[0:07] And just to go with Miriam's point about King Street
[0:10] is the only nice entrance left in Cobrack. Really main
[0:15] interest. Like do we, all this development, and I don't
[0:19] think it can just take it in context with this
[0:22] one development that meets traffic studies. You have four or
[0:26] five new developments all along. Which are going to impact
[0:32] substantially. More together than separately. And that's going to cause
[0:37] pressures on the congestion. And I noted today, I was
[0:43] looking at the entrances and exodus to all of the
[0:46] developments and proposed developments. And they all only had one
[0:50] or two. Access points onto King Street. And they're all
[0:57] little fivetoms. Or communities in themselves. There's no connection to
[1:03] them. So the little choice how people want to move
[1:06] through their developments. And they're all going to end up
[1:09] at these maybe seven and one on Brook Crowd. Entrances
[1:16] and exodus. And that's going to cause immense. Congestion, I
[1:23] think, especially at different times of the day. And it's
[1:25] this pressure the town to widen the King Street to
[1:29] four lanes. Do we want again to end up as
[1:32] a King Street East as Williams Street or Elgin Street?
[1:38] I think not. I never heard any justification for the
[1:44] additional five stories on what I thought was one apartment,
[1:48] but it looks like it's a very high concentrated, large
[1:54] one building apartment. So I am the ACO disagree with
[2:00] the zoning height. And again, historically these dents has always
[2:06] been a residential low rise. Community starting from Darth Street
[2:12] in the forties and fifties. Down to fits you shores.
[2:16] All one story, one and a half stories, two -
[2:19] story construction. There's never been anything higher than I can
[2:23] think of in that area. So it's not that this
[2:26] is a undivined, defined zone. It has its own character.
[2:34] And as I say, it's, and Miriam said, or constantly
[2:37] Mutan said, the only beautiful entrance left in Coburg. And
[2:42] that should be, and, you know, when I think of
[2:46] coming over Kingston Road Bridge, you're going to see those
[2:49] towers. You can put townhouses in front of them. But
[2:52] coming east or west, you will see those towers jump
[2:56] out at you. And we have no problem with senior
[3:00] apartments and long care. That's great. But, uh, the density
[3:06] is so much. And the building that I saw today
[3:09] is so massive, it makes me think of 202 Street.
[3:13] And is that the kind of, and does that set
[3:15] a precedent for further development along King Street. Or further
[3:22] into whatever boundaries. So this is President setting as well
[3:26] as to me, way over the density that we want
[3:34] in this area. And I grew up in that area
[3:38] and I remember it well. And, you know, we have
[3:43] a school almost across from all these developments. What's the
[3:47] ramifications of that? And, uh, let me see. So again,
[3:56] in connection with all of these, they're going to be
[3:59] pressures on taxes on roads, traffic, congestion, managing all of
[4:06] this. You know, and again, commercial area. East End needs
[4:12] commercial. Buildings or commercial businesses. But again, it should be
[4:21] planned out in the long term. We don't want to
[4:25] end up with strip malls and teeny little, again, strip
[4:31] malls. All along King Street, the way you have Long
[4:35] Williams Street and Division Street. And Elgin Street. You want
[4:38] to ensure that that is all maintained in a way
[4:44] that conforms and enhances King Street East rather than fights
[4:49] it. And I think it's unfortunate, and this is probably
[4:54] years ago that a service road wasn't. Made parallel to
[5:00] the tracks. Because that way you would have another avenue
[5:06] of motor cars to access the property. I saw studying
[5:14] a lecture on the mobility of cars within their own
[5:19] neighbourhoods. And they have very little choice in how they
[5:22] can get in and out of that. And again, as
[5:25] I say repeat. You know, it just repeats the congestion.
[5:31] And, you know, how many more traffic lights will we
[5:34] need. I mean, there's just so many problems, not with
[5:41] this, not just with this one, which I think is
[5:43] way too high. Or we as the ACO think is
[5:47] too high. But all the pressures that will result from
[5:50] this and all the other King Street Developments, they're following
[5:55] in line within the next few years. And, uh, it's
[5:59] just going to be a mess, I think. And, uh,
[6:03] so we are asking that the. Council, either.
[6:14] A vote against or disprove of this plan as it
[6:18] stated, or that. Suspends the project until the town has
[6:26] done the density and height studies that they said they
[6:33] would do in the last August 16th meeting. And, uh.
[6:39] I think, again, as Councillor Mutan said, this is a
[6:44] very important strip of King Street. And again, it's been
[6:48] said before we are at a very crucial time in
[6:52] Coburg where height restrictions are not, don't seem to be
[6:58] commander in the discussions of these buildings. So again, I
[7:02] just would like either it turned down or deferred till
[7:08] the studies on height and density occur. Thank you, Mr.
[7:14] Michael. Appreciate your comments. Any questions for Mr. Michael at
[7:18] this time. Seeing none, uh, Mr. Merrill passed chair back
[7:22] to you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much
[7:25] for your presentation. Mr. Michael. We got another submission. Mr.
[7:29] Peter McLaughlin. Would you like to come up and present.
[8:09] Your worship, Madam Deputy Mayor Councillors and staff. My name
[8:14] is Peter McLaughlin and I reside in East Coburg. Thank
[8:18] you for the opportunity to speak to Council today. Regarding
[8:21] the completed application for amendments to the official plan and
[8:24] zoning by law for property located at 535 and 536
[8:28] John Kiefer Mahoney Court Courberg, Ontario. The subject property located
[8:34] in East Village face five was part of the lands
[8:36] that were subject to a draft plan of subdivision. Official
[8:40] plan amendment and Zoning bylaw amendments that were approved in
[8:43] the summer of 2019. That development proposal, that plan of
[8:49] subdivision comprised 334 dwellings, of which 102 were proposed to
[8:54] be high density in the form of two, I presume
[8:58] 51 unit department buildings. And the amendments allowed the apartment
[9:02] buildings to be five stories each. The plan also provided
[9:06] for four 10 Plex units. Including, sorry, 410 flex units
[9:12] on block 60, which is the block immediately north of
[9:15] where the apartment buildings were going to be built. Which
[9:18] would be 40 units in total. The 10 flex units
[9:21] were not planned to exceed three stories. Block 61, where
[9:26] the two currently under construction apartment buildings are situated. Represents
[9:31] approximately 12 percent of the total landmass of East Village
[9:34] phase five development. And Block 60 represents approximately 19 percent.
[9:40] Of the development Sland Mass. It's 12 percent of the
[9:44] total landmass on which accommodations are built. In block 60
[9:49] represents a prophecy on which residential units are located. The
[9:59] apartment buildings in Block 61 being 102 units in total
[10:03] represented approximately 31 percent of the total units for the
[10:06] development. And block 60 with 40 units represented approximately 12
[10:11] percent of the total units. That was then. What have
[10:16] we now? The current application proposed the addition of 345
[10:21] units. 241 retirement home units and 104 seniors departments. To
[10:26] be built north of the two apartment buildings on block
[10:29] 60 frontending King Street. One can't separate the two blocks
[10:33] as the applicant has said under this application because part
[10:37] of the current application requires building on block 61. In
[10:41] addition to block 60. And the reason for that is
[10:43] they changed the orientation of the two apartment buildings which
[10:49] originally going to be spaced well apart on block 60
[10:53] and have parking in between. And they rotated it so
[10:56] that everything fronts along King Street and you get this
[10:59] nice mass of buildings on King Street. Anyway, um, the
[11:06] total number of units in the two blocks then is
[11:08] now 447 units. Which is approximately 70 percent of the
[11:13] total number of units in the phase five development. Located
[11:19] on just 21 percent of the total landmass of housing
[11:22] units in that development. This is intensification. It's most extreme.
[11:29] In 2019, Virginia and I were concerned about the proposed
[11:32] intensification in the draft plan of subdivision. Among other things,
[11:37] we were concerned about water flows from the subject property.
