We are a group of concerned neighbours

AI Transcription follows. Please listen/watch the official council meeting for the most accurate account

Speaker 1: [00:01:01] I could call this meeting to order for Wednesday, May 13th, 7 p.m.. If I could ask for a moment of meditation and during that moment of meditation, if you could think of the family and friends of a former town employee, Mike Howell, former lead hand for maintenance, passed away this past Monday. If you could think of his family and friends during the moment of meditation, it would be appreciated. Thank you. Thank you. The town of Georgina recognises and acknowledges that we are on lands originally used and occupied by the first peoples of the Williams Treaties, First Nations and other indigenous peoples, and on behalf of myself and all members of Council, we would like to thank them for sharing this land. We would also like to acknowledge the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation as our close neighbour and friend, one with which we strive to build a cooperative and respectful relationship. We also recognise the unique relationship that Chippewas have with the lands and waters of this territory. They are the water protectors and environmental stewards of these lands, and we join them in these responsibilities. Can I have the roll call, please, madam Deputy Clerk.

Speaker 2: [00:02:31] Thank you, Madam Mayor. All members of Council are present.

Speaker 1: [00:02:36] Yes. And I know Rachel. Councillor Davidson is participating virtually. One of the joys of virtual participation. If you’re not feeling well. I just have the sniffles. So I’m not that bad. But, uh, certainly a virtual hybrid format does allow people to still participate if they’re not feeling well enough to come to the meeting. So thank you, Rachel. Councillor Davidson for for attending virtually. Community announcements. I do have a couple, um an important week. Uh, next week is bag tag exemption week, one of the favourite weeks of the year here in the town of Georgina. Um, bag tag exemption so you can put up to, I believe four bags of garbage out untagged. Um, and also another really important event happening on, on Saturday is the farmers market opening day on Sunday. So come out, hopefully it’s a little warmer than it is today, but as always, a great, a great start to the summer season to get the the farmers market underway. So that’s, uh, an important event to hopefully get some local people out and around and bring some other visitors into town. Are there other community announcements? Members of council.

Speaker 3: [00:03:46] Councillor Dale thank you, Madam Mayor, and good evening, everyone. I actually just wanted to take a moment to thank everybody involved in the tree giveaway this weekend before it gets away and recognise John Scott and the Rescue Lake Coalition. Madam mayor and everybody involved in making it happen. And certainly, uh, one of our special town staff, Simone, who was incredible in making sure that it all ran smoothly. It, uh, sold out very, very quickly for the price of free. Within 45 minutes, a couple hundred trees were were gone and mulch was gone all weekend. Um, and thank you to Mr. Boston Town staff for keeping it coming because they brought it all weekend and it was well used. And for those that are unaware, all the mulch was recovered from the ice storm and chipped. So it was a kind of a really nice full circle moment. So thank you to all involved and absolutely thank you to John Scott and.

Speaker 1: [00:04:41] Perfect other community announcements. Members of Council. Councillor Biggerstaff.

Speaker 4: [00:04:48] Go away there. Good evening. Through you, Madam Mayor. I have, two, if not possibly more than that. Um, just give me a sec. At the community health centre, um, there is a water colour wellness crafting and calmness series. So it’s weekly on Tuesdays, um, between now and June 30th. So wellness is always a good thing and wellness through art is fantastic. I also have a second one. Just give me a second here. And it’s just a little bit out, but it will be here sooner than we realise. May 31st, uh, from 2 to 4. The art gallery, um, is celebrating, if I can say this right for July to Georgina. So an Italian festival of art. Great. Thank you.

Speaker 1: [00:05:42] Other community announcements. Councillor Genge. Yeah.

Speaker 5: [00:05:46] Thank you, Madam Mayor. Through you. Um, on uh, wherever we got the 23rd, uh, Saturday the 23rd, the nets $2 clothing sale is on, and that’s from 9 to 1.

Speaker 1: [00:06:00] At the Ken Hall, right? Okay. Other community service announcements. Councillor Neeson.

