[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.

Summer Council

Agenda

Transcript