[1:00:02] to see this. And secondly,
[1:00:07] the. The. Pardon me,
[1:00:10] I'm sorry, but I wouldn't be rude to interrupt any other delegation.
[1:00:14] Please, just. So, Councillor Russo,
[1:00:17] I support this motion. Okay.
[1:00:22] Our goal is. You know,
[1:00:25] I'm surprised. I really am surprised. What's going on here?
[1:00:29] Further, the last thing I'm going to say is this.
[1:00:32] Councillor DeBoer, you declared a conflict with this, and you're sitting at this
[1:00:36] table. And I really disappoints me that this is happening.
[1:00:39] So. You know, this is the third time I've. I've brought this to your attention
[1:00:43] publicly. And maybe further action is going to need to
[1:00:47] be taken in the future. Thank you, Councillor Russo. And chair and council.
[1:00:51] Thank you, Ms. Briyoshi. I don't see any questions.
[1:00:55] Moving on to the next delegate, I will now call upon Ms.
[1:00:58] Cheryl Connors to speak to the same agenda, item 12.1.
[1:01:02] Council Russo to approve draft plan of subdivision submitted by Malone
[1:01:06] Given Parsons for Brook Valley Development. Hang on.
[1:01:10] Sorry. Whoops. Didn't mean to do that. Stop. My phone.
[1:01:14] Hang on. Sorry about that. Hello. Sorry about that. So,
[1:01:17] first of all, I just want to say again, planning meetings in the afternoon on
[1:01:20] really important topics are very difficult. Sorry, just your name for the resume.
[1:01:24] Cheryl Connors. And I'm just here as a resident, not representing anyone but my.
[1:01:28] Myself. So first of all, I want to say again,
[1:01:31] planning meetings on such important topics in the middle of the day are really
[1:01:35] inconvenient for those of us who work. This all was brought to
[1:01:39] my attention at the very last meeting. I have nothing prepared. I'm not reading a
[1:01:42] speech. But this is an issue I've delegated on before. Sorry, this is a development
[1:01:46] I've delegated on before. So I felt really compelled to hop
[1:01:49] in the shower. Don't even know if I'm dressed. Race over here to speak to
[1:01:53] it. So a few things.
[1:01:56] When this came up the first time, when the MZO was requested,
[1:02:00] and at the 11th hour,
[1:02:03] the province informed Calden that
[1:02:06] the Greenbelt lands would be removed from the application and that MZO
[1:02:10] never went ahead because then the Greenbelt scandal broke and it's
[1:02:14] all under investigation from the rcmp.
[1:02:18] And all of that. But at the time at the public
[1:02:21] information meeting, I did have the environmental site assessment and
[1:02:24] spoke about my deep concerns about the greenbelt
[1:02:28] land and how and how and
[1:02:32] how important those lands are and that we should be doing our best when developing
[1:02:36] to make sure that they're protected.
[1:02:39] So that's a significant wetland at
[1:02:43] the south end of the property. There was unevaluated wetlands
[1:02:47] and you know, somebody needs to
[1:02:51] speak out. What I don't understand, my concerns
[1:02:54] are all about process. When the 12
[1:02:58] zoning orders were approved, we were told, I mean, one of my big
[1:03:01] concerns was the public would be cut out of the process. We're not going to
[1:03:04] have a voice in what our communities look like. But we were assured
[1:03:08] that the community would be able to be involved when these subdivisions
[1:03:12] came forward and that we would have a voice. But here, once again,
[1:03:16] a subdivision is being approved and there's not even a staff report and staff
[1:03:20] making the recommendation for it to go ahead. So once again,
[1:03:24] the public isn't being doesn't get the opportunity
[1:03:28] to go ahead. This particular plot of land does
[1:03:32] include greenbelt. My really quick look at it looks
[1:03:36] like there are houses going through that. The wetlands in
[1:03:39] the north part are being looked at. I don't really know because I don't see
[1:03:43] a staff report. I emailed you this morning. I guess you didn't get the email.
[1:03:47] I don't see the linkages to the website. I don't
[1:03:50] see, you know, if there's comments from conservation
[1:03:55] authorities as to how that important greenbelt
[1:03:59] land is going to be protected.
[1:04:02] And that's the problem and that's how the public is being cut out of the
[1:04:05] process. These are precedent setting cases
[1:04:09] that if you do this for one subdivision and one particular developer,
[1:04:13] then why wouldn't every developer not do the same thing?
[1:04:18] And if the purpose of pre zoning land for developers is just to
[1:04:21] avoid land tribunal costs, does that mean we're
[1:04:24] just going to skip the planning department? And then we just may as well
[1:04:28] tell all our highly paid planners that
[1:04:32] their services aren't needed because to the best of my knowledge,
[1:04:36] members of council aren't planners. You don't have
[1:04:39] planning degrees, not your responsibility to understand
[1:04:43] the technical requirements of a subdivision.
[1:04:46] And then going back to what may be the purpose of all
[1:04:49] of this, you know, housing crisis attainable,
[1:04:53] housing affordable, whatever that that means.
[1:04:57] I still don't believe that expediting this is going
[1:05:01] to do anything to make those houses built any
[1:05:05] faster. And let's just look at what is going on in the world
[1:05:09] right now. We have the potential for 30% tariffs from Trump.
[1:05:13] You know, most of LA just burned to the ground. They didn't have a lot
[1:05:16] of water. Canada has water and we have water in our green
[1:05:19] belt. And as ontarians, we decided
[1:05:22] the green belt was important to protect.
[1:05:25] So if you feel the need to develop on these lands, let's at least
[1:05:29] do so carefully, cautiously to
[1:05:32] assess to ensure that as
[1:05:36] much of the greenbelt land will be protected, that the development that you're building
[1:05:41] isn't, isn't going to be damaged by what you're doing.
[1:05:45] And I still haven't seen any fiscal plans and how
[1:05:48] the burden of this infrastructure isn't going to be borne on
[1:05:52] the existing taxpayers. Because I'm telling you, we are
[1:05:56] in trouble. If those tariffs go in
[1:06:00] and you go to the grocery store, it might cost you $20 for,
[1:06:03] for that lettuce or broccoli or cauliflower.
[1:06:07] Long term planning could be all thrown out the door.
[1:06:12] So why are we rushing to do this?
[1:06:17] I don't believe a motion from a councilor to
[1:06:20] approve a subdivision without that going through the normal
[1:06:24] process of going through staff, coming after a recommendation
[1:06:28] of staff, as all the highly paid planning folks
[1:06:32] have made a decision and brought it forward to staff with their recommendation
[1:06:36] that you look for that. That's the process that we
[1:06:41] work under. And it's like Calden has just decided that
[1:06:44] all of the decades of planning in
[1:06:48] this province, all of the legislation, all of the processes,
[1:06:52] while imperfect, just don't matter anymore
[1:06:55] because we're just going to do this developer driven planning
[1:07:01] which isn't going to build good communities.
[1:07:05] So that's really all
[1:07:08] I had to say. I just am really disappointed that this is
[1:07:12] once again how
[1:07:15] you feel that you need to do this. I don't understand why
[1:07:20] a council representing Wards 4,
[1:07:23] 5 and 6 is bringing this forward in Ward 2.
[1:07:26] I think you have lots of issues on our side of town that should be
[1:07:30] looked at. I think this should be coming through from a
[1:07:33] recommendation from planning staff. And I'd like to once again
[1:07:37] ask for a full, transparent process where the public does
[1:07:41] get the opportunity to view what's
[1:07:45] happening, make suggestions for improvement,
[1:07:48] because that builds better communities and it assures that council makes
[1:07:53] decisions based on the best advice of the people
[1:07:56] that have been hired in this town and that it's done so in a fiscally
[1:08:00] responsible way that isn't going to be put the burden of paying
[1:08:03] for all this development on the backs of existing residents.
[1:08:07] Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Connors.
[1:08:12] Moving on. I believe that's all the delegates. Moving on
[1:08:16] to staff reports, the next item on the
[1:08:19] agenda we have had. Two of the items were
[1:08:23] dealt with in consent. Moving on to
[1:08:27] Staff Report 10.3. Staff Report
[1:08:31] 20250015 RZ2024 0025.
