[11:07] I like to call this council committee meeting to order.

[11:09] Before we proceed, I want to acknowledge that the land

[11:11] upon. The story of the Adelante Ronc, the Hodenoshoni and

[11:17] the Anishnavi people. We are the beneficiaries of ancient agreements

[11:20] such as the dish with one spoon between the Anish

[11:23] Nabiya and the Hoden of Shoni, who agreed to share

[11:26] the abundance of the land through peace, friendship, and mutual

[11:28] respect. The two Ro Wampum, by which the Hoden -

[11:32] Nashoni welcomed the settlers and agreed to share the land

[11:34] in mutual respect. And the Treaty of Niagara, considered a

[11:38] fundamental document by First Nations in all future relations. And

[11:44] treaties with the British. We recognise that we have a

[11:48] responsibility to be stewards of the land in cooperation and

[11:51] collaboration with the Indigenous peoples, not only for one generation,

[11:54] but for all generations to come. We understand that we

[11:57] have an obligation to learn the lessons of our history,

[12:01] educate ourselves about the experiences of the indigenous people and

[12:04] seek opportunities to heal. The wounds that will result in

[12:08] reconciliation with our indigenous sisters and brothers. Many First Nations,

[12:14] Mehti and Inu people live and work in Fort Erie.

[12:17] We stand with all Indigenous people past and present in

[12:20] promoting the wise stewardship of the lands on which we

[12:23] live. We have the good fortune to live in a

[12:26] land of such abundance, diversity and beauty. Let us be

[12:29] vigilant in protecting turtle island. Mr. Clerk, the role call,

[12:35] please. You worship all members of Councillor President. Thank you.

[12:43] There is no, sorry, there isn't addendum this evening. It's

[12:46] with respect to report PBB - BBB - S12 -

[12:49] 12026, which makes reference to. Be referenced to the Sunset

[12:56] Clause, which was previously provided by Wave Amendment at the

[13:00] last meeting? Correct your worship. I did circulate two councillors,

[13:05] the amendment that was approved at the Council meeting. So

[13:07] for clarification, we approved the amendment. We deferred the report

[13:11] as amended. Right. So the note on the agenda for

[13:14] that. And when we get to that in the agenda,

[13:17] when we're dealing with that, that will be apparent. Correct.

[13:20] Correct. Thank you. Just one announcement. I just wanted to

[13:27] mention that a number of councillors, including me and the

[13:32] CAO, will be travelling to Ottawa this year for the

[13:34] annual association municipalities of Ontario Conference. We have a number

[13:39] of delegations where we're meeting with ministers and parliamentary assistance.

[13:44] We're meeting with the Minister of Citizenship in Multiculturalism. The

[13:47] solicitor general, the Minister of Labour, and the Parliamentary Assistance

[13:51] for the Red Tape Reduction. Agency. Tourism and Culture, Infrastructure,

[13:59] Agriculture, and Natural Resources. I also received notice today that

[14:03] the mayors of the eight municipalities, which are not St.

[14:08] Catherine's NAGA Falls, Welled, or Lincoln, have been requested by

[14:13] the Minister of Municipal Affairs to meet with him at

[14:17] the conference to discuss the issues relative to governance in

[14:21] NAG or going forward. Those will include the appointment of

[14:25] the chair, the Strong Chair Powers, and the Voting or

[14:30] Weighted Voting. So that will be very interesting, and I'm

[14:34] very much looking forward to that. And we are in

[14:38] the process of arranging meetings with the Minister of Infrastructure

[14:43] with whom I had direct communications about two weeks ago,

[14:47] and the Minister of Health after AMO, which you will

[14:51] provide us with greater time to discuss with them the

[14:54] important dishes that we're dealing with. Okay, Declarations of Precoery

[14:58] Interest. Councillor Flag. Thank you, worship PBBS - 12 -

[15:05] 120 - 26. I'm the applicant where former Business Partners.

[15:12] Any others. That takes us to notices of upcoming meetings,

[15:18] and there is an open house scheduled for August the

[15:22] 18th. At 5 o'clock here in the Town Hall Atrium,

[15:27] and that is with respect to developing a Community Planning

[15:31] Permit System. And that will run, that's Tuesday, August 18th,

[15:37] 5 until 7pm here in the Town Hall Atrium. There

[15:40] are no public meetings this evening. There is no consent

[15:44] agenda, so everything is to be contentious this evening. That

[15:49] takes us then to the first set of contentious issues,

[15:53] planning, building, and development services, council or Christensen. Thank you,

[15:58] your worship. This meeting of Planning Building by - law

[16:02] services is now in Session. We have a presentation tonight

[16:08] by Ms. Kimberlyn Smith with respect to the Draft Community

[16:14] Improvement Plan.

[16:26] So, my name is Kimberlyn Smith. I'm a junior Community

[16:29] Planner with the Town of Fort Erie. The purpose of

[16:32] today's Presentation is to provide an overview of the proposed

[16:36] Community Improvement Plan, including the changes from the town's existing

[16:41] CIPs, the proposed incentive programs, and funding approach. And the

[16:46] next steps towards finalising the plan. The CIP is established

[16:51] under Section 28 of the Planning Act, which provides municipalities

[16:56] with the authority to designate Community Improvement Project Areas. Adopt

[17:01] CIPs, and provide financial incentives. Relevant provisions of the Municipal

[17:06] Act includes sections 106, and 365. 1, which address municipal

[17:11] bonusing in Brownfield Tax Assistance. The CIP is also guided

[17:16] by the town's official plan, applicable secondary plans, and the

[17:20] climate change action plan. The proposed CIP brings the towns

[17:25] incentive programs into alignment with this legislative and policy framework.

[17:32] A Community Improvement Plan is both a planning and economic

[17:35] development tool. It allows municipalities to identify areas where improvements,

[17:41] rehabilitation, redevelopment, or revitalization are encouraged and to provide financial

[17:47] incentives to support those objectives. In 4DRI, the CIP is

[17:52] intended to encourage private sector investment, support revitalization of core

[17:58] areas, improve the built environment and public realm and encourage

[18:02] redevelopment and sustainable development. The main reason for undertaking this

[18:07] review was that the town currently has multiple community improvement

[18:12] plans that were prepared at different times and under previous

[18:15] planning frameworks. Since those plans were adopted, provincial planning policy

[18:20] has evolved. The town has adopted a new official plan

[18:24] in additional secondary plans have been completed. The proposed approach

[18:28] is to move toward one consolidated CIP framework that is

[18:32] easier to administer, more consistent across the town and aligned

[18:36] with the current official plan. Under the Planning Act, the

[18:41] town is required to identify the Community Improvement Project Areas

[18:46] where the CIP Programs will apply. The proposed framework identifies

[18:51] six core areas. Bridgeway, Bridgeburg, Stevensville, South, and River Walk,

[18:57] Gateway, and Crystal Beach. In addition to those six core

[19:01] areas, the proposed framework identifies a town - wide brownfield

[19:05] community improvement project area. The Core areas were selected based

[19:09] on their existing downtown and Main Street functions. Opportunities for

[19:14] revitalization and reinvestment, and alignment with the town's official plan

[19:18] and secondary plans. The side provides the proposed boundaries of

[19:24] the Community Improvement Project Areas. On the left, you can

[19:28] see the individual core area boundaries, and on the right

[19:31] is the broader brownfield project area. The Intention is to

[19:36] provide targeted incentives within the core areas while allowing the

[19:40] brownfield programs to apply more broadly to eligible properties within

[19:46] settlement areas. The first program is the commercial building improvement

[19:53] grant, which is intended to support improvements to existing commercial

[19:58] and mixed use buildings within core areas. Eligible improvements can

[20:03] include facade upgrades, windows, indoors, accessibility improvements, exterior lighting and

[20:09] signage, as well as other site improvements. The proposed funding

[20:14] is a matching grant of up to 50 percent of

[20:17] eligible costs to a maximum of 20, 000 dollars. The

[20:23] next program is the professional study grant, which is a

[20:27] new component of the proposed framework. The purpose is to

[20:31] help offset the cost of professional studies that may be

[20:35] required to advance redevelopment projects. The proposed eligible studies include

[20:40] feasibility studies, heritage impact assessments, servicing and infrastructure studies, accessibility

[20:46] assessments, archaeological assessments, and other studies as outlined in the

[20:51] program appendix. The proposed funding is a matching grant of

[21:00] up to 50 percent of eligible costs. The sustainability and

[21:06] climate improvement grant is another new component of the proposed

[21:09] framework. The program is intended to support improvements that enhance

[21:14] environmental performance and climate resilience. Eligible improvements can include insulation

[21:19] and building envelope upgrades. High efficiency H - vac systems,

[21:24] and heat pumps, solar panels, EV charging infrastructure, and green

[21:29] infrastructure. The proposed funding is a matching grant of up

[21:34] to 50 percent of eligible costs to a maximum of

[21:37] 5, 000 dollars. Brownfield sites are properties where actual or

[21:44] potential environmental contamination may create barriers to redevelopment. The brownfield