Speaker 6: [00:06:07] Well, thank you, Madam Mayor, and good morning. Members of the public. Members of staff, members of council just really quickly wanted to mention, uh, beginning on. Let me see here. I believe it’s Sunday, May 17th to Saturday, May 23rd. Uh, will be Public Works Week, uh, across the province. And of course, we’ll be celebrating that here locally. Um, and of course, we’re certainly thankful as a community for all of the essential work that those workers carry out, whether that be ploughing the roads or roads maintenance, uh, all the way through into our recreation services. And so those provide for, uh, quality of life services here. And of course, public safety matters as well. And so we thank all of those workers for the work that they’re doing in our community. And, um, Also, Madam Mayor. With that, I believe we’ll be participating. Mr. Vos confirmed. But, um, also highly anticipated typically by the community and others. Uh, on the 23rd of May, in celebration of Public Works Week, uh, York region will be hosting an event, I believe in consultation with, uh, some of the lower tier municipalities, which will be held from 10 to 3 Saturday, May the 23rd, and that will be at the Public Works Operations Centre and Paramedic Services building at 80 and 90 bales, located in the town of East Gwillimbury. So just a little bit south. And of course, that provides an opportunity for a lot of children that, uh, really seem to like it, to see the big plough trucks and the big, uh, tandem axle dump trucks. And of course, um, you know, talk to a paramedic and touch a ambulance and, uh, and all the other public service infrastructure that, um, that we’re, uh, we’re all grateful. I think I can speak on behalf of the community to have here within York region, certainly within the town. And so, uh, looking forward to that. And please feel free to come out.

Speaker 1: [00:07:45] Great. Thank you. Are there any further community service announcements? I don’t see any hands going up. Introduction of addendum items. I believe we do have a couple, madam Deputy clerk.

Speaker 2: [00:07:57] That’s right, Madam Mayor. We do have agenda items tonight. Item 162. Bylaw number 20260050PL2 adopting amendments. Amendment number 156 to the Town of Georgina. Official plan 183 Simcoe Avenue. Item 16. Three. Bylaw number 520 260006PL5. Amending Zoning Bylaw number 500 pertaining to 183 Simcoe Avenue. Additionally, we have received written correspondence from Natalie Floyd in regards to item 111 A all addendum items have been posted on our website.

Speaker 1: [00:08:37] Great. Thank you. Could I get an approval of the agenda as amended? Move by Councillor Fellini, seconded by Councillor Biggerstaff. All those in favour opposed and that’s carried. Are there any declarations of pecuniary interest and general nature thereof? I don’t see any hands. I keep looking on the screen, too. Don’t. Don’t worry. I’m trying not to forget. It’s a little easier looking here than trying to look down in. As it was the old setup. Adoption of minutes. There are none. Speakers and delegations. So we do have a number of speakers, and most of them. I think all of them are to do with the one report that we have. Um, what we can do is go through the list of the speakers that I have. And if there are any other people in the audience, I will ask you if you want to, to speak. So first on my list is Martha Doherty. And when you if you come up to the podium, you can raise and lower it and you can move that microphone to be at the right height for you. There you go. There we go. And just state your name and municipal address for the record, please. Hello there. We can hear you.

Speaker 4: [00:09:42] Good works.

Speaker 7: [00:09:44] Um, my name is Martha Doherty and I live at ___  Cedar Street in Keswick. And I’m here tonight because my neighbours and I have concerns about this request to amend the official plan and the Keswick Secondary Plan to accommodate a development that exceeds both height and density permitted in this long established neighbourhood. I’m concerned that the developer is trying to chip away at a plan that was only recently brought into full force in 2024 by the Ontario Land Tribunal. The previous plan was in effect for decades and was revised only after lengthy review by town staff and public consultation. This report acknowledges that there are no other mixed use, high rise buildings in the area. So by way of comparison, it references a six story residential building on the Queensway. One singular example should not be justification for an exception for an even taller structure. This is a slippery slope. And where will it end if we keep moving the goalposts? Contrary to the staff opinion that this project will increase commerce, it will actually displace existing businesses. My family goes way back generations in this neighbourhood to my great grandfather’s time, and my late husband’s family owned the lunch that many of you might know that’s located, that was located at church and Metro. After moving here from England right after World War Two, so. And since my childhood, the configuration of the roads has remained unchanged. The winding two lane roads aren’t equipped to handle the traffic volumes this development would create as it’s. And as it stands today, school buses recycle and delivery trucks routinely bring traffic to a standstill. The Keswick secondary plans objective is to ensure developments are compatible and integrate with the surrounding land uses, and to manage future growth in a way that meets the needs of current and future residents.

