to see this. And secondly,
the. The. Pardon me,
I'm sorry, but I wouldn't be rude to interrupt any other delegation.
Please, just. So, Councillor Russo,
I support this motion. Okay.
Our goal is. You know,
I'm surprised. I really am surprised. What's going on here?
Further, the last thing I'm going to say is this.
Councillor DeBoer, you declared a conflict with this, and you're sitting at this
table. And I really disappoints me that this is happening.
So. You know, this is the third time I've. I've brought this to your attention
publicly. And maybe further action is going to need to
be taken in the future. Thank you, Councillor Russo. And chair and council.
Thank you, Ms. Briyoshi. I don't see any questions.
Moving on to the next delegate, I will now call upon Ms.
Cheryl Connors to speak to the same agenda, item 12.1.
Council Russo to approve draft plan of subdivision submitted by Malone
Given Parsons for Brook Valley Development. Hang on.
Sorry. Whoops. Didn't mean to do that. Stop. My phone.
Hang on. Sorry about that. Hello. Sorry about that. So,
first of all, I just want to say again, planning meetings in the afternoon on
really important topics are very difficult. Sorry, just your name for the resume.
Cheryl Connors. And I'm just here as a resident, not representing anyone but my.
Myself. So first of all, I want to say again,
planning meetings on such important topics in the middle of the day are really
inconvenient for those of us who work. This all was brought to
my attention at the very last meeting. I have nothing prepared. I'm not reading a
speech. But this is an issue I've delegated on before. Sorry, this is a development
I've delegated on before. So I felt really compelled to hop
in the shower. Don't even know if I'm dressed. Race over here to speak to
it. So a few things.
When this came up the first time, when the MZO was requested,
and at the 11th hour,
the province informed Calden that
the Greenbelt lands would be removed from the application and that MZO
never went ahead because then the Greenbelt scandal broke and it's
all under investigation from the rcmp.
And all of that. But at the time at the public
information meeting, I did have the environmental site assessment and
spoke about my deep concerns about the greenbelt
land and how and how and
how important those lands are and that we should be doing our best when developing
to make sure that they're protected.
So that's a significant wetland at
the south end of the property. There was unevaluated wetlands
and you know, somebody needs to
speak out. What I don't understand, my concerns
are all about process. When the 12
zoning orders were approved, we were told, I mean, one of my big
concerns was the public would be cut out of the process. We're not going to
have a voice in what our communities look like. But we were assured
that the community would be able to be involved when these subdivisions
came forward and that we would have a voice. But here, once again,
a subdivision is being approved and there's not even a staff report and staff
making the recommendation for it to go ahead. So once again,
the public isn't being doesn't get the opportunity
to go ahead. This particular plot of land does
include greenbelt. My really quick look at it looks
like there are houses going through that. The wetlands in
the north part are being looked at. I don't really know because I don't see
a staff report. I emailed you this morning. I guess you didn't get the email.
I don't see the linkages to the website. I don't
see, you know, if there's comments from conservation
authorities as to how that important greenbelt
land is going to be protected.
And that's the problem and that's how the public is being cut out of the
process. These are precedent setting cases
that if you do this for one subdivision and one particular developer,
then why wouldn't every developer not do the same thing?
And if the purpose of pre zoning land for developers is just to
avoid land tribunal costs, does that mean we're
just going to skip the planning department? And then we just may as well
tell all our highly paid planners that
their services aren't needed because to the best of my knowledge,
members of council aren't planners. You don't have
planning degrees, not your responsibility to understand
the technical requirements of a subdivision.
And then going back to what may be the purpose of all
of this, you know, housing crisis attainable,
housing affordable, whatever that that means.
I still don't believe that expediting this is going
to do anything to make those houses built any
faster. And let's just look at what is going on in the world
right now. We have the potential for 30% tariffs from Trump.
You know, most of LA just burned to the ground. They didn't have a lot
of water. Canada has water and we have water in our green
belt. And as ontarians, we decided
the green belt was important to protect.
So if you feel the need to develop on these lands, let's at least
do so carefully, cautiously to
assess to ensure that as
much of the greenbelt land will be protected, that the development that you're building
isn't, isn't going to be damaged by what you're doing.
And I still haven't seen any fiscal plans and how
the burden of this infrastructure isn't going to be borne on
the existing taxpayers. Because I'm telling you, we are
in trouble. If those tariffs go in
and you go to the grocery store, it might cost you $20 for,
for that lettuce or broccoli or cauliflower.
Long term planning could be all thrown out the door.
So why are we rushing to do this?
I don't believe a motion from a councilor to
approve a subdivision without that going through the normal
process of going through staff, coming after a recommendation
of staff, as all the highly paid planning folks
have made a decision and brought it forward to staff with their recommendation
that you look for that. That's the process that we
work under. And it's like Calden has just decided that
all of the decades of planning in
this province, all of the legislation, all of the processes,
while imperfect, just don't matter anymore
because we're just going to do this developer driven planning
which isn't going to build good communities.
So that's really all
I had to say. I just am really disappointed that this is
once again how
you feel that you need to do this. I don't understand why
a council representing Wards 4,
5 and 6 is bringing this forward in Ward 2.
I think you have lots of issues on our side of town that should be
looked at. I think this should be coming through from a
recommendation from planning staff. And I'd like to once again
ask for a full, transparent process where the public does
get the opportunity to view what's
happening, make suggestions for improvement,
because that builds better communities and it assures that council makes
decisions based on the best advice of the people
that have been hired in this town and that it's done so in a fiscally
responsible way that isn't going to be put the burden of paying
for all this development on the backs of existing residents.
Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Connors.