[11:39] And the Introduction of high density in this, the most
[11:42] easterly part of the town of Coburg. This current application
[11:46] only makes the issues worse. We've heard that the stormwater
[11:51] management is not a problem, but I have to tell
[11:53] you, um, there's going to be even less land available
[11:57] to absorb precipitation. More runoff will flow into the stormwater
[12:01] management pond. And I'm going to be really surprised to
[12:06] see that it's going to be the alleged feature of
[12:08] phase five of the phase five development that it's supposed
[12:12] to be. But from the intensification perspective, I looked back
[12:16] to submissions we raised in 2019. We started our remarks
[12:20] with a reminder made to the then council the decisions
[12:22] made by Council have a significant and long - term
[12:26] impact on the ascetics, livability and sustainability of the town.
[12:30] We had in mind such things as the attractiveness and
[12:33] appropriateness of the build form, the viability of businesses, including
[12:37] those in the town centre. The ability of residents to
[12:40] walk are bicycle to shop, dine, or access services that
[12:43] they might require. The efficient use of Public Infrastructure, such
[12:47] as water, sewers, parks, libraries, activities of Victoria Hall, Public
[12:51] Transportation and other amenities, such as a proposed senior's fitness
[12:57] centre. Don't know where that is, actually. We referenced the
[13:00] towns then priority revitalizing the downtown. And we looked at
[13:04] the 2019 plan of subdivision in that context. The issue
[13:09] is negatively affected in their proposal then are still the
[13:12] same as this current application, namely the proposed location is
[13:19] that the eastern entrance into the town of Coburg. The
[13:22] lands to the east, are rural in nature. Arriving from
[13:26] the east, the first impression of Coburg for residents and
[13:29] visitors as alike. Would be a land use that is
[13:33] neither sympathetic to nor compatible with the current land use
[13:37] and housing mix. Now, I say that from the 2019
[13:42] period, um, the argument is going to be that we
[13:45] now have a two apartment building complex, fronting King Street.
[13:50] And so whatever we build behind it is going to
[13:52] be compatible. Well, I invite you to see for yourselves
[13:55] how out of place these two apartments buildings are and
[13:58] imagine what an additional two or three times build mass
[14:01] might look like, especially, and I thought it was only
[14:04] one, but apparently there are three nine - story towers.
[14:09] The possibility of the apartment buildings of 102 units being
[14:13] converted to a senior's assisted living rental space. Was crazy
[14:17] then. I think it's crazy now. The location then was
[14:25] then and still is now an expensive taxi ride to
[14:28] purchase groceries, to go to the doctor's office or to
[14:30] the hospital or to a senior centre or do any
[14:33] other off - site social activities. And I'm sorry. Seniors
[14:38] don't drive as much as they used to. I know
[14:39] that. I had parents. If your mobility is challenged or
[14:45] you don't have a car, you can't balance on your
[14:47] bicycle. You run the risk of isolation. Adding 345 new
[14:52] units will have additionally 345 seniors at least. The issues
[14:57] become greater in magnitude. As mentioned earlier, the easterly part
[15:02] of Cogberg, including the build - out phases of East
[15:04] Village and the subdivisions to the south side of the
[15:07] King Street, comprised predominantly single family dwellings as well as
[15:10] a few multiplexes in some townhouses. As I said before,
[15:16] or sorry, the only structure in the Easterly part of
[15:18] Coburg that is more than three stories are the new
[15:21] apartment buildings being built on block 60. There were the
[15:24] subject of the 2019 Plan of Subdivision. These two apartment
[15:28] buildings. Which are not close to being complete. Are being
[15:32] touted in this current application as the reason that this
[15:35] new intensification is appropriate, both in terms of build form
[15:39] and massing and all that other stuff. These department buildings
[15:43] are not yet finished. They're not yet occupied. And aside
[15:46] from the hulking frontage on King Street, we have no
[15:49] idea of the eventual streetscape. But the current application uses
[15:54] this 2019 OP and Zoning Amendments effectively has justification for
[15:59] an application that requires even further zoning an official plan
[16:03] amendments for height, masking and density in order to proceed.
[16:07] This is a slippery slope. The 334 dwelling units from
[16:12] the original 2019 Plan of Subdivision have already put pressure
[16:17] on existing road infrastructure. Even those units are not yet
[16:21] fully built out. Traffic has definitely increased on King Street
[16:26] East. I can tell that because I drive it. One
[16:30] can see this particularly at times when people are going
[16:33] to or returning from work. Or if there's a shift
[16:36] change at one of the businesses in the industrial area
[16:38] of South of King. When the shift changes coming out
[16:42] of Wilmont Street, there is a constant line of traffic
[16:47] trying to get out turning left. And when the shift
[16:50] is going in, there are constantly guys flying down King
[16:54] Street going east, trying to make it in time to
[16:56] hit the shift. Adding an additional 345 units will only
[17:01] add to the burden. Not only from residents living in
[17:03] the units, but by all the support, maintenance and healthcare
[17:07] workers who will be travelling to and from the site
[17:09] to care for and support those residents. And I haven't
[17:12] mentioned anything about the commercial activities because I have an
[17:15] ended chance to look at that. I saw no mention
[17:18] of these additional vehicles in the traffic study. Is this
[17:21] a case of the proposed development leading to a King
[17:24] Street becoming four lane thoroughfare. Probably at Coburg's expense. The
[17:31] OPA in 2019 was at best premature and should have
[17:34] waited for a comprehensive review of the official plan. When
[17:37] the amount mixed in location of high density can be
[17:39] considered within the context, the overall plan for the town
[17:42] of Coburg. Now that we have two apartment buildings well
[17:46] under construction. It's too late to undo that decision. The
[17:50] addition to 345 additional seniors retirement and assisted living units
[17:54] in this space is completely inappropriate for this development. Now
[17:59] we are fortunate. We are fortunate that council is preparing
[18:03] to go ahead with an interim control bylaw. And by
[18:06] goodness, I certainly hope you do. It is essential that
[18:09] we allow sufficient time to have a new comprehensive official
[18:12] plan developed and approved. I don't mean to interrupt, but
[18:17] we're well past time. So if we could please. Again,
[18:21] we're past time. So if we can conclude it with
[18:22] the last sentence, it would be really appreciated, sir. This
[18:27] is a chance to have Coburg do a development to
[18:30] do a planning, to do an exercise, to make us
[18:34] all agree. That what we want for our town is
[18:38] appropriate. And not have a developer come along and there
[18:43] are lots of them coming who say, oh, we're going
[18:45] to do this. We're going to do that. We're going
[18:46] to do the other thing. And we don't have a
[18:48] chance to plan and tell them what we want. We
[18:51] need to tell them what we want. And that's my
[18:54] submission. I'll send you the full remarks. Greatly appreciate it
[19:00] at this time. Are there any questions. See none. Thank
[19:03] you so much, sir, for your prelegation. Presentation. Um, I
[19:08] just want to confirm, has someone already read out all
[19:10] the lames that have gone? Okay, gotcha. So we are
[19:12] now down to Council Submissions. Any questions or any questions
[19:18] or comments from members of Council at this time. Council
[19:22] Mutant. Just a question. Um. I read news reports
[19:33] that, um, sort of, uh. High rise living. Is not
[19:39] for everybody. And my question, I don't know whether it
[19:43] would be to staff or the applicant. What comparables. In,
[19:49] let's say, Southern Ontario for high rise buildings with seniors
[19:53] in them. Uh, do they feel our working well? Because
[19:58] in my research, high rise buildings, um, I mean, this
[20:05] is documented. Uh, they turn in to ghettos. If people,
[20:08] they don't want to go out, uh, definitely high rise.
[20:12] This is not the case here with regards to having
[20:15] families there. But, uh, it high rise living is not
[20:19] for everybody. I am concerned when you have age in
[20:22] place. You could very well have someone who doesn't leave
[20:26] their apartment or their unit. So the main question is,
[20:30] are there comparable examples that are functioning very well that
[20:34] we should know about. I don't know what staff would
[20:40] ever have the expertise to answer that question. But if
[20:42] one would like to try, by all means. Through the
[20:48] charity Council Mental, I'm not sure staff that we can
[20:50] answer that question today. Um, so the focus of today's
[20:53] meeting, it's, it's a public planning meeting. So we're here
[20:55] to listen to submissions from members of the public in
[20:57] support of or an opposition to the application that's before
[21:01] counsel today. There will be a fullsome staff report that
[21:04] comes to standing committee meeting where staff respond and provide
[21:08] comment on all of the technical studies and submissions. Um,
[21:13] that the applicant has made. Staff will provide a professional
[21:15] recommendation at that time. Um, but questions that deal outside
[21:19] of the OPA and ZBA application that we're here today.
