] them of places where they can uh connect

[3:03:14] with uh to ensure that their legal

[3:03:16] rights are are sort of being adhered to,

[3:03:19] um while also trying to strike a balance

[3:03:21] that this person will not be providing

[3:03:22] legal advice,

[3:03:23] um and in essence is almost aiding in

[3:03:26] navigating the um

[3:03:29] the system as a whole.

[3:03:33] » Thank you, Councillor.

[3:03:34] » Right.

[3:03:35] You know, thank you, and that helps to

[3:03:37] some degree, but I think I still I think

[3:03:38] there's still many other questions I and

[3:03:41] maybe others have around the table in

[3:03:42] terms of the limitations of the program.

[3:03:44] And so, I think, you know,

[3:03:46] I get we're challenged from a time

[3:03:48] perspective, you know, in terms of our

[3:03:49] our our meeting schedule and the end of

[3:03:51] the term, but um

[3:03:53] I

[3:03:54] I don't know if I'm comfortable

[3:03:55] implementing the program as opposed to,

[3:03:58] you know, getting something back in a

[3:03:59] little bit more detail to describe what

[3:04:01] that support pilot program looks like

[3:04:03] and address some of these questions.

[3:04:05] Thank you.

[3:04:08] » Thank you, Councillor Thompson.

[3:04:10] Councillor Weese, for a second time.

[3:04:14] » Yeah, thanks. And I appreciate the

[3:04:16] comments that are being made around the

[3:04:18] table.

[3:04:20] Um the

[3:04:22] purpose of this is

[3:04:23] » Uh I think I think you're still on mute,

[3:04:25] Councillor Weese.

[3:04:27] » Sorry.

[3:04:29] There we go.

[3:04:31] Uh as I said, I appreciate the comments

[3:04:33] that are being made around the table,

[3:04:35] and I know everybody would like to have

[3:04:36] assurances that this is going to work

[3:04:40] » [clears throat]

[3:04:40] » And that we're going to

[3:04:42] uh be able to save money and we're all

[3:04:45] the rest of the things that all of the

[3:04:47] other councils have have said.

[3:04:49] Um this isn't new. It's It's a pilot.

[3:04:53] Um the province has been wrestling with

[3:04:56] this for 2 years now, and they've not

[3:04:59] brought forth

[3:05:01] anything that would be helpful

[3:05:04] when people are being evicted for

[3:05:06] renovation purposes. And in fact, when

[3:05:08] they go to the LTB, um the the term

[3:05:12] renovation doesn't even come up. The

[3:05:15] issue is that they are being evicted,

[3:05:18] and is it a

[3:05:20] the uh eviction because the landlord

[3:05:24] wishes to improve their property,

[3:05:27] and they have a right to do that.

[3:05:31] What we're talking about here in a

[3:05:33] renovation by law is that they must go

[3:05:36] through a step A landlord must go

[3:05:39] through a step that says, and maybe

[3:05:41] belongs in business building code, that

[3:05:44] when they want to have a reno- they want

[3:05:47] to renovate, they have to prove that the

[3:05:49] renovation

[3:05:50] is not going to be evicting vulnerable

[3:05:53] people,

[3:05:54] and that when they come back, they're

[3:05:55] going to be offered the rent at a

[3:05:58] reasonable rate before. Because what

[3:06:01] happens is that these people are being

[3:06:04] evicted.

[3:06:06] They are given maybe three or four

[3:06:08] months. That's what the landlord tenant

[3:06:11] board talks about. Well, what is right

[3:06:14] in terms of the landlord offering them

[3:06:16] some compensation for leaving.

[3:06:18] And in many cases they're giving cash on

[3:06:20] top of it.

[3:06:22] And this is again happening in the uh

[3:06:25] places that uh Mr. Reid talked about. We

[3:06:28] really don't have one for the smaller

[3:06:32] cities, towns like ourselves.

[3:06:35] And what this is all about is to be a

[3:06:37] leader in this so that the

[3:06:40] 12,000 people that are here and again,

[3:06:43] many of them are not the vulnerable. Uh

[3:06:46] but many of them some of them are.

[3:06:50] And [clears throat] in a couple of

[3:06:51] cases, these are elderly people who've

[3:06:53] been living in an apartment for maybe 10

[3:06:55] years, 15 years. They have very low

[3:06:58] rental rates.

[3:06:59] If they are asked to move, they're out

[3:07:02] of a home.

[3:07:03] And so all I'm asking for is some

[3:07:06] interest in trying to help people who

[3:07:09] may be facing this

[3:07:11] in the future and be a leader and not a

[3:07:13] follower.

[3:07:15] And I think it's a time for us to do

[3:07:17] that in this community. We have very

[3:07:18] good landlords in this community.

[3:07:21] And many of the good ones are not even

[3:07:24] thinking in this way. But some of them

[3:07:26] maybe are thinking about changing

[3:07:29] and they're not worried they're not so

[3:07:31] worried about the effect on the tenants.

[3:07:33] And that's our job. I think we're a

[3:07:35] legislative body here. We're we should

[3:07:38] be here trying to make

[3:07:40] uh

[3:07:41] bylaws that help our

[3:07:44] um rental stock,

[3:07:46] our affordable rental stock and the

[3:07:48] people who live in them.

[3:07:57] » Any comments to wait?

[3:08:00] Anyone else with comments or questions

[3:08:02] on this?

[3:08:07] Councillor Gardner, are you raising your

[3:08:08] hands?

[3:08:11] » Um, you talking to me?

[3:08:13] » Yes, I thought you were raising your

[3:08:15] hands because you wanted to speak.

[3:08:16] » I was um when somebody's speaking in the

[3:08:19] council chamber I have to take the

[3:08:20] volume down or I get

[3:08:22] a double blast. Um no, I wasn't going

[3:08:25] to, but I but I will take the

[3:08:27] opportunity to support Councillor Wesses

[3:08:31] um

[3:08:32] argument. I think it's valid.

[3:08:35] I think it

[3:08:37] shows we care about all of our residents

[3:08:41] and um

[3:08:43] I just think it's the right thing to do.

[3:08:47] Thank you.

[3:08:49] » Councillor Gardner, Councillor Gardner,

[3:08:51] is your hand up from the last time or is

[3:08:53] this a new

[3:08:55] Okay.

[3:08:57] You have the floor, Councillor Gardner.

[3:09:03] » Thank you. I mean, I'd like to see the

[3:09:05] amendment up on the screen actually.

[3:09:07] Um

[3:09:11] I I hear there's some language that's

[3:09:12] being said like we were you know caring

[3:09:14] for our town and caring for Aurora and

[3:09:16] like but by all means my comments are

[3:09:18] not at all

[3:09:20] saying we don't we're really we're not

[3:09:21] caring for our residents, but I am

[3:09:23] concerned that we're putting the cart

[3:09:25] before the horse. I don't know what this

[3:09:26] policy looks like. Uh Councillor Wesses

[3:09:29] had stated some very specific things

[3:09:32] that would be implemented in this

[3:09:34] policy. They were the objective of what

[3:09:36] the the specific things in that policy.

[3:09:39] Typically, you know, we would get a

[3:09:40] policy, we would look at it, review it,

[3:09:42] and we would decide whether or not it's

[3:09:43] something we want to support within in

[3:09:45] our town and and uh make that bylaw

[3:09:48] happen. But, right now, it's the way

[3:09:50] it's worded in this this motion is that

[3:09:52] we're just implementing it um without

[3:09:54] really understanding the nuances and

[3:09:56] what those consequences are. And I

[3:09:59] I want to support this, but I don't I

[3:10:01] it's it's the language for me has got to

[3:10:02] change. I think there's got to be some

[3:10:04] reporting back what the policy would

[3:10:06] look like and what that would and how

[3:10:08] that would would work in in Aurora

[3:10:11] in for a small town. But, to go

[3:10:13] arbitrarily just implement it with a

[3:10:15] broad stroke and start hiring people,

[3:10:17] I'm I just think it's too soon, too fast

[3:10:20] without knowing what we're actually

[3:10:22] approving.

[3:10:23] I I think we've spent more time going in

[3:10:25] the weeds of a fence bylaw and changing

[3:10:28] some housekeeping words. And uh you

[3:10:31] know, this is a really big bylaw that

[3:10:33] we're considering today. And I feel that

[3:10:37] I need to have a little more

[3:10:37] information, Councillor Wilson. I'm

[3:10:39] sorry. I know you brought this thing

[3:10:40] forward, you worked hard on it, and I

[3:10:42] think it's

[3:10:43] it's a great initiative, but I

[3:10:46] I still would need uh for me, I need a

[3:10:48] little bit more information as to

[3:10:50] uh what it actually means that we would

[3:10:52] be doing in that consequence

[3:10:54] on both sides of the spectrum.

[3:10:56] Um if you're willing to change some of

[3:10:58] that language that would uh afford staff

[3:11:01] to come back

[3:11:03] and let us know what the policy would

[3:11:05] look like if we were interested in doing

[3:11:07] that, then, you know, I would be in

[3:11:09] favor of that. But, I can't

[3:11:11] I in this particular time in my position

[3:11:14] would be I wouldn't want to be

[3:11:15] implementing, and I wouldn't want to be

[3:11:16] hiring staff.

[3:11:22] » Thank you. Thank you, Councillor

[3:11:24] Gilliland.

[3:11:26] You know, in reading the amendments, I

[3:11:27] know that the amendment is well

[3:11:29] intended. Um there's certainly an

[3:11:32] immediate immediate need in the one

[3:11:34] location, but the amendment doesn't have

[3:11:38] sufficient language that gives me

[3:11:39] confidence that it's going to do

[3:11:42] uh what [snorts] it was meant to do.