[21:50] programs are intended to encourage the remediation and redevelopment of

[21:54] contaminated or potentially contaminated sites. There are three programs within

[22:00] the proposed brownfield framework. The first is the Environmental Site

[22:04] Assessment Grant Program, which helps offset the cost of environmental

[22:08] assessments. The second is the brownfield tax assistance program, which

[22:13] provides temporary municipal tax relief during remediation. And the third

[22:18] is the brown field rehabilitation grant, which provides an incentive

[22:22] based on the increase in municipal assessment following redevelopment. Collectively,

[22:28] these programs are intended to reduce some of the financial

[22:31] risk associated with brownfield redevelopment. Support environmental mediation, and help

[22:38] return underutilized properties to productive use. So this slide summarizes

[22:44] the main changes proposed through the updated CIP framework. The

[22:49] primary change is the consolidation of the town's existing course

[22:54] area CIPs into one coordinated framework, along with the addition

[22:58] of the gateway and crystal beach core areas. Two new

[23:02] grant programs are proposed to the professional study grant and

[23:05] the sustainability and climate improvement grant. The existing brownfield programs

[23:10] have been updated and incorporated into the framework. One thing

[23:14] to note is that the Brown Field Programs do have

[23:17] a different geographic application. From the core area programs. The

[23:22] Brownfield project area applies more broadly. To eligible properties within

[23:27] settlement areas. Whereas the other programs are focused on the

[23:31] designated core areas. The Brownfield Programs are currently included within

[23:36] the consolidated CIP, but they could be separated into a

[23:40] standalone brownfield CIP if council ultimately preferred that approach. The

[23:47] existing facade and signage programs have also been consolidated, and

[23:52] the administration and application processes have been standardized. Finally, the

[23:58] residential creation and intensification grant husband - removed from the

[24:02] current proposal. This was an existing program intended to encourage

[24:07] additional residential units within the core areas. The program was

[24:12] removed from the proposed framework to place greater emphasis on

[24:15] the town's Affordable Housing CIP. Stuff have since become aware

[24:20] that there may be desire to retain the program. And

[24:23] it can be incorporated back into the framework if council

[24:26] wishes. However, it is important to note that it cannot

[24:29] be used with the Affordable Housing Program. Overall, the proposed

[24:36] changes are intended to create a more coordinated and streamlined

[24:40] framework while supporting current planning, economic development, and climate objectives.

[24:47] The Draft CIP has gone through internal and external review,

[24:51] as well as public consultation. The Draft was circulated to

[24:54] the ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Niagara

[24:58] region for review and comment. The ministry's comments focus primarily

[25:02] on legislative consistency, document organisation, administrative procedures, and the Brownfield

[25:08] framework. Staff reviewed those comments and incorporated revisions where appropriate,

[25:14] including strengthening the legislative references, clarifying the program framework and

[25:21] strengthening administration. Niagar Region's comments focus primarily on the Brownfield

[25:26] programs, including eligible costs. Administration of the tax increment grant

[25:32] and tax assistance program. Stacking and property tax requirements. Those

[25:37] comments were also reviewed and incorporated where appropriate. On the

[25:41] Public Consultation side, the town held a public open house

[25:45] on May 20th. I do want to clarify one item

[25:49] in the report. On page nine, the May 20th event

[25:52] is incorrectly described as a statutory public meeting. This was

[25:57] an error. The event was a public open house held

[26:00] as part of the CIP consultation process. Two members of

[26:04] the Public attended the Open House and expressed support for

[26:07] the Brownfield programs, particularly the environmental benefits, of remediating contaminated

[26:13] lands, and encouraging redevelopment within existing settlement areas. The Draft

[26:19] CIP and supporting materials were also made available on Let's

[26:23] Talk Fortiery. The page was posted on May 11, ahead

[26:27] of the Open House, and the Presentation was subsequently uploaded.

[26:30] The page has remained available for Public comments since then.

[26:35] As of today, the page has received 98 views, 82

[26:38] visits in 71 visitors. One written submission was also received

[26:43] by staff yesterday. Staff reviewed the comments and have provided

[26:47] a response to the applicable items. Overall, the comments received

[26:51] through the agency review and Public Consultation have been considered

[26:56] an incorporated into the revised draft where appropriate. From a

[27:03] financial perspective, the proposed CIP would initially be funded through

[27:08] the town's existing Community Improvement Plan Reserve, which currently has

[27:13] approximately 640... 646, 000 dollars available. Approximately one third of

[27:19] the existing reserve has also been designated to support CIP

[27:23] initiatives in crystal beach during the initial years of implementation.

[27:28] Based on the proposed program structure and anticipated grant levels,

[27:32] the existing reserve is expected to support the initial years

[27:35] of implementation. Importantly, adoption of the CIP does not commit

[27:40] the town to a fixed annual funding allocation, funding for

[27:44] the programs would remain subject to council approval through the

[27:47] annual budget process. Staff would report annually on program uptake

[27:52] funding committed and distributed program up and the remaining reserve

[27:57] balance. This would allow council to assess program performance and

[28:02] determine whether the existing funding level remains appropriate. Following today's

[28:09] presentation, Council is being asked to provide direction on the

[28:13] Draft CIP and the proposed Community Improvement Project Areas. The

[28:17] next step would be to bring the project area designation

[28:20] by - law forward to counsel on August 24th. Following

[28:24] that, the final CIP would be brought back to council

[28:27] on September 14th for consideration. The proposed CIP adoption bylaw

[28:33] would then come forward on September 28th. Following adoption, there

[28:37] would be the applicable 20 - day appeal period after

[28:40] which the town could proceed with implementation of the incentive

[28:44] programs. Staff will continue to refine the document based on

[28:48] council's direction before the final CIP is brought forward for

[28:52] adoption. That concludes my presentation. Thank you, Mr. Are there

[29:00] any questions. Councillor Noise. There you go, Council Christensen. Thank

[29:06] you for your presentation and all the work, the hard

[29:10] work that went into this. I'm just wanted to clarify.

[29:13] I know the answer, but I'm just going to ask

[29:14] it anyway. The 20, 000, which is 50 percent of

[29:19] the investment for the CIP program, then the 7500. For

[29:27] the study grant. And then the climate improvement for 5,

[29:31] 000. These are all piggyback. They're not... It doesn't take

[29:34] up any of the 20, 000. So in other words,

[29:36] if they add an assault together, they'll have about 30.

[29:43] 32, 502 to go for matching funds. Through you, Madam

[29:48] Chair, to Councillor Noise, that is correct. As long as

[29:51] they're not applying the same eligible cost. And if they,

[29:55] if I. Want more questions, if they do do the

[29:57] study grant and they take advantage of the 7005, but

[30:00] let's say they spend 1, 500... 15, 000 dollars on

[30:03] it. That doesn't mean on the grant says it's going

[30:07] to cost you 2 million to do it. They can

[30:09] then back out. They're not committed to following through if

[30:13] the cost or the improvement is more than what they

[30:16] can bear. Through you, Madam Chair, to Counciloids, that's correct.

[30:21] They're not committed. Thank you. Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Madam

[30:28] Chair, and thank you for your presentation tonight. A couple

[30:30] of questions. One being back to the crystal beach or

[30:33] the map, maybe where it shows a different area. First,

[30:36] let me start by saying crystal beach is very excited

[30:38] to be taking part in this program. But it looks

[30:42] to me that we're using the boundary map for the

[30:45] secondary plan entertainment district and not necessarily the BIA boundary

[30:51] maps. Do you know if those two were over late

[30:54] or ever considered or which were considering in this. Through

[30:58] you, Madam Chair, the Councillor Lewis, we considered the secondary

[31:01] plan. Secondary player. Okay, and that was my understanding. I'll

[31:04] bring this up later when we speak to the report,

[31:09] because I would like to talk about Rebstock Road South

[31:12] to Erie Road potentially being included. The other question I

[31:16] had was regarding the residential intensification grant. Crystal Beach has

[31:21] never had the opportunity to participate in that because we

[31:24] never had the CIP for the area. I know that

[31:27] it's something that council could add in if council so

[31:31] wish to make that still be available to the community.

[31:35] But I just want to make sure I heard correctly

[31:37] that if that were the case, it would not be

[31:39] able to compete. It would have to be either the

[31:42] CIP Affordable Housing or the CIP residential intensification if both

[31:48] were available. Is that correct? Through you, Madam Chair to

[31:51] Councillor Lewis, that is correct. Okay, I believe those are

[31:54] all of my questions for now. And if not, I'll

[31:56] raise my hand again, but thank you. DeWish? Thank you.