Moving on. I believe that's all the delegates. Moving on
to staff reports, the next item on the
agenda we have had. Two of the items were
dealt with in consent. Moving on to
Staff Report 10.3. Staff Report
20250015 RZ2024 0025.
Broccolini ZBA holding
symbol. May I get a mover or a seconder on that? Moved by
Councilor Sheen, seconded by counselor early that
the bylaw attached. Is there any discussion on this? Seeing none
that the bylaw attached as schedule C to
Staff Report 20250015 be
enacted to amend Comprehensive Zoning Bylaw 200650
as amended to remove site specific holding
symbol H34 from specific
lands which per. Will permit the intended development of
the property for industrial purposes.
Are there any questions on the motion? I see. Councilor Sheen.
Thank you. Chair Russo. Can I just ask staff to very briefly talk
about why we're in a position to remove the H on these properties?
I. I think I know the answer, but I just want to button it up
for the public through
the chair to the councilor. I'm going to just step in with a little
bit of how we got here today and then Mr.
Hughes can get into a little more of the detail. This goes
back to council in December where delegated Authority
for lifting Hs was pulled back from staff to
give to council. So we. What we did here today was actually rush to get
a report because we wanted to ensure that development could proceed on this property.
So that's some of the context that I wanted to offer. And Mr. Hughes will.
Will provide a little more detail. That's good. Thank you,
Mr. Hughes. Thank you. So through the chair,
perhaps as council may be aware, staff have been reviewing
associated development applications that speak to land
uses that are permitted on these lands. Going back
to the zoning matter,
as noted through the delegation, this was dealt with through the Ontario Lands
Tribunal. And at that time it was highly
desirous of staff to. Excuse me, ensure that
the road extending out to Heartlake Road be
constructed and opened. So in working with the
developer, the holding symbol that
was incorporated within the zoning and approved on the property
through the OLT prescribed that certain
matters take place. That in the end, and that
was through subdivision agreements and other associated documents,
staff had some level of understanding and concern control as
to how that would transpire. And I think, as the committee
may be aware, we were successful in ensuring
that construction was commenced.
And that is happening at this point in time.
In terms of a brief update on the opening of that road I
did speak to engineering staff just prior to this meeting
and they've indicated that the hope is that that
road will be open in the early to
mid spring of this year.
There's matters that they've been working with the region,
appeal for some pavement and lighting,
and those are the next things that need to be dealt with in the season,
of course, doesn't assist for construction purposes.
So work is continuing to progress on
that road because the associated
agreements and all those types of things have been dealt with.
Engineering staff have signed off on the release of the holding.
Staff were comfortable in bringing forward a report to council for
their consideration that removes that holding.
The lands are still subject to site plan approval or
are subject to site plan approval. There is an application that has been filed.
My understanding from the applicant is that they're probably going to resubmit
an application and move through those processes
in the near future, for which then we will be addressing some
of the matters that the delegate did raise
that speak to access, landscaping,
compatibility with some of the surrounding land uses and those types of
things. Okay, so it's fair
to say that there's been some extended negotiations with
the developer around this area,
and as I recall,
approval for this subdivision, I guess, was highly contingent on
completing Abbotside way out to Heartlake, is that right?
I would suggest that's correct, yes. So through those OLT processes,
staff worked diligently to ensure agreements
were in place and would suggest that we're
now seeing the fulfillment of that. Right.
As I recall, it was a painstaking process and probably the first
time I was ever involved in something that looked so
simple, yet seemed to take so much work from staff and the developer to
get it done. So I just want to give
thanks to the staff and to the developer because
I believe they started construction on that road finally in August and
said they would get it done by the end of December. And from all intents
and purposes, for me anyway, looking over the barriers,
it looks done to me. I understand there's a bit of a holdup with
respect to hydro and that some other landscaping planning
was going to happen in the new year anyway. First time I'm
hearing that the scheduled opening is early spring.
Hopefully that can be sooner than later, but nevertheless,
we're way further ahead than I really thought we'd be. When I heard it would
be done in August or when I was first told it would be done by
the end of December, I was a little skeptical, but it looks done to me.
So, anyway, thanks very much for all your work. Thank you.
Thank You, Councillor Sheen, Councillor early through
you, Chair. I need to get on the mic before Councillor
Sheen because he often takes a lot of my thoughts, but I have. Hi,
Rob, how are you? Just a couple things and I think you covered them
first of all. And Councillor Sheen did as well. Really pleased to see this road.
The community needs this road desperately. It's long time coming and we've been
dealing with this application. I think it started last term of council, but my
biggest concern is what the delegate brought forward and
that's obviously the trucks turning east
to Heart Lake and then the
mitigation of sound and barriers to all of the homes on
the other side. So how can we be guaranteed. And we're very thankful that
we actually that the whole did come back to staff so that we've got a
staff report and have an opportunity to talk for the public.
Because while I know there has been newspapers and
there's been communication to the public, I suspect that many may not
still be aware that a warehouse might be coming in as imminent.
So it is a concern and I just want to make sure when they start
calling that we can answer those questions.
So, through the chair, as noted, a site plan application
has been filed with the town. What they're looking to build is
a warehousing structure. As to whether
they'll follow through with that and file
something that's a resubmission that's in keeping with that remains to be
seen, but there are a range of uses
that are permitted on the lands and it's perhaps a bit premature
to fully understand as to what the development form would will be
on the property. Likely. However, it's likely
it'll be a warehouse product.
I did take note of some of the matters that the delegate had
identified because they were worthy concerns
and comments. And certainly staff would be looking
through the review of that site plan application to take those
matters into consideration. In particular, access onto
Abbott's side, some of the landscaping matters, urban design things.
It's premature probably at this point to comment as to how that may
actually play out. Site plan approval
is not a public process, so there is no announcement to
nearby residents that applications
are on file. But at the same time, members of the public are able to
view applications applications and speak with staff and understand what some of those
impacts will be and comment, et cetera. So that's
where we're at at this point. I just. I just really want to
go back to the truck turning because I'm pretty sure we had conversations with Broccolini
in the past. But just for Me, it would be pretty critical.