[1:08:36] Broccolini ZBA holding
[1:08:40] symbol. May I get a mover or a seconder on that? Moved by
[1:08:43] Councilor Sheen, seconded by counselor early that
[1:08:48] the bylaw attached. Is there any discussion on this? Seeing none
[1:08:53] that the bylaw attached as schedule C to
[1:08:56] Staff Report 20250015 be
[1:09:00] enacted to amend Comprehensive Zoning Bylaw 200650
[1:09:07] as amended to remove site specific holding
[1:09:10] symbol H34 from specific
[1:09:14] lands which per. Will permit the intended development of
[1:09:17] the property for industrial purposes.
[1:09:21] Are there any questions on the motion? I see. Councilor Sheen.
[1:09:26] Thank you. Chair Russo. Can I just ask staff to very briefly talk
[1:09:32] about why we're in a position to remove the H on these properties?
[1:09:36] I. I think I know the answer, but I just want to button it up
[1:09:39] for the public through
[1:09:46] the chair to the councilor. I'm going to just step in with a little
[1:09:49] bit of how we got here today and then Mr.
[1:09:52] Hughes can get into a little more of the detail. This goes
[1:09:56] back to council in December where delegated Authority
[1:10:00] for lifting Hs was pulled back from staff to
[1:10:04] give to council. So we. What we did here today was actually rush to get
[1:10:07] a report because we wanted to ensure that development could proceed on this property.
[1:10:11] So that's some of the context that I wanted to offer. And Mr. Hughes will.
[1:10:15] Will provide a little more detail. That's good. Thank you,
[1:10:19] Mr. Hughes. Thank you. So through the chair,
[1:10:23] perhaps as council may be aware, staff have been reviewing
[1:10:28] associated development applications that speak to land
[1:10:32] uses that are permitted on these lands. Going back
[1:10:36] to the zoning matter,
[1:10:39] as noted through the delegation, this was dealt with through the Ontario Lands
[1:10:43] Tribunal. And at that time it was highly
[1:10:47] desirous of staff to. Excuse me, ensure that
[1:10:51] the road extending out to Heartlake Road be
[1:10:56] constructed and opened. So in working with the
[1:11:00] developer, the holding symbol that
[1:11:04] was incorporated within the zoning and approved on the property
[1:11:07] through the OLT prescribed that certain
[1:11:11] matters take place. That in the end, and that
[1:11:14] was through subdivision agreements and other associated documents,
[1:11:18] staff had some level of understanding and concern control as
[1:11:22] to how that would transpire. And I think, as the committee
[1:11:26] may be aware, we were successful in ensuring
[1:11:30] that construction was commenced.
[1:11:33] And that is happening at this point in time.
[1:11:36] In terms of a brief update on the opening of that road I
[1:11:40] did speak to engineering staff just prior to this meeting
[1:11:43] and they've indicated that the hope is that that
[1:11:47] road will be open in the early to
[1:11:51] mid spring of this year.
[1:11:53] There's matters that they've been working with the region,
[1:11:57] appeal for some pavement and lighting,
[1:12:01] and those are the next things that need to be dealt with in the season,
[1:12:04] of course, doesn't assist for construction purposes.
[1:12:08] So work is continuing to progress on
[1:12:11] that road because the associated
[1:12:15] agreements and all those types of things have been dealt with.
[1:12:18] Engineering staff have signed off on the release of the holding.
[1:12:22] Staff were comfortable in bringing forward a report to council for
[1:12:26] their consideration that removes that holding.
[1:12:29] The lands are still subject to site plan approval or
[1:12:33] are subject to site plan approval. There is an application that has been filed.
[1:12:37] My understanding from the applicant is that they're probably going to resubmit
[1:12:40] an application and move through those processes
[1:12:44] in the near future, for which then we will be addressing some
[1:12:48] of the matters that the delegate did raise
[1:12:53] that speak to access, landscaping,
[1:12:57] compatibility with some of the surrounding land uses and those types of
[1:13:00] things. Okay, so it's fair
[1:13:03] to say that there's been some extended negotiations with
[1:13:07] the developer around this area,
[1:13:10] and as I recall,
[1:13:14] approval for this subdivision, I guess, was highly contingent on
[1:13:18] completing Abbotside way out to Heartlake, is that right?
[1:13:21] I would suggest that's correct, yes. So through those OLT processes,
[1:13:26] staff worked diligently to ensure agreements
[1:13:30] were in place and would suggest that we're
[1:13:33] now seeing the fulfillment of that. Right.
[1:13:37] As I recall, it was a painstaking process and probably the first
[1:13:41] time I was ever involved in something that looked so
[1:13:45] simple, yet seemed to take so much work from staff and the developer to
[1:13:49] get it done. So I just want to give
[1:13:53] thanks to the staff and to the developer because
[1:13:57] I believe they started construction on that road finally in August and
[1:14:01] said they would get it done by the end of December. And from all intents
[1:14:04] and purposes, for me anyway, looking over the barriers,
[1:14:08] it looks done to me. I understand there's a bit of a holdup with
[1:14:11] respect to hydro and that some other landscaping planning
[1:14:15] was going to happen in the new year anyway. First time I'm
[1:14:19] hearing that the scheduled opening is early spring.
[1:14:22] Hopefully that can be sooner than later, but nevertheless,
[1:14:26] we're way further ahead than I really thought we'd be. When I heard it would
[1:14:30] be done in August or when I was first told it would be done by
[1:14:33] the end of December, I was a little skeptical, but it looks done to me.
[1:14:36] So, anyway, thanks very much for all your work. Thank you.
[1:14:39] Thank You, Councillor Sheen, Councillor early through
[1:14:43] you, Chair. I need to get on the mic before Councillor
[1:14:46] Sheen because he often takes a lot of my thoughts, but I have. Hi,
[1:14:49] Rob, how are you? Just a couple things and I think you covered them
[1:14:53] first of all. And Councillor Sheen did as well. Really pleased to see this road.
[1:14:57] The community needs this road desperately. It's long time coming and we've been
[1:15:00] dealing with this application. I think it started last term of council, but my
[1:15:04] biggest concern is what the delegate brought forward and
[1:15:07] that's obviously the trucks turning east
[1:15:11] to Heart Lake and then the
[1:15:14] mitigation of sound and barriers to all of the homes on
[1:15:18] the other side. So how can we be guaranteed. And we're very thankful that
[1:15:21] we actually that the whole did come back to staff so that we've got a
[1:15:24] staff report and have an opportunity to talk for the public.
[1:15:27] Because while I know there has been newspapers and
[1:15:30] there's been communication to the public, I suspect that many may not
[1:15:34] still be aware that a warehouse might be coming in as imminent.
[1:15:37] So it is a concern and I just want to make sure when they start
[1:15:40] calling that we can answer those questions.
[1:15:44] So, through the chair, as noted, a site plan application
[1:15:48] has been filed with the town. What they're looking to build is
[1:15:52] a warehousing structure. As to whether
[1:15:56] they'll follow through with that and file
[1:16:00] something that's a resubmission that's in keeping with that remains to be
[1:16:03] seen, but there are a range of uses
[1:16:07] that are permitted on the lands and it's perhaps a bit premature
[1:16:12] to fully understand as to what the development form would will be
[1:16:15] on the property. Likely. However, it's likely
[1:16:19] it'll be a warehouse product.
[1:16:23] I did take note of some of the matters that the delegate had
[1:16:27] identified because they were worthy concerns
[1:16:31] and comments. And certainly staff would be looking
[1:16:35] through the review of that site plan application to take those
[1:16:39] matters into consideration. In particular, access onto
[1:16:43] Abbott's side, some of the landscaping matters, urban design things.
[1:16:47] It's premature probably at this point to comment as to how that may
[1:16:51] actually play out. Site plan approval
[1:16:55] is not a public process, so there is no announcement to
[1:16:59] nearby residents that applications
[1:17:03] are on file. But at the same time, members of the public are able to
[1:17:07] view applications applications and speak with staff and understand what some of those
[1:17:10] impacts will be and comment, et cetera. So that's
[1:17:15] where we're at at this point. I just. I just really want to
[1:17:19] go back to the truck turning because I'm pretty sure we had conversations with Broccolini
[1:17:22] in the past. But just for Me, it would be pretty critical.
