And just to go with Miriam's point about King Street
is the only nice entrance left in Cobrack. Really main
interest. Like do we, all this development, and I don't
think it can just take it in context with this
one development that meets traffic studies. You have four or
five new developments all along. Which are going to impact
substantially. More together than separately. And that's going to cause
pressures on the congestion. And I noted today, I was
looking at the entrances and exodus to all of the
developments and proposed developments. And they all only had one
or two. Access points onto King Street. And they're all
little fivetoms. Or communities in themselves. There's no connection to
them. So the little choice how people want to move
through their developments. And they're all going to end up
at these maybe seven and one on Brook Crowd. Entrances
and exodus. And that's going to cause immense. Congestion, I
think, especially at different times of the day. And it's
this pressure the town to widen the King Street to
four lanes. Do we want again to end up as
a King Street East as Williams Street or Elgin Street?
I think not. I never heard any justification for the
additional five stories on what I thought was one apartment,
but it looks like it's a very high concentrated, large
one building apartment. So I am the ACO disagree with
the zoning height. And again, historically these dents has always
been a residential low rise. Community starting from Darth Street
in the forties and fifties. Down to fits you shores.
All one story, one and a half stories, two -
story construction. There's never been anything higher than I can
think of in that area. So it's not that this
is a undivined, defined zone. It has its own character.
And as I say, it's, and Miriam said, or constantly
Mutan said, the only beautiful entrance left in Coburg. And
that should be, and, you know, when I think of
coming over Kingston Road Bridge, you're going to see those
towers. You can put townhouses in front of them. But
coming east or west, you will see those towers jump
out at you. And we have no problem with senior
apartments and long care. That's great. But, uh, the density
is so much. And the building that I saw today
is so massive, it makes me think of 202 Street.
And is that the kind of, and does that set
a precedent for further development along King Street. Or further
into whatever boundaries. So this is President setting as well
as to me, way over the density that we want
in this area. And I grew up in that area
and I remember it well. And, you know, we have
a school almost across from all these developments. What's the
ramifications of that? And, uh, let me see. So again,
in connection with all of these, they're going to be
pressures on taxes on roads, traffic, congestion, managing all of
this. You know, and again, commercial area. East End needs
commercial. Buildings or commercial businesses. But again, it should be
planned out in the long term. We don't want to
end up with strip malls and teeny little, again, strip
malls. All along King Street, the way you have Long
Williams Street and Division Street. And Elgin Street. You want
to ensure that that is all maintained in a way
that conforms and enhances King Street East rather than fights
it. And I think it's unfortunate, and this is probably
years ago that a service road wasn't. Made parallel to
the tracks. Because that way you would have another avenue
of motor cars to access the property. I saw studying
a lecture on the mobility of cars within their own
neighbourhoods. And they have very little choice in how they
can get in and out of that. And again, as
I say repeat. You know, it just repeats the congestion.
And, you know, how many more traffic lights will we
need. I mean, there's just so many problems, not with
this, not just with this one, which I think is
way too high. Or we as the ACO think is
too high. But all the pressures that will result from
this and all the other King Street Developments, they're following
in line within the next few years. And, uh, it's
just going to be a mess, I think. And, uh,
so we are asking that the. Council, either.
A vote against or disprove of this plan as it
stated, or that. Suspends the project until the town has
done the density and height studies that they said they
would do in the last August 16th meeting. And, uh.
I think, again, as Councillor Mutan said, this is a
very important strip of King Street. And again, it's been
said before we are at a very crucial time in
Coburg where height restrictions are not, don't seem to be
commander in the discussions of these buildings. So again, I
just would like either it turned down or deferred till
the studies on height and density occur. Thank you, Mr.
Michael. Appreciate your comments. Any questions for Mr. Michael at
this time. Seeing none, uh, Mr. Merrill passed chair back
to you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much
for your presentation. Mr. Michael. We got another submission. Mr.
Peter McLaughlin. Would you like to come up and present.
Your worship, Madam Deputy Mayor Councillors and staff. My name
is Peter McLaughlin and I reside in East Coburg. Thank
you for the opportunity to speak to Council today. Regarding
the completed application for amendments to the official plan and
zoning by law for property located at 535 and 536
John Kiefer Mahoney Court Courberg, Ontario. The subject property located
in East Village face five was part of the lands
that were subject to a draft plan of subdivision. Official
plan amendment and Zoning bylaw amendments that were approved in
the summer of 2019. That development proposal, that plan of
subdivision comprised 334 dwellings, of which 102 were proposed to
be high density in the form of two, I presume
51 unit department buildings. And the amendments allowed the apartment
buildings to be five stories each. The plan also provided
for four 10 Plex units. Including, sorry, 410 flex units
on block 60, which is the block immediately north of
where the apartment buildings were going to be built. Which
would be 40 units in total. The 10 flex units
were not planned to exceed three stories. Block 61, where
the two currently under construction apartment buildings are situated. Represents
approximately 12 percent of the total landmass of East Village
phase five development. And Block 60 represents approximately 19 percent.
Of the development Sland Mass. It's 12 percent of the
total landmass on which accommodations are built. In block 60
represents a prophecy on which residential units are located. The
apartment buildings in Block 61 being 102 units in total
represented approximately 31 percent of the total units for the
development. And block 60 with 40 units represented approximately 12
percent of the total units. That was then. What have
we now? The current application proposed the addition of 345
units. 241 retirement home units and 104 seniors departments. To
be built north of the two apartment buildings on block
60 frontending King Street. One can't separate the two blocks
as the applicant has said under this application because part
of the current application requires building on block 61. In
addition to block 60. And the reason for that is
they changed the orientation of the two apartment buildings which
originally going to be spaced well apart on block 60
and have parking in between. And they rotated it so
that everything fronts along King Street and you get this
nice mass of buildings on King Street. Anyway, um, the
total number of units in the two blocks then is
now 447 units. Which is approximately 70 percent of the
total number of units in the phase five development. Located
on just 21 percent of the total landmass of housing
units in that development. This is intensification. It's most extreme.
In 2019, Virginia and I were concerned about the proposed
intensification in the draft plan of subdivision. Among other things,
we were concerned about water flows from the subject property.