Speaker 7: [00:11:54] And I don’t feel that threshold has been met. The designation Uptown Keswick Urban Centre brings to mind a bustling metropolis, but in reality, most of the area is made up of small owner operated businesses, and all but three houses on Frederick are one story bungalows that will be dwarfed by the semi-detached houses and the condo building. Spill-over parking is a serious concern. Roads like Frederick and Cedar, which is actually the eastern entrance to Frederick, have no sidewalks and they have deep watery ditches. School children see seniors and disabled pedestrians have little buffer from traffic because parked cars force them to the centre of the street. Last week, a public meeting on parking and loading the consultant was discussing future parking requirements, based on a study conducted back in February, which doesn’t reflect the true picture. As we all know how our seasonal population increases significantly. The province’s Bill 23 and the Federal Housing Accelerator Fund has increased the number of units permitted per lot. So potentially each of these semis could have a basement apartment. The secondary plan requires transportation to service a development. And yes, there’s a bus route along Simcoe, but it can hardly be described as efficient as it takes an hour to reach new market because it has so many milk run stops and it takes three hours for a commute to Toronto. The town’s operation and infrastructure department recommended a study to consider. Consider calming measures to deal with the increased traffic that could potentially result.

Speaker 7: [00:13:46] And since Cedar is the entrance to Frederick, it should be included in any assessment. So in conclusion, I believe this project fails to meet four of the pillars of Georgina’s strategic plan one ensuring balanced growth. The development would negatively impact residents privacy and enjoyment of their property and the 45 degree angular plane. To illustrate the impact of the position of the building on neighbouring homes only measures one side of the development. What about the impact to homes on the other side now? And two. Diversifying our economy. Not really, since the development will force existing businesses to close or relocate it. And the third pillar, creating a vibrant, healthy and safe community for all. The Spill-over parking and increased traffic on streets with no sidewalks increases risk and a safety buffer zone like the streets leading onto Lake Drive should be considered and for advancing environmental sustainability. When a developer removes trees, often cash in lieu payments are directed to other areas of the municipality. These payments should be reinvested in the neighbourhoods impacted. Greenery like planters, enhanced streetscapes and sidewalk trees should compensate the neighbourhood. Uh. So in fact, if council goes forward with with these amendments, the area should receive a commitment to safety initiatives and a, a revitalisation plan, uh, perhaps comparable to the to Sutton High Street to invest in the area. So let’s worry about the impact to residents who live here and pay taxes, taxes and not focus on the benefit for developers from outside the community. So now let me know if you have any questions. And thank you for not using the trap door.

Speaker 1: [00:15:49] I didn’t spring the trap door on you, Martha. You were over by a little bit, but it’s okay. Are there any questions to the deputy? Right now we will have the answers. Um. I saw everybody madly writing down the questions that you had. So they will go through when they do the presentation, they’ll go through and answer those questions. If the answers aren’t already in the report, they’ll highlight them. So thank you. Okay. Next I have Sandra McCain. Again, to state your name and address for the record, please. I think the microphone is about in the right spot for you. Okay, good. My name is up and down if you need to.

Speaker 8: [00:16:31] Okay. My name is Sandra McCann. I live at __ Frederic Street, Keswick, Ontario. Um, hello, Council and mayor. I’m here with concerns related to a proposal for the apartment building on Simcoe and Frederick. My family lives at ___ Frederick Street, right next to the proposal. We will be deeply impacted. I purchased my home in 2002 and the building was there. That is there now. We had concerns as the parking lot was adjacent to our home, but backyard. However, over the years there has been minimal issues. The parking lot is quiet with several cars using it through weekdays. We have experienced no privacy issues and no uncomfortable exhaust fumes. Frederick Street is a quiet, safe haven where children can play and families enjoy peace and quiet. This new building will change everything. I address the council at the last meeting for citizens regarding this proposal with my concerns. First, our heart. Our house has a high water table and we have faced several water issues in our basement. The costs have been in excess of 3000 over the years that we’ve lived there. Our concerns regarding the underground parking and the water issues that would occur and impact us has the council, when I read the report that was sent out to us, has the council received reports regarding the status of the water table and its impacts? If this goes ahead and I have water issues, can I count on this council to verify who or what is responsible? Secondly, I discussed major issues with where the parking underground is and how close proximity it will be to my backyard. With the amount of cars coming in and out, the exhaust fumes and noise level will be excessive.