I can't see them going west and onto Kennedy and then trying to force onto
Mayfield. So I would hope that that will be somewhere in the process as
well. Is that whole piece right? Because that's. So that's been noted.
That's something our engineering and transportation staff would be
responsible for purposes of commenting on. Thank you.
Thanks.
Nothing at this time. Councillor Sheen, another question
I am going to come back to staff. It's really important to me that
truck traffic gets diverted away from Kennedy going forward.
And that was my understanding was that Kennedy would become a no
truck traffic route from Mayfield to Abbotside
when the warehousing came in along there. I don't know if it was. I wouldn't
say it was promised or guaranteed, but that was my understanding
was that truck traffic would be divided, diverted eastward,
which really is kind of critical to the neighborhood.
So I'll leave that with you. I don't know if you can answer. Maybe you
could answer. Maybe you could explain.
Sorry. Then what? Some of the challenges are around getting
there through you. Chair to
Councillor Sheen in full transparency. I don't have my head wrapped around
the issue at hand. I need to take that away and review it with
staff so I can commit to coming back to you with some of these
responses. But I don't have a position on it yet. Fair enough. Thank you.
And Councillor Sheen, to be fair, I think this is where the site plans,
process is. What all that will be distilled. But appreciate that
is an important issue to the community there. Not seeing
any other questions, I guess. The motion has
been read. Are there any other discussion
items on the motion? Then moving on
to the clerk for the vote, please.
Councillor DeBoer in favor.
Councilor early in favor. Councillor Kiernan
in favor. Councilor Mascal? In favor.
Councilor Napoli in favor. Councilor Rosa
in favor. Councilor Sheen in favor. Mayor Groves
in favor. Chair Russo in favor.
Through the chair. The motion carries. Thank you. We move on to Item
10.4, Staff Report 20250026
Proposed Traffic Safety advisory committee a
mover. Councillor Napoli.
Seconded by Councillor Rosa.
And I'll read out the motion that Bylaw 2025001
being a bylaw to establish a traffic safety advisory committee
and provide its terms of reference attached as schedule B to
Staff Report 20250026 be approved.
Any discussion on the motion?
Seeing none. Move. Oh, Councilor early,
sorry. Through you, I'm very good
with this. I just. I know the terms of reference are still being developed.
And I noticed on the research that many of the other
municipalities had a school trustee as part of the group.
And I'm just wondering, would that be part of the consideration? Because I
think we're still going back to look at the terms of reference. Right. And then
it will come back to us. So I just wanted to maybe somebody. Oh,
there comes Mr. Klingenberg. I believe
Mr. Klingberg is preparing to answer that.
Through the. Through the chair to Councilor
early. The school board chair as an appointee
on the committee was considered, and we determined
it would be most viable to have them as a point of
contact instead of an appointed member where they could
vote. But they are in the terms of reference,
from my vantage point. Sorry, from my.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but they can be in the terms
of reference as a point of contact, but not a voting member.
I think we should at least give some consideration. I know certainly
both the Catholic and the public has been of help in Councillor
Sheen's ward in Southfields on several occasions where we've had. And then we
worked with transportation to kind of correct some of the issues. I just thought it
was great when I saw that in other municipalities. So just for your consideration.
Okay, thank you. Thank you. Okay, thank you.
Any other questions to the motion?
Seeing none. Asking the clerk to call the vote,
please. Councillor De Boer.
In favor. Councilor Early? In favor.
Councilor Kiernan? In favor.
Councilor Mascal? In favor.
Councilor Napoli. In favor. Councilor Rosa?
In favor. Councilor Sheen? In favor.
Mayor Groves? In favor. Chair Russo?
In favor. Through the chair. The motion carries. Thank you.
Moving on to. Are there any other notices of motion
to be presented at today's meeting?
Seeing none. Moving on to motions.
The next item on the agenda is motions. As I put
forward the motion on item 12.1 to
approve the draft plan of subdivision submitted
by Malone given Parsons to Brook Valley Development. I will vacate the
chair and have Councillor Rosa assume the chair.
It.
The motion moved by Councillor Russo. Councillor Russo, do you
have anyone seconding this motion? Councillor Napoli.
All right, so the motion is, whereas an application for draft pan approval for the
above noted lands has been received by the town, and whereas council
has enacted an OPA for the said lands at its
council meeting held on December 17,
2024. And whereas the letter dated December 19,
2024, the draft plan of subdivision application was deemed
complete as of December 13, 2024 in
accordance with the Section 51.19.1 of the
Planning Act. And whereas notice of application was given on
01.02.2025 in the accordance of section 51.19.4
of the Planning act and whereas Council now considers it appropriate to
grant draft plan of subdivision approval to the above noted lands,
now therefore be it resolved that the approval is hereby given to
pursuant of section 5131 of the Plan to
the draft plan subvision prepared by Malone Given Parsons
dated March 28, 2024 revised to December
4, 2024, the Plan and a copy which is attached hereto
as Schedule A, the plan is approved subject to the draft
plan conditions attached here to the Schedule B. Approval of
plan shall lapse at the expiration the expiration
of five years from the date of approval of the plan.
Is there any discussion on this motion? Councillor Russo?
I prepared a little something so I'll just speak to that so that giving
some context, I also felt propelled
to ask or answer a couple of the questions that Mr.
Axworthy had brought forward.