[3:11:44] So, I know there's um

[3:11:49] I'm

[3:11:50] sensitivity to this, but the way it's

[3:11:52] worded, I'm not sure that I can uh

[3:11:54] confidently

[3:11:56] be in support of this uh as it is.

[3:12:01] Any other

[3:12:04] comments or questions for the first or

[3:12:06] second time?

[3:12:12] Okay.

[3:12:13] I'll follow the votes on the amendments.

[3:12:18] And e-scribe, please.

[3:12:36] And here it is, it's been defeated.

[3:12:39] Back to the main motion.

[3:12:42] Any comments or questions to the main

[3:12:43] motion?

[3:12:53] Okay, seeing no

[3:12:59] raising of hands,

[3:13:02] I'll put the vote on the main motion.

[3:13:04] E-scribe.

[3:13:26] And

[3:13:28] that carries.

[3:13:35] Next item is

[3:13:38] item 8.4.2.

[3:13:41] I believe Councillor Gallo that was

[3:13:44] your poll. Would you like to move it?

[3:13:48] » I do and I have a amendment as well.

[3:13:52] » Okay,

[3:13:53] someone like to second it?

[3:13:57] Councillor Thompson

[3:14:00] Go ahead Councillor Gallo.

[3:14:02] » Thank you.

[3:14:03] It's related to the cannabis retail

[3:14:07] review task force.

[3:14:10] That

[3:14:12] the amendment is as staff has it. I'll

[3:14:14] read it as well. The council directs

[3:14:16] staff to conduct a survey of residents

[3:14:19] and businesses located within a

[3:14:21] specified distance of licensed cannabis

[3:14:24] retail stores in Aurora and provide the

[3:14:27] results to the cannabis retail

[3:14:29] review task force prior to its meeting.

[3:14:35] Basically, the the

[3:14:38] committee

[3:14:39] task force

[3:14:40] wanted this type of information and as

[3:14:45] it cannot direct staff

[3:14:48] that's why this is here tonight.

[3:15:02] » If I may Councillor Gallo,

[3:15:04] what is the survey about? It just

[3:15:06] states to conduct a survey.

[3:15:11] » Direct It's directing staff

[3:15:14] to conduct that survey and

[3:15:18] provide the results to the task force.

[3:15:23] » I'll have a second here, please.

[3:15:27] Councillor Gillman

[3:15:29] Are there questions to the amendment?

[3:15:39] Okay. No comments or questions on the

[3:15:42] amendment.

[3:15:43] Follow the votes.

[3:15:44] » See Council Reese.

[3:15:48] » Okay, sorry. Council Reese, go ahead,

[3:15:50] please.

[3:15:51] » Yes, thank you.

[3:15:53] And I'm

[3:15:54] with the task force with the Council

[3:15:56] Gallo.

[3:15:58] And uh provide some

[3:16:00] additional information on this.

[3:16:02] Uh when we did the original survey, it

[3:16:05] was spread out

[3:16:06] uh around town.

[3:16:08] And there really wasn't very much in the

[3:16:11] uh survey that was beneficial in making

[3:16:14] decisions about uh what to do on the

[3:16:16] task force.

[3:16:17] So, this is

[3:16:19] to identify [clears throat] the location

[3:16:21] around the particular areas that we have

[3:16:24] where the um retail outlets are

[3:16:28] uh to see whether the residents and the

[3:16:31] businesses around there have better and

[3:16:34] more accurate information.

[3:16:37] I don't think this is a any different

[3:16:39] survey or much different survey than the

[3:16:41] previous one was. It's not going to take

[3:16:44] an awful lot of time for them to do

[3:16:46] this, uh but they felt that they didn't

[3:16:48] have

[3:16:49] uh a targeted

[3:16:51] uh sample and they needed a better

[3:16:53] sample to bring back uh because the

[3:16:56] original sample just wasn't in and

[3:16:59] wasn't uh valid in their opinion.

[3:17:03] So, I think this is the right thing to

[3:17:05] do in order to get the adequate

[3:17:08] information that we need for the task

[3:17:11] force to be able to hone in on the

[3:17:13] things that need to be done.

[3:17:15] Uh what we we found was that in many

[3:17:18] cases there weren't very many

[3:17:20] objections, but in some cases there were

[3:17:22] very high amounts of

[3:17:24] of objections. And we just want to be

[3:17:26] able to parse those out by a survey. We

[3:17:29] don't have the data, we can't make the

[3:17:31] decision very well.

[3:17:38] » Thanks, Councillor Weese. Um

[3:17:42] If there's

[3:17:43] no one else to comment on the amendment,

[3:17:46] I'll go back to John again.

[3:17:47] Uh

[3:17:48] Councillor Gallo.

[3:17:49] » I just just to quickly we confirmed with

[3:17:52] um

[3:17:53] uh communications department that

[3:17:55] they're have the ability to conduct a

[3:17:57] survey prior to the next meeting of the

[3:18:01] task force.

[3:18:05] » Uh

[3:18:06] I'll take that on the

[3:18:08] list, Smith.

[3:18:16] Are we here or can someone on staff

[3:18:19] address Charlie?

[3:18:20] » Yeah, through through your Councillor

[3:18:21] Kim to

[3:18:22] Councillors Gallo and Weese.

[3:18:24] Um yeah, we can definitely conduct a

[3:18:25] survey. I think I'll touch base with

[3:18:26] both of you to understand a bit more

[3:18:28] about what that specified distance is

[3:18:30] that you're looking at around the

[3:18:32] cannabis retail stores.

[3:18:33] But we can definitely

[3:18:35] do a conduct a survey for you.

[3:18:40] » Councillor Gallo.

[3:18:45] » Great.

[3:18:51] » Any other comments or questions on the

[3:18:53] amendment?

[3:18:56] Okay, so we'll call the vote.

[3:19:08] It carries. [clears throat]

[3:19:10] Go back to the main motion. Any comments

[3:19:12] or questions on the main motion?

[3:19:16] » I did have a

[3:19:18] another comment.

[3:19:20] » Councillor Gallo.

[3:19:22] » The

[3:19:24] other side to a at the July cycle be

[3:19:27] canceled. I have a proposed motion that

[3:19:30] will be

[3:19:31] asking support in new business

[3:19:35] that speaks to an additional

[3:19:37] special meeting in July should it be

[3:19:40] approved.

[3:19:41] I'm fine with this. Obviously we can we

[3:19:43] can add meetings if if we need

[3:19:46] the necessity.

[3:19:48] This is a schedule meeting but

[3:19:50] I'm

[3:19:53] looking in my motion with receipt

[3:19:55] to add a special meeting in July.

[3:20:04] » So are you asking that we're going to

[3:20:07] want to put that on new business?

[3:20:12] » Yes, that's right.

[3:20:14] I emailed the copy of it to you.

[3:20:17] » Okay.

[3:20:19] As Council Miguel,

[3:20:21] okay, call the vote on the main motion.

[3:20:28] » Sorry, can we put up what we're voting

[3:20:30] on so I'm a little confused here. A lot

[3:20:32] of echoing going on.

[3:20:35] » Madam Clerk, can you put up the main

[3:20:37] motion, please?

[3:20:47] » Okay.

[3:20:48] I I we were just talking about something

[3:20:50] else that it wasn't related to this.

[3:20:52] Okay.

[3:21:00] Let's see, man.

[3:21:12] How can we get there?

[3:21:45] » So the scribe?

[3:21:46] » Yeah, it's there.

[3:21:48] » Are we just Okay, we're voting?

[3:21:52] » Yes.

[3:22:14] » Awaiting Councillor Weese.

[3:22:23] » Councillor Harris.

[3:22:26] Uh before we go to the next item, can I

[3:22:29] have a motion to extend? It's uh 10:26.

[3:22:32] I I suspect we're going to be going on

[3:22:35] until at least 11 as we have

[3:22:38] other five items.

[3:22:43] Okay, Councillor Thompson, seconded by

[3:22:46] Councillor Weese.

[3:22:49] All the votes, I guess that needs to be

[3:22:50] done on eScribe.

[3:22:56] » Or you could do it through a show of

[3:22:58] hands.

[3:22:59] » I just

[3:23:00] show of hands uh

[3:23:01] to extend this meeting for another 30

[3:23:03] minutes.

[3:23:07] Okay, that passes.

[3:23:12] Next item is

[3:23:13] item 8.5.1.

[3:23:16] Councillor Gallo, I believe that is

[3:23:17] yours. Would you like to move it?

[3:23:21] » It's mine.

[3:23:23] » Sorry. Okay.

[3:23:25] Councillor Gardner.

[3:23:27] A seconder?

[3:23:32] Councillor Thompson.

[3:23:34] Go ahead, Councillor Gardner.

[3:23:35] » Thank you. We We talked about this uh

[3:23:38] at the Committee of the Whole about the

[3:23:41] reporting process.

[3:23:43] And

[3:23:44] uh I thought that it was agreed that

[3:23:49] reports from conferences

[3:23:52] um

[3:23:53] would be done within the next council

[3:23:57] cycle.

[3:23:59] Because [clears throat] we want the

[3:24:00] information brought to us to be

[3:24:02] uh as um

[3:24:05] helpful as possible, as pertinent as

[3:24:07] possible. And uh

[3:24:09] I believe that

[3:24:10] the council cycle

[3:24:12] following the conference or

[3:24:16] event attended.