[32:01] Thank you very much for your presentation. I know that

[32:02] the work that you've put into this. I just want

[32:06] to be clear. The report suggests that this is our

[32:13] opportunity to provide guidance to staff as to the program

[32:17] that's being proposed, a joint CIP for all of the

[32:22] existing core area CIPs plus the Brownfield remediation. It's tonight.

[32:29] We need to give you guidance. I mean, we can

[32:31] make changes later on. But it would be helpful for

[32:33] you to have what our thinking is tonight. Yes. Okay.

[32:39] So I'm going to start with the basic question. If

[32:45] it's advisable to consolidate the CIPs, why do we still

[32:49] have, if we proceed with this, why will we still

[32:53] have a separate CIP out on its own? The Affordable

[32:56] Housing CIP. Through you, Madam Chair, to your worship, the

[33:02] direction at the time was because the Affordable Housing CIP

[33:06] was so new, newly adopted. We decided to leave that

[33:09] one out of this one rather than combining them. So

[33:14] how does that fit into your comment that the purpose

[33:17] of this report is to revive one uniform CIP framework

[33:21] in the town? Wouldn't it be advisable to consider adding

[33:25] the Affordable Housing CIP? And that will deal with an

[33:28] issue that Councillor Lewis just raised. About at least crystal

[33:35] beach area being able to somehow piggyback into this. I

[33:39] mean, they can do it now. But shouldn't we be

[33:41] having one overarching framework for all of these programs? Through

[33:47] you, Madam Chair, to your worship, we could definitely look

[33:51] at doing that. I don't know the answer to that.

[33:54] I'm asking you the one that's done the work on

[33:55] this. And it may be that there's a good reason

[33:58] why the Affordable Housing CIP would remain outside. I'm just

[34:03] asking the question based on the report and the comments

[34:06] that you've made. Um. And the slide that you showed

[34:12] with respect to key changes also made reference, I don't

[34:16] know if you can pull that up now. Yes. So

[34:24] made reference to rather than having different application processes, now

[34:29] the standard administration. So maybe all CIPs aren't created equal.

[34:35] And I would think that the core area considerations and

[34:40] criteria, well, I wouldn't think I know are different than

[34:43] Brownfield remediation. Which would be different than affordable housing. But

[34:49] I think the objective is, and you can correct me

[34:52] if I'm wrong, is to have a standard framework that

[34:57] staff can utilise and can cross - reference if necessary

[35:00] to the various types of objectives that are outlined in

[35:05] the program. Am I close? Through you, Madam Chair, to

[35:08] your worship, yes, I think it would be advisable to

[35:11] have a standard CIP. We could include the Affordable Housing,

[35:17] otherwise we could have affordable housing, the core areas, and

[35:21] then Brownfields on its own. If that were the direction

[35:25] that council wanted to go. So we can have three

[35:29] separate CIPs or we can have. One. That's one of

[35:32] the questions we have to determine. Yes. I know that,

[35:37] sorry. I know that you've received comments from the Ministry

[35:45] of Municipal Affairs and Housing and also the region. And

[35:48] I know that you sent some information to us, uh,

[35:52] maybe a copy of the letter from the ministry late

[35:55] today, which, um, I haven't had a chance to fully

[35:58] review. And I don't know if the other councillors have

[36:00] seen it or not yet. And I know that you've

[36:02] also responded to, um, faith Black here who sent, um,

[36:08] a lengthy critique of your work. Um, some of which

[36:14] I can imagine you would be easily able to respond

[36:17] to which you've done. Again, I haven't seen that either.

[36:21] The reason I raise that is because I think this

[36:24] is an important piece of work that you've been dealing

[36:27] with. And I think that when we get this, um,

[36:31] in place, we need to make sure that it's right.

[36:35] It's either, so I think we need to make the

[36:37] determination. And I, for one, would like an opportunity to

[36:40] be able to review all of the information that you've

[36:42] had. Which I think we now have. Just haven't had

[36:47] a chance to review it. Had a couple of other

[36:49] questions. For the various CIPs right now, are there different

[36:56] staff, um, review committees. So if it's a CIP dealing

[37:00] with the core area, if I might, Madam Chair, or

[37:04] it's a Brownfield remediation, are they different staff members that

[37:08] are sitting on the review committee. Through you, Madam Chair

[37:11] to your worship. Um, I'm currently reviewing all of the

[37:14] core areas, the brown field and affordable housing in collaboration

[37:18] with one other staff member. So an application comes in.

[37:23] Just so that I'm clearing what you've said. An application

[37:25] comes in. You are the person. With the assistance of

[37:29] one other individual. That is correct. So you're the standard

[37:35] framework? Yes. Okay. Well, it's good to know. What happens

[37:42] if something should happen to the standard framework than where

[37:45] are we. That's rhetorical. Um. If I might, Madam Chair,

[37:52] just a couple of other questions. So you mentioned that

[37:55] we're going to be utilising the existing 646, 000 dollars

[37:59] that we have in the core area CIP. We have

[38:03] an annual budget amount, I think, for that. That we

[38:06] allocate. Um, are we doing that now or is this

[38:09] a question that I should raise when we get to

[38:11] the report. Through you, Madam Chair, to your worship, I

[38:14] do not believe we are allocating annually right now because

[38:17] of the reserve. The brownfield remediation programs, they don't rely

[38:24] upon that fund of money. No, they do not. Okay.

[38:33] And then finally. In a couple of things. Finally a

[38:38] couple of things. So this is, I know my last,

[38:41] last, my last, last question. In the appendix, it's clear

[38:47] that there should be an agreement. So if someone is

[38:50] going to make an application and qualify for funding, they'll

[38:53] have to enter into an agreement with the municipalities, is

[38:56] that correct? That was correct. There's no circumstance where they

[38:58] will get money with out there being a written agreement.

[39:01] That is correct. Okay. And then finally, this is my

[39:04] file. In terms of payment, there's an indication that the

[39:10] town may require an affidavit indicating that payment to the

[39:14] subtrades has been made. We'll be not making payments accepting

[39:19] compliance, I presume with a construction lean act. Through you,

[39:24] Madam Chair Tier Worship. I don't believe that exact language

[39:27] is in there. It's not, but it should be. Okay.

[39:31] Okay. Thank you. Councillor Flag. Thank you, Chair. And thank

[39:38] you for your presentation. Not often after when I speak

[39:43] after the Mary still have something to ask. But I

[39:45] do, in fact, tonight. Oh, did I miss a question?

[39:47] Yeah. Well, I don't know. I'll let you know. It

[39:49] might not be a good question. When it comes to,

[39:52] um, matching grants with respect to, um, specifically the sustainability

[39:56] and climate improvement grant, will this be net of other

[40:00] grants that may be available through other government agencies? So

[40:04] for example, right now the home renovation savings program grant

[40:08] X number of dollars off of each window? Or will

[40:10] this be an addition to unpaeable on the gross amount

[40:13] of, um, of construction. Through you, Madam Chair, two councillor

[40:18] flag. I believe it would be on the gross amount.

[40:23] Um, I think there is language in the CIP that

[40:26] talks about if there are other grants provided by other

[40:29] organisations, but it's definitely something we can look into and

[40:33] clarify. Councillor Noise. Thank you, Councillor Costerson. Just based on

[40:41] some of the questions asked. In your report, you talked

[40:43] about that the government needs to identify Corey areas from

[40:47] the CIP, right? But yet we do have a townwide

[40:51] CIP for affordable housing. And for Brownfields, how does that

[40:54] fit together. Through you, Madam Chair to Councillor Noice. I

[41:01] would have to look into how the Affordable Housing CIP

[41:05] was drafted. I suspect there was probably a bylaw that,

[41:09] um, designates the entire town as a project area. But

[41:12] I don't know on hand. Basically does that. So I'm

[41:16] just wondering what you said, the government needs to identify

[41:18] core areas. Um, and going back to the mayor's question

[41:22] about affordable housing, um, and the resiliency. Can't remember the

[41:28] name of it. They revitavelment residential intensification grant. That hopefully

[41:37] we will be allowing that one to continue. I know

[41:40] I had to talk with Anamika earlier today about that.

[41:43] And the Brown says, I can see how, how I

[41:45] understand the need to have everything kind of like it

[41:48] captured in one, in one report. But at the same

[41:51] point, these two are quite different. Than some of the

[41:55] other things that you've talked about. But I can see

[41:57] them being, being separate for the affordable CIP and also

[42:01] the Brownfields being separate from the others because the funding

[42:04] sources are different than the amount of money that we've

[42:08] set aside for CIP. Through you, Madam Chair, to Councillor

[42:11] Noites, that is correct. Okay. Thank you. Are there any

[42:17] other questions. That being the case, thank you very much,

[42:22] Ms. Smith. And there are no other, uh, delegations or

[42:27] presentations. So we'll move on to reports. The first report

[42:32] under consideration is PBBS 12 - 1 - 2026 proposed

[42:38] official plan and zoning bylaw amendment, adendam recommendation report for

[42:43] 19 Derby Road. Councillor Lewis has moved that report is

[42:50] now on the floor for questions and comments. Councillor Noyes.