[1:17:26] I can't see them going west and onto Kennedy and then trying to force onto
[1:17:30] Mayfield. So I would hope that that will be somewhere in the process as
[1:17:33] well. Is that whole piece right? Because that's. So that's been noted.
[1:17:37] That's something our engineering and transportation staff would be
[1:17:41] responsible for purposes of commenting on. Thank you.
[1:17:45] Thanks.
[1:17:57] Nothing at this time. Councillor Sheen, another question
[1:18:01] I am going to come back to staff. It's really important to me that
[1:18:05] truck traffic gets diverted away from Kennedy going forward.
[1:18:08] And that was my understanding was that Kennedy would become a no
[1:18:13] truck traffic route from Mayfield to Abbotside
[1:18:17] when the warehousing came in along there. I don't know if it was. I wouldn't
[1:18:21] say it was promised or guaranteed, but that was my understanding
[1:18:24] was that truck traffic would be divided, diverted eastward,
[1:18:29] which really is kind of critical to the neighborhood.
[1:18:32] So I'll leave that with you. I don't know if you can answer. Maybe you
[1:18:34] could answer. Maybe you could explain.
[1:18:38] Sorry. Then what? Some of the challenges are around getting
[1:18:43] there through you. Chair to
[1:18:47] Councillor Sheen in full transparency. I don't have my head wrapped around
[1:18:51] the issue at hand. I need to take that away and review it with
[1:18:54] staff so I can commit to coming back to you with some of these
[1:18:58] responses. But I don't have a position on it yet. Fair enough. Thank you.
[1:19:01] And Councillor Sheen, to be fair, I think this is where the site plans,
[1:19:04] process is. What all that will be distilled. But appreciate that
[1:19:08] is an important issue to the community there. Not seeing
[1:19:12] any other questions, I guess. The motion has
[1:19:16] been read. Are there any other discussion
[1:19:20] items on the motion? Then moving on
[1:19:23] to the clerk for the vote, please.
[1:19:28] Councillor DeBoer in favor.
[1:19:31] Councilor early in favor. Councillor Kiernan
[1:19:36] in favor. Councilor Mascal? In favor.
[1:19:40] Councilor Napoli in favor. Councilor Rosa
[1:19:44] in favor. Councilor Sheen in favor. Mayor Groves
[1:19:49] in favor. Chair Russo in favor.
[1:19:52] Through the chair. The motion carries. Thank you. We move on to Item
[1:19:56] 10.4, Staff Report 20250026
[1:19:59] Proposed Traffic Safety advisory committee a
[1:20:03] mover. Councillor Napoli.
[1:20:06] Seconded by Councillor Rosa.
[1:20:11] And I'll read out the motion that Bylaw 2025001
[1:20:16] being a bylaw to establish a traffic safety advisory committee
[1:20:20] and provide its terms of reference attached as schedule B to
[1:20:24] Staff Report 20250026 be approved.
[1:20:28] Any discussion on the motion?
[1:20:32] Seeing none. Move. Oh, Councilor early,
[1:20:36] sorry. Through you, I'm very good
[1:20:39] with this. I just. I know the terms of reference are still being developed.
[1:20:43] And I noticed on the research that many of the other
[1:20:47] municipalities had a school trustee as part of the group.
[1:20:51] And I'm just wondering, would that be part of the consideration? Because I
[1:20:54] think we're still going back to look at the terms of reference. Right. And then
[1:20:57] it will come back to us. So I just wanted to maybe somebody. Oh,
[1:21:01] there comes Mr. Klingenberg. I believe
[1:21:04] Mr. Klingberg is preparing to answer that.
[1:21:10] Through the. Through the chair to Councilor
[1:21:13] early. The school board chair as an appointee
[1:21:17] on the committee was considered, and we determined
[1:21:21] it would be most viable to have them as a point of
[1:21:25] contact instead of an appointed member where they could
[1:21:28] vote. But they are in the terms of reference,
[1:21:32] from my vantage point. Sorry, from my.
[1:21:36] Correct me if I'm wrong, but they can be in the terms
[1:21:40] of reference as a point of contact, but not a voting member.
[1:21:43] I think we should at least give some consideration. I know certainly
[1:21:46] both the Catholic and the public has been of help in Councillor
[1:21:50] Sheen's ward in Southfields on several occasions where we've had. And then we
[1:21:53] worked with transportation to kind of correct some of the issues. I just thought it
[1:21:56] was great when I saw that in other municipalities. So just for your consideration.
[1:21:59] Okay, thank you. Thank you. Okay, thank you.
[1:22:03] Any other questions to the motion?
[1:22:06] Seeing none. Asking the clerk to call the vote,
[1:22:10] please. Councillor De Boer.
[1:22:14] In favor. Councilor Early? In favor.
[1:22:17] Councilor Kiernan? In favor.
[1:22:21] Councilor Mascal? In favor.
[1:22:24] Councilor Napoli. In favor. Councilor Rosa?
[1:22:28] In favor. Councilor Sheen? In favor.
[1:22:32] Mayor Groves? In favor. Chair Russo?
[1:22:36] In favor. Through the chair. The motion carries. Thank you.
[1:22:39] Moving on to. Are there any other notices of motion
[1:22:43] to be presented at today's meeting?
[1:22:47] Seeing none. Moving on to motions.
[1:22:51] The next item on the agenda is motions. As I put
[1:22:55] forward the motion on item 12.1 to
[1:22:58] approve the draft plan of subdivision submitted
[1:23:02] by Malone given Parsons to Brook Valley Development. I will vacate the
[1:23:05] chair and have Councillor Rosa assume the chair.
[1:23:14] It.
[1:23:39] It.
[1:24:06] The motion moved by Councillor Russo. Councillor Russo, do you
[1:24:09] have anyone seconding this motion? Councillor Napoli.
[1:24:18] All right, so the motion is, whereas an application for draft pan approval for the
[1:24:22] above noted lands has been received by the town, and whereas council
[1:24:26] has enacted an OPA for the said lands at its
[1:24:29] council meeting held on December 17,
[1:24:31] 2024. And whereas the letter dated December 19,
[1:24:35] 2024, the draft plan of subdivision application was deemed
[1:24:38] complete as of December 13, 2024 in
[1:24:42] accordance with the Section 51.19.1 of the
[1:24:45] Planning Act. And whereas notice of application was given on
[1:24:49] 01.02.2025 in the accordance of section 51.19.4
[1:24:53] of the Planning act and whereas Council now considers it appropriate to
[1:24:57] grant draft plan of subdivision approval to the above noted lands,
[1:25:00] now therefore be it resolved that the approval is hereby given to
[1:25:04] pursuant of section 5131 of the Plan to
[1:25:08] the draft plan subvision prepared by Malone Given Parsons
[1:25:11] dated March 28, 2024 revised to December
[1:25:15] 4, 2024, the Plan and a copy which is attached hereto
[1:25:19] as Schedule A, the plan is approved subject to the draft
[1:25:23] plan conditions attached here to the Schedule B. Approval of
[1:25:27] plan shall lapse at the expiration the expiration
[1:25:30] of five years from the date of approval of the plan.
[1:25:33] Is there any discussion on this motion? Councillor Russo?
[1:25:40] I prepared a little something so I'll just speak to that so that giving
[1:25:44] some context, I also felt propelled
[1:25:49] to ask or answer a couple of the questions that Mr.
[1:25:52] Axworthy had brought forward.
[1:25:55] The complete application pertains to the
[1:25:58] checklist of items that staff have and the reports
[1:26:02] that were provided. So that's the checklist that they are provided
[1:26:07] that is delegated authority to staff and staff makes
[1:26:10] the actual approval. So as I've
[1:26:14] indicated, I prepared a little something, a preamble, an explanation
[1:26:19] for my motion. It may be a bit long winded, but I
[1:26:22] feel that the issue is important enough to spend a bit of extra time
[1:26:26] on the matter. While I feel the merit definitely exists
[1:26:29] on why I am putting forward this motion, I acknowledge
[1:26:32] land use planning is complicated and often challenging for the average
[1:26:36] resident to comprehend, so I hope this helps somewhat.
