[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.