And the Introduction of high density in this, the most
easterly part of the town of Coburg. This current application
only makes the issues worse. We've heard that the stormwater
management is not a problem, but I have to tell
you, um, there's going to be even less land available
to absorb precipitation. More runoff will flow into the stormwater
management pond. And I'm going to be really surprised to
see that it's going to be the alleged feature of
phase five of the phase five development that it's supposed
to be. But from the intensification perspective, I looked back
to submissions we raised in 2019. We started our remarks
with a reminder made to the then council the decisions
made by Council have a significant and long - term
impact on the ascetics, livability and sustainability of the town.
We had in mind such things as the attractiveness and
appropriateness of the build form, the viability of businesses, including
those in the town centre. The ability of residents to
walk are bicycle to shop, dine, or access services that
they might require. The efficient use of Public Infrastructure, such
as water, sewers, parks, libraries, activities of Victoria Hall, Public
Transportation and other amenities, such as a proposed senior's fitness
centre. Don't know where that is, actually. We referenced the
towns then priority revitalizing the downtown. And we looked at
the 2019 plan of subdivision in that context. The issue
is negatively affected in their proposal then are still the
same as this current application, namely the proposed location is
that the eastern entrance into the town of Coburg. The
lands to the east, are rural in nature. Arriving from
the east, the first impression of Coburg for residents and
visitors as alike. Would be a land use that is
neither sympathetic to nor compatible with the current land use
and housing mix. Now, I say that from the 2019
period, um, the argument is going to be that we
now have a two apartment building complex, fronting King Street.
And so whatever we build behind it is going to
be compatible. Well, I invite you to see for yourselves
how out of place these two apartments buildings are and
imagine what an additional two or three times build mass
might look like, especially, and I thought it was only
one, but apparently there are three nine - story towers.
The possibility of the apartment buildings of 102 units being
converted to a senior's assisted living rental space. Was crazy
then. I think it's crazy now. The location then was
then and still is now an expensive taxi ride to
purchase groceries, to go to the doctor's office or to
the hospital or to a senior centre or do any
other off - site social activities. And I'm sorry. Seniors
don't drive as much as they used to. I know
that. I had parents. If your mobility is challenged or
you don't have a car, you can't balance on your
bicycle. You run the risk of isolation. Adding 345 new
units will have additionally 345 seniors at least. The issues
become greater in magnitude. As mentioned earlier, the easterly part
of Cogberg, including the build - out phases of East
Village and the subdivisions to the south side of the
King Street, comprised predominantly single family dwellings as well as
a few multiplexes in some townhouses. As I said before,
or sorry, the only structure in the Easterly part of
Coburg that is more than three stories are the new
apartment buildings being built on block 60. There were the
subject of the 2019 Plan of Subdivision. These two apartment
buildings. Which are not close to being complete. Are being
touted in this current application as the reason that this
new intensification is appropriate, both in terms of build form
and massing and all that other stuff. These department buildings
are not yet finished. They're not yet occupied. And aside
from the hulking frontage on King Street, we have no
idea of the eventual streetscape. But the current application uses
this 2019 OP and Zoning Amendments effectively has justification for
an application that requires even further zoning an official plan
amendments for height, masking and density in order to proceed.
This is a slippery slope. The 334 dwelling units from
the original 2019 Plan of Subdivision have already put pressure
on existing road infrastructure. Even those units are not yet
fully built out. Traffic has definitely increased on King Street
East. I can tell that because I drive it. One
can see this particularly at times when people are going
to or returning from work. Or if there's a shift
change at one of the businesses in the industrial area
of South of King. When the shift changes coming out
of Wilmont Street, there is a constant line of traffic
trying to get out turning left. And when the shift
is going in, there are constantly guys flying down King
Street going east, trying to make it in time to
hit the shift. Adding an additional 345 units will only
add to the burden. Not only from residents living in
the units, but by all the support, maintenance and healthcare
workers who will be travelling to and from the site
to care for and support those residents. And I haven't
mentioned anything about the commercial activities because I have an
ended chance to look at that. I saw no mention
of these additional vehicles in the traffic study. Is this
a case of the proposed development leading to a King
Street becoming four lane thoroughfare. Probably at Coburg's expense. The
OPA in 2019 was at best premature and should have
waited for a comprehensive review of the official plan. When
the amount mixed in location of high density can be
considered within the context, the overall plan for the town
of Coburg. Now that we have two apartment buildings well
under construction. It's too late to undo that decision. The
addition to 345 additional seniors retirement and assisted living units
in this space is completely inappropriate for this development. Now
we are fortunate. We are fortunate that council is preparing
to go ahead with an interim control bylaw. And by
goodness, I certainly hope you do. It is essential that
we allow sufficient time to have a new comprehensive official
plan developed and approved. I don't mean to interrupt, but
we're well past time. So if we could please. Again,
we're past time. So if we can conclude it with
the last sentence, it would be really appreciated, sir. This
is a chance to have Coburg do a development to
do a planning, to do an exercise, to make us
all agree. That what we want for our town is
appropriate. And not have a developer come along and there
are lots of them coming who say, oh, we're going
to do this. We're going to do that. We're going
to do the other thing. And we don't have a
chance to plan and tell them what we want. We
need to tell them what we want. And that's my
submission. I'll send you the full remarks. Greatly appreciate it
at this time. Are there any questions. See none. Thank
you so much, sir, for your prelegation. Presentation. Um, I
just want to confirm, has someone already read out all
the lames that have gone? Okay, gotcha. So we are
now down to Council Submissions. Any questions or any questions
or comments from members of Council at this time. Council
Mutant. Just a question. Um. I read news reports
that, um, sort of, uh. High rise living. Is not
for everybody. And my question, I don't know whether it
would be to staff or the applicant. What comparables. In,
let's say, Southern Ontario for high rise buildings with seniors
in them. Uh, do they feel our working well? Because
in my research, high rise buildings, um, I mean, this
is documented. Uh, they turn in to ghettos. If people,
they don't want to go out, uh, definitely high rise.