Speaker 8: [00:18:22] It’s not like that right now, but you’re talking a building that will include lots of cars going in and out of a parking lot. That’s right. The underground parking will be right at our backyard. With the amount of cars coming in out the exhaust, the exhaust fumes will be and noise level. Our backyard is a place where we enjoy sitting, observing birds, working on our gardens, and having fun with family. Our privacy will will be gone with a large apartment building viewing us regularly. We have a grandson who has autism and dislikes loud noises. He loves being out of doors and he lives with us. Has there been any environmental study presented around the noise level and exhaust fumes we may be subjected to? The company indicated they plan on putting up a fence. How high and of what material. Has the Council discussed, discussed the size and proportion of this building to these two streets? I hear you want to beautify the downtown core. Is this building going to do that? Wouldn’t it be preferable to have a small building with businesses? Lastly, the street of Frederick is small, with limited parking. The likelihood of people parking if this building goes up will be a major problem. Our house prices could go down with this type of structure in our backyard. And have you looked at studies that show ramifications of this? Thank you for your time. And I provided a separate question sheet for my concerns. Please answer my concerns at your earliest convenience. I will attach that to. Great.

Speaker 1: [00:19:55] Thank you very much. Are there any questions right now to the Deputant? If not, we’ll there again, writing down the questions. We’ll make note. Next is Karen. Did you want to speak? Not right now. Okay. Well, this is the opportunity. So okay. It said maybe so. Um. Janice Evans. Welcome to state your name and address for the record.

Speaker 9: [00:20:29] Thank you. My name is Janice Evans and I live at __ Frederick Street, Keswick. Um, good evening everyone. Uh, mayor and council. Um, so my name is Janice. I live directly across from the proposed development at 183 Simcoe. We just recently moved to the area. We have twin babies, two girls, and we were thrilled to move to Frederick Street. Um, my family chose this neighbourhood specifically because of its residential character, its scale, and the strong sense of community it offers. We moved here expecting a low rise, family oriented neighbourhood, not an urban high density corridor, which is what this condo would bring. I want to begin by saying that I do support housing and responsible growth. This is not about that. This is not about opposing development in general. It is about ensuring growth happens in the right places and in a way that respects existing communities. The proposal before council represents a significant departure from the established character of this area. A development of this height and density on a non arterial road is simply not reflective of the surrounding neighbourhood. This is not a modest adjustment. It is a dramatic change in scale and in intensity. My concern is not only about one building, it is about what this decision will set precedent for and what will mean for the future of not only this area in Keswick, but others.

Speaker 9: [00:21:54] Approving a project of this magnitude risks setting a precedent for similar developments and a fundamentally changing the character of our community over time. I’m also an educator at Lakeside Public School, which is the closest adjacent school to the proposed development, and I see firsthand how important safe and predictable neighbourhoods are for children and families. I have deep concerns, as do my peers and colleagues, about increased traffic congestion and pedestrian safety around an area already used daily by families and students. Um, as mentioned before, that two way, that two lane street going either way has, is not fit to for this, uh, proposed development. Um, more residential units, commercial activity and increased density will place additional pressure on roads and community infrastructure that were never designed for this level of intensive intensification. As both a resident and an educator, I worry about the long term impact on liveability, safety, and quality of life for families that are already here and families to come. I respectfully ask council to reconsider this proposal or at a minimum, significantly reduce the height and intensity. So that is compatible with the existing neighbourhood. Growth matters, but so does protecting the communities people have invested in and chosen to call home. Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Speaker 1: [00:23:17] Thank you very much. Any questions to the deputy right now? Let’s see. Next is Andrew Sedore.

Speaker 10: [00:23:27] I just spoke.

Speaker 1: [00:23:28] Okay. Perfect. I understand completely. Okay. Taelor Branco. State your name and municipal address for the record, please.

Speaker 11: [00:23:44] My name is Taelor Branco, and I reside at ___ in a basement apartment. But my family home is __ Frederick Street. So I do have a statement, and I will probably use the five minutes. Um, good evening, council members and Madam Mayor. My name is Taelor Branco. My family’s home is directly across from the project site at 183 Simcoe Avenue. I’m here tonight in opposition to the proposed amendments. I support appropriate redevelopment and intensification in uptown Keswick and across Georgina. My objection comes from whether this specific proposal satisfies the provincial requirements for compatibility, orderly development and adequate servicing. Provincial policy supports intensification, but the Planning Act and provincial planning statement do not require municipalities to approve every high density, sorry, every high density proposal, regardless of the site constraints or neighbourhood impacts. This proposal still consists of an eight storey mixed use building, 74 apartment units, commercial space, underground parking, eight semi detached dwelling units on a constrained 0.52 hectare site directly adjacent to existing low rise homes on Frederick Street. The town’s own report acknowledges the proposal seeks approximately 200 units per hectare. This exceeds the Keswick Secondary Plan high density framework of 85 to 155 units per hectare. I’m also concerned that the proposal continues to be framed in parts of the application as a form of medium density redevelopment, despite the town’s own analysis confirming that the proposal falls within and exceeds the high density category outlined by the Keswick Secondary Plan, the subject lands are split, designated between uptown Keswick Urban Centre and existing neighbourhood. In my view, the transition towards Frederick Street remains too abrupt for the surrounding residential context.