[3:24:23] » Yeah. Let me add that.

[3:24:26] » Yes.

[3:24:27] » Perfect.

[3:24:30] » It's just a the memo would be

[3:24:36] » Councillor Gardner, with the wording of

[3:24:37] that.

[3:24:39] And maybe put it up.

[3:24:42] » It should just be in the next cyc- in

[3:24:44] the next council cycle.

[3:24:48] The third bullet.

[3:24:59] » I I I'd like to know what it already

[3:25:01] was, cuz I thought that's what it was.

[3:25:03] Sorry, Chair. But I

[3:25:05] It

[3:25:06] It says um

[3:25:08] in the town's semi-annual reporting of

[3:25:12] your remuneration and expenses for

[3:25:14] members of council.

[3:25:17] Like it it

[3:25:19] it has nothing to do with that.

[3:25:22] And the information should be as current

[3:25:24] as possible. Why should we

[3:25:26] expect it on a semi-annual basis

[3:25:29] when it may not even be relevant

[3:25:31] anymore?

[3:25:41] » Mr. Chair, if I could jump in.

[3:25:44] » Sure, please do.

[3:25:46] » And Julia, can you please stop sharing

[3:25:49] your screen?

[3:25:52] The motion from the committee of the

[3:25:54] whole includes

[3:25:56] a report back framework which requires

[3:26:00] the member to report back at the next

[3:26:03] council meeting. Is that Is that

[3:26:06] included in the motion that's presented

[3:26:09] to council tonight? Is your intention to

[3:26:13] change that or

[3:26:17] » This is the June 2nd report.

[3:26:22] I'm looking at the June 2nd report. It's

[3:26:25] 8.5.1

[3:26:28] and clause 3 is still the clause that

[3:26:32] was presented at committee of the whole.

[3:26:37] So I So just just I I amendment to

[3:26:41] make it

[3:26:43] at the next

[3:26:45] The report back would be during the next

[3:26:49] council cycle.

[3:26:54] » Yes, and what we can do is present the

[3:26:56] motion on the screen for you to read out

[3:26:59] before you vote on it.

[3:27:03] » Thank you. I thought that's what we

[3:27:05] decided last time.

[3:27:08] Last meeting.

[3:27:19] Um it um I

[3:27:22] Councilor Kim pointed out, I believe, at

[3:27:24] the Committee of the Whole

[3:27:26] um

[3:27:28] the next Council cycle.

[3:27:31] So, during that

[3:27:34] Does that I don't think that's the same

[3:27:36] as Council meeting.

[3:27:39] If it is, I'm fine with it.

[3:27:47] » Yeah, I believe that's the intention is

[3:27:48] next next cycle will be the Council

[3:27:51] meeting.

[3:27:51] » Okay.

[3:27:53] That's great. Thank you.

[3:27:59] » Okay, so call the vote for any questions

[3:28:02] or further comments on the amendment.

[3:28:06] Okay, I see that uh

[3:28:09] this live voting is on, so I'll call the

[3:28:11] vote.

[3:28:27] Okay, that passes.

[3:28:29] Going back to the main motion.

[3:28:32] Any comments or questions on the main

[3:28:33] motion?

[3:28:39] » I thought that was the main motion.

[3:28:40] » Yeah, I thought that was the main

[3:28:42] motion. I thought that was the

[3:28:45] » No, that was the main motion.

[3:28:47] » Oh, okay. I thought the uh

[3:28:49] » There was no amendment.

[3:28:51] » Okay.

[3:28:56] Move to the next item then.

[3:28:59] 8.5.2

[3:29:01] » Thank you. It's mine.

[3:29:03] » Yes, Councillor Gardner.

[3:29:04] » I just wanted to

[3:29:06] » Actually, before you do that,

[3:29:08] you'll move that?

[3:29:09] » I move that.

[3:29:11] » Okay, a second it, please.

[3:29:14] Councillor Weese, thank you.

[3:29:16] Go ahead, Councillor Gardner Councillor

[3:29:17] Gardner.

[3:29:18] » I just wanted to publicly thank

[3:29:20] Councillor Weese for

[3:29:22] um

[3:29:24] understanding the concern of the uh

[3:29:27] St. Andrew's Village

[3:29:29] um

[3:29:31] residents and businesses and uh

[3:29:34] and and acting on it and uh

[3:29:38] it's pretty fast for council procedure.

[3:29:41] So, thank you, Councillor Weese.

[3:29:44] That's all I have.

[3:29:49] » Any other comments or questions?

[3:29:53] Okay, I'll call the vote.

[3:30:23] That passes.

[3:30:28] Next item.

[3:30:30] 8.8.1

[3:30:33] » It's mine.

[3:30:36] » Go ahead, Councillor

[3:30:37] you'll move it, 8.8.1?

[3:30:39] » Yeah, yes. Uh no, sorry, no.

[3:30:43] » Oh, will anyone move it?

[3:30:48] Councillor Gillan

[3:30:49] Seconded by Councillor Gallo.

[3:30:52] Uh go ahead, Councillor Gardner.

[3:30:55] » Uh I just wanted on the record on a

[3:30:57] recorded vote that I do not support this

[3:31:01] simply for the reason

[3:31:03] that there is no record, and I tried

[3:31:07] very hard to find it. There is no record

[3:31:10] that your Georgian Council ever changed

[3:31:13] this land from employment to

[3:31:15] residential.

[3:31:17] So, I am going to vote

[3:31:19] one puts that on the record, and just

[3:31:22] have to vote on it.

[3:31:27] » You have other comments?

[3:31:29] Sir, go ahead, Councillor Gardner.

[3:31:31] » We just we're talking about the

[3:31:33] development at at Leslie and Wellington

[3:31:37] on the corner.

[3:31:38] That land was employment, and I don't

[3:31:42] believe it was ever changed to

[3:31:43] residential.

[3:31:46] So, uh just like a recorded vote on that

[3:31:49] so I can

[3:31:50] express my opposition.

[3:31:56] » Anyone else for comments?

[3:32:07] So, I'll call the vote.

[3:32:10] Madam Clerk, uh

[3:32:12] Councillor Gardner wanted a recorded

[3:32:14] vote.

[3:32:16] » Oh.

[3:32:17] Well,

[3:32:20] it

[3:32:22] It will be on the record if we vote for

[3:32:25] East Gwillimbury.

[3:32:28] » It still will.

[3:32:29] » Yes.

[3:32:36] » Councillor Wice.

[3:32:40] Go ahead, Councillor Gardner.

[3:32:41] » Um I spoke to this at Committee of the

[3:32:44] Whole

[3:32:45] um

[3:32:46] because of the layout of the street,

[3:32:49] since then I've spoken to our traffic

[3:32:52] analyst for planning

[3:32:54] and there is a very large business park

[3:32:58] called Allure Gardens

[3:33:00] that goes

[3:33:02] um

[3:33:04] from the curve almost up to Edward

[3:33:08] and they don't own the land

[3:33:12] onto Edward, so it means that

[3:33:15] unless they purchase that land that all

[3:33:18] of the traffic, the trucks, everything

[3:33:22] will be coming out onto Allura

[3:33:24] and add that to the traffic from the

[3:33:27] subdivision and from the plaza and I

[3:33:30] think it's a real safety issue, so

[3:33:33] um

[3:33:35] I would like

[3:33:37] I would like the vote calls. I'd like to

[3:33:39] vote against it.

[3:33:55] Uh, this is uh

[3:33:57] exactly at 1620 and 22

[3:34:03] Allura

[3:34:05] which is just on the curve of Allura.

[3:34:20] » You're on mute, Councillor.

[3:34:22] » Yeah.

[3:34:24] » Sorry. Uh, so we'll call the vote if

[3:34:26] there's no other comments or questions.

[3:34:49] » That carries.

[3:34:54] The last item is

[3:34:58] 8.8.

[3:34:59] 4. I believe that's uh Councillor

[3:35:01] Thompson.

[3:35:03] Would you like to move that, Councillor

[3:35:05] Thompson?

[3:35:06] » That's fine.

[3:35:08] » Okay. Councillor Thompson.

[3:35:12] Councillor Gillan.

[3:35:13] Go ahead, Councillor Thompson.

[3:35:16] » Uh

[3:35:17] thank you. Um through you to to Mr.

[3:35:19] Ramuno. Mr. Ramuno, with regards to the

[3:35:22] allocation for this property,

[3:35:24] um you know, we've talked in the past

[3:35:26] about uh we have a limited supply and

[3:35:29] that concept of that it really should be

[3:35:31] allocated on a first come, first served

[3:35:32] basis. Is there a way to apply a a

[3:35:35] sunset clause, or I think we already do

[3:35:38] that, but um a way to shorten the time

[3:35:40] frame sunset clause to say maybe 18 or

[3:35:43] 24 months, just to ensure that um if

[3:35:47] they are not shovels ready, then we're

[3:35:50] not tying up any allocation and it can

[3:35:51] be utilized for other projects that may

[3:35:54] be

[3:35:56] » Mr. Ramuno.

[3:35:59] » Sorry, through you, Mr. Chair. Uh we can

[3:36:01] do that. Um

[3:36:03] that's council's wish. Uh we have the

[3:36:04] implementing bylaws

[3:36:06] uh for this uh

[3:36:08] uh 14070

[3:36:11] Young Street, the implementing zoning

[3:36:13] bylaw um

[3:36:15] on council this evening. So, if you

[3:36:17] wanted to uh impose a uh

[3:36:20] a sunset clause uh 2 years, we can

[3:36:22] certainly do that.