[42:58] Thank you, Councillor Kristen. And I am going to be

[42:59] supporting this. I did also read the letter from the

[43:04] owner about his past practice and his desire to do

[43:06] affordable housing. And that's his intent and that has been

[43:10] his practice in the past. So I have a lot

[43:12] of confidence, even though we can't necessarily put his feet

[43:14] to the fire. He has a good history of doing

[43:17] this. So I'm going to support this because we do

[43:19] need affordable housing and we do need department buildings. Um,

[43:22] I am concerned that it doesn't fit with the secondary

[43:25] plan. It goes, it's not there. But at the same

[43:28] point, I think when the secondary plan was discussed, I

[43:32] don't think they were even considering Snack Townhouses as being

[43:36] part of the options because it wasn't at that time.

[43:41] So I am in support of this. And, um, I

[43:44] do think it's going to be, I think it's necessary

[43:48] to have those apartments. I'm also pleased with how much

[43:51] he has changed things based on Council's comments. Thank you.

[43:58] Your worship. Yeah. Thank you very much. I'm also going

[44:01] to support this. The letter that Mr. Bremner provided to

[44:05] us, which is part of our package, really outlines the

[44:09] essential reasons why this is a good project. I know

[44:13] that the neighbours aren't necessarily happy about having a three

[44:19] - story building in their neighbourhood. But the reality is

[44:23] a three - story building could be put on this

[44:27] parcel of land in the form of stacked townhouses, uh,

[44:32] which is not a housing style that we necessarily need.

[44:37] We certainly, I don't believe need more townhouses, although that's

[44:40] an arguable point. But what we definitely do need is

[44:44] apartment units. And we need rental apartment units. And we've

[44:47] had some tire kicking from some other developers. We've had

[44:52] some discussions about, you know, maybe utilising our affordable housing

[44:58] CIP, but we haven't had someone who's come forward who

[45:02] has local experience building these types of units and managing

[45:08] them. And Mr. Bremner has indicated that not only is

[45:11] he intent on building these, but it's his intention to

[45:14] continue to manage them. He also points out an interesting

[45:17] aspect of the rental housing that we require. When he

[45:24] makes reference to individuals and forderie who may move into

[45:27] these units, if they own a home now, they'll be

[45:30] selling that home. And that means we'll have some housing

[45:33] on the market that we don't currently have. And there

[45:36] are many, many individuals in this community that want to

[45:40] stay in for degree, but they don't have the alternate

[45:44] housing that will accommodate them. Being able to do that.

[45:50] And so they're in their homes, their overhaused. And that's

[45:54] housing that really could benefit a broader sector of our

[45:59] community. So I'm going to support this. I know that,

[46:02] um, it's not necessarily what the neighbours want. But the

[46:08] proponent has been very flexible as council noises pointed out.

[46:11] He has responded to some of the changes that we

[46:13] want. He has tried to follow the requests of staff

[46:19] going back sometime. And yes, an apartment building doesn't necessarily

[46:24] fit in with a secondary plan. But I'm advised that

[46:27] it fits in with our new official plan. And it's

[46:31] a better and more needed housing type right now in

[46:38] this part of town in any part of town than

[46:41] stack towel houses. So I'm going to support this. Thank

[46:45] you, your worship. Are there any other questions or comments.

[46:53] Oh. Okay. Councillor Mike Dermon. Yep. Yeah. I just wanted

[46:59] to just say that. I agree with every point that

[47:02] the mayor is made. And, um, you know, Mr. Burner's

[47:08] work in town is very well known. Right by fear,

[47:13] he redid the, um, when he street funeral. And it's

[47:18] a beautiful apartment there. So there's no, um, no deciding

[47:24] on the fact that it doesn't do quality work. He

[47:27] certainly does. And I think that this will be a

[47:29] welcoming addition to Derby. Thank you. Councillor Dumino.

[47:39] Yeah. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Um, when this,

[47:43] uh, had come up originally, I had mentioned similar comments,

[47:47] um, the need for apartment rental units. And I was

[47:50] supportive of this. Although, um, I do want to, uh,

[47:53] extend my appreciation to those involved for getting clarification on

[47:56] the affordability aspect. That was good to see. The market

[48:02] is a bit challenging right now because, um, later on

[48:05] in the agenda tonight, you'll see that there was a,

[48:08] um, condominium type project, um, is requesting an extension. And,

[48:14] uh, anyone who's been following the news or following real

[48:18] estate trends, um, has seen that, you know, condo development

[48:21] has fallen flat. And, you know, this is an opportunity

[48:25] right now to, at least in my opinion anyway, um,

[48:29] really utilise some of the funding that's available out there

[48:33] for, um, uh, rental units, um, which have been, as

[48:38] the mayor said, um, big challenge in this community when

[48:41] I, when I first ran in 2018, it was, it

[48:43] was one of my, one of my concerns was that

[48:46] we didn't have sufficient rental stock in the community, which

[48:50] was forcing senior citizens to have to leave town to

[48:53] be able to get a rental unit because they were

[48:56] at a point in their lives where they couldn't maintain

[48:57] the yard and the driveway and everything else of a

[49:00] single family home. The mayor also, uh, raised a very,

[49:03] very important aspect, which is the upward mobility in the

[49:07] market. As someone, um, finds their situation changing instead of

[49:12] being, for lack of a better word, stuck in an

[49:15] unsuitable housing type, this will allow them to get something

[49:19] more suitable, which then opens up an opportunity for a

[49:21] family or someone else, uh, enter the market into a

[49:26] home that's not necessarily new residential construction with all the

[49:30] associated costs and everything surrounding that. So I'm, I can

[49:34] appreciate the concerns with the secondary plan, but, um, you

[49:38] know, as the mayor said, they could put stack townhoses

[49:41] on there. I think it is much better for the

[49:43] sake of the entire community to have a, uh, a

[49:47] rental building go on that property. And it's an individual

[49:49] who's familiar with the community who knows the community is

[49:52] councillor McDermott said has done some good work in the

[49:54] community before. And, um, you know, I'm tired of the

[49:58] tire kickers too. So I'm, I'm looking forward to seeing

[50:00] something actually, uh, materialize and to see us get some

[50:03] rental stock in this community. So thank you very much,

[50:06] Madam Chair. Councillor Lewis. Thank you, your worship. And thank

[50:13] you colleagues for your comments. I do agree with many

[50:15] of them. Um, certainly on this application, I'm intrigued by

[50:19] the Affordable Housing Component and know of the developers good

[50:23] work and the other parts of four area where he

[50:25] has done, um, what I'm going to be commendable work.

[50:29] And also his letter mentioning the CMHC Affordable Housing Component

[50:33] of it. Um, this is an interesting one because it

[50:37] checks mini boxes, um, for things that we're looking for

[50:41] in the Community, not just in 40er, but in the

[50:43] crystal beach neighbourhood as well. As I mentioned before, that

[50:48] neighbourhood, um, as locals, we'll call it the top of

[50:51] the hill. Does have a number of pre - approved

[50:56] apartment buildings that have been built. As I mentioned before,

[51:00] not to belabor it, we do have the crystal beach

[51:02] secondary plan that is two years in operation that was

[51:05] built by the Community. I do understand that townhouses or

[51:10] where we're identified for that area. Um, at the time

[51:13] we didn't know, um, anything about the term stack townhouses

[51:18] or that new type of housing that developers would move

[51:21] forward with. And I do agree that that would not

[51:24] be in keeping with the neighbourhood as well. Um, that

[51:27] being said, and I'll be brief, even though I like

[51:31] many aspects of what this project speaks to in terms

[51:34] of the attainable and the rental units that the community

[51:37] needs, um, I am dealing with a community that is

[51:41] a bit frustrated by the fact that we went through

[51:43] a neighbourhood planning process to establish criteria that for whatever

[51:47] reason now does not fit on that property. So, um,

[51:52] even though there are aspects to the application that I

[51:56] am very supportive of and thank the developer for moving

[51:58] forward with, I am going to not support the application

[52:02] tonight and go with the recommendations that would have been

[52:05] following the secondary neighbourhood plan. Thank you. Councillinois. Thank you,

[52:12] Councillor Christensen. Um, just a question. I know in the,

[52:14] in the letter from, from the owner, he talked about

[52:16] that he would not be using these a short -

[52:19] term rentals. And I'm not sure if it falls within

[52:21] the boundaries of our short - term rental boundaries or

[52:24] not. I'm not sure. But regardless, can we put something,

[52:29] it doesn't. Okay, I'm just hearing Anamikas on my next

[52:31] question is, can we make sure it's in the site

[52:33] plan that's not short term rentals? But like I said,

[52:35] I don't need to because it's not within the boundaries.