[21:22] We're not prepared to answer. Madon. So with regards to
[21:29] context for our official plan, uh, zoning by law, that
[21:35] I think Colberg has expressed sort of more recent concerns
[21:41] that we need balanced neighbourhoods we need healthy neighbourhoods. We
[21:47] need sustainable and safe neighbourhoods. So I would say that
[21:51] possibly in conversation and discussion, uh, it is very pertinent.
[21:59] Thank you for that comment. I would say the thousands
[22:01] of seniors waiting for long - term care bets is
[22:03] also a consideration we need to take into consideration. And
[22:06] we'll move forward. So, uh, with no other Council comments
[22:12] or submissions, we're going to move on to 6. 2.
[22:16] Zoning bylaw amendment at 540 King Street East. The deputy
[22:20] cleric will now advise that the procedure and dates by
[22:23] which this notice was provided. Thank you through you mayor.
[22:28] Notice of this Public Meeting was mailed to properties within
[22:30] 120 metres on August 5th, 2026. Assignments posted on the
[22:34] property on August 6th, 2026. And notice was posted on
[22:37] the Towns website on August 5th, 2026. At this time,
[22:47] I'd like to invite, I believe. Yep. Yuki Naganuma. My
[22:53] apologies UK. I didn't get the last name. And Mike
[22:56] Keen from Foughton Planning and design them. Not sure if
[22:59] I'm even saying that. Foten. I now provide no review.
[23:02] The proposed Zoning bylaw amendment at 540 King Street East.
[23:06] Welcome. Now your first time. You've got the clicker in
[23:11] front of you there and the microphone's yours. We look
[23:13] forward to your presentation. Good evening. We would like to
[23:21] begin our presentation with a few words from the owner,
[23:25] Ruth Kane, who should be logging in virtually. Hi, can
[23:29] everyone hear me okay? Yes, we can hear you. And
[23:34] thank you for joining us. Good evening, Mayor Cleaveman Council
[23:37] members. Town staff and members of the Court community. My
[23:41] name is Ruth Kane. I am the owner and developer
[23:43] of Sunnyside Village, a small subdivision on King Street East
[23:47] that will soon be home to 87 families, including my
[23:50] own. I just wanted to first say that it is
[23:53] a pleasure to work with the town staff. I especially
[23:55] thank our planning director, Chris, along with Victoria Emma Nate.
[24:00] Pauline Natalie Eddie Terry and so many others who have
[24:03] helped diligently move this project forward. We really appreciate you
[24:08] joining me on Zoom is Spencer Putnam, our legal counsel.
[24:13] And present with you today. Neil Pope, our primary project
[24:16] manager and builder, Andy Smith, our architect who designed this
[24:22] beautiful community and the spirit of the historic farmhouse, Mike
[24:26] Keen and Yukina Ganumi, who will give the presentation today
[24:29] our planners from Fojun. Since Council approved our draft plan
[24:33] two years ago, we have been working through the detailed
[24:36] design process. And in doing so, we identified a few
[24:40] zoning anomalies that are narrow in scope. And. We were
[24:45] asking Council to address them through this amendment. Our vision
[24:49] for Sunnyside has not changed. We remain committed to creating
[24:53] a beautiful Eastern gateway into Coburg. And we're grateful for
[24:57] your support. And with that, I'll turn the presentation over
[25:00] to our lead planner. You can NAGA Numa from Foton.
[25:14] Good evening. And thank you for inviting us into your
[25:16] Council Chambers today. My name is Yuki Naganuma and I'm
[25:20] a planner at Foten Planning and Design. I'm joined by
[25:23] my colleague, Mike Keen, Principal at Foten, and we represent
[25:26] the owners of Sonnyside Village Inc. We are here to
[25:29] speak to the Zoning bylaw Amendment application for the property
[25:32] municipally known as 540 King Street East. The sunny side
[25:39] village development is an existing subdivision for which Council previously
[25:43] approved a Zoning bylaw amendment in 2024. This site is
[25:46] located in East Coburg on the lands immediately east of
[25:49] the Wilmot Street Extension. As background, the ownership group has
[25:54] long been engaged with Cobra's staff on the Development of
[25:56] this community in East Coburg. Well before the Submission of
[25:59] the First Development Application, the ownership group has sought input
[26:03] from Planning Staff to ensure that the future sunnyside community
[26:06] would meet objectives of the town of Coburg. These discussions
[26:10] with staff go back to 2019, whereby the ownership group
[26:13] were encouraged to provide a compact community offering a diverse
[26:16] array of housing typologies. The first Zoning Amendment and subdivision
[26:20] applications were submitted in 2022 and received Council approval in
[26:24] 2024. The Zoning Approval established site - specific zoning framework
[26:29] necessary to support the future residential community and approved a
[26:33] three block draft plan of subdivision. Since the 2024 approval,
[26:37] the project team has been working closely with municipal staff
[26:41] to progress the development further through three detailed design submissions.
[26:44] The clearing of conditions of the draft plan and supporting
[26:47] the designation of the built heritage structures. The Zoning Amendment
[26:51] being considered today does not change the overall development concept
[26:54] for the community. Rather, it seeks approval for what we
[26:58] categorize as technical and administrative issues as a development concept
[27:02] is further refined. Importantly, the sunny side village concept has
[27:05] remained consistent with the vision as originally approved. With respect
[27:12] to the existing regulatory framework, the subject site contains site
[27:15] - specific zones as approved in 2024 to facilitate the
[27:18] sunny side village community. The Zoan categories as applicable to
[27:22] the site are shown on this slide. These include the
[27:25] residential two and residential four exception zones. The Environmental Constraint
[27:29] Zone, Open Space Zones, and a Development Zone. As noted
[27:36] earlier, the vision, scale, and overall development concept approved by
[27:39] concept remains substantially unchanged. The refinements made since the 2024
[27:45] approval are relatively minor and largely technical in nature. The
[27:53] most notable change is a reduction in the total number
[27:55] of residential units from 102 down to 87 units. This
[27:59] comes as a result of modifying the rear townhouse blocks
[28:02] from Stock Townhouse stacked townhouse style to standard street townhouses.
[28:08] The annotations shown here points to where these changes were
[28:11] made on the plan. Additional minor changes to building footprints
[28:15] have also been made throughout the site to accommodate a
[28:17] refined subdivision plan. The following slides illustrate the sunny side
[28:23] vision. As shown the development concept presents a land use
[28:26] structure that provides a range of missing middle housing typologies
[28:29] ranging from detached semi - detached stacked and standard townhouse
[28:33] dwellings. The built form strategy prioritizes pedestrian comfort through street
[28:38] - oriented buildings, active frontages, and a cohesive streetscape. Building
[28:42] heights are modest generally between two to four stories, helping
[28:45] to reinforce the human skill character of the community. The
[28:52] proposal conserves the site's cultural heritage through the retention and
[28:55] future adaptive reuse of the existing farmhouse and barn, ensuring
[28:58] that these important landmarks remain focal points within the neighbourhood.
[29:02] Open spaces beside the hair to structures comprise of a
[29:04] central park and barn parquette will offer areas for recreation
[29:07] and gathering. These features are linked to the wider site
[29:10] through an interconnected and pedestrian - friendly street network that
[29:14] circulates throughout the site alongside the environmental protection area and
[29:18] connections to the King Street Corridor. Overall, the concept shown
[29:24] here maintains the same vision for complete walkable heritage sensitive
[29:27] community that contributes positively to the future growth of Coburg.