[3:36:23] Um

[3:36:24] just provide that direction, um I guess,

[3:36:27] so when we pull out those bylaws, um

[3:36:29] that change is is recorded, and we can

[3:36:32] make that change um

[3:36:34] uh tomorrow uh prior to the bylaws being

[3:36:37] signed by the uh clerk and the uh

[3:36:41] » Mr. Thompson.

[3:36:43] » Thank you. Um

[3:36:45] » [clears throat]

[3:36:45] » We have 12 bylaws on this evening. Do

[3:36:47] you know which one it is specifically?

[3:36:51] » Do you, Mr. uh

[3:36:53] Yeah, so it's if you just uh refer to

[3:36:56] the uh the address 14070

[3:36:59] Young Street.

[3:37:00] Um

[3:37:03] I'll try and

[3:37:05] Okay.

[3:37:06] » Okay, I'll get to it by the time we get

[3:37:07] to the bylaws for sure then. I just

[3:37:09] thought maybe you'd have a quick

[3:37:09] reference to it.

[3:37:10] » I'll find a number.

[3:37:11] » That's fine then then I'll pull the

[3:37:13] bylaw and then I'll put forward that

[3:37:14] amendment to shorten that sunset clause

[3:37:16] to 2 years. Um just to confirm you don't

[3:37:19] have any concerns at this time by

[3:37:20] shortening it to to the 2-year period.

[3:37:23] Through you, Mr. Chair.

[3:37:27] » Through you, Mr. Chair.

[3:37:29] I'm fine with the 2-year sunset clause,

[3:37:31] uh Councillor Thompson.

[3:37:32] » Thank you.

[3:37:36] » Councillor Gallo.

[3:37:46] Councillor Gallo, you have your hand up.

[3:37:48] » Oh, yeah. Sorry, I didn't hear you.

[3:37:50] Um yeah, I'm just trying to understand

[3:37:52] the rationale

[3:37:54] for this specific property versus all of

[3:37:58] the other ones that we've done.

[3:38:01] Uh there's probably some on the agenda

[3:38:02] tonight uh as well as last month.

[3:38:06] Uh we had the one on Leslie on the east

[3:38:09] side north of Wellington that gave a

[3:38:12] green light right away.

[3:38:14] Um how come we're picking on this one to

[3:38:16] reduce that time frame?

[3:38:20] » I'd be fine if someone would like to

[3:38:21] respond.

[3:38:22] » Sure. I I'd be fine with with making it

[3:38:25] a change in general to to a 2-year

[3:38:27] period rather than the 3-year period

[3:38:29] based on the fact that I just believe

[3:38:31] that it's first come first serve right

[3:38:33] now until our allocation situation

[3:38:35] improves. Um

[3:38:38] and quite frankly,

[3:38:40] I wasn't really sure until I talked to

[3:38:42] Mr. Romano specifically about this

[3:38:44] project. I know that in talking to him

[3:38:46] he has a lot more or he has come more

[3:38:48] confidence I would say with regards to

[3:38:50] 1289 and the fact that

[3:38:52] they are shovels ready and that he

[3:38:55] certainly feels that they will move

[3:38:56] forward quickly on the build of that.

[3:38:59] So, I guess we could impose the same

[3:39:02] restriction, but there seems to be a

[3:39:03] higher degree of confidence that it will

[3:39:05] happen within the next 2 years. This

[3:39:08] particular property I may not share that

[3:39:11] same level of confidence and so that's

[3:39:13] why I wanted to put this forward. At the

[3:39:16] end of the day, if they are shovels

[3:39:17] ready and and they're able to get

[3:39:19] building and then so be it. There's no

[3:39:21] concern, but I just don't want it to be

[3:39:23] sitting at the on the sidelines when

[3:39:25] we're dealing with issues around

[3:39:27] allocation.

[3:39:29] And if council's open to

[3:39:31] improving the sunset clause to 2 years

[3:39:34] from 3 years, I'm fine with applying it

[3:39:35] across the board.

[3:39:38] » And and through you, Mr. Chair, I I have

[3:39:41] no issues with that if we're treating

[3:39:42] everyone equally. Had we established a

[3:39:45] rule,

[3:39:46] then anyone everyone falls it falls

[3:39:50] through with it. I just

[3:39:52] um

[3:39:54] I'm not in fair favor of of

[3:39:56] cherry-picking as as we go when we've

[3:39:58] just given a few green lights to other

[3:40:00] applications.

[3:40:02] I I

[3:40:04] don't know these applicants in any

[3:40:06] intimacy any of them.

[3:40:07] I just want to implement these types of

[3:40:10] things equally

[3:40:12] to everyone.

[3:40:14] Um

[3:40:15] Just don't understand why we're starting

[3:40:16] now.

[3:40:21] » Thank you, Councillor Gallo.

[3:40:22] Councillor Gillan.

[3:40:26] » Thank you. Um, I thought that um

[3:40:30] um a good point was raised about uh

[3:40:34] adding a sunset reducing a sunset clause

[3:40:37] from one project to another that's

[3:40:39] different.

[3:40:40] And I I do think we need to be fair

[3:40:42] across the board um of how we treat

[3:40:45] everybody. It shouldn't just be one or

[3:40:47] the other. So, I kind of agree with

[3:40:49] that. And then also uh through Mr. Chair

[3:40:51] to Mr. Ramuno um

[3:40:55] obviously in today's climate and getting

[3:40:57] capital to get the funding to move

[3:40:59] forward to get the shovel in the ground

[3:41:00] is going to vary from time to time.

[3:41:02] Are there

[3:41:03] Is there are there a lot of other

[3:41:05] municipalities right now that have made

[3:41:07] that change from three to two years? I'm

[3:41:08] not saying I

[3:41:09] I wouldn't consider it, um but I I just

[3:41:12] kind of wanted to know what your opinion

[3:41:13] was on that

[3:41:15] right now. Um I'm not saying I'm going

[3:41:17] to be in favor of the uh amendment, but

[3:41:20] I wanted to have your input.

[3:41:23] » Mr. Ramuno.

[3:41:25] » And through

[3:41:27] to Mr. Chair. So, I think I believe

[3:41:29] we're still one of the first

[3:41:30] municipalities in post sunset clauses. I

[3:41:32] know

[3:41:33] there are other municipalities who are

[3:41:35] aware of what we are doing here, what

[3:41:36] council is doing with respect to sunset

[3:41:39] sunset clauses. I'm just not sure how

[3:41:41] many have actually followed through in

[3:41:43] imposing them. Um

[3:41:46] Again, with respect to uh Councillor uh

[3:41:49] Thompson's request, and that bylaw

[3:41:51] number is 12.7.

[3:41:53] Um

[3:41:55] I you know, I think this applicant is

[3:41:57] also anxious to get moving, but

[3:41:59] you know, with respect to that, this

[3:42:01] application on Young Street, it has been

[3:42:03] sitting around for years, probably more

[3:42:05] than a decade with some allocation. So,

[3:42:08] it is one of those applications that has

[3:42:10] approvals dating back years and has been

[3:42:12] banking on allocation the first portion

[3:42:15] of allocation. But again, I'll take

[3:42:17] direction from council. Um if you want

[3:42:19] to do lower the sunset clause to two

[3:42:21] years for only this one applicant or

[3:42:24] right across the board moving forward.

[3:42:30] » Councillor Gallant.

[3:42:32] » Thank you. Um okay, I I understand and I

[3:42:35] haven't really

[3:42:36] looked at this

[3:42:38] history of this property. Um although it

[3:42:40] sounds like you're confident they're

[3:42:41] going to go forward, but again like I

[3:42:44] I just don't feel like we should just be

[3:42:46] uh

[3:42:46] um cherry-picking. I I'm glad that we

[3:42:49] have a sunset clause and in fact I think

[3:42:52] it's Councillor Thompson's idea to put a

[3:42:54] um a sunset clause if I'm not mistaken.

[3:42:57] Um

[3:42:58] but I just I just feel like I don't want

[3:43:00] to be pinpointing somebody out tonight

[3:43:02] just for the sake of

[3:43:03] pinpointing somebody and if we want to

[3:43:05] look at shortening then shortening that

[3:43:07] term, then we should look at that and

[3:43:09] what that effect or consequence of that

[3:43:11] could be. I think we all know what the

[3:43:13] intent of it is.

[3:43:14] Um but I know having talked to some

[3:43:16] industry too that sometimes uh the

[3:43:18] capital of the market might dictate and

[3:43:21] I certainly wouldn't want to

[3:43:23] be too harsh with the going from three

[3:43:25] to two on a broad stroke and I think

[3:43:27] that would require a separate motion

[3:43:28] anyway if we were going to make that

[3:43:30] change. So

[3:43:31] um

[3:43:33] I where I stand on this particular one,

[3:43:35] I I prefer not to cherry-pick.

[3:43:42] » Any further comments?

[3:43:46] » Okay, I'll call the vote, please.

[3:43:52] » Is this on an amendment or no amendment?

[3:43:55] Mr. Chair.

[3:43:56] » There is no amendments. Uh we're going

[3:43:58] to poll the particular bylaw.

[3:44:25] » Do the passes.

[3:44:27] We've got some new business. Um

[3:44:30] » Um

[3:44:31] » I believe

[3:44:33] our CEO has

[3:44:37] » Sorry, we have item nines. Do we not Do

[3:44:40] we not have consideration of items

[3:44:42] requiring discussion in section nine?

[3:44:44] Still?

[3:44:44] » 9.4

[3:44:47] » I have one, two, three.