[1:26:41] Rationale, History, Equity and Legacy Although this
[1:26:44] application has been predominantly dealt with this
[1:26:48] term of Council Mayfield West Phase 2 Stage 3 lands
[1:26:52] the reality is these lands as a whole
[1:26:55] Phase 2 lands have in fact a 25 year plus
[1:26:59] legacy of planning and being on the books with the town of
[1:27:03] Caledon. That said, for clarity, a brief chronology
[1:27:07] is that this application was brought forward 10-17-2023
[1:27:12] by the area councillors Sheen and Early to and I
[1:27:15] believe unanimously supported by this Council to be accepted.
[1:27:19] It has been circulated to all the appropriate agencies and
[1:27:23] staff and a statutory public meeting has been
[1:27:27] held on this. These lands have been rezoned by this
[1:27:30] Council and further propelled by the future Caledon
[1:27:34] OP process where this Council unanimously supported
[1:27:38] these lands moving forward in the process and most
[1:27:42] recently the secondary plan and OPA for these
[1:27:45] lands were dealt with and again unanimously supported by
[1:27:49] this council December 2024, leaving the remaining
[1:27:53] process draft plan of subdivision outstanding and
[1:27:56] this process is delegated to staff and not subject to
[1:28:00] the public process. This would never even be before us at this
[1:28:03] point in time. So I feel that that's why a
[1:28:07] little bit of an explanation is required in
[1:28:10] terms of equity. We are striving as a council to treat all applicants fairly
[1:28:15] and equitable through staff and via the mayor and some
[1:28:18] councillors. This applicant was persuaded several times not
[1:28:22] to appeal their application and work through the town process.
[1:28:25] This applicant now sees neighboring parcels that did
[1:28:29] not choose to do so and did not choose to work through the process which
[1:28:33] they are totally entitled to do and take the OLT route and
[1:28:37] have their items dealt with in parallel and in their entirety
[1:28:41] be approved via the OLT both secondary plan
[1:28:45] and draft plan. This negated any application
[1:28:49] fees collected by the town and in fact costed US
[1:28:53] dollars negotiating via OLT settlement, not through the regular
[1:28:56] process. So why get involved now?
[1:29:00] I feel this application is unique enough and has so many variables that
[1:29:04] makes it distinct enough to bring bring it forward immediately.
[1:29:08] Particularly with all the other necessary approvals having
[1:29:13] already been obtained via the regular planning process,
[1:29:17] they are now complete. Also, let me be very clear
[1:29:21] what this motion is seeking. With all the approvals now in place,
[1:29:25] this process would typically, as indicated or as mentioned,
[1:29:29] go into the purview of staff and respectfully,
[1:29:32] the normal process is that this never is seen again from
[1:29:36] the public or even this council, oftentimes until
[1:29:40] it is either deemed approved or we will be waiting for some other
[1:29:43] notification where the councilors,
[1:29:47] if this is approved, get an email informing us the
[1:29:50] process is complete. What I am seeking
[1:29:53] from this council is that we approve the draft plan
[1:29:56] in principle. But in principle isn't final,
[1:30:00] it is with significant safeguards and conditions which
[1:30:04] I will touch upon further and this process follows
[1:30:08] the usual protocol. I dismiss the argument of
[1:30:12] precedent, of precedent forming which does not exist
[1:30:16] in land use planning regardless. But as mentioned,
[1:30:19] we are trying to provide equity in time frames and not
[1:30:23] penalize those that choose not to appeal to town and stay the course.
[1:30:27] This mitigates potential litigation and adjudication that often
[1:30:30] cost the municipality thousands upon thousands.
[1:30:33] Further, these lands are the most probable and definitely
[1:30:37] the most viable to continue to physically be built out in
[1:30:40] the upcoming years. I checked with our building department.
[1:30:44] Phase two, stage one and two lands made up almost a quarter of our permits
[1:30:48] in 2024. In these unpredictable economic times,
[1:30:52] these lands with servicing already in place are a
[1:30:55] natural progression to complete the box and mapping set out
[1:30:59] years ago. So with this, and in part, these are a few of
[1:31:02] my whys. With this motion I obviously
[1:31:06] make it apparent that I feel the matter is important enough to intervene.
[1:31:09] However, I do acknowledge it is very seldom that we do so and
[1:31:13] feel these instances instances should be the exception,
[1:31:17] not the rule. However, I also do not prescribe to the
[1:31:20] argument that we've never done this before. Well, frankly,
[1:31:23] perhaps where instances there should have been some instances
[1:31:26] that council should have. We as the board of directors should intervene
[1:31:30] when we feel strongly enough about an issue. This council definitely
[1:31:34] has the authority to do so and I argue should do so
[1:31:37] when it feels it is in the best interest of its residents and businesses.
[1:31:43] But I am not a planner, nor am I a lawyer. I did
[1:31:47] however, spend years adjudicating over land use planning matters with
[1:31:50] the LPAT and OLT and have a higher understanding and knowledge
[1:31:54] than many. But I still do not profess to be an expert.
[1:31:58] But I do use the assets before me, both planners and lawyers whom
[1:32:02] are the experts and assist and assisted in assisted
[1:32:07] to make sure the interests of the town are protected.
[1:32:10] I believe we went above and beyond with a 40 plus page
[1:32:13] and 170 plus draft condition. Draft conditions that were
[1:32:17] written and vetted by our town staff,
[1:32:20] TRCA staff and legal that need to be fulfilled
[1:32:23] or cleared before final approval. So with all those
[1:32:27] conditions, why approve? Draft plan of subdivisions are
[1:32:30] frequently approved with numerous draft conditions. However,
[1:32:34] in this case, perhaps even more than usual. So again I ask, with all
[1:32:37] those conditions, why approve? Approval gives certainty to
[1:32:41] the applicant that their application has been taken seriously. Timelines are
[1:32:45] now in their hands and clarity is provided to what is needed for
[1:32:49] the town. We too have certainty that conditions are our
[1:32:53] conditions with no risk of an OLT adjudicator diminishing
[1:32:56] the number of conditions or altering them in any manner not
[1:33:00] favorable to the town, we cannot predict the future, nor should
[1:33:04] we simply be averse to appeals. However, when the process is kept
[1:33:08] within our purview and with all the set of settled conditions
[1:33:12] being the towns, we thus set out our own parameters,
[1:33:16] not a third party adjudicator sending out the preferred their preferred terms.
[1:33:20] This is when the draft conditions can adequately protect
[1:33:24] the interests of our Caledon residents. This is not
[1:33:28] my opinion, but the opinion obtained by our staff and
[1:33:31] our legal. So in closing, these are my whys and the rationale and justification
[1:33:36] for the motion here before council. Thank you.
[1:33:40] Thank you. Any other speakers to the motion?
[1:33:46] Seeing none. Oh, sorry,
[1:33:49] Councillor DeBoer. Thanks. I do have a
[1:33:53] some concern over this and if staff have communicated.
[1:33:56] I'm just curious as to why there isn't a staff
[1:34:00] communication with regards to the support that
[1:34:03] they have for the draft conditions. I understand the
[1:34:07] process. When I look at the town website,
[1:34:10] it's listed this application as first submission under review.
[1:34:15] So from that I gather that staff are reviewing this
[1:34:19] submission with these conditions, but have
[1:34:22] yet to provide any comments, certainly no comments that are here that the public
[1:34:26] can see. I think if it's the desire of council to bring
[1:34:31] back the approval
[1:34:35] of site plans, conditional site plans and eliminate
[1:34:39] the staff's delegated authority,
[1:34:42] then that's a separate item and we can do the same, same as what was
[1:34:46] done just at the last meeting with the H, the holding symbol and we
[1:34:49] can remove delegated authority from staff with
[1:34:53] regards to approving draft plans.