[29:32] We'd also like to mention that Public Commons received as
[29:35] part of the initial planning application were heard and incorporated
[29:37] into the design of the community. For instance, the integration
[29:40] of EV charging for residential and Public Parking spaces. In
[29:45] the following section, I'll speak to the purpose of the
[29:47] current zoning bylaw Amendment application. Approval is being sought for
[29:51] a series of exceptions to the existing site - specific
[29:54] R2 and R4 regulations that apply to the property. These
[29:57] exceptions are required to address several minor adjustments relating to
[30:00] setbacks, lot area, and building coverage. In addition, amendments are
[30:04] requested for certain lot - specific provisions, including maximum density
[30:07] and parking location. These amendments are administrative in nature and
[30:12] is not the result of additional density being introduced to
[30:14] the site. Given the number of required site - specific
[30:17] changes, a zoning amendment was determined to be the appropriate
[30:20] planning approval process in consultation with staff rather than pursuing
[30:24] multiple minor variances. For further context, this Zoning Amendment is
[30:30] necessitated by a redlining of the approved draft plan of
[30:33] subdivision, which is concurrently being submitted to the town. The
[30:37] purpose of the redlining. Of the draft plan is to
[30:41] help legally define the site into a finer - grained
[30:44] network of street's blocks and lots as originally envisioned. As
[30:48] shown on the left, the site is currently approved for
[30:50] a three - block plan, and the site is now
[30:52] moving towards a 32 block plan, as shown on the
[30:54] right. As a lot fabric has evolved, targeted design adjustments
[30:59] were made to the approved concept to maintain zoning compliance.
[31:02] However, some provisions could not be fully accommodated and will
[31:05] require site - specific zoning amendments. For instance, slight reductions
[31:09] to front and exterior side yard setbacks at the south
[31:11] and central blocks. Minimum lot area adjustments to the central
[31:15] blocks and reducing detached garage setbacks were applicable. These are
[31:20] minor in scale and the site will continue to maintain
[31:22] an appropriate balance between built form and open space. The
[31:25] amendments relating to density and parking location will be discussed
[31:28] further for clarity. With regards to density, Council approval is
[31:35] being sought to formally recognise a higher density calculation on
[31:37] certain individual blocks. To be clear, the density surplus is
[31:41] not the result of additional density being introduced to the
[31:43] site, but rather due to the technicality of new LOT
[31:46] fabric over the property. As shown on the left, the
[31:49] property has already been assessed and Council approved for an
[31:52] overall net density of 24 units per net hectar. As
[31:56] shown on the right, the refined 32 block plan now
[31:59] has an overall density of 22 units per net hectar.
[32:03] However, given the new LOT fabric introduced, density is required
[32:07] to be calculated on a block - by - block
[32:08] basis, therefore those blocks containing standard and stack townhouses are
[32:12] now shown to exceed the maximum density requirement of 50
[32:15] units per net hectare and require a site - specific
[32:18] amendment. Given that the requested amendment seeks to accommodate the
[32:23] same level of built - form intensity, as has already
[32:25] been approved by council, it's our opinion that this amendment
[32:28] is minor and administrative in nature. As a reminder, the
[32:32] proposed overall density of 22 units per net hector is
[32:35] still well within the town's acceptable range of the medium
[32:37] density category of residential development. In fact, it is lower
[32:41] than the approved total as the plan has decreased by
[32:43] 15 units. Additionally, Council Approval is sought for site -
[32:51] specific zoning amendments relating to the location of parking. The
[32:54] Zoning Bylaw requires that parking spaces be located on the
[32:57] same lot as a use that they serve and access
[32:59] from a publicly owned and maintained lane. It should be
[33:02] noted that the internal loop road to which all dwellings
[33:05] will have frontage on will be a private condo road.
[33:08] Owned and maintained privately. So an amendment is required to
[33:11] recognise this condition. Also, while the development site continues to
[33:15] provide the required number of parking spaces along with guest
[33:18] parking throughout the site, the Introduction of the Detailed Lot
[33:21] fabric has resulted in some required residential parking spaces being
[33:25] located on a separate lot from the unit they serve.
[33:28] In actuality, as shown on the images, the affected parking
[33:33] spaces remain in close proximity to their associated units and
[33:36] are provided through conveniently located surface parking areas or detached
[33:40] garages. Ownership and use of these parking spaces will be
[33:43] secured through legal agreements tied to the respective dwelling units
[33:46] to ensure they will remain available to the residents they're
[33:49] intended to serve. In our opinion, this requested zoning amendment
[33:52] is also minor and administrative in nature, as it does
[33:55] not alter the functionality of the site. There should be
[34:03] a final slide. There. We go. In conclusion, the requested
[34:11] amendments discussed today represent the final stage of approvals before
[34:14] the ownership group can readily advance the property into the
[34:17] construction base. After many years of positive collaboration with members
[34:20] of Council and Municipal staff, their eager to establish sunny
[34:24] side village as the eastern gateway into the town of
[34:26] Colberg. This concludes our presentation regarding the proposed zoning bylaw
[34:30] amendment for 540 King Street East. Thank you for your
[34:33] time and we welcome any comments or questions. Anyone from
[34:37] Council, if any questions Council Matan. Two questions. Thank you
[34:42] very much for your presentation. One of your slides on
[34:47] Zoning bylaw amendment, I think the parcel that has the
[34:52] barn on it was zone D. Could you please clarify
[34:59] what that might mean. Through you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you
[35:04] for the question. The purpose of the development zone, um,
[35:08] overlaid over the barn block is because the ownership group
[35:12] has intentions to develop the barn as a future potential
[35:17] mixed use community area. However, through adaptively reusing the existing
[35:21] structure. However, at this current time, there are no, um,
[35:24] concrete plans, which is the reason why it's currently zoned
[35:27] in the development block. And my second question, Mr. Mayor.
[35:32] I believe some of the enclosed parking spaces are just
[35:39] one - story garage. Um, what you seek in your
[35:45] application, would that allow for, let's say, like a coach
[35:50] house built on top. Uh, in the future? Or is
[35:53] that something that the owner, the developer is not considering
[35:58] at this time or would that be a future application?
[36:01] Um, I'm just thinking of efficiencies of use of building
[36:06] footprints. Through you, Mr. Mayor, uh, the ownership group has
[36:13] no intentions to develop the garage structures with future residential
[36:18] uses. No. I'd like to say thank you very much.
[36:24] For your presentation. I believe at this time, I'm going
[36:28] to move on to, have there any been any correspondences
[36:31] received. Through you, Mr. Mayor, there was one piece of
[36:35] correspondence received from Robert Michael. Wonderful. And deputie clerk, have
[36:39] any registered speakers? Let me guess. We've got one registered
[36:43] speaker. We do. Yes. Mr. Mickl. Michael. Thank you for
[36:47] your presentation. We will, uh, get ready for Mr. Michael
[36:50] to come up. Mr. Michael, welcome back.
[37:01] I know you should have put your name on the
[37:02] ballot a few weeks ago. Thank you.
[37:14] Basically. Everyone that I've talked to in the ACO and
[37:21] branch, and myself, I very feel very positively about this
[37:26] development. We think it's a responsible development and a great
[37:29] way to incorporate heritage within the, uh, new developments. And
[37:37] I hope that, um, more developers will see the success.
[37:43] And, uh, character of this development and want to. Do
[37:48] similar projects. They also didn't mention, but I'll mention that
[37:51] they've named their buildings after early prominent families who had
[37:56] some, uh, influence in the early establishment of the town.
[38:00] So overall, I think it's in all the ACL members
[38:06] I've talked to who've seen it, I think it's quite
[38:09] a positive move in the direction of development in Coburg.
[38:14] That's all. Thank you. So before we go to that,
[38:22] let's just talk because we've got any other questions or
[38:25] comments or members of Council. Wonderful. Third and final matter,
[38:29] 6. 3 recording Zoning by a Law Amendment. Administrative updates.
[38:34] So Deputy Clerk will now advise of the procedure of
[38:36] which notice was given and confirmed the dates notice was
[38:39] given. Through you, Mr. Chair. Notice of this Public Meeting
[38:45] was posted on the town's website on August 5th, 2026.