[52:37] Thank you. Are there any other? Yeah, I just want

[52:45] to clarification. The last time we dealt with this, there

[52:48] was an amendment moved with respect to a five -

[52:51] year sunset clause. That, I believe, passed. I don't see

[52:55] it. Here. This is quite streamlined recommendations this evening. I

[53:01] would have thought it would have been better to have

[53:03] it as part of the amended report since it's already

[53:08] been approved. So can we not include that as part

[53:12] of the recommendation this evening so that it's crystal clear.

[53:17] In crystal beach. Madam Chance through you to his worship,

[53:26] yes, we can definitely include that as a recommendation. So

[53:29] that is there on record that this would, this would

[53:32] have a sunset clause for five years. Well, I'm thinking

[53:34] that when we pass this evening's recommendations that one of

[53:38] the paragraphs will be the sun set the five -

[53:41] year sunset clause, um, there was wording that was utilised

[53:44] last time. And I believe it should be dealt with

[53:47] tonight. That's, that's great. It was something about the approval

[53:51] of the site plan application. Yeah. Yes, please. Get through

[53:58] you, Chariot. And to clarify, we'll include the wording as

[54:01] part of the resolution and the vote will be carried

[54:04] as amended to reflect the amendment that was previously approved.

[54:08] The amendment, um, that will be adding is the last

[54:11] recommendation will be that the bylaw include a provision that

[54:14] the lands revert to the original zoning if site plan

[54:17] approval has not been issued within five years from the

[54:20] enactment of the bylaw. Okay. So that will be reflected

[54:23] in the minutes if this passes. Through you chair. That's

[54:30] correct. Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments?

[54:36] Um, I will say that I'm very impressed by this

[54:42] proposal for a number of NI. I share the concerns

[54:45] about the secondary plan. I was very, I've been very

[54:49] vocal about that. I do have, um, just a couple

[54:54] of comments about the point of order. You are the

[54:58] chair. Yes. If you want to make comments, you're supposed

[55:02] to give up the chair. Okay. Um, to somebody who

[55:06] hasn't spoken yet. Is everybody spoken? No, no, then Council

[55:12] McDermott. No, no, no, Council Market. You can hand it

[55:15] to him. If everybody else has spoken. All right. I

[55:20] just wanted to comment on the fact that, uh, not

[55:24] only are they rental units, but there is a distribution

[55:28] of one, two, and three bedroom units. The one bedroom

[55:32] is, and we know about the discussions of the 400

[55:37] square foot units that are so common in Toronto, uh,

[55:41] and other large municipalities and have in fact killed the

[55:46] concept of a condo market and have become short term

[55:48] rentals. Um, these are family units as well as generously

[55:56] size that would be attractive to people downsizing. Most people

[56:00] going from a three bedroom house will not go into

[56:03] 400. Square feet. So I did want to point that

[56:08] out. And I also wanted to comment on the owner's

[56:13] letter, which to me, and I may have a bit

[56:16] of a bias, but once again, it indicates the absolute

[56:22] essential fact that affordable housing, truly affordable housing requires

[56:32] cooperation of the federal and provincial governments. And I would

[56:36] say beyond simply applying for grants, um, I think it

[56:41] really points out to the fact that with a willing

[56:43] owner developer. We still do not have a strategy. At

[56:50] the federal and provincial levels for this type of housing.

[56:53] And that's a problem. People like Mr. Bramner have to

[56:57] compete with others for money that should be virtually given

[57:01] as of right. Just wanted to make that comment. Any

[57:06] further comments, questions on this. Now I'll call the boat

[57:11] almond paper. Posey penny. Carried. Thank you,

[57:21] Councillor McDermott. And just let me get back to my,

[57:25] um, agenda. So, uh, the next, um, report is PBBS

[57:34] - 38 - 2026. The Draft Community Improvement Plan and

[57:39] Designation of Community Improvement Project Areas. Move by Councillor McDermott.

[57:48] That report is now on the floor for comment and

[57:51] question. Yeah. A couple of questions. So in terms of

[58:00] the Correre CIPs, right now we're not putting more money

[58:03] in through our budget because we have adequate accumulated reserve.

[58:08] But what about, um, Brownfields? How are we managing that

[58:13] from a budget perspective. Um, Ms. Smith. Well, I don't

[58:20] know whether it might be the treasurer that can provide

[58:23] better information. Oh, okay. Mr. Jansen, can you speak to

[58:29] that? Sure, yes. Um, and, uh, I was a way

[58:34] at the time of this preparation. So Kimberlyn may have

[58:36] some more background than I do on this. But, uh,

[58:39] in the 2026 budget, we did approve just annual contributions

[58:45] only for the Affordable Housing CIB program of 200, 000

[58:48] dollars per year. Uh, current annual funding for those of

[58:54] the programs we've said in the report that we should

[58:56] be reviewing that, uh, this year and every year in

[59:00] terms of the sufficiency in annual usage of that. So

[59:03] that is, um, it's just with the dedicated with the

[59:06] Affordable Housing right now. Um, you know, I'm pondering

[59:16] that, I mean, the suggestion is we're going to be

[59:20] consolidating these programs, one of which is we have a

[59:24] large reserve, one of which we're allocating money on an

[59:28] annual basis. And one of which. Um, I guess we

[59:33] wait and see if something comes in. So how would

[59:35] we handle a brown field remediation application under this new

[59:40] framework. I don't know who can answer that. I'm not

[59:45] sure. Ms. Smith. Do you want to take a staff

[59:48] and then we'll see who else.

[1:00:36] With the treasurer and all that. The treasurer and all.

[1:00:40] The rehabilitation grant is funded. Yeah. I would have to

[1:00:47] come back to council with that because, um, we did

[1:00:50] make a few changes, um, to our funding with the

[1:00:53] 2026 budget with some of the reserve contributions. And I

[1:00:59] don't believe we have anything dedicated at this point for

[1:01:02] Brownfield. It is just through that consolidated CIP reserve balances.

[1:01:10] Madam Chair, before I'm willing to move this forward to

[1:01:13] the next stage, which I think puts us on the

[1:01:16] tracks towards a destination, I'd like to get, um, that

[1:01:21] information from the treasurer, I'd also like an opportunity to

[1:01:24] review the information that Ms. Smith has passed onto us.

[1:01:28] I'm not going to move that we defer this until

[1:01:32] August the 24th until other councillors have a chance to

[1:01:35] speak. But I'm not really comfortable moving this forward without

[1:01:40] that additional information and a chance to think about this.

[1:01:44] Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. And, uh, I agree

[1:01:49] with some of the points. The mayor's made about the

[1:01:50] additional information. And I too haven't looked at everything that

[1:01:53] came through this evening. Um, I did want to throw

[1:01:57] out there two things that I'm interested to hear if

[1:02:00] what council's opinion is on keeping the residential intensification grant

[1:02:07] that was part of the previous CIPs in place for

[1:02:12] at least crystal beach. Potentially even for a period of

[1:02:16] time, like a shorter window even that I would be

[1:02:19] interested in, um, because I think that's part of the,

[1:02:22] what we've been trying to do in the downtown core

[1:02:25] and crystal beach is try and intensify the downtown core

[1:02:28] with people living above shops. Because we haven't had a

[1:02:33] CIP in place for all the reasons that lead up

[1:02:36] to why we haven't this understandable. But I would hate

[1:02:39] to see that go out without there being some opportunity

[1:02:42] for the community to be able to potentially benefit from

[1:02:44] that. The other is the inclusion of Rebstock Road south

[1:02:50] to Erie Road in the CIP, whether that be for

[1:02:53] the full period of time or for, like I said

[1:02:56] before with the residential intensification grant component, maybe a specific

[1:03:01] period of time. Mainly because that is a commercial core

[1:03:04] that does have a mixed use of, um, residential as

[1:03:08] well as commercial, but we do see, um, more commercial

[1:03:12] opening in that stretch. Um, with the, with the properties

[1:03:16] that I won't get into for the sake of time,

[1:03:18] but I just want to flag those two areas where

[1:03:21] I think we maybe we should have some discussion on

[1:03:23] adding those components to it. Um, and those were my

[1:03:28] only comments, um, and I do share the mayor's opinion

[1:03:31] that I think we should take a little bit more

[1:03:32] time to make sure we get this right. And also

[1:03:35] not delay it to the point where people who have

[1:03:37] been waiting for it, i. e. crystal beach forever that

[1:03:41] they don't have a program. They can take advantage of,

[1:03:43] but certainly want to make sure that all those opportunities

[1:03:46] that were there for other parts of town still exist

[1:03:50] for the one area in town that is our entertainment

[1:03:55] district, tourism district, um, that brings the most amount of

[1:03:59] tourists to the community. So thank you. Councillor Noyes. Thank

[1:04:04] you, Councillor Christensen. I'm going to ask that we do

[1:04:07] amend this, that we do not take out the residential

[1:04:10] intensive grant that it not be removed. That'd be remained

[1:04:16] in place with the understanding that it's either or. Either

[1:04:20] they take advantage of this one or they take advantage

[1:04:22] of their affordable housing. So you're proposing an amendment. Yes.