[3:44:49] » Oh.

[3:44:50] » [laughter]

[3:45:00] » I I pulled 9.4, I think. Do we pulled

[3:45:03] all the others?

[3:45:05] » Do we Sorry, I didn't see that.

[3:45:07] 9.4?

[3:45:09] » I I I don't know if anybody pulled 9.1,

[3:45:12] two, three.

[3:45:16] » We were never asked to pull nines, so.

[3:45:19] » Oh, we were never asked to pull nines.

[3:45:24] » Yes, that's

[3:45:25] my fault then.

[3:45:27] Was there anyone anything that anyone

[3:45:28] wanted to pull in section nine?

[3:45:32] » 9.1 and 9.2 just for a vote from

[3:45:35] » And 9.4 for a comment.

[3:45:39] » Okay.

[3:45:42] Good.

[3:45:43] 9.1

[3:45:44] How's it going, you all want it?

[3:45:50] » I won't be supporting it, so.

[3:45:52] » Okay. Can I have a mover for 9.1,

[3:45:54] please?

[3:45:56] Councilor Gilman?

[3:46:08] Okay. Councilor Thompson?

[3:46:11] Go ahead, Councilor Gallo.

[3:46:14] » No comments,

[3:46:14] » To the vote.

[3:46:16] » Okay, so we'll call the vote.

[3:46:18] » Can you put the motion on the floor on

[3:46:19] the uh screen?

[3:46:22] » Madam Clerk, if you can put it on the

[3:46:24] screen, please.

[3:46:27] » Yes, we're working on that right now and

[3:46:29] we're going to put 9.1 and 9.2 together.

[3:46:32] » Yeah, I was going to say that. We're

[3:46:34] working on that.

[3:46:36] » Thank you.

[3:47:31] Is that it to

[3:47:33] Madam

[3:47:34] Clerk?

[3:47:36] » Yes, that's correct.

[3:47:38] » Okay.

[3:47:43] If there's no questions on the wording,

[3:47:44] I'll call the vote.

[3:47:48] For 9.1 and 9.2.

[3:48:02] Okay, that carries.

[3:48:07] 9.4

[3:48:08] Councilor Gardner, you pulled this?

[3:48:11] Should I make a motion?

[3:48:11] » Thank you.

[3:48:13] Uh yes, I would.

[3:48:15] » Okay. Can I have a secondary, please?

[3:48:20] Councilor Gallo?

[3:48:22] Uh go ahead, Councilor Gardner.

[3:48:24] » Um

[3:48:26] I have a question on page eight.

[3:48:29] It says uh

[3:48:31] and I I agree with staff that we didn't

[3:48:33] apply for any of these projects. But it

[3:48:35] says it is important also to note that

[3:48:38] the town of Aurora's current

[3:48:41] undiscounted development charge rates

[3:48:45] remain the lowest among

[3:48:48] all municipalities

[3:48:52] within York Region.

[3:48:55] So

[3:48:56] I don't understand that.

[3:48:59] Why would Aurora

[3:49:03] remain the lowest among all the

[3:49:05] municipalities

[3:49:07] in York Region?

[3:49:10] So I I Mr. Gardner isn't here.

[3:49:14] Um so I guess then it would be

[3:49:19] Mr. Rachel Wayneright

[3:49:21] » South can uh take this question now.

[3:49:25] » So each municipality has their own

[3:49:28] individual development charge study and

[3:49:30] bylaw in place um based on the

[3:49:32] requirements for each of the towns.

[3:49:34] Uh right now uh we are one of the

[3:49:37] lowest. Georgina has a varying different

[3:49:40] number of rates. Some of them are very

[3:49:41] close to ours, but on average they're

[3:49:42] just slightly less than ours. The

[3:49:44] variability isn't too too significant.

[3:49:47] Like our for a single um

[3:49:50] single unit is 40,972.

[3:49:53] Newmarket is at 44, King at 47, a few at

[3:49:56] 49.

[3:49:58] Um there is right now uh Vaughan has a

[3:50:00] temporary reduction in their DCs to zero

[3:50:03] um, for

[3:50:05] residential, but that is only temporary

[3:50:08] in nature. But, we're still one of the

[3:50:10] lower ones in in York Region.

[3:50:13] And it's based on the needs, um, based

[3:50:15] on the DC Act and the way it's

[3:50:17] calculated.

[3:50:18] » I'm sorry, it's based on the

[3:50:21] » Development Charge Act. That's how it's

[3:50:23] calculated.

[3:50:26] » Okay, well, I think, uh,

[3:50:30] we need the money. I don't think that,

[3:50:32] uh, it's it should be, uh, a positive

[3:50:35] thing

[3:50:35] that

[3:50:37] rates remain the lowest among all the

[3:50:40] municipalities of York Region.

[3:50:42] So, uh, that's my comment.

[3:50:48] » Any other comments or questions, please?

[3:50:54] Okay, I'll call the vote.

[3:51:15] Okay, counselors,

[3:51:16] uh, we need to go to

[3:51:18] item 9.3 as this is the first time being

[3:51:20] discussed. We still need to vote on it.

[3:51:22] Um,

[3:51:23] can I have a mover for 9.3, please?

[3:51:27] Counselor Gallant,

[3:51:28] Counselor Gallant, any comments or

[3:51:30] questions on

[3:51:32] 9.3?

[3:51:37] Okay, seeing none, I'll call the vote.

[3:52:09] » And I do this.

[3:52:11] Uh

[3:52:12] We're 3 minutes to 11. I don't think

[3:52:14] we're in need of all 30 minutes, but uh

[3:52:16] can I

[3:52:18] have someone move for a

[3:52:21] an extra 30 minutes, please?

[3:52:24] Councilor Lewis.

[3:52:26] Councilor Thompson.

[3:52:27] All those in favor?

[3:52:30] Okay, that passes. So, we'll move to uh

[3:52:33] new business.

[3:52:34] Uh before we go to new business items,

[3:52:37] uh

[3:52:38] our solicitor has news on one of the

[3:52:41] investigations.

[3:52:43] Patricia.

[3:52:51] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um so, this is in

[3:52:53] regard to the animal services incident

[3:52:57] and um

[3:52:59] I'm

[3:53:00] going to provide an update. So, the town

[3:53:02] retained K9 Found- K9 Foundations based

[3:53:05] on their qualifications and expertise,

[3:53:08] and that includes K9 behavior, animal

[3:53:10] handling, animal cruelty and welfare,

[3:53:12] and animal control.

[3:53:14] The on- the investigation has been

[3:53:15] ongoing for over a month now, and the

[3:53:17] team has done a considerable amount of

[3:53:19] work. So, offer- officer interviews have

[3:53:22] been conducted, a site visit was

[3:53:23] conducted, they received a statement

[3:53:25] from a witness, and have been in touch

[3:53:27] with other witnesses and YRP to set up

[3:53:30] interviews with them. Um they also

[3:53:32] conducted a review of the equipment,

[3:53:34] which includes the fleet and the tools

[3:53:36] used, and are continuously reviewing

[3:53:38] various notes and statements, pictures,

[3:53:40] and standard operating procedures. That

[3:53:43] is where we're at with this process.

[3:53:45] » Thank you.

[3:53:47] Thanks. Thanks, Patricia.

[3:53:49] Um so, going on to new business, um I

[3:53:53] know Councillor Gallo, you had sent out

[3:53:55] a

[3:53:56] uh proposed motion. I'll just go to you

[3:53:59] first.

[3:54:06] » Very convenient report.

[3:54:10] I'll send these out

[3:54:12] later.

[3:54:14] Um I do have a proposed [clears throat]

[3:54:16] uh motion. Um I'd like to read it out

[3:54:18] and then see where where it goes, if you

[3:54:20] allow me, Mr. Chair.

[3:54:23] » Sure. Perhaps, does the clerk have it

[3:54:26] uh on the screen somewhere that she can

[3:54:28] put on so that we can follow along or

[3:54:31] » I I sent it along.

[3:54:33] I don't know if they do.

[3:54:39] » [clears throat]

[3:54:39] » They look like

[3:54:40] There we go.

[3:54:44] I'll go ahead to uh Councillor Gallo.

[3:54:47] » Uh whereas a recent animal services

[3:54:50] incident has generated significant

[3:54:51] public concern and attention with the

[3:54:53] Aurora community, and whereas residents

[3:54:55] have expressed a desire for a

[3:54:57] transparent and objective review of the

[3:54:59] circumstances surrounding the incident,

[3:55:01] and whereas public confidence in

[3:55:03] municipal operations is strengthened

[3:55:05] when matters of significant public

[3:55:06] interest are reviewed independently and

[3:55:09] transparently, and whereas council has a

[3:55:11] responsibility to ensure that policies,

[3:55:14] procedures, communication, training, and

[3:55:16] operational practices are functioning

[3:55:18] and intend and tended at the identity I

[3:55:23] Sorry.