Speaker 11: [00:25:36] Town staff also acknowledged there are currently no comparable mixed use, high rise buildings along this portion of Simcoe Avenue. This makes compatibility and precedent concerns especially important. The revised proposal still includes underground parking, despite prior concerns related to groundwater conditions, de-watering and surfacing feasibility. In addition, the holding provision is significant because it confirms that the servicing and other technical matters remain unresolved. In my view, council is being asked to approve the scale and intensity of the development before it has been clearly demonstrated that the site can appropriately support it. Operational concerns also remain regarding parking, garbage collection, loading, snow storage, traffic circulation and overall site functionality on a constrained property. Residents have observed limited reinvestment in the existing plaza over a prolonged period, while redevelopment may be ultimately appropriate. That history contributes to concerns regarding whether a project of this scale and complexity can be responsibly delivered and maintained over the long term. My issue is not with growth itself, but whether this level of density and height is appropriate for the specific site and neighbourhood. In my opinion, it is not. The proposal remains fundamentally incompatible with the surrounding neighbourhood context and exceeds what has been demonstrated to be appropriate for the site under the town’s own planning framework and the broader compatibility and servicing expectations of provincial policy. I respectfully, respectfully ask the Council to refuse the proposed amendments or at minimum, defer the application, um, pending substantial redesign and, uh, full resolution of the outstanding servicing, groundwater compatibility, and operational concerns. Thank you.

Speaker 1: [00:27:21] Thank you. Excuse me, are there any questions to the deputant? I don’t see any. Hands up. And last but not least, Natalie Floyd. Come on up. Just state your name and address for the record. You might want to pull that down. There you go. Good.

Speaker 12: [00:27:44] Good evening, mayor and members of Council. Uh, my name is Natalie Floyd, and I reside at ___ Camrose Drive in Keswick. I’m speaking today on behalf of myself and many residents in the uptown Keswick area that I have spoken with regarding the proposed development at 183 Simcoe Avenue. I understand that Georgina is growing and that intensification will continue. However, this growth must remain compatible with the surrounding low rise neighbourhood infrastructure capacity and the vision set out in the Keswick Secondary Plan. While the proposal has been reduced from 9 to 8 stories and from 80 to 74 apartment units, it still represents a significant increase in scale and density compared to the existing character of Uptown Keswick. Many residents I’ve spoken with continue to question whether this type of housing will actually be affordable for local Georgiana families, seniors and young people. The proposal does not include does include some ground floor commercial space. However, residents and current business operators in the existing plaza have expressed concerns about the long term future of small scale, community oriented businesses in uptown Keswick. We are not opposed to redevelopment or investment in uptown. Many residents support thoughtful revitalisation, as you’ve heard from them. Um. However, a more balanced approach that several residents favour would be to maintain a stronger commercial plaza at grade level, with one story of residential above the commercial, and then combined with a few either semi-detached or detached bungalows on along Frederick Street.

Speaker 12: [00:29:21] Just to keep with the characterisation of that street. This would still provide additional housing, while better preserving the commercial function and the character of the neighbourhood. Important concerns also remain regarding traffic, parking, infrastructure and groundwater conditions. Finally, many residents I spoke with are disappointed that the substantial revised proposal is being recommended for approval tonight, with staff suggesting the changes are minor and do not require another public meeting. Given the scale of the project, we believe additional public consultation is warranted. Uptown Keswick deserves responsible investment, but residents also deserve meaningful input and growth that respects the existing community. I respectfully ask Council to proceed with caution. Consider the near the need for further review and consultation and evaluate whether a more balanced, lower scale option would better serve our community. I would also ask that regardless of the outcome of this application, consideration be given to the ongoing maintenance and safety of the existing property. Several residents and local business operators have raised concerns regarding the condition of the site, including the parking lot, exterior access areas like the steps going up to the building and general upkeep. The grass in the front is not maintained. Exterior access areas and general upkeep are maintaining safe and well kept commercial spaces remains important for both local businesses and the surrounding community during any future transition process. Thank you.