This is not the case here with regards to having
families there. But, uh, it high rise living is not
for everybody. I am concerned when you have age in
place. You could very well have someone who doesn't leave
their apartment or their unit. So the main question is,
are there comparable examples that are functioning very well that
we should know about. I don't know what staff would
ever have the expertise to answer that question. But if
one would like to try, by all means. Through the
charity Council Mental, I'm not sure staff that we can
answer that question today. Um, so the focus of today's
meeting, it's, it's a public planning meeting. So we're here
to listen to submissions from members of the public in
support of or an opposition to the application that's before
counsel today. There will be a fullsome staff report that
comes to standing committee meeting where staff respond and provide
comment on all of the technical studies and submissions. Um,
that the applicant has made. Staff will provide a professional
recommendation at that time. Um, but questions that deal outside
of the OPA and ZBA application that we're here today.
We're not prepared to answer. Madon. So with regards to
context for our official plan, uh, zoning by law, that
I think Colberg has expressed sort of more recent concerns
that we need balanced neighbourhoods we need healthy neighbourhoods. We
need sustainable and safe neighbourhoods. So I would say that
possibly in conversation and discussion, uh, it is very pertinent.
Thank you for that comment. I would say the thousands
of seniors waiting for long - term care bets is
also a consideration we need to take into consideration. And
we'll move forward. So, uh, with no other Council comments
or submissions, we're going to move on to 6. 2.
Zoning bylaw amendment at 540 King Street East. The deputy
cleric will now advise that the procedure and dates by
which this notice was provided. Thank you through you mayor.
Notice of this Public Meeting was mailed to properties within
120 metres on August 5th, 2026. Assignments posted on the
property on August 6th, 2026. And notice was posted on
the Towns website on August 5th, 2026. At this time,
I'd like to invite, I believe. Yep. Yuki Naganuma. My
apologies UK. I didn't get the last name. And Mike
Keen from Foughton Planning and design them. Not sure if
I'm even saying that. Foten. I now provide no review.
The proposed Zoning bylaw amendment at 540 King Street East.
Welcome. Now your first time. You've got the clicker in
front of you there and the microphone's yours. We look
forward to your presentation. Good evening. We would like to
begin our presentation with a few words from the owner,
Ruth Kane, who should be logging in virtually. Hi, can
everyone hear me okay? Yes, we can hear you. And
thank you for joining us. Good evening, Mayor Cleaveman Council
members. Town staff and members of the Court community. My
name is Ruth Kane. I am the owner and developer
of Sunnyside Village, a small subdivision on King Street East
that will soon be home to 87 families, including my
own. I just wanted to first say that it is
a pleasure to work with the town staff. I especially
thank our planning director, Chris, along with Victoria Emma Nate.
Pauline Natalie Eddie Terry and so many others who have
helped diligently move this project forward. We really appreciate you
joining me on Zoom is Spencer Putnam, our legal counsel.
And present with you today. Neil Pope, our primary project
manager and builder, Andy Smith, our architect who designed this
beautiful community and the spirit of the historic farmhouse, Mike
Keen and Yukina Ganumi, who will give the presentation today
our planners from Fojun. Since Council approved our draft plan
two years ago, we have been working through the detailed
design process. And in doing so, we identified a few
zoning anomalies that are narrow in scope. And. We were
asking Council to address them through this amendment. Our vision
for Sunnyside has not changed. We remain committed to creating
a beautiful Eastern gateway into Coburg. And we're grateful for
your support. And with that, I'll turn the presentation over
to our lead planner. You can NAGA Numa from Foton.
Good evening. And thank you for inviting us into your
Council Chambers today. My name is Yuki Naganuma and I'm
a planner at Foten Planning and Design. I'm joined by
my colleague, Mike Keen, Principal at Foten, and we represent
the owners of Sonnyside Village Inc. We are here to
speak to the Zoning bylaw Amendment application for the property
municipally known as 540 King Street East. The sunny side
village development is an existing subdivision for which Council previously
approved a Zoning bylaw amendment in 2024. This site is
located in East Coburg on the lands immediately east of
the Wilmot Street Extension. As background, the ownership group has
long been engaged with Cobra's staff on the Development of
this community in East Coburg. Well before the Submission of
the First Development Application, the ownership group has sought input
from Planning Staff to ensure that the future sunnyside community
would meet objectives of the town of Coburg. These discussions
with staff go back to 2019, whereby the ownership group
were encouraged to provide a compact community offering a diverse
array of housing typologies. The first Zoning Amendment and subdivision
applications were submitted in 2022 and received Council approval in
2024. The Zoning Approval established site - specific zoning framework
necessary to support the future residential community and approved a
three block draft plan of subdivision. Since the 2024 approval,
the project team has been working closely with municipal staff
to progress the development further through three detailed design submissions.
The clearing of conditions of the draft plan and supporting
the designation of the built heritage structures. The Zoning Amendment
being considered today does not change the overall development concept
for the community. Rather, it seeks approval for what we
categorize as technical and administrative issues as a development concept
is further refined. Importantly, the sunny side village concept has
remained consistent with the vision as originally approved. With respect
to the existing regulatory framework, the subject site contains site
- specific zones as approved in 2024 to facilitate the
sunny side village community. The Zoan categories as applicable to
the site are shown on this slide. These include the
residential two and residential four exception zones. The Environmental Constraint
Zone, Open Space Zones, and a Development Zone. As noted
earlier, the vision, scale, and overall development concept approved by
concept remains substantially unchanged. The refinements made since the 2024
approval are relatively minor and largely technical in nature. The
most notable change is a reduction in the total number
of residential units from 102 down to 87 units. This
comes as a result of modifying the rear townhouse blocks
from Stock Townhouse stacked townhouse style to standard street townhouses.
The annotations shown here points to where these changes were
made on the plan. Additional minor changes to building footprints
have also been made throughout the site to accommodate a
refined subdivision plan. The following slides illustrate the sunny side
vision. As shown the development concept presents a land use
structure that provides a range of missing middle housing typologies
ranging from detached semi - detached stacked and standard townhouse
dwellings. The built form strategy prioritizes pedestrian comfort through street
- oriented buildings, active frontages, and a cohesive streetscape. Building
heights are modest generally between two to four stories, helping
to reinforce the human skill character of the community. The
proposal conserves the site's cultural heritage through the retention and
future adaptive reuse of the existing farmhouse and barn, ensuring
that these important landmarks remain focal points within the neighbourhood.
Open spaces beside the hair to structures comprise of a
central park and barn parquette will offer areas for recreation
and gathering. These features are linked to the wider site
through an interconnected and pedestrian - friendly street network that
circulates throughout the site alongside the environmental protection area and
connections to the King Street Corridor. Overall, the concept shown
here maintains the same vision for complete walkable heritage sensitive
community that contributes positively to the future growth of Coburg.