[1:34:56] It's been. And, and I tried to talk to staff to figure
[1:34:59] out again a plan as to how far back it was that we made this
[1:35:03] change. But it was council that initiated and delegated authority. So we still
[1:35:07] have the authority to remove that delegated authority. If that's the
[1:35:10] intent and the desire to get this back into where
[1:35:14] there's public comment and a second final look if that's
[1:35:17] part of the desire with this application. But I really do think that
[1:35:22] not having had staff make comments and it be under
[1:35:25] first submission under review as being what's current
[1:35:29] status on the website, I really have concerns with
[1:35:32] moving forward. The delegation mentioned even just road widths
[1:35:36] and concerns about road widths within the application,
[1:35:39] you know, and he picked up that as something that staff would actually be
[1:35:43] commenting on to ensure there's some consistency and that
[1:35:46] for example, transitways are incorporated within the plan.
[1:35:49] So, you know, it leaves me with a lot more
[1:35:52] concerns moving forward if
[1:35:57] this was supported so that, you know,
[1:36:00] I think there's other ways to do it if, if that's the desire of trying
[1:36:04] to accomplish more transparency and I have no
[1:36:08] problem with more transparency and
[1:36:12] I would support removing the delegated authority, but I'm
[1:36:16] not prepared to say that I'm going to support moving this
[1:36:20] forward without at least a staff report ensuring that it meets with
[1:36:24] the overall guidelines and intentions of,
[1:36:27] of the development in that area. Thank you.
[1:36:32] Thank you. Councillor Sheen,
[1:36:36] perhaps just speak to that briefly. No intentions to
[1:36:40] remove the delegated authority. I feel that this, as indicated, is unique
[1:36:44] enough that in this case it warrants delegated
[1:36:47] authority being removed because of the history of the actual file
[1:36:51] and the amount of work that's been put in. The work
[1:36:54] that I actually put forward with staff was to
[1:36:58] ask both TRCA staff, regional staff and legal,
[1:37:02] how many, how can they be satisfied and this
[1:37:06] is not a process that they are typically satisfied
[1:37:10] with. The reality, though, is, when speaking to the fact
[1:37:14] of reports, and I've heard that mentioned
[1:37:17] frequently today, is we will never get a report in this case.
[1:37:21] This would have now gone into the hands of staff, and I intend it
[1:37:24] to go into the hands of staff. All I'm asking for is,
[1:37:28] as indicated, is an approval in principle
[1:37:32] with all the actual conditions
[1:37:35] in place that protect our residents, protect the integrity
[1:37:39] of the. Of the approval process, but give
[1:37:42] the certainty, but to both the applicant and to the state into the town
[1:37:46] that this remains in our own coffers and we are able to.
[1:37:49] To be the. The actual approval
[1:37:52] authority in this. In this case. So that's where I feel it's important.
[1:37:56] I wouldn't want this to be delegated authority. As I indicated,
[1:37:59] this is a unique case and this has been on the
[1:38:02] books in Caledon for longer than I've
[1:38:05] been around here. And I feel that it's important enough that we actually
[1:38:09] intervene, actually ask for that approval in principle.
[1:38:13] That's what I'm asking for. Thank you,
[1:38:17] Councillor Sheen. Thank you, Chair.
[1:38:23] I'm a little bit all over the map with my notes here, but first
[1:38:28] I want to thank the delegate, Mr. Axworthy, for coming forward.
[1:38:32] He articulated many of the same concerns that I
[1:38:35] have.
[1:38:39] Firstly, with respect to how this is. Appears to be inconsistent
[1:38:43] with the town's recently approved official plan.
[1:38:47] The Dougal Avenue issue is still an issue for me,
[1:38:52] which Mr. Axworthy mentioned. And I spoke at
[1:38:56] length about the concerns I have with Dougal and
[1:39:00] the experience we had with Dougal in Mayfield Westphase 2.
[1:39:04] No, sorry, phase one. And I
[1:39:08] feel like we might be making the same assumptions or faulty assumptions
[1:39:11] on the west side now of Highway 10, the bridge structures is
[1:39:15] an issue, apparently or not appear apparently it
[1:39:19] is an issue. As Mr. Axworthy brought up an
[1:39:22] item, Dougal and the bridge structures kind of get
[1:39:26] at the overall traffic impact analysis for all of Mayfield West.
[1:39:29] Face phase two, which we had some discussion at
[1:39:33] the December 17th meeting with the commissioner.
[1:39:39] Not to put too fine of a point on it, but we have to look
[1:39:41] at the big picture. And as I said on December 17,
[1:39:47] the assumptions that are being made around traffic and whatnot, we need to make
[1:39:51] sure those are valid assumptions. Because if we make
[1:39:54] the same mistake we made in Mayfield West Phase 1, we're just
[1:39:59] duplicating the problem we've created in Mayfield West 1.
[1:40:09] Sorry, I'm just looking for my.
[1:40:12] I don't want to bore people with a long submission.
[1:40:18] Councillor Russo mentioned. I think he was trying to answer the question,
[1:40:21] why proceed in this way. And I think the first thing he said was this
[1:40:25] area has been in the process for about 25 years, which makes it a unique
[1:40:28] case. And I think what he's referring to is that
[1:40:32] Mayfield west in general was first
[1:40:35] conceived of back in, I think about 25 years ago.
[1:40:40] And as I understand it from the history speaking to
[1:40:43] others, when certain
[1:40:47] parts of Mayfield west were ready to go versus others, it's just a
[1:40:50] function of people making the best decisions they could make at the
[1:40:54] time. And that's right, some developers
[1:41:00] went to the back of the line, so to speak. I don't think it was
[1:41:03] done because there was any ill intent, but I think the explanation
[1:41:07] I hear is that you can only do so much at once. The town
[1:41:11] only has so much capacity to develop. So Mayfield west phase
[1:41:15] one got approval and here we are 15,
[1:41:19] 20, 25 years later, about to. Well, not about
[1:41:22] to. We're very much moved into Mayfield West Phase 2.
[1:41:26] I drove through the neighborhood this morning. As I've mentioned a few times,
[1:41:29] homes are going up over there. They're digging soil today.
[1:41:34] It's unbelievable the amount of progress. I am anxious to see
[1:41:37] the neighborhood finished. I'm interested to see the Brook Valley
[1:41:42] development complete. But I'm struggling
[1:41:46] with what feels like a step outside
[1:41:49] the usual process.
[1:41:57] Oh, and I guess my last important point is Councillor Russo said it a couple
[1:42:00] of times in his submission that the draft plan
[1:42:03] of subdivision is in principle. He said it a couple of times,
[1:42:07] but the motion actually doesn't refer to it as in principle.
[1:42:11] It just simply says that the draft plan of subdivision is approved.
[1:42:15] So those
[1:42:18] are my thoughts. I may have more because there may be some more discussion.
[1:42:22] I'm not sure. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Kiernan,
[1:42:26] please.
[1:42:30] Thank you. And through you, I too would like
[1:42:33] to speak to the.
[1:42:37] The aspect of transparency. Something that I tried to point
[1:42:41] out last week that these complex,
[1:42:47] eye catching, attention getting motions on
[1:42:51] our agenda to the council, to the public with no
[1:42:55] staff reports, and there
[1:42:59] has been plenty of time between last month and
[1:43:02] this and even the amendment to this motion, in my opinion,
[1:43:07] to seek a staff report for full transparency.
[1:43:10] Transparency seems to be a word we use a lot,
[1:43:14] you know, but I'm not sure that that's. That's what's
[1:43:17] going on. Without a staff report, the public are
[1:43:21] not fully informed. And I think it's
[1:43:24] our duty to make sure they're fully informed. Frankly,
[1:43:28] I would not ever support taking
[1:43:32] away or giving, giving staff delegated authority. I think these things
[1:43:35] must come to council. That, that's for me. But I have to
[1:43:39] say that there has been plenty of time to bring a staff report. It's not.
[1:43:43] We have to make decisions as a body of council, as an entity,
[1:43:47] and for one or each individual counselor to have had
[1:43:51] conversations with staff and be satisfied with that outcome certainly
[1:43:55] does not serve the rest of council fully.