[38:48] Noted. Uh, Explanation, Emma Hughes, manager of Long Range Planning
[38:52] will now provide an overview of the proposed bylaw amendment
[38:54] to correct administrative updates. I'd love. Miss Hughe. Are you
[39:02] going to do it from back there? Uh, it's fine
[39:04] with me if you are. I can happily know stay
[39:06] back there. It's all good. Whatever council prefers. Um, and
[39:10] just in the off chance, Deputy Mayor, I am expecting
[39:12] another phone call. So if I have to leave, will
[39:14] you assume the chair upon my exit? Thank you. Not
[39:17] a curse. This is. All you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
[39:22] So two council through the mayor, the Planning Department does
[39:24] want to present, um, some proposed administrative updates to the
[39:29] comprehensive zoning bylaw. We had advised during our last administrative
[39:32] update that we would potentially have one or two more
[39:35] administrative updates to bring to Council over the course of
[39:37] the next year. Um, so just some background context for
[39:41] everybody on December 17th, 2026, the town of Coburg passed
[39:46] its new comprehensive zoning bylaw, which replaced the previous comprehensive
[39:49] zoning bylaw 2003 at 85. Um, this was, uh, pertains
[39:54] to all lands in Coburg outside of defined employment areas
[39:57] as additional studies are being conducted through the official plan
[40:00] update. So as part of this continued process of implementing
[40:04] this new Zoning bylaw, the town staff have identified several
[40:08] elements of the Zoning bylaw that should be updated to
[40:10] correct either conflicting information, duplication of information or to bring,
[40:15] uh, current zoning policies into conformity with legislative and, pardon
[40:21] me. Other existing bylaws that have been passed. So we
[40:27] have a summary of our proposed amendments. We are looking
[40:29] at Introducing ATA administrative updates to this comprehensive Zoning bylaw
[40:33] today. And I will just move right into them. So
[40:38] the first Zoning bylaw amendment that we are proposing today
[40:41] relates to the regulations surrounding food trucks in the current
[40:44] zoning bylaws. So the current definition of a food truck
[40:47] in the Zoning Bylaw specifically excludes trailers, push carts and
[40:51] non - motorized vehicles. Uh, that are propelled by muscle
[40:54] power. There is no alternative definition in the Zoning bylaw
[40:58] that would include these types of vehicles to be used
[41:00] in the same manner as a food truck. The towns
[41:03] refreshment vehicle license by law 43 2015 has a much
[41:06] broader definition of refreshment vehicles, which does include a trailers
[41:10] and other vehicles that are propelled by muscle power. Um,
[41:14] so therefore planning staff are proposing to replace the current
[41:17] definition of food truck with a new more expansive definition
[41:20] that does include trailers push carts and other types of
[41:23] vehicles that are currently included in the licensing bylaw. Um,
[41:27] this new definition, pardon me, would not be limited to
[41:31] trucks a new term is also being proposed for this
[41:33] revised definition. Planning staff are recommending that the term mobile
[41:37] catering unit be used for the new definition. This is
[41:40] based on the term mobile catering use, which is listed
[41:43] as a permitted use in the business park and district
[41:45] commercial zones in the comprehensive zoning bylaw. Um, but it's
[41:49] not defined elsewhere. This term, pardon me, is more appropriate
[41:53] in appropriate pardon me through staff's purview given that it
[41:56] has a more expansive definition and makes it easier for
[41:59] small business owners and citizens to interpret and go through
[42:02] the licensing process with our bilaw department. So next up
[42:05] we have amendment two. So we are amending patio definitions
[42:08] again for more clarity and easy comprehension for users of
[42:12] the Zoning Biolaw. The purpose of encroachment specifically for patios
[42:17] under this section is to regulate structures that would otherwise
[42:19] be considered DECs, uh, but for their height. So the
[42:23] definition of deck under the comprehensive zoning bylaw requires that
[42:27] a floor have at least 0. 3 metres above finished
[42:29] grade. The purpose of the patio regulation is to allow
[42:32] for decks that do not exceed 0. 3 metres above
[42:35] grade to be located in front yards and also have
[42:37] smaller setback requirements than your standard patio. This is in
[42:41] line with the previous approach to deck regulations under section
[42:44] 5. 13 of our comprehensive zoning byla 85 - 2003,
[42:49] which did establish different regulations for sun decks and patios
[42:53] less than 0. 6 metres above grade, but was not
[42:55] carried over. So the primary purpose of this change is
[42:58] to clarify what the patio setback encroachment regulations apply to.
[43:02] These policies are not intended to apply to what would
[43:05] typically be considered a patio, but rather would effectively, what
[43:10] are effectively decks that do not meet the minimum height
[43:12] requirements. So again, this captures decks that would be at
[43:16] that point three metre height above grade, not meaning that
[43:18] 0. 6 metre, but it is to be more permissible
[43:20] in the front yard and to allow again, more easier
[43:23] interpretation for citizens when they are looking at the zoning
[43:27] bylaw and planning on installing DEX patios, et cetera. Um,
[43:31] in addition, uh, to the above described patio encroachment regulations
[43:35] and that we are looking at, we're also looking to
[43:37] introduce a definition for restaurant patios. So the definition for
[43:41] a restaurant patio is not intended to limit or define
[43:44] the parameters of how the patios are to be used
[43:47] and structured, but rather to define what their use is.
[43:51] So when we have our temporary patioza that pop up,
[43:53] especially inheritage districts, part of the process is that the
[43:56] licensing application be sent to the planning department to ensure
[43:59] conformity with the heritage district policies. And zoning right now,
[44:04] we have policies that speak to a temporary outdoor furniture
[44:07] within the heritage district. To ensure that it maintains the
[44:11] character of the district and isn't detracting or inappropriate, but
[44:14] we do not have a specific definition for restaurant patio
[44:17] use. So again, to create more clarity, easy interpretation for
[44:21] both staff and the public, um, the building department and
[44:25] licensing as well, capturing everybody here when issuing these permits
[44:29] introducing this definition for restaurant patios again aids an easier
[44:33] interpretation for the bylaw. Next, we are going on to
[44:38] the removal of accessory dwelling definition. Um. So one of
[44:43] the definitions in the comprehensive zoning bylaw is for accessory
[44:47] dwellings, which defines a dwelling unit that is accessory to
[44:49] the main use of a non - residential building. This
[44:52] use is listed as a permitted use in most zones
[44:54] in the town of Coburg. The purpose of this definition
[44:57] is to provide a framework to allow for mixed use
[44:59] developments in commercial or mixed use zones. However, through the
[45:02] drafting process that we had expressed concerns about potential confusion
[45:05] between the terms accessory dwelling and additional residential unit. The
[45:10] staff are proposing to remove the accessory dwelling definition. Um,
[45:14] as it is, it duplication of the, uh, most currently
[45:18] accepted additional residential unit to language that is found in
[45:21] the PPS and other planning documents. So again, we are
[45:24] not removing the ability to have accessory or additional residential
[45:28] units. We are simply removing a duplication of terminology. So
[45:31] additional residential unit and accessory dwelling unit mean the same
[45:35] thing. The provincial provincially preferred term is additional residential unit.
[45:40] So we, we, we will be again, removing that duplication
[45:42] to offer some more clarity and support for anybody that
[45:45] is using and interpreting this bylaw. Then we are moving
[45:51] on to amendment number four. So we're cross - referencing
[45:54] additional residential unit policies. As the section 4. 3. 1C
[45:58] of the Zoning Bylaw Clarifies, the properties with additional residential
[46:01] units, ARUs are subject to the requirements to have frontage
[46:05] on a Public Street or similar right - of -
[46:07] way unless the ARU is located on a lane. The
[46:10] relevant section references the section containing these access provisions. Action
[46:14] 4. 8 when it actually should reference section 4. 9.
[46:18] We are just proposing to correct the numerology mistake here.