We'd also like to mention that Public Commons received as
part of the initial planning application were heard and incorporated
into the design of the community. For instance, the integration
of EV charging for residential and Public Parking spaces. In
the following section, I'll speak to the purpose of the
current zoning bylaw Amendment application. Approval is being sought for
a series of exceptions to the existing site - specific
R2 and R4 regulations that apply to the property. These
exceptions are required to address several minor adjustments relating to
setbacks, lot area, and building coverage. In addition, amendments are
requested for certain lot - specific provisions, including maximum density
and parking location. These amendments are administrative in nature and
is not the result of additional density being introduced to
the site. Given the number of required site - specific
changes, a zoning amendment was determined to be the appropriate
planning approval process in consultation with staff rather than pursuing
multiple minor variances. For further context, this Zoning Amendment is
necessitated by a redlining of the approved draft plan of
subdivision, which is concurrently being submitted to the town. The
purpose of the redlining. Of the draft plan is to
help legally define the site into a finer - grained
network of street's blocks and lots as originally envisioned. As
shown on the left, the site is currently approved for
a three - block plan, and the site is now
moving towards a 32 block plan, as shown on the
right. As a lot fabric has evolved, targeted design adjustments
were made to the approved concept to maintain zoning compliance.
However, some provisions could not be fully accommodated and will
require site - specific zoning amendments. For instance, slight reductions
to front and exterior side yard setbacks at the south
and central blocks. Minimum lot area adjustments to the central
blocks and reducing detached garage setbacks were applicable. These are
minor in scale and the site will continue to maintain
an appropriate balance between built form and open space. The
amendments relating to density and parking location will be discussed
further for clarity. With regards to density, Council approval is
being sought to formally recognise a higher density calculation on
certain individual blocks. To be clear, the density surplus is
not the result of additional density being introduced to the
site, but rather due to the technicality of new LOT
fabric over the property. As shown on the left, the
property has already been assessed and Council approved for an
overall net density of 24 units per net hectar. As
shown on the right, the refined 32 block plan now
has an overall density of 22 units per net hectar.
However, given the new LOT fabric introduced, density is required
to be calculated on a block - by - block
basis, therefore those blocks containing standard and stack townhouses are
now shown to exceed the maximum density requirement of 50
units per net hectare and require a site - specific
amendment. Given that the requested amendment seeks to accommodate the
same level of built - form intensity, as has already
been approved by council, it's our opinion that this amendment
is minor and administrative in nature. As a reminder, the
proposed overall density of 22 units per net hector is
still well within the town's acceptable range of the medium
density category of residential development. In fact, it is lower
than the approved total as the plan has decreased by
15 units. Additionally, Council Approval is sought for site -
specific zoning amendments relating to the location of parking. The
Zoning Bylaw requires that parking spaces be located on the
same lot as a use that they serve and access
from a publicly owned and maintained lane. It should be
noted that the internal loop road to which all dwellings
will have frontage on will be a private condo road.
Owned and maintained privately. So an amendment is required to
recognise this condition. Also, while the development site continues to
provide the required number of parking spaces along with guest
parking throughout the site, the Introduction of the Detailed Lot
fabric has resulted in some required residential parking spaces being
located on a separate lot from the unit they serve.
In actuality, as shown on the images, the affected parking
spaces remain in close proximity to their associated units and
are provided through conveniently located surface parking areas or detached
garages. Ownership and use of these parking spaces will be
secured through legal agreements tied to the respective dwelling units
to ensure they will remain available to the residents they're
intended to serve. In our opinion, this requested zoning amendment
is also minor and administrative in nature, as it does
not alter the functionality of the site. There should be
a final slide. There. We go. In conclusion, the requested
amendments discussed today represent the final stage of approvals before
the ownership group can readily advance the property into the
construction base. After many years of positive collaboration with members
of Council and Municipal staff, their eager to establish sunny
side village as the eastern gateway into the town of
Colberg. This concludes our presentation regarding the proposed zoning bylaw
amendment for 540 King Street East. Thank you for your
time and we welcome any comments or questions. Anyone from
Council, if any questions Council Matan. Two questions. Thank you
very much for your presentation. One of your slides on
Zoning bylaw amendment, I think the parcel that has the
barn on it was zone D. Could you please clarify
what that might mean. Through you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you
for the question. The purpose of the development zone, um,
overlaid over the barn block is because the ownership group
has intentions to develop the barn as a future potential
mixed use community area. However, through adaptively reusing the existing
structure. However, at this current time, there are no, um,
concrete plans, which is the reason why it's currently zoned
in the development block. And my second question, Mr. Mayor.
I believe some of the enclosed parking spaces are just
one - story garage. Um, what you seek in your
application, would that allow for, let's say, like a coach
house built on top. Uh, in the future? Or is
that something that the owner, the developer is not considering
at this time or would that be a future application?
Um, I'm just thinking of efficiencies of use of building
footprints. Through you, Mr. Mayor, uh, the ownership group has
no intentions to develop the garage structures with future residential
uses. No. I'd like to say thank you very much.
For your presentation. I believe at this time, I'm going
to move on to, have there any been any correspondences
received. Through you, Mr. Mayor, there was one piece of
correspondence received from Robert Michael. Wonderful. And deputie clerk, have
any registered speakers? Let me guess. We've got one registered
speaker. We do. Yes. Mr. Mickl. Michael. Thank you for
your presentation. We will, uh, get ready for Mr. Michael
to come up. Mr. Michael, welcome back.
I know you should have put your name on the
ballot a few weeks ago. Thank you.
Basically. Everyone that I've talked to in the ACO and
branch, and myself, I very feel very positively about this
development. We think it's a responsible development and a great
way to incorporate heritage within the, uh, new developments. And
I hope that, um, more developers will see the success.
And, uh, character of this development and want to. Do
similar projects. They also didn't mention, but I'll mention that
they've named their buildings after early prominent families who had
some, uh, influence in the early establishment of the town.
So overall, I think it's in all the ACL members
I've talked to who've seen it, I think it's quite
a positive move in the direction of development in Coburg.
That's all. Thank you. So before we go to that,
let's just talk because we've got any other questions or
comments or members of Council. Wonderful. Third and final matter,
6. 3 recording Zoning by a Law Amendment. Administrative updates.