The complete application pertains to the
checklist of items that staff have and the reports
that were provided. So that's the checklist that they are provided
that is delegated authority to staff and staff makes
the actual approval. So as I've
indicated, I prepared a little something, a preamble, an explanation
for my motion. It may be a bit long winded, but I
feel that the issue is important enough to spend a bit of extra time
on the matter. While I feel the merit definitely exists
on why I am putting forward this motion, I acknowledge
land use planning is complicated and often challenging for the average
resident to comprehend, so I hope this helps somewhat.
Rationale, History, Equity and Legacy Although this
application has been predominantly dealt with this
term of Council Mayfield West Phase 2 Stage 3 lands
the reality is these lands as a whole
Phase 2 lands have in fact a 25 year plus
legacy of planning and being on the books with the town of
Caledon. That said, for clarity, a brief chronology
is that this application was brought forward 10-17-2023
by the area councillors Sheen and Early to and I
believe unanimously supported by this Council to be accepted.
It has been circulated to all the appropriate agencies and
staff and a statutory public meeting has been
held on this. These lands have been rezoned by this
Council and further propelled by the future Caledon
OP process where this Council unanimously supported
these lands moving forward in the process and most
recently the secondary plan and OPA for these
lands were dealt with and again unanimously supported by
this council December 2024, leaving the remaining
process draft plan of subdivision outstanding and
this process is delegated to staff and not subject to
the public process. This would never even be before us at this
point in time. So I feel that that's why a
little bit of an explanation is required in
terms of equity. We are striving as a council to treat all applicants fairly
and equitable through staff and via the mayor and some
councillors. This applicant was persuaded several times not
to appeal their application and work through the town process.
This applicant now sees neighboring parcels that did
not choose to do so and did not choose to work through the process which
they are totally entitled to do and take the OLT route and
have their items dealt with in parallel and in their entirety
be approved via the OLT both secondary plan
and draft plan. This negated any application
fees collected by the town and in fact costed US
dollars negotiating via OLT settlement, not through the regular
process. So why get involved now?
I feel this application is unique enough and has so many variables that
makes it distinct enough to bring bring it forward immediately.
Particularly with all the other necessary approvals having
already been obtained via the regular planning process,
they are now complete. Also, let me be very clear
what this motion is seeking. With all the approvals now in place,
this process would typically, as indicated or as mentioned,
go into the purview of staff and respectfully,
the normal process is that this never is seen again from
the public or even this council, oftentimes until
it is either deemed approved or we will be waiting for some other
notification where the councilors,
if this is approved, get an email informing us the
process is complete. What I am seeking
from this council is that we approve the draft plan
in principle. But in principle isn't final,
it is with significant safeguards and conditions which
I will touch upon further and this process follows
the usual protocol. I dismiss the argument of
precedent, of precedent forming which does not exist
in land use planning regardless. But as mentioned,
we are trying to provide equity in time frames and not
penalize those that choose not to appeal to town and stay the course.
This mitigates potential litigation and adjudication that often
cost the municipality thousands upon thousands.
Further, these lands are the most probable and definitely
the most viable to continue to physically be built out in
the upcoming years. I checked with our building department.
Phase two, stage one and two lands made up almost a quarter of our permits
in 2024. In these unpredictable economic times,
these lands with servicing already in place are a
natural progression to complete the box and mapping set out
years ago. So with this, and in part, these are a few of
my whys. With this motion I obviously
make it apparent that I feel the matter is important enough to intervene.
However, I do acknowledge it is very seldom that we do so and
feel these instances instances should be the exception,
not the rule. However, I also do not prescribe to the
argument that we've never done this before. Well, frankly,
perhaps where instances there should have been some instances
that council should have. We as the board of directors should intervene
when we feel strongly enough about an issue. This council definitely
has the authority to do so and I argue should do so
when it feels it is in the best interest of its residents and businesses.
But I am not a planner, nor am I a lawyer. I did
however, spend years adjudicating over land use planning matters with
the LPAT and OLT and have a higher understanding and knowledge
than many. But I still do not profess to be an expert.
But I do use the assets before me, both planners and lawyers whom
are the experts and assist and assisted in assisted
to make sure the interests of the town are protected.
I believe we went above and beyond with a 40 plus page
and 170 plus draft condition. Draft conditions that were
written and vetted by our town staff,
TRCA staff and legal that need to be fulfilled
or cleared before final approval. So with all those
conditions, why approve? Draft plan of subdivisions are
frequently approved with numerous draft conditions. However,
in this case, perhaps even more than usual. So again I ask, with all
those conditions, why approve? Approval gives certainty to
the applicant that their application has been taken seriously. Timelines are
now in their hands and clarity is provided to what is needed for
the town. We too have certainty that conditions are our
conditions with no risk of an OLT adjudicator diminishing
the number of conditions or altering them in any manner not
favorable to the town, we cannot predict the future, nor should
we simply be averse to appeals. However, when the process is kept
within our purview and with all the set of settled conditions
being the towns, we thus set out our own parameters,
not a third party adjudicator sending out the preferred their preferred terms.
This is when the draft conditions can adequately protect
the interests of our Caledon residents. This is not
my opinion, but the opinion obtained by our staff and
our legal. So in closing, these are my whys and the rationale and justification
for the motion here before council. Thank you.
Thank you. Any other speakers to the motion?
Seeing none. Oh, sorry,
Councillor DeBoer. Thanks. I do have a
some concern over this and if staff have communicated.
I'm just curious as to why there isn't a staff
communication with regards to the support that
they have for the draft conditions. I understand the
process. When I look at the town website,
it's listed this application as first submission under review.
So from that I gather that staff are reviewing this
submission with these conditions, but have
yet to provide any comments, certainly no comments that are here that the public
can see. I think if it's the desire of council to bring
back the approval
of site plans, conditional site plans and eliminate
the staff's delegated authority,
then that's a separate item and we can do the same, same as what was
done just at the last meeting with the H, the holding symbol and we
can remove delegated authority from staff with
regards to approving draft plans.