[46:21] So again, currently referencing section 4. 8, but this should
[46:24] reference section 4. 9 of the bylaw. So we are
[46:27] proposing an amendment to that numerology to make sure that
[46:30] it is properly accounted for in the bylaws. So just
[46:32] again, one more time, we are only amending that section
[46:34] to update it from item 4. 8 in the bylaw
[46:37] to be reflected as item 4. 9. Proposed amendment number
[46:44] five is a temporary special events regulations. So another element
[46:48] of the comprehensive zoning bylaw that Planning staff identified as
[46:52] needing improvement was our process for regulating special events. The
[46:55] town of Cobra Coast, many special events throughout the years
[46:58] such as the waterfront festival. We just had rib fest
[47:00] take place. Two weekends ago, one or two weekends ago.
[47:04] Um, just to name a few, um, as well as
[47:06] many sidewalk sales and other community events, any buildings or
[47:10] structures associated with these events typically including tents are technically
[47:13] subject to the provisions of the bylaw. So that includes
[47:16] setbacks total law coverage, et cetera noise as well. Um,
[47:21] however, these events only exist on a temporary basis and
[47:25] are already required to have approvals through other town departments,
[47:28] including the fire department, building services, potentially public works, um,
[47:33] if there is access, um, so there is already extensive
[47:38] review taking place for these events. So what planning staff
[47:41] is proposing it to help remove the red tape for
[47:45] planting these events for the town of Colberg is to
[47:48] define the term temporary special event within the bylaw. We
[47:52] currently do not define a temporary special event in the
[47:54] bylaw. Um, so we would like to introduce a definition.
[47:58] Um, and the definition would, um, state any event being
[48:00] approved through the town's municipal application process. These events would
[48:05] then be permitted in all zones knee environmental constraints. They
[48:09] are required to follow the processes that are outlined from
[48:13] municipal special events as defined by tourism. And a community
[48:17] services. And again, would just provide more clear direction, uh,
[48:21] for town staff when receiving these applications. Um, the impact
[48:25] would be minimal. But again, it is just to provide
[48:27] more clarity and Aeda, the town. In these events taking
[48:31] place in AMR. Efficient fashion. So we'll move on to
[48:36] amendment number six, which is temporary use regulation. So as
[48:39] we just described above, Plating Staff are proposing to expand
[48:43] a list of uses that are permitted in all zones.
[48:45] So allowing for temporary special events in all zones outside
[48:47] of the environmental constraint and floodway. Um, we want to
[48:52] expand that definition to include temporary mobile catering units and
[48:55] temporary special events. So again, we want to be sure
[48:57] that when we're updating, um, our temporary mobile catering unit,
[49:01] um, and events definitions that we are ensuring that they
[49:04] are actually permitted in the zones as outlined in the
[49:08] bylaws. So this update is to ensure that those provisions
[49:10] are captured in the right sections of the bylaw that
[49:13] would allow their uses. Amendment number seven is for the
[49:19] short term rental accommodation parking. Um, so on February 26th
[49:23] of 2025, Count Council passed a licensing 2025 to regulate
[49:29] short - term rental accommodations. One of the regulations that
[49:33] became more restrictive was the parking requirement when the comprehensive
[49:36] Zoning bylaw was updated. It was updated to reflect the
[49:39] current provisions for a bed and breakfast, which requires that
[49:42] there be one parking space per room rented. Um, as
[49:46] we have rolled out the licensing process and the review
[49:48] process, there has been some conflicts with parking. And we
[49:52] are introducing the amendment to, uh, state that parking requirements
[49:56] for additional residential units, be in alignment with the parking
[50:00] requirements in the bylaw for that dwelling typology. So for
[50:03] example, if you are renting short - term rental that
[50:07] is a single detached dwelling, the parking accommodations for these
[50:10] short - term rental accommodation would be the same that
[50:13] the Planning Department would require for a single detached dwelling.
[50:17] Um, so if it is one parking space that is
[50:20] required for that dwelling typology, whether it be semi -
[50:22] detached, etc., that is what will be required instead of
[50:24] a per bedroom requirement. This is also more in line
[50:29] with licensing process and what is outlined in the licensing
[50:32] bylaw. So moving along to number eight, we have a
[50:35] mapping error that staff have identified and need to correct.
[50:40] This was identified on rocking cam court. So they are
[50:42] currently zoned residential four, exception five. So our four -
[50:46] five. This zone was not intended to apply to these
[50:49] properties, but rather was intended to apply to the properties
[50:52] on Ratan Terrace. It does currently apply to the properties
[50:56] there. It was applied to retain terrace. Um, but these
[50:59] are linked dwellings. So a link dwelling just for information
[51:03] purposes. They appear to be single detached dwellings above grade
[51:07] when you're looking at them from the street, but they're
[51:10] quite literally as the name suggests linked below grade. So
[51:12] the basements are attached below grade. So updating, we would
[51:16] update the site specifica Zone to be, um, to be
[51:20] more appropriate to the property. And we would also ensure
[51:23] that the definition for linked dwelling is updated to appropriately
[51:28] align with the use on rocking hampart. So our next
[51:33] step, just so everybody knows what is coming. There will
[51:36] be a report that will be brought to the Public
[51:39] Works Planning and Development Standing Committee on September 9th after
[51:43] it is reviewed by the Standing Committee. It will then
[51:45] be forwarded on to a regular Council meeting on September
[51:47] 23rd for further discussion. Um, and if these proposed amendments
[51:52] are approved, the changes could come into effect as soon
[51:54] as October 14th, 2026. I will turn it back over
[51:58] through the VERICHA Council for any comments, questions, considerations. Seems
[52:04] pretty straightforward. At this time, do any public submissions. Do
[52:10] you chair, we do not have any public submissions and
[52:12] we don't have any registered speakers. It's good to hear.
[52:14] Well, I know we've got a Council comments. So Council
[52:17] Mutant. Let us coming to the standing committee and the
[52:20] thought I've ever give a heads up on some questions.
[52:22] Some of these are on clarity. Um, and thank you
[52:25] very much. I'm going to go backwards through your presentation.
[52:28] So Amendment number eight. Were the, uh, where the people
[52:33] affected unrocking him court, uh, notified of the Zoning change.
[52:39] Through the mayor to Councillor Maton. Every resident in Coburg
[52:44] has provided the prescribed notice for an update to the
[52:47] comprehensive Zoning bylaw. So yes, they would have been provided
[52:49] notice. With the whole of cowork mailed. No, it is
[52:53] posted on the town's website just for budgetary reasons. It
[52:56] would be very expensive to have to mail a notice
[52:59] to all residents for, yeah, the reason I asked Mr.
[53:01] Mayor is that it specifically affects property owners. It's an
[53:06] error, but they may have not known. But okay, amendment
[53:11] number seven, STRA parking lot or parking requirements is the
[53:17] STRA license, is that an annual. Uh, IM, is that
[53:22] renewed annually or is it, uh, different. Mr. Larmo on
[53:29] that one. Thankfully he's here. Through you to renewal license,
[53:33] but we can answer questions that aren't related to the
[53:35] Zoning Byleth at the standing committee meeting, no problem. We'll
[53:38] bring those answers for you. Okay. So, uh, question, uh,
[53:41] on the, uh, application, uh, short term rental accommodation, et
[53:46] cetera. I understood a tandem parking. Do you anticipate any
[53:51] of hearing some, the issues with that? Especially if it's
[53:54] a shared driveway. Do you anticipate that there might be
[53:57] a refinement with regards to if tandem parking is permitted
[54:02] as of right that they have to actually put up
[54:05] a little fence or something so they're not interfering. And
[54:09] STRA, the person renting may not be aware. Uh, so
[54:14] just to make it easier for the adjacent property owner
[54:17] that they don't have to keep reminding a visitor that
[54:20] they shouldn't be parking there. It might clear on that
[54:23] one. Yeah. So through the mirror, just a Councillor Matan,
[54:27] I might even direct that back to the director of
[54:30] legislative services only because, uh, the actual licensing bylaw is
[54:34] in a document that the planning department updates and reviews
[54:36] that would be through the preview of the bylaw department.