So Deputy Clerk will now advise of the procedure of
which notice was given and confirmed the dates notice was
given. Through you, Mr. Chair. Notice of this Public Meeting
was posted on the town's website on August 5th, 2026.
Noted. Uh, Explanation, Emma Hughes, manager of Long Range Planning
will now provide an overview of the proposed bylaw amendment
to correct administrative updates. I'd love. Miss Hughe. Are you
going to do it from back there? Uh, it's fine
with me if you are. I can happily know stay
back there. It's all good. Whatever council prefers. Um, and
just in the off chance, Deputy Mayor, I am expecting
another phone call. So if I have to leave, will
you assume the chair upon my exit? Thank you. Not
a curse. This is. All you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
So two council through the mayor, the Planning Department does
want to present, um, some proposed administrative updates to the
comprehensive zoning bylaw. We had advised during our last administrative
update that we would potentially have one or two more
administrative updates to bring to Council over the course of
the next year. Um, so just some background context for
everybody on December 17th, 2026, the town of Coburg passed
its new comprehensive zoning bylaw, which replaced the previous comprehensive
zoning bylaw 2003 at 85. Um, this was, uh, pertains
to all lands in Coburg outside of defined employment areas
as additional studies are being conducted through the official plan
update. So as part of this continued process of implementing
this new Zoning bylaw, the town staff have identified several
elements of the Zoning bylaw that should be updated to
correct either conflicting information, duplication of information or to bring,
uh, current zoning policies into conformity with legislative and, pardon
me. Other existing bylaws that have been passed. So we
have a summary of our proposed amendments. We are looking
at Introducing ATA administrative updates to this comprehensive Zoning bylaw
today. And I will just move right into them. So
the first Zoning bylaw amendment that we are proposing today
relates to the regulations surrounding food trucks in the current
zoning bylaws. So the current definition of a food truck
in the Zoning Bylaw specifically excludes trailers, push carts and
non - motorized vehicles. Uh, that are propelled by muscle
power. There is no alternative definition in the Zoning bylaw
that would include these types of vehicles to be used
in the same manner as a food truck. The towns
refreshment vehicle license by law 43 2015 has a much
broader definition of refreshment vehicles, which does include a trailers
and other vehicles that are propelled by muscle power. Um,
so therefore planning staff are proposing to replace the current
definition of food truck with a new more expansive definition
that does include trailers push carts and other types of
vehicles that are currently included in the licensing bylaw. Um,
this new definition, pardon me, would not be limited to
trucks a new term is also being proposed for this
revised definition. Planning staff are recommending that the term mobile
catering unit be used for the new definition. This is
based on the term mobile catering use, which is listed
as a permitted use in the business park and district
commercial zones in the comprehensive zoning bylaw. Um, but it's
not defined elsewhere. This term, pardon me, is more appropriate
in appropriate pardon me through staff's purview given that it
has a more expansive definition and makes it easier for
small business owners and citizens to interpret and go through
the licensing process with our bilaw department. So next up
we have amendment two. So we are amending patio definitions
again for more clarity and easy comprehension for users of
the Zoning Biolaw. The purpose of encroachment specifically for patios
under this section is to regulate structures that would otherwise
be considered DECs, uh, but for their height. So the
definition of deck under the comprehensive zoning bylaw requires that
a floor have at least 0. 3 metres above finished
grade. The purpose of the patio regulation is to allow
for decks that do not exceed 0. 3 metres above
grade to be located in front yards and also have
smaller setback requirements than your standard patio. This is in
line with the previous approach to deck regulations under section
5. 13 of our comprehensive zoning byla 85 - 2003,
which did establish different regulations for sun decks and patios
less than 0. 6 metres above grade, but was not
carried over. So the primary purpose of this change is
to clarify what the patio setback encroachment regulations apply to.
These policies are not intended to apply to what would
typically be considered a patio, but rather would effectively, what
are effectively decks that do not meet the minimum height
requirements. So again, this captures decks that would be at
that point three metre height above grade, not meaning that
0. 6 metre, but it is to be more permissible
in the front yard and to allow again, more easier
interpretation for citizens when they are looking at the zoning
bylaw and planning on installing DEX patios, et cetera. Um,
in addition, uh, to the above described patio encroachment regulations
and that we are looking at, we're also looking to
introduce a definition for restaurant patios. So the definition for
a restaurant patio is not intended to limit or define
the parameters of how the patios are to be used
and structured, but rather to define what their use is.
So when we have our temporary patioza that pop up,
especially inheritage districts, part of the process is that the
licensing application be sent to the planning department to ensure
conformity with the heritage district policies. And zoning right now,
we have policies that speak to a temporary outdoor furniture
within the heritage district. To ensure that it maintains the
character of the district and isn't detracting or inappropriate, but
we do not have a specific definition for restaurant patio
use. So again, to create more clarity, easy interpretation for
both staff and the public, um, the building department and
licensing as well, capturing everybody here when issuing these permits
introducing this definition for restaurant patios again aids an easier
interpretation for the bylaw. Next, we are going on to
the removal of accessory dwelling definition. Um. So one of
the definitions in the comprehensive zoning bylaw is for accessory
dwellings, which defines a dwelling unit that is accessory to
the main use of a non - residential building. This
use is listed as a permitted use in most zones
in the town of Coburg. The purpose of this definition
is to provide a framework to allow for mixed use
developments in commercial or mixed use zones. However, through the
drafting process that we had expressed concerns about potential confusion
between the terms accessory dwelling and additional residential unit. The
staff are proposing to remove the accessory dwelling definition. Um,
as it is, it duplication of the, uh, most currently
accepted additional residential unit to language that is found in
the PPS and other planning documents. So again, we are
not removing the ability to have accessory or additional residential
units. We are simply removing a duplication of terminology. So
additional residential unit and accessory dwelling unit mean the same
thing. The provincial provincially preferred term is additional residential unit.
So we, we, we will be again, removing that duplication
to offer some more clarity and support for anybody that
is using and interpreting this bylaw. Then we are moving
on to amendment number four. So we're cross - referencing
additional residential unit policies. As the section 4. 3. 1C
of the Zoning Bylaw Clarifies, the properties with additional residential
units, ARUs are subject to the requirements to have frontage
on a Public Street or similar right - of -
way unless the ARU is located on a lane. The
relevant section references the section containing these access provisions. Action
4. 8 when it actually should reference section 4. 9.