It's been. And, and I tried to talk to staff to figure
out again a plan as to how far back it was that we made this
change. But it was council that initiated and delegated authority. So we still
have the authority to remove that delegated authority. If that's the
intent and the desire to get this back into where
there's public comment and a second final look if that's
part of the desire with this application. But I really do think that
not having had staff make comments and it be under
first submission under review as being what's current
status on the website, I really have concerns with
moving forward. The delegation mentioned even just road widths
and concerns about road widths within the application,
you know, and he picked up that as something that staff would actually be
commenting on to ensure there's some consistency and that
for example, transitways are incorporated within the plan.
So, you know, it leaves me with a lot more
concerns moving forward if
this was supported so that, you know,
I think there's other ways to do it if, if that's the desire of trying
to accomplish more transparency and I have no
problem with more transparency and
I would support removing the delegated authority, but I'm
not prepared to say that I'm going to support moving this
forward without at least a staff report ensuring that it meets with
the overall guidelines and intentions of,
of the development in that area. Thank you.
Thank you. Councillor Sheen,
perhaps just speak to that briefly. No intentions to
remove the delegated authority. I feel that this, as indicated, is unique
enough that in this case it warrants delegated
authority being removed because of the history of the actual file
and the amount of work that's been put in. The work
that I actually put forward with staff was to
ask both TRCA staff, regional staff and legal,
how many, how can they be satisfied and this
is not a process that they are typically satisfied
with. The reality, though, is, when speaking to the fact
of reports, and I've heard that mentioned
frequently today, is we will never get a report in this case.
This would have now gone into the hands of staff, and I intend it
to go into the hands of staff. All I'm asking for is,
as indicated, is an approval in principle
with all the actual conditions
in place that protect our residents, protect the integrity
of the. Of the approval process, but give
the certainty, but to both the applicant and to the state into the town
that this remains in our own coffers and we are able to.
To be the. The actual approval
authority in this. In this case. So that's where I feel it's important.
I wouldn't want this to be delegated authority. As I indicated,
this is a unique case and this has been on the
books in Caledon for longer than I've
been around here. And I feel that it's important enough that we actually
intervene, actually ask for that approval in principle.
That's what I'm asking for. Thank you,
Councillor Sheen. Thank you, Chair.
I'm a little bit all over the map with my notes here, but first
I want to thank the delegate, Mr. Axworthy, for coming forward.
He articulated many of the same concerns that I
have.
Firstly, with respect to how this is. Appears to be inconsistent
with the town's recently approved official plan.
The Dougal Avenue issue is still an issue for me,
which Mr. Axworthy mentioned. And I spoke at
length about the concerns I have with Dougal and
the experience we had with Dougal in Mayfield Westphase 2.
No, sorry, phase one. And I
feel like we might be making the same assumptions or faulty assumptions
on the west side now of Highway 10, the bridge structures is
an issue, apparently or not appear apparently it
is an issue. As Mr. Axworthy brought up an
item, Dougal and the bridge structures kind of get
at the overall traffic impact analysis for all of Mayfield West.
Face phase two, which we had some discussion at
the December 17th meeting with the commissioner.
Not to put too fine of a point on it, but we have to look
at the big picture. And as I said on December 17,
the assumptions that are being made around traffic and whatnot, we need to make
sure those are valid assumptions. Because if we make
the same mistake we made in Mayfield West Phase 1, we're just
duplicating the problem we've created in Mayfield West 1.
Sorry, I'm just looking for my.
I don't want to bore people with a long submission.
Councillor Russo mentioned. I think he was trying to answer the question,
why proceed in this way. And I think the first thing he said was this
area has been in the process for about 25 years, which makes it a unique
case. And I think what he's referring to is that
Mayfield west in general was first
conceived of back in, I think about 25 years ago.
And as I understand it from the history speaking to
others, when certain
parts of Mayfield west were ready to go versus others, it's just a
function of people making the best decisions they could make at the
time. And that's right, some developers
went to the back of the line, so to speak. I don't think it was
done because there was any ill intent, but I think the explanation
I hear is that you can only do so much at once. The town
only has so much capacity to develop. So Mayfield west phase
one got approval and here we are 15,
20, 25 years later, about to. Well, not about
to. We're very much moved into Mayfield West Phase 2.
I drove through the neighborhood this morning. As I've mentioned a few times,
homes are going up over there. They're digging soil today.
It's unbelievable the amount of progress. I am anxious to see
the neighborhood finished. I'm interested to see the Brook Valley
development complete. But I'm struggling
with what feels like a step outside
the usual process.
Oh, and I guess my last important point is Councillor Russo said it a couple
of times in his submission that the draft plan
of subdivision is in principle. He said it a couple of times,
but the motion actually doesn't refer to it as in principle.
It just simply says that the draft plan of subdivision is approved.
So those
are my thoughts. I may have more because there may be some more discussion.
I'm not sure. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Kiernan,
please.
Thank you. And through you, I too would like
to speak to the.
The aspect of transparency. Something that I tried to point
out last week that these complex,
eye catching, attention getting motions on
our agenda to the council, to the public with no
staff reports, and there
has been plenty of time between last month and
this and even the amendment to this motion, in my opinion,
to seek a staff report for full transparency.
Transparency seems to be a word we use a lot,
you know, but I'm not sure that that's. That's what's
going on. Without a staff report, the public are
not fully informed. And I think it's
our duty to make sure they're fully informed. Frankly,
I would not ever support taking
away or giving, giving staff delegated authority. I think these things
must come to council. That, that's for me. But I have to
say that there has been plenty of time to bring a staff report. It's not.
We have to make decisions as a body of council, as an entity,
and for one or each individual counselor to have had
conversations with staff and be satisfied with that outcome certainly
does not serve the rest of council fully.