[54:39] Um, so our purpose with that is sheerly just to
[54:41] define what is allowable. But the parameters of what would
[54:44] actually have to take place through the issuance of the
[54:47] license would have to come through. Belaw, I believe. And
[54:49] I can be corrected if I'm wrong. So, uh, and
[54:52] then the other question is, uh, STRA parking. Is there
[54:57] a potential that people buy a permit so that they
[55:00] use street parking? I cannot recall the bylaw and it
[55:04] might, I can defer that question to the standing committee.
[55:08] But if you've got, if you buy a permit, then
[55:11] it takes up a public parking spot just, uh, that's
[55:15] where I was headed with that. So amendment number six
[55:19] temporary use regulations. So, uh, little bit confused. You will
[55:27] be allowing use of EC and hazard lands? No. Through
[55:32] the mayor to Councillor Mattan, know in all zones outside
[55:35] of environmental constraint, uh, the flood overlay, I would just
[55:39] like to note though we do work closely with the
[55:42] gainerosker region conservation authority. So if there was ever a
[55:45] proposal, that would be something that would be considered on
[55:47] a case specific basis. They would be directed to consult
[55:50] with the GRCA. And before we would consider they would
[55:52] have to provide us with some formal written reference from
[55:56] the GRCA outlining that it's not a hazard. And just
[55:59] a gentle reminder, the Conservation Authorities are actually, as of
[56:02] next year, they have a different format, maybe just check
[56:06] with them to see if it's business as usual. Um,
[56:10] amendment number five. Temporary special events. Will your report forthcoming
[56:18] have maps for the zones, which this would apply, um,
[56:23] it wasn't clear to me when the, when the page
[56:26] says applicable zones, uh, would there be additional information in
[56:31] your forthcoming report? Yes. Sorry. And my apologies. I should
[56:34] have been more clear to Councillor Matan. The special temporary
[56:37] special events will be allowed in all zones outside of
[56:40] the environmental constraint and flood overlay zones. We can't provide
[56:44] mapping with our report if you would like. So, um,
[56:47] actually, uh, we will express a concern that residential zones
[56:51] and temporary special events. I think that's a potential conflict.
[56:58] I have, I hear on a regular basis, even though
[57:00] we have special events in Victoria Park, we have a
[57:02] lot of residential area close by. And so not knowing
[57:07] further details, I think there is a bit of a
[57:10] sensitivity matter that may need to be taken into account.
[57:15] Amendment four. Cross - reference in ARU. Thank you for
[57:23] that. There's a question in a couple of amendments with
[57:26] regards to encroachments. There are specified setbacks, but then there's
[57:32] allowable encroachments. For example, if you have a front porch,
[57:35] you can encroach a couple of feet into the street
[57:38] right of way. You know, if you're building as like
[57:40] very, so, uh, that would be a question I would
[57:44] ask is, what are the allowable encroachments? For example, you
[57:47] might have the building wall, but then your Eve, uh,
[57:52] might encroach into a side yard. And that, that's, that's
[57:56] a question that comes up. Um, uh, adding a dwelling
[58:01] unit in a non - residential building that makes me
[58:04] kind of interested in what that means. Like we may
[58:07] have a commercial or industrial building with a residential unit.
[58:12] So through the merit account, Sermatin, we do focus more
[58:15] so on mixed use. So that could also expand right
[58:18] to, to, uh, retail, um, and additional residential units as
[58:23] of right are permitted and mixed use buildings already. So
[58:25] the idea is actually to support the policies and the
[58:28] official plan that direct us to focus on mixed use
[58:31] intensification. So allowing for live more live work situations where
[58:36] it's permitted obviously outside of employment areas. I also should
[58:38] have been more clear that it does not extend to
[58:41] employment areas. We do not allow residential ADs. Okay. Unless
[58:46] it's explored in other app through other avenues with Council.
[58:50] But yeah, it would, uh, would offer us that opportunity.
[58:57] An amendment, uh, number two. Oh, I should mention with
[59:02] number three, um, I was a bit surprised when an
[59:06] accessory dwelling unit had a bigger footprint than the actual
[59:09] primary house. So that will be a question that comes
[59:12] up too. You know, the proportion, uh, the use of,
[59:15] uh, how much of the law is, is usable and
[59:18] so forth. Number two, patio definitions. So I got a
[59:21] little confused with this because I always, I make the
[59:23] distinction between the deck and a patio. So, uh, would
[59:27] it be part of the verbiage that, uh, the size
[59:34] of this in proportion, let's say the building footprint is,
[59:38] you know, 15 by 15 that the patio is proportional
[59:42] or is that done on a case by case basis.
[59:46] Through the merit to Councillor Gaton. Could you possibly just
[59:48] repeat your question? Fermi, sorry. I'm just having a bit
[59:50] of difficulty. Yeah. So, uh, patio and restaurant patio. Specifically,
[59:56] it's a patio, the patio definition, um, I've always considered,
[1:00:03] you know, if it's less, if it's less than 0.
[1:00:06] 3 metres, uh, then it's still a deck. And then
[1:00:10] if it's higher, it actually is a structural element that
[1:00:12] has to go through on like the building inspector and
[1:00:16] that sort of permitting. But it's the sigh. So if
[1:00:19] you have, if you're building footprint is 15 by 15,
[1:00:23] 20 by 24. Are there any and you have a
[1:00:26] big lot? Are there. Any restrictions or accommodations? How big
[1:00:33] your patio can be. Through the merit to Councillor Maton.
[1:00:38] We can provide more information at the standing committee, but
[1:00:40] yes, they would be subject to the Zoan specifica requirements
[1:00:43] for patios decks and accessory structures is also too, but
[1:00:47] we consider them. So they would be, um, they would
[1:00:49] be a subject to those provisions. And if there are
[1:00:52] any zones that you would like more information on, we
[1:00:54] are happy to provide the specifics of those requirements. They
[1:00:57] do vary between zones. Okay. And finally, mobile catering unit
[1:01:02] in all zones, which it is permitted. My understanding from
[1:01:07] you is that they could be possible in any zone.
[1:01:11] Or they'll be specifics. Through the merit to Councillor Maton.
[1:01:16] I would have to confer the director of legislative services
[1:01:19] about which Zoans the mobile catering food trucks are explicitly
[1:01:23] permitted in, but that is why we worded it that
[1:01:25] way. So they are allowed in the zones through which
[1:01:28] the licensing bylaw states they are allowed to exist. And
[1:01:31] so if the licensing bylaws says you can only have
[1:01:32] them in a mixed use corridor, you know, no residential
[1:01:37] zones. And that is how this permission is worded. So
[1:01:40] it is to be more in alignment with the bylaw
[1:01:42] that was passed. I believe it was in June or
[1:01:44] July for the mobile cater or temporary catering. So that's
[1:01:48] how we worded it that way. So it captures the
[1:01:51] zone set the licensing bylaw specifically states they could operate
[1:01:54] in. So one of the things that crossed my mind
[1:01:56] is that let's say you're on a very beautifully well
[1:01:59] - treed street. You can't necessarily be cooking underneath a
[1:02:05] tree canopy. That's like it's a form of incompatible use.
[1:02:12] Uh, so, so accommodation. I hear that. Yes. I hear
[1:02:15] all the huffing and puffing over here, but this is
[1:02:17] my opportunity to put this out in the open. And
[1:02:20] so that was just, uh, sort of sensitive, uh, uses
[1:02:24] or incompatible uses that there must be a way of
[1:02:26] addressing that. And so forth. So that's my, my last
[1:02:31] question. You can go, Hey Chris. Through the chair to
[1:02:39] Councillor Motels, I'll just add a couple more points with
[1:02:42] Miss Hughes has said. So specifically for the temporary events
[1:02:45] and for the mobile catering units, they're still subject to
[1:02:49] the licensing regime of the town. Uh, and they're still
[1:02:52] subject to the special event application process. So there is
[1:02:54] a 17 page special event application that gets circulated to
[1:02:58] all departments of the town. Um, it is easier to
[1:03:02] make them permissible across the town and then to regulate
[1:03:04] them through the licensing bylaw and then through the special
[1:03:08] event application process. Right now the conflict between the two.