We are just proposing to correct the numerology mistake here.
So again, currently referencing section 4. 8, but this should
reference section 4. 9 of the bylaw. So we are
proposing an amendment to that numerology to make sure that
it is properly accounted for in the bylaws. So just
again, one more time, we are only amending that section
to update it from item 4. 8 in the bylaw
to be reflected as item 4. 9. Proposed amendment number
five is a temporary special events regulations. So another element
of the comprehensive zoning bylaw that Planning staff identified as
needing improvement was our process for regulating special events. The
town of Cobra Coast, many special events throughout the years
such as the waterfront festival. We just had rib fest
take place. Two weekends ago, one or two weekends ago.
Um, just to name a few, um, as well as
many sidewalk sales and other community events, any buildings or
structures associated with these events typically including tents are technically
subject to the provisions of the bylaw. So that includes
setbacks total law coverage, et cetera noise as well. Um,
however, these events only exist on a temporary basis and
are already required to have approvals through other town departments,
including the fire department, building services, potentially public works, um,
if there is access, um, so there is already extensive
review taking place for these events. So what planning staff
is proposing it to help remove the red tape for
planting these events for the town of Colberg is to
define the term temporary special event within the bylaw. We
currently do not define a temporary special event in the
bylaw. Um, so we would like to introduce a definition.
Um, and the definition would, um, state any event being
approved through the town's municipal application process. These events would
then be permitted in all zones knee environmental constraints. They
are required to follow the processes that are outlined from
municipal special events as defined by tourism. And a community
services. And again, would just provide more clear direction, uh,
for town staff when receiving these applications. Um, the impact
would be minimal. But again, it is just to provide
more clarity and Aeda, the town. In these events taking
place in AMR. Efficient fashion. So we'll move on to
amendment number six, which is temporary use regulation. So as
we just described above, Plating Staff are proposing to expand
a list of uses that are permitted in all zones.
So allowing for temporary special events in all zones outside
of the environmental constraint and floodway. Um, we want to
expand that definition to include temporary mobile catering units and
temporary special events. So again, we want to be sure
that when we're updating, um, our temporary mobile catering unit,
um, and events definitions that we are ensuring that they
are actually permitted in the zones as outlined in the
bylaws. So this update is to ensure that those provisions
are captured in the right sections of the bylaw that
would allow their uses. Amendment number seven is for the
short term rental accommodation parking. Um, so on February 26th
of 2025, Count Council passed a licensing 2025 to regulate
short - term rental accommodations. One of the regulations that
became more restrictive was the parking requirement when the comprehensive
Zoning bylaw was updated. It was updated to reflect the
current provisions for a bed and breakfast, which requires that
there be one parking space per room rented. Um, as
we have rolled out the licensing process and the review
process, there has been some conflicts with parking. And we
are introducing the amendment to, uh, state that parking requirements
for additional residential units, be in alignment with the parking
requirements in the bylaw for that dwelling typology. So for
example, if you are renting short - term rental that
is a single detached dwelling, the parking accommodations for these
short - term rental accommodation would be the same that
the Planning Department would require for a single detached dwelling.
Um, so if it is one parking space that is
required for that dwelling typology, whether it be semi -
detached, etc., that is what will be required instead of
a per bedroom requirement. This is also more in line
with licensing process and what is outlined in the licensing
bylaw. So moving along to number eight, we have a
mapping error that staff have identified and need to correct.
This was identified on rocking cam court. So they are
currently zoned residential four, exception five. So our four -
five. This zone was not intended to apply to these
properties, but rather was intended to apply to the properties
on Ratan Terrace. It does currently apply to the properties
there. It was applied to retain terrace. Um, but these
are linked dwellings. So a link dwelling just for information
purposes. They appear to be single detached dwellings above grade
when you're looking at them from the street, but they're
quite literally as the name suggests linked below grade. So
the basements are attached below grade. So updating, we would
update the site specifica Zone to be, um, to be
more appropriate to the property. And we would also ensure
that the definition for linked dwelling is updated to appropriately
align with the use on rocking hampart. So our next
step, just so everybody knows what is coming. There will
be a report that will be brought to the Public
Works Planning and Development Standing Committee on September 9th after
it is reviewed by the Standing Committee. It will then
be forwarded on to a regular Council meeting on September
23rd for further discussion. Um, and if these proposed amendments
are approved, the changes could come into effect as soon
as October 14th, 2026. I will turn it back over
through the VERICHA Council for any comments, questions, considerations. Seems
pretty straightforward. At this time, do any public submissions. Do
you chair, we do not have any public submissions and
we don't have any registered speakers. It's good to hear.
Well, I know we've got a Council comments. So Council
Mutant. Let us coming to the standing committee and the
thought I've ever give a heads up on some questions.
Some of these are on clarity. Um, and thank you
very much. I'm going to go backwards through your presentation.
So Amendment number eight. Were the, uh, where the people
affected unrocking him court, uh, notified of the Zoning change.
Through the mayor to Councillor Maton. Every resident in Coburg
has provided the prescribed notice for an update to the
comprehensive Zoning bylaw. So yes, they would have been provided
notice. With the whole of cowork mailed. No, it is
posted on the town's website just for budgetary reasons. It
would be very expensive to have to mail a notice
to all residents for, yeah, the reason I asked Mr.
Mayor is that it specifically affects property owners. It's an
error, but they may have not known. But okay, amendment
number seven, STRA parking lot or parking requirements is the
STRA license, is that an annual. Uh, IM, is that
renewed annually or is it, uh, different. Mr. Larmo on
that one. Thankfully he's here. Through you to renewal license,
but we can answer questions that aren't related to the
Zoning Byleth at the standing committee meeting, no problem. We'll
bring those answers for you. Okay. So, uh, question, uh,
on the, uh, application, uh, short term rental accommodation, et
cetera. I understood a tandem parking. Do you anticipate any
of hearing some, the issues with that? Especially if it's
a shared driveway. Do you anticipate that there might be
a refinement with regards to if tandem parking is permitted
as of right that they have to actually put up
a little fence or something so they're not interfering. And
STRA, the person renting may not be aware. Uh, so
just to make it easier for the adjacent property owner
that they don't have to keep reminding a visitor that
they shouldn't be parking there. It might clear on that
one. Yeah. So through the mirror, just a Councillor Matan,
I might even direct that back to the director of
legislative services only because, uh, the actual licensing bylaw is
in a document that the planning department updates and reviews
that would be through the preview of the bylaw department.