We are not mind readers and I
think there's a gap here, quite frankly. So I have
a serious problem with this motion. My question is also because it's
been a head scratcher for me from the start and I haven't seen an answer.
I have. Public has asked it, letters have been sent,
why I've never seen this happen. And I've
asked other municipalities and they think it's massively,
massively unusual. I'm confused as
to why representative for wards
456 is bringing forward this motion without the
consultation of the councilors of the area. And that's another big
problem for me. I'm not sure that's a road we want to continue to go
down. I will not be supporting this motion.
I think this needs to be sent back to staff and I think it needs
to have a full, transparent staff report,
attach it and so that we can make, we talk about
it, informed decisions, data. We don't have that before us,
quite frankly. There's a lot of, there's a
lot of faith being asked for here and I don't think we want to plan
Kaladin on faith. So I need to see the data, I need to see
the documents, I need to see the information from staff. I would
hope we all feel that way. Thank you.
Thank you,
Mayor Grove.
Thank you, chair. And through you, I want to just go
back to transparency. Ms.
Brioche mentioned the MZO that was
voted on. There are several MZOs that I recall
that members of this council, previous council voted
on. I don't think MZOs are transparent.
I don't see staff reports accompanying MZOs.
And with respect to this application,
this has been going on probably, I'm going to say
25 years, a number of us,
and I remember attending the site,
having a groundbreaking ceremony on that site.
And so here we are several years later. This has
been dealt with at the Regent appeal. And when I
look at this, this is not a slam dunk
approval. There's a whole bunch of conditions that
I'm reading here, both from the town,
from the TRCA and from the region appeal.
This is not, let's approve this and it's done.
And I am certain that through this process,
staff will be addressing, with the Developer,
all of those conditions. Councillor Sheen, I certainly hear
your concern with respect to the infrastructure or the lack thereof.
But I'm going to remind folks, and I didn't see
many years ago when these things were happening and votes were
happening that anybody was standing up here, well,
maybe one or two was here when
all of this development was happening.
Southfields had a whole lot of discussion around
it. In fact, we had charrettes on
Southfields. Then we look at how Southfields
became and got developed. I think Mr. Hughes or Tim
Manley was, who was the planner at the time
on this area.
But a lot of things got changed with council
and then we ended up with Southfields the way we
did. Kennedy Road being one of them.
Development charges being set aside
for developers until they've built 1,001 units.
So I can go on and on with a list of things
that was lacking. Transparency.
So let's not throw the word transparency
when it suits us because there are a
number of things. I sat here for years and years and
a lot of things happened here where it was not transparent.
And I remember a motion coming in a public meeting by
members of council from Ward 2 through a public
meeting asking for an MZO. We want to talk about transparency,
let's talk about transparency. Not when
transparency suits us. This has been an
ongoing conversation, discussion. We did Mayfield
west phase one, stage one, stage two
and now we're at stage three. We should have
been looking at the entire area
and planning that entire area.
And because we did not do that, this is
the reason we're here today. This is the reason we have all these
issues with lack of infrastructure and all the other things.
Then to throw some of the other things in the mix,
the rerouting of Highway 410 and
all of those things. Here we are
many, many years later, two decades later, because why
we did not do our job here at this council,
we piecemealed planning and that is why we
are where we are. We are trying to correct that
by doing the right thing. And there are several conditions
when I look in here. So this is not a slam dunk.
This is saying your infrastructure must be built. Now we're
talking years later, infrastructure could have been a lot
cheaper, but now we're talking infrastructure that we're
going to be probably five, six,
maybe seven times the cost of what it would
have been back then. So I don't have a problem
moving this forward. And as I said, all of
this happened in 2022
at the region of Peel. Every member of Caledon
Council at the region of Peel, voted to put 11,000
acres in our urban boundaries. This is not staff's fault,
but these decisions were council decisions,
council directing staff, council passing motions.
And staff are left to deal with all
the inadequacies, all the motions that were
put forward. MZOs, they don't bring with them
any financial analysis. They don't talk about infrastructure.
They don't talk about anything. They are just carte blanche
approvals. And let's go. No staff report accompanying it.
And so I have no issues in supporting
this because, again, it is not a slam dunk.
When I look at the conditions that's in here, it addresses
a number of things. TRCA's concerns,
all of those environmental impacts are in here.
And until TRCA is satisfied or staff are satisfied,
or the region is satisfied by, this is not going to happen.
So I.
And again, you know, I did not see
residents showing up at meetings when MZOs
are proposing or were being proposed.
So those are my comments.
And again, it is
a matter of moving this through a process that
should have happened a long time ago and a process
that should have been a more holistic and a more comprehensive
process. And that is why we are in
the situation we're in. And that's why Bolton is in the
situation. It's in the lack of planning,
proper planning, holistic planning,
comprehensive planning. Because through all those things,
you address all the concerns that I'm hearing being raised here
today. So thank you. Thank you,
Councillor Mascal, please.
Thank you. And through you, Chair, and it's all great for us to
talk amongst ourselves here as counselors, but I'm going to ask a couple
of questions to some of the experts that we have on our
staff here. I have two questions. One is for Commissioner
Lucc, and I'm just
going to read the question out here.
What Councillor Russo is asking is unorthodox,
something I have not seen brought before this council.
In your experience, Commissioner Lucik,
have you seen this practice applied before?