[1:04:28] Um. You worship your second eight? No, no, we don't

[1:04:32] need to second it. I want to speak to that.

[1:04:34] Okay. Um, I, well, I just wanted, did Councillinoise, did

[1:04:39] you have anything for the say? No, I think we've,

[1:04:41] we've talked about. I think it may neither or. Okay.

[1:04:45] All right. Your worship. So when that, um, when that

[1:04:48] grant was first brought forward, we were trying to get

[1:04:53] more rental accommodations within the downtown core areas to provide

[1:04:58] some vibrancy in those areas. And that was all well

[1:05:01] and good. The problem with it is that many of

[1:05:05] the units that were created were not affordable. There weren't

[1:05:08] close to affordable. And what we need is affordable housing

[1:05:11] units. So my concern is that we continue to fund

[1:05:17] something that's not what we really need, what we really

[1:05:20] need is affordable. I don't know whether that means that

[1:05:22] we should be looking at the definition of affordable in

[1:05:27] our affordable housing CIP. That's an issue that was raised

[1:05:29] by Mr. Bremner in discussing with us the challenges that

[1:05:34] he's faced with. If he's faced with that, everybody else

[1:05:37] is. I think our objective should be intensification for affordable,

[1:05:45] or at least attainable units or something other than, you

[1:05:48] know, an extravagant apartment unit that we're helping to subsidize

[1:05:52] to be built, which really doesn't hit the market that

[1:05:56] we're trying to help, which is those who need the

[1:05:58] accommodations. So I can support this if there were some

[1:06:02] qualifications. I can't support it without. And I think the

[1:06:06] qualifications ought to be tied in with a definition. Maybe

[1:06:11] not strictly affordable, maybe not even CMH C affordable because

[1:06:16] additional rental units certainly will help. But something that is

[1:06:20] maybe within attainable, or maybe it's a CMHC definition. So

[1:06:26] I can support, um, in principle without being tied to

[1:06:32] it in the final analysis or, as some of you

[1:06:37] might say, I can suck and blow at the same

[1:06:39] time. So I'm sympathetic. Some might say that, yeah. I

[1:06:45] think the guy on my right. So I can support

[1:06:49] it, but not unless we've got some parameters that are

[1:06:52] tighter than just intensification grant as it currently exists. Councillor

[1:07:00] Dubineau. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'm of a

[1:07:05] similar school of thought to the mayor. And he raised

[1:07:09] a good point about affordable, which, you know, there's so

[1:07:13] many definitions of affordable. There's rank gear to income. There's

[1:07:16] CMH C affordable. Um, we're seeing now the phrase attainable,

[1:07:21] which doesn't necessarily meet the definition quote unquote of affordable,

[1:07:25] but is still very reasonable compared to market rent that

[1:07:28] we see today. So the moving pieces and moving targets

[1:07:32] to this that I do think we need to look

[1:07:34] at. I agree that, um, we shouldn't be subsidizing and

[1:07:39] providing, you know, taxpayer dollars to units that are, you

[1:07:43] know, luxury, for lack of a better word that people

[1:07:46] could, uh, who would purchase them could afford or to

[1:07:50] subsidize them to make a unit luxury that should otherwise

[1:07:53] be affordable. I think, um, I'm, I'm, I'm generally supportive

[1:07:59] of this, but I think I get the feeling that

[1:08:01] there'll be a postponement put on the floor to move

[1:08:04] this till, uh, August 24th. I don't know if, if

[1:08:10] councillor noise is agreeable to waiting until we get some

[1:08:12] analysis and some information back from staff, um, to August

[1:08:16] 24th. Maybe it might be a better time to move

[1:08:19] that at, you know, at that time, depending on the

[1:08:22] information we get back, um, that's my thought on that.

[1:08:25] Maybe we want to wait until staff give us some

[1:08:27] information and some thoughts on the comment tonight before we

[1:08:30] move them, uh, an amendment like that. And I hear

[1:08:35] everyone and I tend to agree to, to a certain

[1:08:38] extent. I know that I sit on the non -

[1:08:40] for - profit housing. We have two apartment buildings and

[1:08:43] we have two things. We have, um, year to income

[1:08:47] and we have market rent. And I'm saying the market

[1:08:50] rant that people pay in those apartments are considerably less

[1:08:54] than what the market rent would be for all of

[1:08:58] Fort Erie. So maybe there's some litmus test or whatever

[1:09:01] we can maybe tie it to something like what the

[1:09:03] region does in regards to market rant. And they have

[1:09:06] everything from one bedroom, two bedroom, three bedroom, whatever. And

[1:09:09] it's considerably less than, um, than what, if I was

[1:09:16] renting an albony place or someplace, considerably less than that.

[1:09:19] Actually, I think it's about 875 dollars. So maybe tying

[1:09:24] it to something like that. Um, would make sense. I

[1:09:26] don't know exactly where the cutoff is for affordability. What

[1:09:31] dollars amount we're looking at with the range for affordability

[1:09:34] would be. So I'm happy to. Pull my amendment back,

[1:09:41] um, and have some time for snap to come up

[1:09:43] with some suggestions. But I don't want anything extravagant. But

[1:09:47] again, they're only going to be allowed 20, 000 or

[1:09:52] four. 5, 004. Yeah. 20, 000 maximum anyway. So. You

[1:10:01] had indicated that you were prepared to defer until. Right.

[1:10:08] If everybody's finished commenting because I want to make sure

[1:10:11] that, uh, Ms. Smith has. Want to make sure Ms

[1:10:14] Smith has adequate feedback from us so that she gets

[1:10:17] some direction, um, so yeah, I would, I would like

[1:10:20] to move that we defer this consideration of this report

[1:10:23] to the Council meeting schedule for August the 24th. Thank

[1:10:29] you. The next report. We have to vote on that.

[1:10:37] Oh, we have to vote on that. Okay. Sorry. Yes.

[1:10:40] Um, all those in favor of deferring. All those posed.

[1:10:47] That motion carries. Um, so our next report is PBBS

[1:10:53] 39 - 2026. This is the extension of the draft

[1:10:57] plan approval of subdivision and draft plan of condominium approval

[1:11:01] recommendation report for 3303 Dominion Road. Can I get councillor

[1:11:08] Dubino that report is now on the floor for questions

[1:11:12] and comments. Councillor Duvenau. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

[1:11:21] Um, just wondering if staff perhaps, um, want to offer

[1:11:27] up some comment on this. It is a three year

[1:11:29] extension, um, but I had made some comments earlier about,

[1:11:33] uh, the, the condo market and how that shifted. And

[1:11:36] I'm just wondering if, um, the developer is given any

[1:11:39] indication that, um, they still want to move forward. They're

[1:11:43] just waiting for better timing or has there been no

[1:11:46] communication? I'm just trying to get, uh, feel for this

[1:11:50] because I don't like kicking the can down the road,

[1:11:52] but at the same time I understand there's a practical

[1:11:54] reality that everyone has to face when market forces don't

[1:11:58] go the way they intend. And, uh, I think everyone

[1:12:01] should be offered an opportunity to wait for them to

[1:12:03] improve. So I'm just wondering if maybe staff have some

[1:12:05] thoughts. Madam Shed through you to the councillor, um, it's

[1:12:10] my understanding speaking with staff that the applicant is committed

[1:12:15] to moving forward, but it's just that the market situation

[1:12:18] is not good. And that is a reason they have

[1:12:20] requested an extension. Um, your worship. You're finished? Um, well,

[1:12:30] so I did ask some information about this because we

[1:12:32] didn't have an indication of where the developer is in

[1:12:36] connection with what steps they had been taking since this

[1:12:39] was approved. Three years ago. And, um. You know, they

[1:12:46] submitted some, um, information about a little over 18 months

[1:12:50] ago. They received a response from the town staff in

[1:12:53] February of 2025. Nothing has happened since February of 2025.

[1:12:59] So that's a year and a half that's gone by.

[1:13:01] I get it. Uh, they're in, they're concerned about the

[1:13:04] market. I follow that. But the information we did receive

[1:13:07] from staff indicates that of the 35 subdivision conditions, three

[1:13:13] have been cleared ate, they're working on, which means there's

[1:13:17] 24 still to go. The condominium, uh, application, the conditions,

[1:13:24] none have been cleared. Five, they're working on. And that

[1:13:27] means there's seven that still need to be addressed. So

[1:13:32] out of 47, 31 haven't really moved at all. The

[1:13:38] letter from the, um, planning consultant of the developer indicates

[1:13:44] that they're actively engaged in trying to address these conditions.