Um, so our purpose with that is sheerly just to
define what is allowable. But the parameters of what would
actually have to take place through the issuance of the
license would have to come through. Belaw, I believe. And
I can be corrected if I'm wrong. So, uh, and
then the other question is, uh, STRA parking. Is there
a potential that people buy a permit so that they
use street parking? I cannot recall the bylaw and it
might, I can defer that question to the standing committee.
But if you've got, if you buy a permit, then
it takes up a public parking spot just, uh, that's
where I was headed with that. So amendment number six
temporary use regulations. So, uh, little bit confused. You will
be allowing use of EC and hazard lands? No. Through
the mayor to Councillor Mattan, know in all zones outside
of environmental constraint, uh, the flood overlay, I would just
like to note though we do work closely with the
gainerosker region conservation authority. So if there was ever a
proposal, that would be something that would be considered on
a case specific basis. They would be directed to consult
with the GRCA. And before we would consider they would
have to provide us with some formal written reference from
the GRCA outlining that it's not a hazard. And just
a gentle reminder, the Conservation Authorities are actually, as of
next year, they have a different format, maybe just check
with them to see if it's business as usual. Um,
amendment number five. Temporary special events. Will your report forthcoming
have maps for the zones, which this would apply, um,
it wasn't clear to me when the, when the page
says applicable zones, uh, would there be additional information in
your forthcoming report? Yes. Sorry. And my apologies. I should
have been more clear to Councillor Matan. The special temporary
special events will be allowed in all zones outside of
the environmental constraint and flood overlay zones. We can't provide
mapping with our report if you would like. So, um,
actually, uh, we will express a concern that residential zones
and temporary special events. I think that's a potential conflict.
I have, I hear on a regular basis, even though
we have special events in Victoria Park, we have a
lot of residential area close by. And so not knowing
further details, I think there is a bit of a
sensitivity matter that may need to be taken into account.
Amendment four. Cross - reference in ARU. Thank you for
that. There's a question in a couple of amendments with
regards to encroachments. There are specified setbacks, but then there's
allowable encroachments. For example, if you have a front porch,
you can encroach a couple of feet into the street
right of way. You know, if you're building as like
very, so, uh, that would be a question I would
ask is, what are the allowable encroachments? For example, you
might have the building wall, but then your Eve, uh,
might encroach into a side yard. And that, that's, that's
a question that comes up. Um, uh, adding a dwelling
unit in a non - residential building that makes me
kind of interested in what that means. Like we may
have a commercial or industrial building with a residential unit.
So through the merit account, Sermatin, we do focus more
so on mixed use. So that could also expand right
to, to, uh, retail, um, and additional residential units as
of right are permitted and mixed use buildings already. So
the idea is actually to support the policies and the
official plan that direct us to focus on mixed use
intensification. So allowing for live more live work situations where
it's permitted obviously outside of employment areas. I also should
have been more clear that it does not extend to
employment areas. We do not allow residential ADs. Okay. Unless
it's explored in other app through other avenues with Council.
But yeah, it would, uh, would offer us that opportunity.
An amendment, uh, number two. Oh, I should mention with
number three, um, I was a bit surprised when an
accessory dwelling unit had a bigger footprint than the actual
primary house. So that will be a question that comes
up too. You know, the proportion, uh, the use of,
uh, how much of the law is, is usable and
so forth. Number two, patio definitions. So I got a
little confused with this because I always, I make the
distinction between the deck and a patio. So, uh, would
it be part of the verbiage that, uh, the size
of this in proportion, let's say the building footprint is,
you know, 15 by 15 that the patio is proportional
or is that done on a case by case basis.
Through the merit to Councillor Gaton. Could you possibly just
repeat your question? Fermi, sorry. I'm just having a bit
of difficulty. Yeah. So, uh, patio and restaurant patio. Specifically,
it's a patio, the patio definition, um, I've always considered,
you know, if it's less, if it's less than 0.
3 metres, uh, then it's still a deck. And then
if it's higher, it actually is a structural element that
has to go through on like the building inspector and
that sort of permitting. But it's the sigh. So if
you have, if you're building footprint is 15 by 15,
20 by 24. Are there any and you have a
big lot? Are there. Any restrictions or accommodations? How big
your patio can be. Through the merit to Councillor Maton.
We can provide more information at the standing committee, but
yes, they would be subject to the Zoan specifica requirements
for patios decks and accessory structures is also too, but
we consider them. So they would be, um, they would
be a subject to those provisions. And if there are
any zones that you would like more information on, we
are happy to provide the specifics of those requirements. They
do vary between zones. Okay. And finally, mobile catering unit
in all zones, which it is permitted. My understanding from
you is that they could be possible in any zone.
Or they'll be specifics. Through the merit to Councillor Maton.
I would have to confer the director of legislative services
about which Zoans the mobile catering food trucks are explicitly
permitted in, but that is why we worded it that
way. So they are allowed in the zones through which
the licensing bylaw states they are allowed to exist. And
so if the licensing bylaws says you can only have
them in a mixed use corridor, you know, no residential
zones. And that is how this permission is worded. So
it is to be more in alignment with the bylaw
that was passed. I believe it was in June or
July for the mobile cater or temporary catering. So that's
how we worded it that way. So it captures the
zone set the licensing bylaw specifically states they could operate
in. So one of the things that crossed my mind
is that let's say you're on a very beautifully well
- treed street. You can't necessarily be cooking underneath a
tree canopy. That's like it's a form of incompatible use.
Uh, so, so accommodation. I hear that. Yes. I hear
all the huffing and puffing over here, but this is
my opportunity to put this out in the open. And
so that was just, uh, sort of sensitive, uh, uses
or incompatible uses that there must be a way of
addressing that. And so forth. So that's my, my last
question. You can go, Hey Chris. Through the chair to
Councillor Motels, I'll just add a couple more points with
Miss Hughes has said. So specifically for the temporary events
and for the mobile catering units, they're still subject to
the licensing regime of the town. Uh, and they're still
subject to the special event application process. So there is
a 17 page special event application that gets circulated to
all departments of the town. Um, it is easier to
make them permissible across the town and then to regulate
them through the licensing bylaw and then through the special
event application process. Right now the conflict between the two.