Speaker 1: [00:31:01] Thank you. Are there any questions or comments to the Deputant? Not at this time. Thank you. That’s all I have on my list for speakers. Other than the, um, uh, the deputy, the proponent. Is there any other member of the public? Come on up. I need your name and address for the record, please.

Speaker 13: [00:31:35] Good evening. My name is Joe Branco. Some of you may know me, unfortunately, and some may not. Now, in this deal here, I can’t lose. And I’ll tell you why in a minute. Uh, I’ve been living at ___ Frederick Street since 1983. So I’m the original Hillbilly. I love it when people made fun of Keswick, I love it, I love it, yeah. Why tell me why now? Every other place in the world, including Canada. Jackson’s point. Yeah. They modified, they made it better. Like they didn’t make big buildings. They painted the town. I don’t know if they did, but Keswick, that’s downtown Keswick, that was downtown. Everything was there until cause weakness or that it was allowed to move out of there. It was just okay. Now my thing to build there, this is the same thing as before. You can’t build anything there except what’s limited. Even before this last thing came out 30ft high from the front. Like this. That building there. That’s why it’s been like that for the last 50 years. Since 40 years, because prospectors have kept it to wait for the government. And before you. I tell you anything more, if any of you don’t know, the government of Ontario has no power over you. You are the one who has to vote.

Speaker 1: [00:33:14] If you could keep to the.

Speaker 13: [00:33:15] Oh yeah, I understand. So I, I don’t.

Speaker 1: [00:33:19] Want planning application.

Speaker 13: [00:33:20] I understand I what what I’m saying, I understand I what I’m saying to you is.

Speaker 1: [00:33:26] Being asked and talked about in the report. Please.

Speaker 13: [00:33:28] Yes, I understand, but if people don’t know here, don’t tell your government as Mr. Branco. Okay. But fine. Anyway, okay. What you should do with their is build five homes there like the ones beside it, these 247ft on the other side leave the same height, build something like they have in Jackson’s point. Make something proper for Georgina. Don’t build something from somebody wants from outside Georgina. Now comes the part of what I benefit from it. I want 187 and 189. It’s severed already. I put my money where my mouth is. Okay, now you don’t have to authorise me to sever anything. I can build a home there without paying anything. I can put it right now for apartments. But I guarantee you, if you build anything to destroy that neighbourhood, it’s not a threat. It’s just what the law is. You going to approve? It is because it’s a 140ft deep. I can put four high, one on the ground and four behind in each lot. I already checked it out. And I’m going to come out here. And if we run out of land in Canada, you’re going to have to authorise me to put eight apartments at 1000 square foot. Now, I don’t want to destroy my neighbourhood. I want to leave it like that because I want when I sell that place, somebody comes up here and wants to do what you want to. They want to do across the street, say, no, that wasn’t allowed before. That’s not going to be allowed now. That’s coming from.

Speaker 1: [00:35:07] Mr. Branco, could I ask you to refrain from this type of conversation? This is if you have, Mr. Branco.

Speaker 13: [00:35:14] I got my I’m getting five minutes. So you listen.

Speaker 1: [00:35:18] Mr. Branco. I would ask you to stay to the report at hand and raise any questions or concerns that you have about this report, please.

Speaker 13: [00:35:32] Around awhile, you know, not for my last thing that I’m going to leave, which I find disgusting, I find disgusting, embarrassing. ********

Speaker 1: [00:35:48] Mr. Branco, you people. Is there any other member of the public that wants to ask a question or make a comment about the application? I think probably everybody that’s here has already done so. I’m going to call on staff to go over the report. Mr. Healy, if you want to come forward and give a presentation again, I know we’re not in a formal public meeting, but I know you did prepare a presentation on this report.