[1:13:49] Well, they're not actively engaged in trying to meet these

[1:13:53] conditions if what we're told by staff is accurate. I'm

[1:13:58] not really inclined to agree to a three - year

[1:14:01] extension. I'm not even sure I want to go along

[1:14:04] with two years, but the market is a reality. And,

[1:14:09] um, I'd be prepared to extend this for two years,

[1:14:13] but not beyond two years. And then if they've made

[1:14:16] some headway over that two year period, great. Then we

[1:14:19] can consider where they are. But right now they're in

[1:14:23] a holding pattern. And we're under a lot of pressure

[1:14:25] from the provincial government through a whole bunch of rules

[1:14:29] to try to get new housing units built. This isn't

[1:14:33] helping. And, you know, this could be another couple of

[1:14:37] years before we see anything on this site. Hopefully we

[1:14:40] will. I'm, um, I have no reason to doubt that

[1:14:46] the developer eventually wants to proceed, but we need housing.

[1:14:50] And we need, we need units now rather than later.

[1:14:53] So Madam Chair, I'm going to remove that we amend

[1:14:56] the report to save a two year extension as opposed

[1:14:59] to a three year extension. Are there any comments. Councillor

[1:15:04] Dubino. Yeah. Just, just for the sake of the record,

[1:15:08] the applicant will, and staff can clarify this, if the

[1:15:12] applicant does move forward and show some progress, they will

[1:15:15] have the opportunity to come back to council. Um, because

[1:15:18] I sympathize with the reality of the market right now.

[1:15:21] The floor has fallen out of the condo market. But

[1:15:24] I completely understand where the mayor is coming from. We

[1:15:27] are under a lot of pressure from Queen's Park to

[1:15:29] get things moving forward. And, um, I think this allows

[1:15:33] us the ability to have some eyes on it to

[1:15:35] move forward. So I'm just wondering if staff can, uh,

[1:15:38] just put that on the record. We'll be good. Um,

[1:15:41] to have something come back if they request another extension

[1:15:43] in two years. If there's progress. Thank you, Councillor Kristen.

[1:15:53] Is there any way that, and I'm in full support

[1:15:55] of the mayor's suggestion. Is there any way that we

[1:15:59] can also add to that some targeted conditions that be

[1:16:03] approved of whether it's, okay, right now it's like maybe

[1:16:06] a quarter. And that's a, you know, we want to

[1:16:09] see progress every year to a certain extent. Like. 10,

[1:16:13] you know, like some, some numbers so that we're not

[1:16:16] right back here on the same place with the conditions,

[1:16:18] not me being met, that they have to basically put

[1:16:20] some, um, some substantial movement forward within those two years.

[1:16:30] So in response to that, ideally in two years, they

[1:16:35] will have met all these conditions. I don't want to

[1:16:37] be setting a bar for them which they can limp

[1:16:41] to and then say, okay, we made it. Give us

[1:16:43] another two years. I think the proof will be in

[1:16:46] the pudding. If they've made progress, uh, that's, that's one

[1:16:50] thing. But if we get another report that says, you

[1:16:53] know, there's still miles away. It tends to indicate that,

[1:16:58] okay, we're in a holding pattern. This is a piece

[1:17:00] of property that's not being developed and nothing can be

[1:17:03] done with it because we keep extending the time for

[1:17:07] them to meet the approval. So I think we just

[1:17:10] say, you know what two years. Come back to us

[1:17:14] if there's progress. We're not going to cut you off

[1:17:16] at the knees or whoever's here isn't like you're going

[1:17:18] to cut you off at the knees. But we need

[1:17:20] to see something more than just, you know, we're, we're,

[1:17:24] we're, we're working at it. So are there any no

[1:17:29] other comments? So I'll call the amendment all those in

[1:17:33] favor. Opposed. That amendment carries.

[1:17:44] We'll now call the report as amended. All those in

[1:17:47] favor. Opposed. That also is carried. Um, the final report

[1:17:56] this evening is PBBS 40 - 206, a part name

[1:18:02] proposal for 3440 Thunder Bay. So moved. Yes, your

[1:18:11] worship. This is, um. I think this is an excellent

[1:18:20] result. And I know that the author of the Report

[1:18:24] has misgivings. And, um, I've never read a report that

[1:18:29] goes around and around and around and comes to some

[1:18:31] place where the report wouldn't suggest it's going. But to

[1:18:36] name this park after Earl Plato doesn't really detract from

[1:18:41] the idea that there's an area in town called Thunder

[1:18:44] Bay. And that if we don't call this part Thunder

[1:18:49] Bay Park, somehow that's going to be lost. If you

[1:18:53] ask anybody where the Thunder Bay Golf Course was, they

[1:18:58] would have told you Ridgway. If you ask where Ridgway

[1:19:01] Shore's Golf Course was, they would have told you Ridgway.

[1:19:05] If they ask you, if you're from Ridgway and they

[1:19:08] say, is that Thunder Bay, they will tell you, no,

[1:19:11] that's not Thunder Bay. That's Ridgway. Thunder Bay starts at

[1:19:14] Maple Leaf or Pleasant Avenue and goes east. So I'm

[1:19:20] thinking that the name Thunder Bay, the geographic location Thunder

[1:19:24] Bay is not going to be lost because we call

[1:19:27] this Earl Plato Park. And I think it's a tremendous

[1:19:30] tribute to an individual who spent a lot of time

[1:19:34] educating, not just children, but because he was an educator,

[1:19:38] but also the public at large in generations of a

[1:19:42] naturalist and environmentalist. And, you know, when you think of

[1:19:46] individuals who had an impact on the education of the

[1:19:51] population about our natural environment, you think Burt Miller, Plato.

[1:19:57] So I think this is a fitting tribute. And I'm

[1:20:01] pleased to see that the recommendation is coming forward in

[1:20:05] this regard. And I hope the Council will support this.

[1:20:08] Also a support, a review of the terms of the

[1:20:11] part naming policy, um, if that's necessary, I think that

[1:20:14] could be updated. So I'm, if you haven't guessed, I'm

[1:20:17] supportive of this. Are there any other comments, questions. I'll

[1:20:25] just jump in very briefly further to the mayor's comments.

[1:20:28] I just want to say, as more and more new

[1:20:30] people move into our community to contribute to the development

[1:20:34] of our community, I think it's important that we ensure

[1:20:37] that we. Highlight some of the history and the historical

[1:20:40] aspects and some of the components that help shape our

[1:20:44] community to turn it into the community that it is

[1:20:48] that welcomes new people here. And you see new people

[1:20:51] choosing to call the Community, our community home to them

[1:20:55] as well. So I think acknowledging that people know we're

[1:20:59] Thunder Bay is Thunder Bay is never going anywhere. It's

[1:21:03] not like the, uh, the, um, the Gulf of Mexico

[1:21:08] being changed to, you know, the Gulf of USA. But

[1:21:12] I think this is very fitting. It's certainly someone in

[1:21:14] the Community who, as the mayor said, has contributed and

[1:21:18] I too am supportive. Councillor Flag. Thank you, Chair. Just,

[1:21:25] uh, I guess a point of clarification. Within this report

[1:21:29] as PBS 54 2025 as well. I'm wondering what the

[1:21:34] current status of that report is and whether we have

[1:21:37] to, um, defeat that report, whether that report was tabled

[1:21:42] or anything like that before we can approve the report,

[1:21:46] um, that we're considering this evening.

[1:21:56] Yep, through you chair. Uh, typically we like to include,

[1:21:59] uh, when we have, uh, a report on the same

[1:22:01] matter that the previous report be received. That's typical to

[1:22:05] have that in a recommendations. We don't have it here.

[1:22:08] Um, that report, we would consider spent at this point.

[1:22:12] And the address that I don't believe. As an answered,

[1:22:17] thank you. Um. Being no more comments or questions, I

[1:22:23] will, uh, call the question all those in favor. Opposed.

[1:22:32] Don't dare. Gee, was that a threat. None opposed. So

[1:22:39] that carries. Not chairman like I realise your worship. But

[1:22:46] whatever. Um, so, uh, do we have any new business

[1:22:55] or inquiries this evening. Your worship? Just following the, um,

[1:23:00] consideration of the, um, consolidated CIP and the discussion around

[1:23:05] the Affordable Housing. Just want to make sure that when,

[1:23:10] um, the CIP report comes back, there will be some

[1:23:13] consideration given to whether we need to change our definition

[1:23:16] of affordable housing in our affordable housing CIP. Can I

[1:23:20] just get confirmation that that will be considered by Ms.

[1:23:24] Smith. De warrior. Madam Chair ESP would definitely have a

[1:23:31] look at it. Okay. Thank you. Any other new business

[1:23:35] or inquiries. That being the case will move on to

[1:23:40] the business status report. Any questions about the business status

[1:23:45] report. None being seen. That concludes the business of the

[1:23:51] Planning Business and Bylaw Committee. And I turn the chair

[1:23:55] back to you. Thank you very much, Councillor Kristensen. Um,

[1:23:58] that takes us to Infrastructure Services. Councillor Lewis. Thank you.