[1:43:59] We are not mind readers and I
[1:44:03] think there's a gap here, quite frankly. So I have
[1:44:06] a serious problem with this motion. My question is also because it's
[1:44:10] been a head scratcher for me from the start and I haven't seen an answer.
[1:44:14] I have. Public has asked it, letters have been sent,
[1:44:18] why I've never seen this happen. And I've
[1:44:21] asked other municipalities and they think it's massively,
[1:44:25] massively unusual. I'm confused as
[1:44:28] to why representative for wards
[1:44:33] 456 is bringing forward this motion without the
[1:44:37] consultation of the councilors of the area. And that's another big
[1:44:41] problem for me. I'm not sure that's a road we want to continue to go
[1:44:45] down. I will not be supporting this motion.
[1:44:48] I think this needs to be sent back to staff and I think it needs
[1:44:51] to have a full, transparent staff report,
[1:44:55] attach it and so that we can make, we talk about
[1:44:58] it, informed decisions, data. We don't have that before us,
[1:45:02] quite frankly. There's a lot of, there's a
[1:45:06] lot of faith being asked for here and I don't think we want to plan
[1:45:09] Kaladin on faith. So I need to see the data, I need to see
[1:45:13] the documents, I need to see the information from staff. I would
[1:45:16] hope we all feel that way. Thank you.
[1:45:21] Thank you,
[1:45:24] Mayor Grove.
[1:45:28] Thank you, chair. And through you, I want to just go
[1:45:31] back to transparency. Ms.
[1:45:34] Brioche mentioned the MZO that was
[1:45:37] voted on. There are several MZOs that I recall
[1:45:41] that members of this council, previous council voted
[1:45:45] on. I don't think MZOs are transparent.
[1:45:49] I don't see staff reports accompanying MZOs.
[1:45:55] And with respect to this application,
[1:45:58] this has been going on probably, I'm going to say
[1:46:01] 25 years, a number of us,
[1:46:05] and I remember attending the site,
[1:46:07] having a groundbreaking ceremony on that site.
[1:46:11] And so here we are several years later. This has
[1:46:15] been dealt with at the Regent appeal. And when I
[1:46:19] look at this, this is not a slam dunk
[1:46:23] approval. There's a whole bunch of conditions that
[1:46:26] I'm reading here, both from the town,
[1:46:30] from the TRCA and from the region appeal.
[1:46:34] This is not, let's approve this and it's done.
[1:46:38] And I am certain that through this process,
[1:46:42] staff will be addressing, with the Developer,
[1:46:45] all of those conditions. Councillor Sheen, I certainly hear
[1:46:49] your concern with respect to the infrastructure or the lack thereof.
[1:46:54] But I'm going to remind folks, and I didn't see
[1:46:58] many years ago when these things were happening and votes were
[1:47:01] happening that anybody was standing up here, well,
[1:47:04] maybe one or two was here when
[1:47:08] all of this development was happening.
[1:47:11] Southfields had a whole lot of discussion around
[1:47:15] it. In fact, we had charrettes on
[1:47:19] Southfields. Then we look at how Southfields
[1:47:23] became and got developed. I think Mr. Hughes or Tim
[1:47:27] Manley was, who was the planner at the time
[1:47:32] on this area.
[1:47:35] But a lot of things got changed with council
[1:47:41] and then we ended up with Southfields the way we
[1:47:44] did. Kennedy Road being one of them.
[1:47:47] Development charges being set aside
[1:47:52] for developers until they've built 1,001 units.
[1:47:57] So I can go on and on with a list of things
[1:48:00] that was lacking. Transparency.
[1:48:04] So let's not throw the word transparency
[1:48:08] when it suits us because there are a
[1:48:11] number of things. I sat here for years and years and
[1:48:16] a lot of things happened here where it was not transparent.
[1:48:20] And I remember a motion coming in a public meeting by
[1:48:26] members of council from Ward 2 through a public
[1:48:30] meeting asking for an MZO. We want to talk about transparency,
[1:48:34] let's talk about transparency. Not when
[1:48:37] transparency suits us. This has been an
[1:48:41] ongoing conversation, discussion. We did Mayfield
[1:48:45] west phase one, stage one, stage two
[1:48:48] and now we're at stage three. We should have
[1:48:52] been looking at the entire area
[1:48:56] and planning that entire area.
[1:49:00] And because we did not do that, this is
[1:49:03] the reason we're here today. This is the reason we have all these
[1:49:07] issues with lack of infrastructure and all the other things.
[1:49:11] Then to throw some of the other things in the mix,
[1:49:14] the rerouting of Highway 410 and
[1:49:17] all of those things. Here we are
[1:49:22] many, many years later, two decades later, because why
[1:49:26] we did not do our job here at this council,
[1:49:30] we piecemealed planning and that is why we
[1:49:34] are where we are. We are trying to correct that
[1:49:37] by doing the right thing. And there are several conditions
[1:49:41] when I look in here. So this is not a slam dunk.
[1:49:45] This is saying your infrastructure must be built. Now we're
[1:49:49] talking years later, infrastructure could have been a lot
[1:49:52] cheaper, but now we're talking infrastructure that we're
[1:49:56] going to be probably five, six,
[1:49:59] maybe seven times the cost of what it would
[1:50:03] have been back then. So I don't have a problem
[1:50:06] moving this forward. And as I said, all of
[1:50:10] this happened in 2022
[1:50:14] at the region of Peel. Every member of Caledon
[1:50:19] Council at the region of Peel, voted to put 11,000
[1:50:22] acres in our urban boundaries. This is not staff's fault,
[1:50:27] but these decisions were council decisions,
[1:50:31] council directing staff, council passing motions.
[1:50:34] And staff are left to deal with all
[1:50:38] the inadequacies, all the motions that were
[1:50:42] put forward. MZOs, they don't bring with them
[1:50:46] any financial analysis. They don't talk about infrastructure.
[1:50:50] They don't talk about anything. They are just carte blanche
[1:50:54] approvals. And let's go. No staff report accompanying it.
[1:50:59] And so I have no issues in supporting
[1:51:02] this because, again, it is not a slam dunk.
[1:51:07] When I look at the conditions that's in here, it addresses
[1:51:10] a number of things. TRCA's concerns,
[1:51:14] all of those environmental impacts are in here.
[1:51:17] And until TRCA is satisfied or staff are satisfied,
[1:51:21] or the region is satisfied by, this is not going to happen.
[1:51:26] So I.
[1:51:31] And again, you know, I did not see
[1:51:35] residents showing up at meetings when MZOs
[1:51:39] are proposing or were being proposed.
[1:51:43] So those are my comments.
[1:51:47] And again, it is
[1:51:51] a matter of moving this through a process that
[1:51:56] should have happened a long time ago and a process
[1:52:00] that should have been a more holistic and a more comprehensive
[1:52:04] process. And that is why we are in
[1:52:08] the situation we're in. And that's why Bolton is in the
[1:52:12] situation. It's in the lack of planning,
[1:52:16] proper planning, holistic planning,
[1:52:20] comprehensive planning. Because through all those things,
[1:52:24] you address all the concerns that I'm hearing being raised here
[1:52:28] today. So thank you. Thank you,
[1:52:31] Councillor Mascal, please.
[1:52:34] Thank you. And through you, Chair, and it's all great for us to
[1:52:38] talk amongst ourselves here as counselors, but I'm going to ask a couple
[1:52:42] of questions to some of the experts that we have on our
[1:52:45] staff here. I have two questions. One is for Commissioner
[1:52:51] Lucc, and I'm just
[1:52:54] going to read the question out here.
[1:52:57] What Councillor Russo is asking is unorthodox,
[1:53:01] something I have not seen brought before this council.
[1:53:05] In your experience, Commissioner Lucik,
[1:53:09] have you seen this practice applied before?