[3:55:24] Intended and to identify opportunities

[3:55:27] for improvement where necessary. Uh now

[3:55:30] therefore be resolved that the CAO to

[3:55:32] report back to council with

[3:55:34] recommendations for one or more

[3:55:35] qualified independent third-party firms

[3:55:38] with demonstrated experience conducting

[3:55:40] investigations, operational reviews, or

[3:55:43] public sector accountability reviews

[3:55:45] involving municipalities, animal

[3:55:46] services, bylaw services, law

[3:55:48] enforcement or similar public agencies

[3:55:50] and that staff report back to council at

[3:55:53] a special council meeting to be held in

[3:55:55] July 2026 with

[3:55:57] recommendations A

[3:55:59] recommending independent third-party

[3:56:01] investigators, B

[3:56:03] the qualifications and relevant

[3:56:04] experience of the recommended firms, C

[3:56:07] the proposed scope of work, D estimated

[3:56:09] cost and timelines for completion of the

[3:56:12] review, and E recommendations regarding

[3:56:15] public release of findings subject to

[3:56:17] any applicable

[3:56:19] legal, privacy, or employment

[3:56:21] considerations, and that the proposed

[3:56:23] scope include but not limited to A a

[3:56:25] review of the facts and circumstances

[3:56:28] surrounding the incident

[3:56:30] interviews with all relevant witnesses

[3:56:32] who are willing to participate including

[3:56:33] town staff, involved parties, and

[3:56:35] members of the public who may have

[3:56:37] direct knowledge of the incident, C a

[3:56:39] review of any available video

[3:56:41] recordings, photography, reports,

[3:56:44] correspondence, statements, and other

[3:56:46] relevant evidence, D a review of

[3:56:48] applicable policies, procedures,

[3:56:50] training, communication, and operational

[3:56:52] practices

[3:56:53] in effect and at the time of the

[3:56:55] incident, and E identification of any

[3:56:58] gaps, deficiencies, and opportunities

[3:56:59] for improvement, and F recommendations

[3:57:02] if any to improve policies, procedures,

[3:57:04] training, transparency, accountability,

[3:57:06] and public confidence, and that the

[3:57:08] mayor be requested to call a special

[3:57:10] council meeting in July 2026 for the

[3:57:12] purpose of receiving and considering the

[3:57:14] staff report, and that upon receipt of

[3:57:17] the staff report council consider

[3:57:19] retaining an independent third-party

[3:57:20] investigator to conduct a review and

[3:57:23] final

[3:57:24] and review and findings back to council.

[3:57:30] » Thanks, Councillor Gallo.

[3:57:31] First,

[3:57:34] uh Madam Clerk, uh for a motion to be

[3:57:36] introduced in new business, do we need

[3:57:38] to waive procedure just to follow

[3:57:40] process?

[3:57:41] Or or do we need to determine whether

[3:57:44] uh this is one of those

[3:57:46] full some investigations that require

[3:57:48] motion in another cycle or is this

[3:57:51] um

[3:57:52] low resource

[3:57:54] submission that that we don't need to

[3:57:56] wave? Can you clarify, please?

[3:58:01] » Through you, Mr. Chair, to Council.

[3:58:03] Under Section 36 of the Procedure Bylaw,

[3:58:07] it states that uh members are

[3:58:09] discouraged from raising substantive

[3:58:11] policy matters, in particular

[3:58:13] consideration of corporate policies or

[3:58:15] bylaws.

[3:58:17] It um this motion is quite substantial

[3:58:20] in its its directive. Um and um

[3:58:26] um it

[3:58:28] I for my advice to Council is if you

[3:58:31] wish to consider this motion, I would

[3:58:33] ask that you waive the procedure bylaw

[3:58:35] for couple reasons. One, because it

[3:58:39] wasn't brought to a committee meeting.

[3:58:43] Two, because it wasn't presented on the

[3:58:46] agenda when the agenda was published.

[3:58:48] And then um

[3:58:51] Sorry, I'm forgetting my third reason.

[3:58:53] Um

[3:59:00] Uh

[3:59:02] Sorry, and for for the under Section 36

[3:59:05] where um

[3:59:07] you're raising a substantive motion uh

[3:59:10] on the fly with without Council's um

[3:59:14] without

[3:59:16] um sharing it with Council prior to the

[3:59:19] meeting or um

[3:59:21] uh

[3:59:22] presenting it as a um a notice of motion

[3:59:25] at a committee meeting.

[3:59:28] » Thanks, Madam Clerk. Um

[3:59:33] Given

[3:59:34] the news that our solicitor shared with

[3:59:37] us

[3:59:38] is it's relevant

[3:59:40] um

[3:59:41] to discuss that first before even

[3:59:45] uh contemplating whether to waive

[3:59:47] procedure and allow this motion to go

[3:59:50] through or do we discuss

[3:59:52] the solicitor's information

[3:59:55] uh only after

[3:59:57] we what you know we make a decision to

[3:59:59] waive or not?

[4:00:04] » I I think the real question is was the

[4:00:07] solicitor's input as a result of my

[4:00:09] motion or was it uh going to be provided

[4:00:12] anyway?

[4:00:18] » Madam Clerk, can you

[4:00:21] share in terms of the order of

[4:00:22] operations here um

[4:00:25] in what form can we discuss the

[4:00:27] solicitor's

[4:00:29] uh news?

[4:00:31] » You could ask the solicitor questions

[4:00:35] um based on the information that she

[4:00:38] provided.

[4:00:40] And then if you still

[4:00:42] uh wish to consider the motion from

[4:00:45] Councillor Gallo, you could waive the

[4:00:47] procedure bylaw and then if that passes,

[4:00:51] then um then the motion could be put put

[4:00:54] um

[4:00:54] placed on the table for consideration.

[4:00:59] » Okay. Um

[4:01:01] So if I may then um

[4:01:06] with solicitor, uh

[4:01:08] so based on

[4:01:09] what you've heard and read

[4:01:13] on the screen,

[4:01:14] can you advise whether

[4:01:17] uh

[4:01:17] what

[4:01:19] the investigators the current

[4:01:20] investigators are doing now,

[4:01:23] does that is that pretty well

[4:01:26] similar to what Councillor Gallo's

[4:01:28] motion is asking?

[4:01:35] » Through you, Mr. Chair. Um the scope of

[4:01:37] work that we have retained this

[4:01:39] particular

[4:01:41] um team to do is pretty much the scope

[4:01:44] of work that is outlined in Councillor

[4:01:45] Gable's motion.

[4:01:48] Um I can tell you that we did retain

[4:01:50] this

[4:01:51] investigating team in accordance with

[4:01:53] our town's procurement bylaw.

[4:01:56] We did consider a couple other options,

[4:02:00] but staff felt that this was the best

[4:02:02] option based on their qualifications and

[4:02:04] expertise. Um the

[4:02:07] in our review, they were the only firm,

[4:02:12] lack of a better word, that included

[4:02:14] canine behavior, animal handling, animal

[4:02:16] cruelty and welfare, and animal control.

[4:02:19] Given the

[4:02:21] um specific nature of the incident, we

[4:02:23] wanted somebody who was more specific to

[4:02:27] and had these types of expertise and not

[4:02:29] just a regular third-party investigator.

[4:02:32] Because they have done considerable

[4:02:34] work, if council chooses to redirect

[4:02:38] with another team, then council Sorry,

[4:02:41] the town would still have to pay

[4:02:43] um the this team that we've retained to

[4:02:48] for all the work they've done so far.

[4:02:50] And my only other concern is retaining

[4:02:53] anybody else at this stage is going to

[4:02:54] take time. We were asked

[4:02:57] not even asked, it was imperative that

[4:03:01] we chose a firm quickly, which is what

[4:03:04] we did. And if we do anything further,

[4:03:08] it will delay this process. And

[4:03:11] like the public, we are trying not to

[4:03:13] delay the process. We would also like

[4:03:15] answers quickly.

[4:03:18] » Thank you, Patricia.

[4:03:19] Um

[4:03:20] Councillor Thompson and Councillor

[4:03:21] Reese.

[4:03:24] » I'll throw you to Mr. Sario. Um

[4:03:26] Patricia, do you a best guess on when

[4:03:29] this report by the third-party

[4:03:31] investigators would be completed and and

[4:03:34] um, given to the town?

[4:03:37] » Patricia?

[4:03:39] » For you, Mr. Chair. Um,

[4:03:42] yes, the King and Foundations is

[4:03:43] committed to providing their report

[4:03:45] within a reasonable amount of time. They

[4:03:47] have suggested that they would be able

[4:03:49] to provide us with the report by the end

[4:03:51] of July.

[4:03:53] I do want to caution that

[4:03:56] we still don't know what this process is

[4:03:58] looking like. There is potential

[4:04:00] litigation.

[4:04:01] We have been advised of that. So, as we

[4:04:04] do in every potential litigation, we

[4:04:07] may not be able to disclose anything

[4:04:11] further to the public. It will

[4:04:13] we'll have to cross that bridge when we

[4:04:15] get there.

[4:04:17] But, I could disclose it to council.

[4:04:18] Sorry, I should mention that.

[4:04:21] » Mr. Thompson.

[4:04:22] Thank you.

[4:04:25] Mr. Weiss.

[4:04:27] » Yes. Um,

[4:04:30] uh, the disclosure, the public

[4:04:33] disclosure is what I'm really interested

[4:04:34] in right now because

[4:04:36] um,

[4:04:37] I think it's imperative

[4:04:39] that the public knows what is being

[4:04:42] done, particularly on the

[4:04:45] uh, independent review and all the other

[4:04:47] things that uh, Mr. Ceriallo

[4:04:50] identified here. So, having her uh,

[4:04:54] make this

[4:04:55] or a report tonight is great and I

[4:04:57] appreciate the information and others

[4:04:59] will, too. But, where does it stand

[4:05:02] right now because I see value in us

[4:05:04] coming together in a special meeting as

[4:05:06] Counselor Gallo has uh,

[4:05:08] suggested

[4:05:10] and uh, have a discussion about this.