[1:24:02] We have a packed agenda tonight. Andrea Infrastructure with no

[1:24:05] presentations or delegations, no reports. Um, are there any matters

[1:24:10] of new business or inquiries for members. Councillor Flag. Thank

[1:24:15] you, Chair. Um, in previous meetings, we've had a discussion

[1:24:18] about the corner of Mitch Nern, Point Abno Road, uh,

[1:24:22] with respect to traffic calming and daylight triangles. And I'm

[1:24:27] just wondering, um, if we can get a report as

[1:24:30] to where we are with that from staff, um, I've

[1:24:33] driven that stretch, um, a number of times in the

[1:24:37] last three weeks and find it very difficult. Um, and

[1:24:40] I know that there has been some other individuals that

[1:24:43] have reached out with the same concerns, um, and I'm

[1:24:46] hopeful that staff can get us a report sooner than

[1:24:49] later. Thank you, Councillor Flag. And I know the mayor

[1:24:52] and I have spoke on this one as well. It's

[1:24:54] come up at infrastructure services. And I believe is scheduled

[1:24:58] for, um, traffic coordinating. Um, but, uh, director Clint, any

[1:25:03] comments on that. Through you, Chair. Yes. I did speak

[1:25:07] with, um, Tommy Peasl before this meeting. He did provide

[1:25:10] me with some updates, which I can share. Um, so

[1:25:13] he did mention that staffer currently brushing, um, for sight

[1:25:16] lines. And that they are planning to bring it to

[1:25:19] the traffic coordinating for review September 16th. That was the,

[1:25:22] uh, the Information I received from him. I hope that

[1:25:24] helps. Thank you. Thank you, Director Flag. Anything further? Nothing

[1:25:30] further. I appreciate the soundtrack. Thank you. Any other questions

[1:25:33] from members of Council. Seeing none, I just want to

[1:25:37] add to that one, um, Director Clint, Mitchener and Far

[1:25:41] Avenue or Mitchner to Fire Avenue in that section. Um,

[1:25:45] should also maybe be flagged for traffic coordinating as well.

[1:25:49] Um, if there are no other questions, I did have

[1:25:52] one, um, pardon me? Oh, Councillor Christensen, go ahead. Yes,

[1:25:58] Chair, and I'm not entirely certain where to raise this,

[1:26:02] but it's a question. As you're aware, there has been,

[1:26:07] uh, concerns expressed with respect to, um, the use of

[1:26:11] motorized vehicles on trails requesting signage, which has been put

[1:26:15] up in Shag Park Park. Thank you very much. Um,

[1:26:18] and with respect to speeding and we have had media,

[1:26:24] um, campaign initiated to educate the public on this. Um,

[1:26:31] I wondered, I actually had someone, uh, raised the question

[1:26:36] with me, uh, with respect to people who use pedal

[1:26:40] assisted. Bikes and who have mild disabilities. Um, have difficulty

[1:26:46] using a regular bike. And I did some research and

[1:26:50] found out that there is a piece of legislation that

[1:26:54] will actually set up classes of motorized vehicles with class

[1:26:58] one being the, um, pedal assist bikes. And in other

[1:27:04] provinces, their distinguished from others. My question is, would it

[1:27:09] be possible to find out the current status? I understand

[1:27:13] it is not being proclaimed. And I just wondered whether

[1:27:17] you could find out what the current status or speak

[1:27:21] to someone at the province who actually can give you

[1:27:24] a little bit of background on when it will be

[1:27:27] proclaimed, um, because then I might have a motion if

[1:27:31] I know that. Through, through you, Chair, yeah, that's not

[1:27:37] a problem. We can investigate that further. Thank you. Perfect.

[1:27:39] And then the other component to that would be enforcement

[1:27:41] on which we're already working on. Yes. And my mine

[1:27:45] is simply a question at this point because it is,

[1:27:48] um, they are not permitted. So yeah. Thank you. Any

[1:27:52] other questions from council? If none, I do have one,

[1:27:56] uh, director Clint, one question for you. I know it's

[1:27:59] only August 10th, but I'm just wondering when we would

[1:28:02] expect timing on the babych operational report for 2026. To

[1:28:10] you, Chair, we're hoping to have it, I would say

[1:28:13] at the end of December or December, if not early

[1:28:16] January. And if I could continue with that, thank you.

[1:28:20] Reason for bringing this up, I'd like to ask staff

[1:28:23] that when bringing forward the end of your bay beach

[1:28:27] report that we, in addition to the regular updates, we

[1:28:31] receive on operations, attendance, revenues. We take a closer look

[1:28:35] at the breakdown on revenue's generated from 40er residents compared

[1:28:39] to non - residents. Um, with the said like to

[1:28:43] also ask staff to include a scenario for council's consideration

[1:28:47] in the upcoming budget that looks at the financial impact

[1:28:50] of providing free beach passes to Fordieri residents, um, specifically

[1:28:57] what revenues we would potentially be giving up by eliminating,

[1:29:01] um, residential pass fees. And are there reasonable ways that

[1:29:07] revenues could be absorbed within existing operations to recover those,

[1:29:12] um, other revenues, including non - resident fees. Um, I

[1:29:16] believe this is something that council may want to consider

[1:29:19] or at least we should have the options, um, in

[1:29:21] front of us in order to have those conversations in

[1:29:24] the upcoming budget. So having that financial information and some

[1:29:28] potential options available to council, I think would be helpful.

[1:29:33] Um, I'm by no means suggesting that we want to

[1:29:35] make this decision, um, I'm simply asking that we have

[1:29:38] those numbers in front of us so that when we

[1:29:40] look at this report, we're prepared to have further discussion.

[1:29:44] Councillor Lewis, I'm going to suggest that that should be

[1:29:46] a notice of motion at the August 24th meeting. Uh,

[1:29:50] the time between then and the report. And that can

[1:29:53] be dealt with in September. It'll give direction. Staff has

[1:29:55] an idea where you're heading. But I think there's sufficient

[1:29:59] work involved in that that's something that should be a

[1:30:01] notice of motion. Absolutely. And I have no problem bringing

[1:30:04] it up in that fashion. Thank you. Thank you, staff.

[1:30:07] Um, if the, um, comments from council, I will move

[1:30:12] that on to the business status report. There are two

[1:30:14] items in that report. Are there any questions or comments

[1:30:17] related to that? Seeing none, I will turn it back

[1:30:19] to you, your worship. Thank you, Councillor Lewis. That takes

[1:30:23] us then to Corporate Services Council flag. Thank you worship

[1:30:28] Corporate Community Services. Now in Session, we have no presentations

[1:30:31] or delegations this evening. One report on the floor looking

[1:30:34] for a seconder. Thank you. Um, by your worship, move

[1:30:40] by your worship comments, your worship. The report indicates that

[1:30:47] there were some, there were some consideration given to what

[1:30:49] other municipalities are doing and didn't really specify which ones

[1:30:55] they might be. But it also indicated that this, um,

[1:30:59] agreement that's been negotiated for the extension with TD Banking

[1:31:05] is favorable to the, to the town. But there is

[1:31:08] nothing to indicate what other banks are offering or doing.

[1:31:14] I'm going to support this, but I would like, uh,

[1:31:17] before the bylaw comes forward to get some information from

[1:31:21] staff with respect to what the other banks have been

[1:31:23] offering, what other municipalities may be able to have generated

[1:31:27] because the end of the report suggests that it may

[1:31:31] be coming time when we would want to go out

[1:31:33] to the market again. Thank you. Other comments. Seeing none,

[1:31:41] all those in favor. Unopposed, that carries. Brings us the

[1:31:45] new business inquiries. Questions on the business status report. Seeing

[1:31:52] none, I'll close that and turn it back to you,

[1:31:55] worship. Thank you very much, Councillor Flag. That was, uh,

[1:31:59] quite expeditious. Um, okay, scheduling of meetings. Councillor Noyes. There's

[1:32:07] an SBCA meeting on the 20th. I think about five

[1:32:10] o'clock at the chair's house. Mary Reinhardt. You say 5

[1:32:18] p. m. Yes. Any other meetings. Councillor Lewis. We have

[1:32:24] the crystal beach BIA meeting business improvement this area board

[1:32:30] of management meeting on Wednesday, August the 12th at 6

[1:32:33] p. m. And Wednesday, August the 12th at 5 p.

[1:32:37] m. is the next meeting for EAC. Okay. Anyone else.

[1:32:43] If not, that, sorry, Councillor Noise. There also non -

[1:32:48] for - profit housing meeting on the 19th. The Wednesday,

[1:32:51] and it's usually at Betty. S. At nine. 9 a.

[1:32:57] m. The date on that again. Thank you. Any others.

[1:33:06] Contraduino. Yes, sir. I'd like to move the council and

[1:33:09] committee adjourn this evening at 722 p. m. All those

[1:33:12] in favor. Unanimous. Thank you all.

Council-in-Committee

Agenda

Transcript