And in your professional opinion, does it in any
way undermine the integrity or efficacy
of the planning process through
the chair to the counselor? Well, this might be unorthodox
for how things have been done in Caledon. It's actually fairly common
in other municipalities. I looked to the city of Mississauga, where it worked before,
and you'd have a standard condition saying, yeah, you know,
the general content or idea of development's approved,
and it's subject to draft and condition work that comes along at
a later date. So it's actually fairly common. It's just not something we've
typically done here. What we felt is, you know,
while staff have delegated authority here, we wanted to ensure council was aware
of. Of what was being discussed. And that's why we asked that, you know,
be put to council to. To do this. And. And as Councillor Deborah
said, you could take delegated authority away from staff, I would discourage you
typically, from doing that because that slows the process down. And a lot of these
things are technical elements. I anticipate,
ultimately, we're still going to be able to get what we need as a town
through the conditions I note specifically, even condition number
one, where it really allows for the. The town to revise
or adjust as necessary to ensure we get what we need just
to follow up. So does that undermine the planning process in any way?
No, it does not. Okay, thank you. I have my second
question that I'd like to address to Commissioner Dixon.
Commissioner Dixon, do you believe that. That if this
council does not approve the plan outlined by Councilor Russo,
that this application will end up at the olt?
And then secondly. And do you believe that the conditions outlined in
this motion are materially better than those we could
expect from an OLT ruling?
Thanks for the question through the chair. Although I can't predict
whether this matter would proceed to olt,
there's a strong likelihood that it would proceed if the.
If we can't work with the developers to move this forward,
certainly OLT is an option. I think
we've heard from a delegate on a other development nearby
that's gone through the oot. It's very expensive in
terms of our draft plan conditions, they're very comprehensive in
favor of the town and our agencies. I don't believe
the owner will appeal the conditions of their past today. I believe the
owner does not get it.
The developer may appeal. And of
course, if it gets appealed, the tribunal may wish to
see the scope of the conditions narrowed and could
very well eliminate some of the conditions. And approving the motion today
helps mitigate that risk and help keep the conditions intact.
Thank you very much.
Thank you. Councillor Kiernan, please.
Sorry, Chair. That was up from before.
Oh, that's from before. Okay. Thank you, Councillor Kiernan. We'll move on to Councillor Sheen.
Thank you, Chair. Rosa, I have
a question for staff then. What will happen if this motion does not
pass today? In other words, will it continue through
the process with planning and the planning and development staff?
Is what's the downside of not approving this motion
today through
the chair to the councilor? It would continue with planning staff. It would
effectively follow a parallel path to what's being proposed today.
So what is the advantage to approving this motion today?
Approving? Not the motion approving the draft plan of subdivision.
There's really. It's. It's. It's one way or the other.
It's really more. That's. That's not so much a staff answer.
So. So there's an argument here that we should approve
it, but there's really no advantage to approving it, is what I'm hearing.
Nothing's going to change. It's going to follow the process. Whether it's a. Whether the
draft plan of subdivision is approved today or not.
What it would really do is just. It would be how staff would communicate on
various reports or otherwise. We have draft plan conditions. We'd work
through those. It's. It's a little. It's hard to say.
I defer to more to this. As much isn't a
staff answer as much. It would be a up to the person
that put motion forward, the council. I'm just trying to understand because there's
a lot of concern that somehow we're deviating from the problem process, and the process
is there to ensure that due process is followed
and that input is obtained along the
usual process. And so there's a concern that we're deviating from the process.
So I want to make sure that there's no penalty
to the developer because, like I said, I want to see this neighborhood get finished,
but I also want to stick to the process as much as possible. That's my
first question. I appreciate what Mayor
Groves said about South Fields. I know she on council when it was being developed
many, many years ago. And I
think that council back then probably made the best decisions they
could with what they knew. But I think hindsight
may not be 2020, but it's closer to 2020.
When I think about some of the things that I think have impacted
Southfields that could not have been anticipated by our council 20
years ago. As we know,
there are many more basement apartments in the neighborhood than I think anyone would
have guessed, which brings more cars and more people,
which puts more strain on our schools and our parks
and our roads and parking and traffic.
And also more recently, which not many people are talking about, is the
new right of homeowners if they have sufficient land in their backyards
to put in these auxiliary units,
which the town has no right of refusal on. All we
can do is issue building permits if they have the right criteria.
I think that's something that could not have been anticipated 15 or 20 years ago
when South Fields was being envisioned.
But those are the realities of today. And I guess what I'm hoping is
that we don't, as I keep saying, that we don't keep making the same mistakes
because we anticipate that the neighborhood can be
built. Well, actually, we know that the neighborhood is being designed with a higher people
density than Mayfield West Phase 1 and Mayfield West
Phase 2, Phase or Stage 1 and
2. I think as we go further north, closer to Old
School Road, the density is getting higher. I think it was missing brioche that asked
the question. It's not quite 100, I don't believe, but it's.
I think it's around 75. Is the targeted density for Mayfield
West Phase 2, Stage 3.
Anyway, I'm not criticizing the previous councils. I think Southfields
Village is what it is. In many ways, it's a great neighborhood. In other ways,
there's some lessons to be learned. And if there's
no advantage, no material advantage to approving this draft
plan of subdivision today, then I struggle with
the motion. Thank you. Thank you.
Councillor early, please. Thank you. Through you, Chair,
listen, so much has been said tonight. First of all, I'm going to say that
past councils, I think, did probably try
their best. You were a smaller municipality. You never had the intensification that
South Kis was going to be and that Southfield is now small intensification
on what we're building out. My problem with this motion has been the same
right from the start. And that's the process piece. We put
the OPA, a staff report on the OPA on the last council
meeting of the year in 2024, not on a planning meeting, but on a council
meeting. We didn't allow the public to have time to
even digest it. There were a significant amount of agency comments on
that. Opaque. That will allow the applicant to work with staff to
get through those agency comments. And we had this motion sitting
on that same council meeting in December. So we were going to
just fast track everything. Councillor Russo decided to refer it
to this planning meeting in January. But the process hasn't changed.
We're still working through agency comments, we're still working through the issues on the opa.