[4:05:13] So, um,

[4:05:15] I'd really like to hear what Counselor

[4:05:17] Gallo thinks

[4:05:19] about

[4:05:20] um,

[4:05:21] Mr. Ceriallo's report and whether he

[4:05:24] thinks it's sufficient or not for the

[4:05:26] purposes

[4:05:28] of

[4:05:28] public disclosure.

[4:05:31] Through you, Mr. Gallo, and Councillor

[4:05:33] Gallo.

[4:05:34] » Okay, so can we uh

[4:05:37] just go to uh Councillor Gardner for the

[4:05:38] first time and then we'll go to uh

[4:05:40] Councillor Gallo?

[4:05:42] » Fine.

[4:05:43] I thank you very much. Uh to Mr. Serio,

[4:05:47] there's some things in this motion that

[4:05:50] uh I don't I'm not sure that are being

[4:05:53] covered uh interviews with all relevant

[4:05:56] witnesses who are willing to

[4:05:57] participate. Is is that taking place?

[4:06:03] Like you said they were

[4:06:05] three uh Mr. Chair, that they were

[4:06:07] speaking to witnesses, but

[4:06:10] um

[4:06:12] this is a a more fullsome

[4:06:14] uh

[4:06:15] description of uh which witnesses, which

[4:06:18] is

[4:06:20] everyone willing to talk

[4:06:22] to participate. So,

[4:06:24] where are we with respect to something

[4:06:27] like that?

[4:06:29] » Mr. Serio.

[4:06:31] » Through you, Mr. Chair. Um the

[4:06:33] investigating has reached out to a

[4:06:35] couple potential witnesses who would

[4:06:38] like to get legal advice prior to

[4:06:41] providing any statements.

[4:06:43] Um the investigating team has also

[4:06:47] attended the site and are going

[4:06:51] for lack of a better word, up and down

[4:06:52] the street and um knocking on doors and

[4:06:56] seeing if there are any witnesses at

[4:06:58] home who are willing to speak to them.

[4:07:00] They have been able to reach at least

[4:07:03] one person who has provided them with a

[4:07:05] statement, um but they are continuing

[4:07:08] that process.

[4:07:10] I believe that when the motion says

[4:07:12] available to speak or willing to speak,

[4:07:15] it's more in line with

[4:07:17] the witnesses cooperating with the

[4:07:19] investigation team.

[4:07:21] » And thank you. And of course anybody

[4:07:24] » Sergeant Gardner,

[4:07:26] but if we can speak if we can ask

[4:07:29] questions to Mr. Ceriale on her comments

[4:07:31] and not on the proposed motion, that'd

[4:07:34] be great. Thank you.

[4:07:36] » Um

[4:07:39] Do you Do you know if the team hired has

[4:07:43] seen any video videos of the incident?

[4:07:49] » Ms. Ceriale?

[4:07:51] » Through you.

[4:07:52] » Through you, Mr. Chair. I'm not aware if

[4:07:54] they have seen any videos yet. They are

[4:07:57] looking for videos and they will be

[4:07:59] reviewing videos if they are given

[4:08:01] videos.

[4:08:05] » Ms. Gardner.

[4:08:05] » And

[4:08:06] thank you and follow up, Mr. Chair. Will

[4:08:09] they be

[4:08:11] looking at

[4:08:13] our practices, our policies, our

[4:08:16] training of staff? That

[4:08:19] to make sure that we have a team in

[4:08:23] place that is well trained

[4:08:26] to handle any future incidents.

[4:08:31] » Ms. Ceriale.

[4:08:32] » Through you, Mr. Chair. Absolutely. They

[4:08:34] will be reviewing all of our policies

[4:08:36] and procedures, standard operating

[4:08:38] procedures, any best best practices,

[4:08:41] and they will be providing

[4:08:42] recommendations

[4:08:45] to see if there's any discrepancies or

[4:08:47] if there's any gaps.

[4:08:50] » Thank you. And um

[4:08:52] Are they going to be interviewing It's

[4:08:54] not in the motion. Are they going to be

[4:08:55] interviewing our

[4:08:57] our staff?

[4:09:00] Or is that

[4:09:03] » Through you, Mr. Chair. They've already

[4:09:04] conducted the interviews with our staff.

[4:09:06] » Okay.

[4:09:07] » Thank you very much.

[4:09:09] » Um Ms. Gardner.

[4:09:12] On uh uh

[4:09:14] our solicitors uh

[4:09:16] new comments.

[4:09:20] » Thank you. Through you to Mr. Cereal.

[4:09:23] First off,

[4:09:24] um

[4:09:25] I'm glad to hear your report. I'm just

[4:09:27] wondering whether

[4:09:28] it was going to be done anyway or was it

[4:09:30] a result of seeing my motion?

[4:09:34] Mr. Cereal.

[4:09:40] » Uh through you, Mr. Chair. It was

[4:09:45] it I was requested to do it to ask to

[4:09:47] provide an update from Councillor Kim

[4:09:49] when he

[4:09:50] gave me the uh indication right at the

[4:09:53] beginning of new business.

[4:09:56] » So, sorry. As a result of my motion?

[4:10:00] » Um

[4:10:02] through you, Mr. Chair.

[4:10:04] It was as a result of the motion.

[4:10:07] » Thank you. And I'm I'm glad cuz this is

[4:10:09] the first time we're actually speaking

[4:10:11] of this and I think we're all on the

[4:10:12] same page. What we want

[4:10:15] uh is a proper investigation, a quick

[4:10:17] investigation. I mean, taking the time

[4:10:19] if it's necessary for us to to

[4:10:22] accomplish what we're trying to

[4:10:24] uh accomplish, which is what I'm

[4:10:26] was trying to do with my motion because

[4:10:28] I just felt it was

[4:10:30] uh not moving in the direction and the

[4:10:32] pace that I felt it should and it needed

[4:10:34] some council push.

[4:10:36] Uh and maybe just the fact that it was

[4:10:37] on the agenda, pushing it

[4:10:40] um

[4:10:41] resulted in some more discussion. Um

[4:10:44] through you to

[4:10:46] Mr. Cereal. Um

[4:10:50] Do the and I I don't have the name in

[4:10:52] front of me, whoever's doing the

[4:10:54] investigating,

[4:10:55] um have they ever done this type of

[4:10:57] thing before?

[4:10:59] Mr. Cereal.

[4:11:02] » Through you, Mr. Chair. Yes, they have

[4:11:04] um conduct conducted investigations

[4:11:07] previously.

[4:11:08] Uh like I said, they have expertise in

[4:11:10] animal control. They have expertise in

[4:11:12] animal cruelty and animal welfare

[4:11:15] and animal services.

[4:11:19] » Councillor Geller.

[4:11:20] Thank you. And maybe to Councillor

[4:11:23] uh Weeses

[4:11:24] point, um

[4:11:26] maybe a special meeting or closed

[4:11:28] session if necessary

[4:11:30] to fully flush out cuz I'm sure there's

[4:11:32] some questions or some answers that may

[4:11:34] staff may not give us.

[4:11:36] That they can't right now uh in public.

[4:11:38] Um I just feel like

[4:11:40] a very strong disconnect between us and

[4:11:43] what's going on and the public. And we

[4:11:45] need to bridge those gaps.

[4:11:47] And I think

[4:11:48] we've actually gone a long way just in

[4:11:50] the last uh 15 minutes uh towards uh

[4:11:54] towards that. Um but if there's an

[4:11:56] opportunity for us to have a a thorough

[4:11:59] discussion even closed session,

[4:12:01] uh

[4:12:01] there'd be there's a lot of merit in

[4:12:03] that. Um

[4:12:05] particularly because as we all know,

[4:12:07] this is a a very sensitive issue

[4:12:11] uh for many people in our community.

[4:12:14] Uh and I and I'm not suggesting we're

[4:12:16] ignoring it and things are moving

[4:12:18] forward. I just I feel like I'm in the

[4:12:19] dark and and I don't want to be in the

[4:12:21] dark in in significant issues that are

[4:12:23] impacting our community.

[4:12:26] So, through Mr. Chair, is there an

[4:12:28] opportunity for us to have a

[4:12:29] a closed session or some type of meeting

[4:12:32] uh where we can freely discuss this

[4:12:34] issue?

[4:12:36] » Mr. Sera.

[4:12:37] » Through you, Mr. Chair, it was always

[4:12:39] staff's intention to have a meeting

[4:12:41] eventually. Um

[4:12:43] we are treating like I said, we are

[4:12:45] treating this as we have treated every

[4:12:46] other potential litigation matter. This

[4:12:49] also involves an employment matter. So,

[4:12:51] yes, we will be coming to council um

[4:12:54] eventually. It would just We're just

[4:12:57] going along with the process, ensuring

[4:12:59] that when we do come to closed session,

[4:13:01] that we had something to talk about. At

[4:13:03] this time, the investigation is ongoing,

[4:13:05] so there was really nothing to discuss.

[4:13:10] » Thank you. Um I look forward to it and

[4:13:12] um as a result of this discussion, um I

[4:13:15] don't see any merit just yet

[4:13:17] in pursuing my my motion.

[4:13:21] I'm

[4:13:22] leaving it up to staff to

[4:13:25] they're confident enough that this firm

[4:13:28] is able to do an unbiased

[4:13:31] um reporting of this incident. Uh let's

[4:13:34] see where where it goes.

[4:13:37] » Thank you, Councillor Gallo.