[1:53:13] And in your professional opinion, does it in any
[1:53:16] way undermine the integrity or efficacy
[1:53:20] of the planning process through
[1:53:26] the chair to the counselor? Well, this might be unorthodox
[1:53:30] for how things have been done in Caledon. It's actually fairly common
[1:53:33] in other municipalities. I looked to the city of Mississauga, where it worked before,
[1:53:37] and you'd have a standard condition saying, yeah, you know,
[1:53:40] the general content or idea of development's approved,
[1:53:44] and it's subject to draft and condition work that comes along at
[1:53:47] a later date. So it's actually fairly common. It's just not something we've
[1:53:51] typically done here. What we felt is, you know,
[1:53:54] while staff have delegated authority here, we wanted to ensure council was aware
[1:53:58] of. Of what was being discussed. And that's why we asked that, you know,
[1:54:01] be put to council to. To do this. And. And as Councillor Deborah
[1:54:04] said, you could take delegated authority away from staff, I would discourage you
[1:54:08] typically, from doing that because that slows the process down. And a lot of these
[1:54:12] things are technical elements. I anticipate,
[1:54:15] ultimately, we're still going to be able to get what we need as a town
[1:54:18] through the conditions I note specifically, even condition number
[1:54:22] one, where it really allows for the. The town to revise
[1:54:26] or adjust as necessary to ensure we get what we need just
[1:54:30] to follow up. So does that undermine the planning process in any way?
[1:54:35] No, it does not. Okay, thank you. I have my second
[1:54:38] question that I'd like to address to Commissioner Dixon.
[1:54:43] Commissioner Dixon, do you believe that. That if this
[1:54:47] council does not approve the plan outlined by Councilor Russo,
[1:54:51] that this application will end up at the olt?
[1:54:54] And then secondly. And do you believe that the conditions outlined in
[1:54:58] this motion are materially better than those we could
[1:55:02] expect from an OLT ruling?
[1:55:05] Thanks for the question through the chair. Although I can't predict
[1:55:08] whether this matter would proceed to olt,
[1:55:12] there's a strong likelihood that it would proceed if the.
[1:55:16] If we can't work with the developers to move this forward,
[1:55:18] certainly OLT is an option. I think
[1:55:22] we've heard from a delegate on a other development nearby
[1:55:26] that's gone through the oot. It's very expensive in
[1:55:30] terms of our draft plan conditions, they're very comprehensive in
[1:55:35] favor of the town and our agencies. I don't believe
[1:55:39] the owner will appeal the conditions of their past today. I believe the
[1:55:42] owner does not get it.
[1:55:46] The developer may appeal. And of
[1:55:49] course, if it gets appealed, the tribunal may wish to
[1:55:53] see the scope of the conditions narrowed and could
[1:55:56] very well eliminate some of the conditions. And approving the motion today
[1:56:01] helps mitigate that risk and help keep the conditions intact.
[1:56:06] Thank you very much.
[1:56:10] Thank you. Councillor Kiernan, please.
[1:56:17] Sorry, Chair. That was up from before.
[1:56:21] Oh, that's from before. Okay. Thank you, Councillor Kiernan. We'll move on to Councillor Sheen.
[1:56:28] Thank you, Chair. Rosa, I have
[1:56:31] a question for staff then. What will happen if this motion does not
[1:56:35] pass today? In other words, will it continue through
[1:56:38] the process with planning and the planning and development staff?
[1:56:41] Is what's the downside of not approving this motion
[1:56:45] today through
[1:56:49] the chair to the councilor? It would continue with planning staff. It would
[1:56:52] effectively follow a parallel path to what's being proposed today.
[1:56:57] So what is the advantage to approving this motion today?
[1:57:01] Approving? Not the motion approving the draft plan of subdivision.
[1:57:04] There's really. It's. It's. It's one way or the other.
[1:57:08] It's really more. That's. That's not so much a staff answer.
[1:57:12] So. So there's an argument here that we should approve
[1:57:16] it, but there's really no advantage to approving it, is what I'm hearing.
[1:57:21] Nothing's going to change. It's going to follow the process. Whether it's a. Whether the
[1:57:25] draft plan of subdivision is approved today or not.
[1:57:29] What it would really do is just. It would be how staff would communicate on
[1:57:32] various reports or otherwise. We have draft plan conditions. We'd work
[1:57:36] through those. It's. It's a little. It's hard to say.
[1:57:39] I defer to more to this. As much isn't a
[1:57:43] staff answer as much. It would be a up to the person
[1:57:47] that put motion forward, the council. I'm just trying to understand because there's
[1:57:50] a lot of concern that somehow we're deviating from the problem process, and the process
[1:57:54] is there to ensure that due process is followed
[1:57:58] and that input is obtained along the
[1:58:01] usual process. And so there's a concern that we're deviating from the process.
[1:58:04] So I want to make sure that there's no penalty
[1:58:08] to the developer because, like I said, I want to see this neighborhood get finished,
[1:58:11] but I also want to stick to the process as much as possible. That's my
[1:58:15] first question. I appreciate what Mayor
[1:58:18] Groves said about South Fields. I know she on council when it was being developed
[1:58:22] many, many years ago. And I
[1:58:27] think that council back then probably made the best decisions they
[1:58:31] could with what they knew. But I think hindsight
[1:58:35] may not be 2020, but it's closer to 2020.
[1:58:39] When I think about some of the things that I think have impacted
[1:58:42] Southfields that could not have been anticipated by our council 20
[1:58:46] years ago. As we know,
[1:58:50] there are many more basement apartments in the neighborhood than I think anyone would
[1:58:54] have guessed, which brings more cars and more people,
[1:58:57] which puts more strain on our schools and our parks
[1:59:01] and our roads and parking and traffic.
[1:59:05] And also more recently, which not many people are talking about, is the
[1:59:08] new right of homeowners if they have sufficient land in their backyards
[1:59:13] to put in these auxiliary units,
[1:59:16] which the town has no right of refusal on. All we
[1:59:19] can do is issue building permits if they have the right criteria.
[1:59:25] I think that's something that could not have been anticipated 15 or 20 years ago
[1:59:28] when South Fields was being envisioned.
[1:59:34] But those are the realities of today. And I guess what I'm hoping is
[1:59:38] that we don't, as I keep saying, that we don't keep making the same mistakes
[1:59:41] because we anticipate that the neighborhood can be
[1:59:45] built. Well, actually, we know that the neighborhood is being designed with a higher people
[1:59:49] density than Mayfield West Phase 1 and Mayfield West
[1:59:53] Phase 2, Phase or Stage 1 and
[1:59:57] 2. I think as we go further north, closer to Old
[2:00:00] School Road, the density is getting higher. I think it was missing brioche that asked
[2:00:04] the question. It's not quite 100, I don't believe, but it's.
[2:00:07] I think it's around 75. Is the targeted density for Mayfield
[2:00:11] West Phase 2, Stage 3.
[2:00:15] Anyway, I'm not criticizing the previous councils. I think Southfields
[2:00:19] Village is what it is. In many ways, it's a great neighborhood. In other ways,
[2:00:24] there's some lessons to be learned. And if there's
[2:00:27] no advantage, no material advantage to approving this draft
[2:00:31] plan of subdivision today, then I struggle with
[2:00:35] the motion. Thank you. Thank you.
[2:00:38] Councillor early, please. Thank you. Through you, Chair,
[2:00:43] listen, so much has been said tonight. First of all, I'm going to say that
[2:00:46] past councils, I think, did probably try
[2:00:49] their best. You were a smaller municipality. You never had the intensification that
[2:00:53] South Kis was going to be and that Southfield is now small intensification
[2:00:57] on what we're building out. My problem with this motion has been the same
[2:01:01] right from the start. And that's the process piece. We put
[2:01:04] the OPA, a staff report on the OPA on the last council
[2:01:08] meeting of the year in 2024, not on a planning meeting, but on a council
[2:01:12] meeting. We didn't allow the public to have time to
[2:01:15] even digest it. There were a significant amount of agency comments on
[2:01:19] that. Opaque. That will allow the applicant to work with staff to
[2:01:23] get through those agency comments. And we had this motion sitting
[2:01:27] on that same council meeting in December. So we were going to
[2:01:31] just fast track everything. Councillor Russo decided to refer it
[2:01:34] to this planning meeting in January. But the process hasn't changed.