So it's easier to allow them as of right in
certain zones. Subject to the actual licensing regime and the
special event application process. Oh, are you the chair? Sorry,
just a comment more than once I've heard when there
is a conflict, um, and just as a generalization, uh,
you know, it's a, it's a of right as a
permit, uh, or as a zoning, et cetera. And then
the response to a neighbour or someone who has some
concerns is, Oh, it's a civil matter. And, um, I
think there needs to be an opportunity to, you know,
if, if there is a burden placed on a neighbour
because of something that is, you know, rightfully possible that,
um, it's an internal process rather than, you know, asking
or suggesting that people go. And pursue it independently. Like
we have an obligation is what I'm trying to get
at. So I'm just trying to avoid potential conflicts. Thank
you very much, Miss Hughes. And thank you to the
director for the final comments. Any questions related to look
forward to it going through the September cycle round. Thank
you for continuing to observe the evolution of the comprehensive
zoning bylaw. At this time, I do apologise. I don't
wear just a journey. There's no other. Thank you. Sorry
folks. I just don't have the agenda. And speaking of
it's in front of me. So we will adjourn the
public meeting. We are finished and we will take a
10 minute break. Thank you. 720. 720. Let's just do
720. What up? Thank you very much.
Welcome back. I am going to call this meeting to
order at 724, I believe, 724 p. m. This would
be the third council meeting. We are commencing. It is
also a carryover of the first meeting, but we are
not allowed to have two meetings at once. We ended
one, had a second, ended that, and now we're resuming
with the third meeting to pick up from where we
started on the first meeting. I will, we have no
introduction at the end of items. We do have a
confirmation of this wonderfully produce, so booved by Councillor Bureau
and seconded by Councillor Burkhat. Any questions or concern, seeing
none all in favor, so moved. We've already read Traditional
Land acknowledgement. We will move past that. We will go
to five. Disclosure pecuniary interests. Are there any at this
time. I'm going back over what we had before, and
I believe all of the items previously declared pecuniary interest
are complete. I'm just going to confirm that. Yes, it
is. So no disclosures, we go on to Bylaws, and
we have six. So we have a consent motion. Do
I have mover in a seconder? So move by Councillor
Darling, seconded by Councillor Burkhat. So at this time, any
questions, concerns, we've got the six heritage designations. Seeing no
other questions or concerns, all in favor, so moved. We
now move on to a notice of motion, 7. 1.
It's my motion, so I'm assuming I should probably pass
the chair, assuming Deputy Mayor is probably going to want
to speak to it. I know Councillor Darling is, so
I'm happy to go to Councillor Barber if you'd like.
Reject to chair this item. If not, I'm happy, Chair.
I said, I'm happy to share it. So I'll ask
first, is there a mover of the motion. Okay, so
now I'm going to have to pass the chair. Is
there anyone who'd like to take the chair? By all
means, thank you, Deputy Mayor. So I'd like to move
the motion. Chair's yours. Thank you. So we have the
motion move. Is there a seconder. The motion is.
What is fake one moment? Sorry, we'll get it.
And procedurally, I just want to confirm Mr. Lahmard that
speakers may not register to speak to. Notice his emotions,
correct? Correct. Thank you.
So if I move, do we have a seconder. Okay,
seeing none, the motion doesn't make it to the floor.
Not a problem. We do have another notice of motion,
which is 16. 2. Again, I'll ask if the mover.
I'll ask if the chair. And I will move. We
have a mover. Is there a seconder. Okay, seeing none
the motion doesn't make it to the floor. Back to
you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you very much. So we have
no seconders for either of those motions noted. Uh, I
guess that would take us to the. Confirmation by -
law. Oh, close session. We got to go back to
the close. That's right. So at this point, I guess
we will go back into closed session. Uh, I need
to move for a seconder. So move by deputy mayor
and seconded by Council Burkkat. It's moved in second at
all in favor. So move. Thank you very much. Dip
in Mural, I'll pass to you just to take another
phone call, and I will see you guys in about
10 minutes. Please continue.
All right, so we're now. Welcome back into Open at
9. 15. May have a mover at this moment, so
move by Council Burk at seconded by Councillor Bureau. Any
questions or concerns, seeing none all in favor. So moved.
Coming out of Open, we've also got the appointment to
accessibility advisory committee. Do I have a mover? Councillor Burkat,
seconded by. Thank you, let's go. Councillor Bureau. Any other
questions or concerns? Seeing none, all in favor. So moved.
Last and final. DBIA, Stephen G. Cousins. We're gonna wait
till the one member of the DBI leaves from the
meeting as he is a conflict of interest. Moved by.
So move by Councillor. Darling, seconded by. Second and bye.
Oh, thank you, Councillor Burkat. Didn't see, I just see
that. So there, and you know questions, seeing none, all
in favor, so moved. Reappointing of hold co - director.
Mr. Fred Clifford, last one moved by Councillor Burkhat, seconded
by Councillor Darlingberg, Councillor Barber. Barber. It's been a long
day. Any questions or concerns, all in favor. So moved.
We're now gonna move to the confirmatory by - law.
Nine and a half hours later. We're there. So moved
by Councillor Burkat, seconded by. Deputy Mayor Beauty, I'll give
her on that one. She got fastest guns on the
West here. That seconding. Any other questions or concerns regarding
our confirmatory bylaw? Oh, we got one, Mr. Larmer. We
just gonna put on the screen just because this is
a new meeting. We had to confirm the by -
law from the other meeting was referred, and then we
have a conferendium by Bylaw for this meeting. So 053
- 2026 and 054 - 2026. So we get two
confirmatory bylaws. Yes, we did that. Now, first time for
everything, folks. We're doing them both in one, because that's
the kind of effective efficiency we expect from our clerks
department. Exactly. We'd hate to debate those. So do I
have a mover in a second or still? I got
Deputy Mayor Fast Gun Salute on the right. I got
another one over here, the seconder on the left. Any
other questions or concerns, seeing none, all in favor. So
moved. I will adjourn this official meeting at 9. 17
p. m. Thank you all.