[1:03:11] So it's easier to allow them as of right in
[1:03:13] certain zones. Subject to the actual licensing regime and the
[1:03:17] special event application process. Oh, are you the chair? Sorry,
[1:03:22] just a comment more than once I've heard when there
[1:03:26] is a conflict, um, and just as a generalization, uh,
[1:03:30] you know, it's a, it's a of right as a
[1:03:32] permit, uh, or as a zoning, et cetera. And then
[1:03:37] the response to a neighbour or someone who has some
[1:03:40] concerns is, Oh, it's a civil matter. And, um, I
[1:03:45] think there needs to be an opportunity to, you know,
[1:03:48] if, if there is a burden placed on a neighbour
[1:03:52] because of something that is, you know, rightfully possible that,
[1:03:57] um, it's an internal process rather than, you know, asking
[1:04:01] or suggesting that people go. And pursue it independently. Like
[1:04:06] we have an obligation is what I'm trying to get
[1:04:08] at. So I'm just trying to avoid potential conflicts. Thank
[1:04:15] you very much, Miss Hughes. And thank you to the
[1:04:17] director for the final comments. Any questions related to look
[1:04:22] forward to it going through the September cycle round. Thank
[1:04:26] you for continuing to observe the evolution of the comprehensive
[1:04:30] zoning bylaw. At this time, I do apologise. I don't
[1:04:35] wear just a journey. There's no other. Thank you. Sorry
[1:04:38] folks. I just don't have the agenda. And speaking of
[1:04:41] it's in front of me. So we will adjourn the
[1:04:44] public meeting. We are finished and we will take a
[1:04:47] 10 minute break. Thank you. 720. 720. Let's just do
[1:04:54] 720. What up? Thank you very much.
[1:20:43] Welcome back. I am going to call this meeting to
[1:20:46] order at 724, I believe, 724 p. m. This would
[1:20:51] be the third council meeting. We are commencing. It is
[1:20:55] also a carryover of the first meeting, but we are
[1:20:58] not allowed to have two meetings at once. We ended
[1:21:00] one, had a second, ended that, and now we're resuming
[1:21:03] with the third meeting to pick up from where we
[1:21:05] started on the first meeting. I will, we have no
[1:21:09] introduction at the end of items. We do have a
[1:21:12] confirmation of this wonderfully produce, so booved by Councillor Bureau
[1:21:16] and seconded by Councillor Burkhat. Any questions or concern, seeing
[1:21:19] none all in favor, so moved. We've already read Traditional
[1:21:23] Land acknowledgement. We will move past that. We will go
[1:21:25] to five. Disclosure pecuniary interests. Are there any at this
[1:21:28] time. I'm going back over what we had before, and
[1:21:33] I believe all of the items previously declared pecuniary interest
[1:21:36] are complete. I'm just going to confirm that. Yes, it
[1:21:38] is. So no disclosures, we go on to Bylaws, and
[1:21:43] we have six. So we have a consent motion. Do
[1:21:48] I have mover in a seconder? So move by Councillor
[1:21:50] Darling, seconded by Councillor Burkhat. So at this time, any
[1:21:55] questions, concerns, we've got the six heritage designations. Seeing no
[1:22:00] other questions or concerns, all in favor, so moved. We
[1:22:04] now move on to a notice of motion, 7. 1.
[1:22:08] It's my motion, so I'm assuming I should probably pass
[1:22:10] the chair, assuming Deputy Mayor is probably going to want
[1:22:13] to speak to it. I know Councillor Darling is, so
[1:22:15] I'm happy to go to Councillor Barber if you'd like.
[1:22:18] Reject to chair this item. If not, I'm happy, Chair.
[1:22:24] I said, I'm happy to share it. So I'll ask
[1:22:27] first, is there a mover of the motion. Okay, so
[1:22:31] now I'm going to have to pass the chair. Is
[1:22:33] there anyone who'd like to take the chair? By all
[1:22:35] means, thank you, Deputy Mayor. So I'd like to move
[1:22:37] the motion. Chair's yours. Thank you. So we have the
[1:22:41] motion move. Is there a seconder. The motion is.
[1:22:51] What is fake one moment? Sorry, we'll get it.
[1:23:12] And procedurally, I just want to confirm Mr. Lahmard that
[1:23:16] speakers may not register to speak to. Notice his emotions,
[1:23:19] correct? Correct. Thank you.
[1:23:30] So if I move, do we have a seconder. Okay,
[1:23:35] seeing none, the motion doesn't make it to the floor.
[1:23:40] Not a problem. We do have another notice of motion,
[1:23:42] which is 16. 2. Again, I'll ask if the mover.
[1:23:48] I'll ask if the chair. And I will move. We
[1:23:53] have a mover. Is there a seconder. Okay, seeing none
[1:23:59] the motion doesn't make it to the floor. Back to
[1:24:00] you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you very much. So we have
[1:24:02] no seconders for either of those motions noted. Uh, I
[1:24:06] guess that would take us to the. Confirmation by -
[1:24:08] law. Oh, close session. We got to go back to
[1:24:11] the close. That's right. So at this point, I guess
[1:24:13] we will go back into closed session. Uh, I need
[1:24:16] to move for a seconder. So move by deputy mayor
[1:24:19] and seconded by Council Burkkat. It's moved in second at
[1:24:21] all in favor. So move. Thank you very much. Dip
[1:24:29] in Mural, I'll pass to you just to take another
[1:24:30] phone call, and I will see you guys in about
[1:24:32] 10 minutes. Please continue.
[3:13:02] All right, so we're now. Welcome back into Open at
[3:13:10] 9. 15. May have a mover at this moment, so
[3:13:15] move by Council Burk at seconded by Councillor Bureau. Any
[3:13:18] questions or concerns, seeing none all in favor. So moved.
[3:13:23] Coming out of Open, we've also got the appointment to
[3:13:25] accessibility advisory committee. Do I have a mover? Councillor Burkat,
[3:13:28] seconded by. Thank you, let's go. Councillor Bureau. Any other
[3:13:34] questions or concerns? Seeing none, all in favor. So moved.
[3:13:38] Last and final. DBIA, Stephen G. Cousins. We're gonna wait
[3:13:44] till the one member of the DBI leaves from the
[3:13:46] meeting as he is a conflict of interest. Moved by.
[3:13:53] So move by Councillor. Darling, seconded by. Second and bye.
[3:13:58] Oh, thank you, Councillor Burkat. Didn't see, I just see
[3:14:02] that. So there, and you know questions, seeing none, all
[3:14:05] in favor, so moved. Reappointing of hold co - director.
[3:14:10] Mr. Fred Clifford, last one moved by Councillor Burkhat, seconded
[3:14:13] by Councillor Darlingberg, Councillor Barber. Barber. It's been a long
[3:14:19] day. Any questions or concerns, all in favor. So moved.
[3:14:24] We're now gonna move to the confirmatory by - law.
[3:14:29] Nine and a half hours later. We're there. So moved
[3:14:31] by Councillor Burkat, seconded by. Deputy Mayor Beauty, I'll give
[3:14:36] her on that one. She got fastest guns on the
[3:14:37] West here. That seconding. Any other questions or concerns regarding
[3:14:42] our confirmatory bylaw? Oh, we got one, Mr. Larmer. We
[3:14:47] just gonna put on the screen just because this is
[3:14:49] a new meeting. We had to confirm the by -
[3:14:51] law from the other meeting was referred, and then we
[3:14:53] have a conferendium by Bylaw for this meeting. So 053
[3:14:56] - 2026 and 054 - 2026. So we get two
[3:15:01] confirmatory bylaws. Yes, we did that. Now, first time for
[3:15:04] everything, folks. We're doing them both in one, because that's
[3:15:08] the kind of effective efficiency we expect from our clerks
[3:15:11] department. Exactly. We'd hate to debate those. So do I
[3:15:15] have a mover in a second or still? I got
[3:15:17] Deputy Mayor Fast Gun Salute on the right. I got
[3:15:19] another one over here, the seconder on the left. Any
[3:15:22] other questions or concerns, seeing none, all in favor. So
[3:15:27] moved. I will adjourn this official meeting at 9. 17
[3:15:31] p. m. Thank you all.