[2:01:38] We're still working through agency comments, we're still working through the issues on the opa.
[2:01:43] And I don't see any reason to have to fast track this. It has nothing
[2:01:46] to do with. With the applicant. They're good applicants, they're good
[2:01:50] business owners. What it does have for me, though, we talked about
[2:01:53] past councils. We're going to 300,000 people
[2:01:57] from 80,000 people. We're going to build houses like there's no tomorrows and
[2:02:00] build communities. And if we start usurping processes, then we're
[2:02:04] going to have every guy lined up at the door to say, I want to
[2:02:07] do that, too. And I just can't support something like that. So it
[2:02:11] has nothing to do with the applicant or completing that community or
[2:02:14] making things happen, and I'm hoping we can expedite this. I'm not
[2:02:17] sure how I feel about taking away delegated authority
[2:02:21] from staff. Maybe it's a conversation, though, Council should have one day,
[2:02:25] given that we are growing so quickly. Maybe not this evening,
[2:02:28] but I, I, I, I, I understand
[2:02:31] Council Russo, and I know he wants to get things done and he wants to
[2:02:34] fix things and make things happen, but I can't
[2:02:37] support this. And, and truthfully,
[2:02:41] not concerned, but certainly a little disingenuous that
[2:02:45] this would have occurred without discussions with both myself and Councillor Sheen.
[2:02:48] But that's a decision that everyone has their opportunity to make. So thank you very
[2:02:52] much. I won't be supporting the motion. Thank you.
[2:02:55] Any additional. Yes, Councillor Maskell, please.
[2:03:01] Thank you very much. And through you, Chair Rosa and I
[2:03:05] just, you know, I'm just sitting here listening to
[2:03:08] people talk about, you know, doing things outside
[2:03:12] our purview or outside the norm, and just brings
[2:03:15] me back to, you know, we had our, Our policy around
[2:03:19] the naming of town
[2:03:23] sites after people, and we had a policy was put in place,
[2:03:26] and council unanimously supported the everything.
[2:03:31] And then when it came time, someone comes forward and says,
[2:03:34] you know, can we switch this? And, you know, Council says, oh, yeah, that's within
[2:03:38] our, our purview to do that. And we can do that. We're going to
[2:03:41] override policy. So, you know, here we are,
[2:03:44] you know, in a situation where, you know, we've. We've done,
[2:03:49] you know, there are counselors who are saying we have to follow process, but,
[2:03:52] you know, a couple months ago, there was no following process. Just, yeah,
[2:03:56] we'll exercise our authority and just override whatever we need
[2:03:59] to. So I just think it's incredibly ironic.
[2:04:03] Thank you, Councillor Kiernan.
[2:04:09] Thank you, Chair. And this will be brief and final. So I find that a
[2:04:13] little. A little odd. Sometimes when new information
[2:04:16] comes forward, it is upon us to make different decisions,
[2:04:21] you know, and that wasn't against our opa.
[2:04:25] That was a policy that we put in place as recommended by a staff
[2:04:28] report that we did all support at
[2:04:31] that time, because the staff report. And I go back to the staff report
[2:04:35] justified it. Did we know that There were people in the community. Had there been.
[2:04:39] Obviously not. There were people in the community who felt otherwise,
[2:04:43] then we had the opportunity to have those people come forward and
[2:04:46] say, hold on a minute now. Now that we've seen this,
[2:04:49] we have a problem with this. And as councillors, I think
[2:04:52] it's our duty to listen when that happens. I don't think the comparison is
[2:04:56] fair, quite frankly. Thank you. Thank you.
[2:05:00] Any other speakers to the motion?
[2:05:03] Seeing none, I will ask the clerk to call the vote.
[2:05:10] Councillor DeBoer. Opposed.
[2:05:13] Councillor Early. Opposed.
[2:05:16] Councillor Kiernan. Opposed.
[2:05:21] Councillor Mascal? In favor.
[2:05:25] Councilor Napoli? In favor.
[2:05:29] Councilor Russo? In favor.
[2:05:34] Councilor Sheen. Opposed.
[2:05:38] Mayor Groves? In favor. Chair Rosa?
[2:05:42] In favor. Through the chair. The motion carries.
[2:05:47] Having concluded item 12.1, I will
[2:05:51] now return the chair to Councillor Russo. Thank you.
[2:06:12] Thank you. So we move on to correspondence.
[2:06:17] Are there any comments or items that require action in correspondence
[2:06:21] package? I see. Councillor Kiernan,
[2:06:24] you've added one item of correspondence to this agenda.
[2:06:27] Would you like action on them? Thank you.
[2:06:31] Through you, Chair, just as we do with all correspondence,
[2:06:35] there is a motion put together just in support of what the municipality
[2:06:39] of coast lynch has put forward. I will draw your attention
[2:06:43] to the fact that they mistakenly used the
[2:06:46] wrong title for Minister Calandra. So we will also be
[2:06:50] correcting that in the. In the interim. In the. At the meantime.
[2:06:54] So would you like to bring forward a motion or just as direction,
[2:06:58] I guess. What would you like us to do right now? I think
[2:07:02] that the clerk has a motion prepared. Clerk,
[2:07:05] is there something prepared? And I guess this is moved by councer Kieran
[2:07:10] and I guess maybe seconded by Count. Mayor Groves,
[2:07:15] thank you. And it's before us right now on the screen.
[2:07:19] Thank you.
[2:07:27] That the. So I'll just read it out. That the.
[2:07:30] Okay, I was just gonna say, I just wanted to let everyone know that this
[2:07:33] was actually brought to my attention by a community member. So good
[2:07:37] catch on their point. Asked me to bring this forward and.
[2:07:41] And that's why we're here today. But it's the right thing to do. Okay,
[2:07:46] thank you. I'll read it out for. I guess anyone
[2:07:49] that doesn't see it on the screen, that the town of Caledon support The
[2:07:53] resolution dated November 21, 2024,
[2:07:56] as passed by the township of Pucilich regarding the protection of agricultural
[2:08:00] lands and sustainable excess soil management practices in
[2:08:04] Ontario. And that a copy of this resolution be sent
[2:08:07] to the township of Pusillage and the Ministry of Environment,
[2:08:11] Conservation and Parks, Ontario Ministry
[2:08:14] of Food and Agricultural and Rural affairs and the Premier of
[2:08:18] Ontario, the Association. And the association of Municipalities
[2:08:22] of Ontario. Aml.
[2:08:26] Councilor Sheen.
[2:08:29] Thank you, Chair Russo. I just want to double check that the
[2:08:32] motion intends to send a copy of this to the Ministry of
[2:08:37] Environment, Conservation and Parks,
[2:08:40] because that's the title that was mistakenly attached to Minister Calandra.
[2:08:45] I just want to make sure that that was. I read the. The Ministry of
[2:08:48] Environment, Conservation and Parks. That's accurate. Yeah.
[2:08:51] Okay.
[2:08:53] MECP or. Yeah,
[2:08:58] but we're also correcting Minister Calandra's title to make sure that that's.
[2:09:06] I'm just. I just want to make sure that we're. Whether we're sending it to
[2:09:09] Calandra. Okay. Yeah. I believe. Clerk says confirmed, and I believe the mover
[2:09:13] is. You're okay with that, Councillor Kieran?
[2:09:18] Thank you. Yes, I am. Okay. If there are
[2:09:21] no further questions, moving on to the clerks,
[2:09:25] for the. For the vote.
[2:09:28] Councillor DeBoer? In favor.
[2:09:31] Councilor Early. In favor. Councilor Kiernan?
[2:09:37] In favor. Councilor Matabel.
[2:09:41] In favor. Councilor Napoli.
[2:09:45] In favor. Councilor Rosa?
[2:09:48] In favor. Councilor Sheen?
[2:09:52] In favor. Mayor Groves?
[2:09:55] In favor. Chair Russo? In favor. Through the chair.
[2:09:59] The motion carries. Thank you. This concludes
[2:10:02] the January 14, 2025 Planning and Development Committee meeting.
[2:10:06] I declare this meeting adjourned. Thank you.