And I don't see any reason to have to fast track this. It has nothing
to do with. With the applicant. They're good applicants, they're good
business owners. What it does have for me, though, we talked about
past councils. We're going to 300,000 people
from 80,000 people. We're going to build houses like there's no tomorrows and
build communities. And if we start usurping processes, then we're
going to have every guy lined up at the door to say, I want to
do that, too. And I just can't support something like that. So it
has nothing to do with the applicant or completing that community or
making things happen, and I'm hoping we can expedite this. I'm not
sure how I feel about taking away delegated authority
from staff. Maybe it's a conversation, though, Council should have one day,
given that we are growing so quickly. Maybe not this evening,
but I, I, I, I, I understand
Council Russo, and I know he wants to get things done and he wants to
fix things and make things happen, but I can't
support this. And, and truthfully,
not concerned, but certainly a little disingenuous that
this would have occurred without discussions with both myself and Councillor Sheen.
But that's a decision that everyone has their opportunity to make. So thank you very
much. I won't be supporting the motion. Thank you.
Any additional. Yes, Councillor Maskell, please.
Thank you very much. And through you, Chair Rosa and I
just, you know, I'm just sitting here listening to
people talk about, you know, doing things outside
our purview or outside the norm, and just brings
me back to, you know, we had our, Our policy around
the naming of town
sites after people, and we had a policy was put in place,
and council unanimously supported the everything.
And then when it came time, someone comes forward and says,
you know, can we switch this? And, you know, Council says, oh, yeah, that's within
our, our purview to do that. And we can do that. We're going to
override policy. So, you know, here we are,
you know, in a situation where, you know, we've. We've done,
you know, there are counselors who are saying we have to follow process, but,
you know, a couple months ago, there was no following process. Just, yeah,
we'll exercise our authority and just override whatever we need
to. So I just think it's incredibly ironic.
Thank you, Councillor Kiernan.
Thank you, Chair. And this will be brief and final. So I find that a
little. A little odd. Sometimes when new information
comes forward, it is upon us to make different decisions,
you know, and that wasn't against our opa.
That was a policy that we put in place as recommended by a staff
report that we did all support at
that time, because the staff report. And I go back to the staff report
justified it. Did we know that There were people in the community. Had there been.
Obviously not. There were people in the community who felt otherwise,
then we had the opportunity to have those people come forward and
say, hold on a minute now. Now that we've seen this,
we have a problem with this. And as councillors, I think
it's our duty to listen when that happens. I don't think the comparison is
fair, quite frankly. Thank you. Thank you.
Any other speakers to the motion?
Seeing none, I will ask the clerk to call the vote.
Councillor DeBoer. Opposed.
Councillor Early. Opposed.
Councillor Kiernan. Opposed.
Councillor Mascal? In favor.
Councilor Napoli? In favor.
Councilor Russo? In favor.
Councilor Sheen. Opposed.
Mayor Groves? In favor. Chair Rosa?
In favor. Through the chair. The motion carries.
Having concluded item 12.1, I will
now return the chair to Councillor Russo. Thank you.
Thank you. So we move on to correspondence.
Are there any comments or items that require action in correspondence
package? I see. Councillor Kiernan,
you've added one item of correspondence to this agenda.
Would you like action on them? Thank you.
Through you, Chair, just as we do with all correspondence,
there is a motion put together just in support of what the municipality
of coast lynch has put forward. I will draw your attention
to the fact that they mistakenly used the
wrong title for Minister Calandra. So we will also be
correcting that in the. In the interim. In the. At the meantime.
So would you like to bring forward a motion or just as direction,
I guess. What would you like us to do right now? I think
that the clerk has a motion prepared. Clerk,
is there something prepared? And I guess this is moved by councer Kieran
and I guess maybe seconded by Count. Mayor Groves,
thank you. And it's before us right now on the screen.
Thank you.
That the. So I'll just read it out. That the.
Okay, I was just gonna say, I just wanted to let everyone know that this
was actually brought to my attention by a community member. So good
catch on their point. Asked me to bring this forward and.
And that's why we're here today. But it's the right thing to do. Okay,
thank you. I'll read it out for. I guess anyone
that doesn't see it on the screen, that the town of Caledon support The
resolution dated November 21, 2024,
as passed by the township of Pucilich regarding the protection of agricultural
lands and sustainable excess soil management practices in
Ontario. And that a copy of this resolution be sent
to the township of Pusillage and the Ministry of Environment,
Conservation and Parks, Ontario Ministry
of Food and Agricultural and Rural affairs and the Premier of
Ontario, the Association. And the association of Municipalities
of Ontario. Aml.
Councilor Sheen.
Thank you, Chair Russo. I just want to double check that the
motion intends to send a copy of this to the Ministry of
Environment, Conservation and Parks,
because that's the title that was mistakenly attached to Minister Calandra.
I just want to make sure that that was. I read the. The Ministry of
Environment, Conservation and Parks. That's accurate. Yeah.
Okay.
MECP or. Yeah,
but we're also correcting Minister Calandra's title to make sure that that's.
I'm just. I just want to make sure that we're. Whether we're sending it to
Calandra. Okay. Yeah. I believe. Clerk says confirmed, and I believe the mover
is. You're okay with that, Councillor Kieran?
Thank you. Yes, I am. Okay. If there are
no further questions, moving on to the clerks,
for the. For the vote.
Councillor DeBoer? In favor.
Councilor Early. In favor. Councilor Kiernan?
In favor. Councilor Matabel.
In favor. Councilor Napoli.
In favor. Councilor Rosa?
In favor. Councilor Sheen?
In favor. Mayor Groves?
In favor. Chair Russo? In favor. Through the chair.
The motion carries. Thank you. This concludes
the January 14, 2025 Planning and Development Committee meeting.
I declare this meeting adjourned. Thank you.