[4:13:39] » Thank you, uh Mr. Seria, for the uh

[4:13:42] the update. And

[4:13:44] I guess what I'm hearing is that there's

[4:13:45] no need for the proposed motion from

[4:13:48] Councillor Gallo, and if there's any

[4:13:49] gaps between now and the next cycle, I'm

[4:13:52] sure uh

[4:13:54] uh he can discuss with you and and

[4:13:55] propose something else down the road.

[4:13:58] Um for the sake of time, I'm just going

[4:14:01] to ask if anyone has any new business.

[4:14:06] Okay, Councillor Ruiz.

[4:14:09] » Um

[4:14:11] » Uh you're on mute, Councillor Ruiz.

[4:14:14] » Sorry.

[4:14:16] Uh I had a question

[4:14:19] to ask Mr. Seria.

[4:14:21] And

[4:14:23] it has to do with one item that I didn't

[4:14:25] hear in the report.

[4:14:27] Uh and that is the um activity and maybe

[4:14:31] that disclose it about what has happened

[4:14:34] with the

[4:14:36] uh the enforcement staff. Have they been

[4:14:40] uh suspended with pay, without pay?

[4:14:43] Is there anything you can disclose about

[4:14:45] that because it seems to be an item of

[4:14:47] interest, and I didn't hear it in the

[4:14:49] motion, and I didn't hear it in your

[4:14:50] report. Maybe I missed it.

[4:14:53] » Mr. Seria?

[4:14:54] » Through you, Mr. Chair, that is an

[4:14:56] employment-related matter and cannot be

[4:14:58] discussed in public.

[4:15:00] » Thank you.

[4:15:02] Councilor Gardner.

[4:15:05] » Uh thank you. I just wanted to say that

[4:15:07] I need some of the bylaws pulled

[4:15:10] separately.

[4:15:13] » It's Okay. Uh we're we're already going

[4:15:15] to pull one, so we'll certainly do that.

[4:15:17] » Thank you.

[4:15:18] » Okay. Anyone else for new business?

[4:15:23] Okay.

[4:15:26] Moving on to uh the regional report.

[4:15:29] Can I have a mover and a seconder for

[4:15:30] the item, please?

[4:15:35] Councilor Gallo.

[4:15:37] Councilor Reese.

[4:15:42] Any comments or questions?

[4:15:48] Seeing none, I'll call the vote.

[4:16:13] » Councilor Gardner, please.

[4:16:15] Thank you. I don't see it on my screen.

[4:16:17] It's a yes.

[4:16:21] » And that carries.

[4:16:23] Uh moving on to bylaws, uh 12.1 to

[4:16:26] 12.12. We're going to pull 12.7

[4:16:30] separately

[4:16:31] for Councilor Thompson. Uh Councilor

[4:16:33] Gardner, you said you want to

[4:16:35] to vote on certain bylaws separately.

[4:16:38] » Yes. I need uh

[4:16:40] 2 3 4 5 and 6 separate.

[4:16:44] » 12.2 3 4 5 and 6.

[4:16:48] » Yes, please.

[4:16:51] » Okay.

[4:16:59] So, can I have

[4:17:02] motion to move

[4:17:05] all the others that are being 12.1,

[4:17:09] 12.8, 12.9,

[4:17:11] 12.

[4:17:14] 10, 11, and 12.

[4:17:18] Can I have a mover, please?

[4:17:22] Councillor Gardner, Councillor Gillan.

[4:17:29] Any questions or comments?

[4:17:32] Okay, seeing none, I'll call the vote.

[4:18:13] » Councillor Gardner, please.

[4:18:15] Yes.

[4:18:22] » It all carries.

[4:18:24] Uh next is 12.2.

[4:18:27] Councillor Gardner, will you move that?

[4:18:30] » Uh no, this is about 1289 Wellington

[4:18:34] Street East. I can't move it.

[4:18:36] » Okay, can I have a mover?

[4:18:39] Councillor Gillan.

[4:18:44] Councillor Lewis.

[4:18:46] Comments or questions?

[4:18:51] Okay, call the vote.

[4:19:13] » I move to have Councillor Gartner.

[4:19:16] No.

[4:19:21] Do I need to make a different motion?

[4:19:23] » Okay, that carries.

[4:19:26] Next 12.3, Councillor Gartner, would you

[4:19:28] like to move that?

[4:19:29] » Um if you'd call 12.3 and 4 together,

[4:19:33] they're about the

[4:19:35] um development on Wellington 1426-1452

[4:19:40] Wellington Street East. This is the

[4:19:42] townhouse

[4:19:44] uh with all the exceptions just east of

[4:19:47] the SAR.

[4:19:49] » Okay, so we will vote on 12.3 and 12.4

[4:19:54] together.

[4:19:58] Can I have a mover?

[4:20:02] Councillor Gayland, Councillor Weese.

[4:20:05] Call Mr. Questions.

[4:20:09] Okay, we call the vote.

[4:20:26] » No.

[4:20:32] » That carries.

[4:20:34] Next 12.5.

[4:20:37] » Uh this is the

[4:20:38] » 12.5 Young Street. Councillor Gartner,

[4:20:40] would you like to move it?

[4:20:42] » No, this is the Old Young Street

[4:20:44] development.

[4:20:45] » Yes, that's right. Uh can I have a mover

[4:20:48] and a seconder, please?

[4:20:51] Council Gillman

[4:20:56] Council Gallo

[4:20:57] Comments or questions?

[4:21:01] I see none, and I'll call the vote.

[4:21:20] » My vote is no.

[4:21:27] » It carries.

[4:21:30] 12.6

[4:21:31] » That's the Lower Boulevard.

[4:21:33] That's the Lower Boulevard.

[4:21:36] » It's the Lower Boulevard.

[4:21:37] » Development on Sorry, on the Lower.

[4:21:40] » Okay, can I have a mover and a seconder,

[4:21:42] please?

[4:21:44] Council Gillman

[4:21:52] » Seconded.

[4:21:56] » Council Weiss, thank you.

[4:21:59] Comments or questions?

[4:22:03] Okay, I'll call the vote.

[4:22:20] » My vote is no, thank you.

[4:22:27] » It carries.

[4:22:28] And the final bylaw 12.7 14070 Young

[4:22:32] Street

[4:22:34] removing a holding symbol H.

[4:22:36] Uh Council Thompson.

[4:22:39] » Sure.

[4:22:39] » Do you move that?

[4:22:40] Okay. Second Counselor Gilliland.

[4:22:43] Comments or questions?

[4:22:46] » I'll make the amendment.

[4:22:49] » Yes, go ahead with the amendment.

[4:22:51] » And just to reduce the

[4:22:53] » Bring it to uh

[4:22:55] » Reduce the sunset clause from 3 years to

[4:22:57] 2.

[4:23:03] » I have a second here.

[4:23:05] Counselor Galla?

[4:23:07] No. Okay. Um

[4:23:10] Can I have a second for the

[4:23:12] amendment?

[4:23:19] I don't see a second here.

[4:23:21] » I'll second it. Counselor King.

[4:23:23] » Okay. Counselor King

[4:23:25] Gartner seconds it.

[4:23:27] Comments or questions on the amendment?

[4:23:29] 3 years to 2 years?

[4:23:34] Okay.

[4:23:36] So, on the amendments

[4:23:37] » I have my my hand up.

[4:23:40] » Counselor

[4:23:42] Galla, go ahead.

[4:23:44] » Yeah, just

[4:23:45] same as before. I don't understand the

[4:23:48] rationale for

[4:23:49] um picking this over the other. Um

[4:23:52] Counselor Gilliland has a very good

[4:23:53] point, particularly in this environment.

[4:23:56] Why would we put more

[4:23:57] uh constraints?

[4:23:59] Um if we're going to be consistent with

[4:24:01] be consistent amongst all of them.

[4:24:04] Um so, I I won't be supporting this.

[4:24:12] » Any comments?

[4:24:17] Okay.

[4:24:19] Call the vote

[4:24:20] on the amendment.

[4:24:35] » Councilor Guard?

[4:24:37] » Yes.

[4:24:43] » Okay, it's defeated.

[4:24:45] Three to three.

[4:24:51] We might need Madam Clerk we vote on the

[4:24:53] main bylaw now.

[4:24:55] » Yes.

[4:24:56] » Yes, exactly. As presented by staff.

[4:24:59] » Okay.

[4:25:00] » So, we're

[4:25:01] voting on the main bylaw as presented.

[4:25:05] Any questions or comments?

[4:25:10] Seeing none, we'll call the vote on the

[4:25:12] main bylaw.

[4:25:13] » Mover and a seconder?

[4:25:20] » Councilor Gilliam.

[4:25:23] And Councilor Ghela.

[4:25:26] Call the vote.

[4:25:32] » I'm a yes.

[4:25:41] » Councilor Weese, please.

[4:25:50] » The Carries.

[4:25:52] Confirming bylaw. They have motion for

[4:25:54] the confirming bylaw.

[4:25:58] Councilor Thompson.

[4:26:02] Councilor Gilliam.

[4:26:08] Call the vote.

[4:26:13] » I'm a yes.

[4:26:27] » It passes.

[4:26:28] » Councilor Kim, this has been a long,

[4:26:31] hard meeting.

[4:26:33] Thank you.

[4:26:34] » Last one now, so if I could have it this

[4:26:37] way, can I have a motion to adjourn?

[4:26:41] Motion to adjourn.

[4:26:42] Okay, Councilor Thompson.

[4:26:44] » Good meeting.

[4:26:45] » Councilor Dello, all those in favor?

[4:26:48] It passes. Thanks, everybody.

[4:26:51] » Thank you.

[4:26:52] » Thank you.

June 23, 2026 Council Meeting

Transcript