Speaker 14: [00:36:51] Thank you and good evening, mayor. Madam mayor, members of council, staff, members of the public. Um, I believe there’s a presentation coming up. There we go. Um, tonight’s item is an application to amend the Keswick Secondary Plan and the zoning bylaw 500 for the property known as 183 Simcoe Avenue. Um, I just have a brief presentation tonight, uh, to provide an update on the application, outline the comments received, and provide staff’s, uh, recommendations regarding the application. To provide some context for this particular site. The subject property is located on the south side of Simcoe Avenue, Keswick, and also has frontage on Frederick Street, uh as well. Uh, neighbouring land uses include commercial uses to the north east and west along Simcoe Avenue, and existing residential uses to the south, east and west along Frederick Street. Just to provide some updates to the proposal. Um this is Council is aware that there was a public meeting held on October 18th, 2023 for the for the proposed development. And since the application has been a number of changes, um, including the reduction of the overall building height from nine stories to eight stories reduction, the total number of apartment dwelling units from 80 to 74, a reduction in the, uh, the units per hectare density of the high high density residential component from 216 units to 200 units per hectare. Uh, there have been modifications to the built form along Frederick Street.

Speaker 14: [00:38:36] As you can see, there’s been a change of from originally proposing a townhouse dwelling units. And that has changed to a semi detached dwelling units. Uh, there has been an addition of a outdoor amenity area on the east side of the, of the site that you can see there is a on the plan, there is a red box. Um, and since that, uh, there also have been some further amendments to include holding provisions for the subject property to prohibit development until servicing another, uh, additional planning applications have been submitted for the, for the proposed development. Official plan amendment has been submitted for the lands and is essentially separated into three components. The first component is to request an increase in building height and density. Uh. For the portion of the lands within the uptown Keswick Urban Centre designation, uh, to eight stories and to a maximum density of 200 units per hectare. Second component is a redesignation of a portion of the subject lands from existing residential designation to Uptown Keswick Urban Centre designation, which is approximately 18m in depth. And the third component is to increase the density permissions within the existing residential designation to a maximum density of 54 units per hectare. There’s also been a revised zoning bylaw amendment application submitted for the lands to rezone the lands from C one General Commercial Zone and R1 low density urban residential zones to a site specific R-3 Medium Density residential Zone and site specific R2 low density residential zones.

Speaker 14: [00:40:28] There’s been a notice of public meeting previously issued for the proposed development in 2023. By way, in accordance with the Planning Act provisions by way of mail, notice and posting on the town’s website. And there’s further been a notice of council meeting issued to all interested parties who have previously registered with the town by email and mail in late April. Um. There have also been several public comments received by, uh, at the council public meeting. There were three public comments that have been received, uh, prior to the preparation of the staff report, both in opposition and in support of the development. Um, I have a number of comments that I can address tonight that have been raised by members of the public tonight and also, uh, that have been raised previously at the public meeting. So there are a number of comments, including, uh, concerns regarding the height and density of the development over intensification of the lands, um, potential impacts on groundwater and hydrogeological concerns, reduced setbacks, shadow and privacy concerns, and snow storage concerns. And I can try to briefly get into that tonight as well. Um firstly about over intensification and poor transition. Um the building is located on Simcoe Avenue and permits uh, greater heights and densities.

Speaker 14: [00:41:51] Uh, and the applicant has addressed transition by reducing floor plates, increasing the minimum required rear yard setbacks for the, uh, proposed mixed use building and does meet the angular plan requirements as, uh, prescribed in the secondary plan. There is a component or comment about reduced setbacks from Simcoe Avenue, as there was a comment, uh, that, uh, the, the building was too close to Simcoe Avenue. Uh, and Simcoe Avenue is the focus of, of intensification within the urban centre designation. Um, and with changes to modern design, their, uh, their buildings are now much closer to the street. Uh, and it’s intended to create additional pedestrian activity with that, uh, change of built form, uh, while even greater setbacks to residential uses to the south. Um, there are obviously comments regarding height and density. Um, that has been largely addressed within the staff report, but I will touch on that more shortly in a future slide. Um, there are also, uh, just questions or comments with respect to snow storage locations and landscaping locations. Um, and there are suitable locations for snow storage and landscaping on the property, but that will be largely addressed through future, uh, site plan applications for the lands. Um, there was a comment with respect to, uh, flooding and water concerns and hydrogeology. Now the town’s development engineering department has reviewed the application, has identified no concerns with the feasibility of the project.

Speaker 14: [00:43:31] But I will note that the application does require further review through the site plan application through appropriate dewatering study that will need to be prepared, and that will need to be addressed with respect to any sort of groundwater flooding concerns through the Future Site Plan application. There are also comments with respect to shadow impact. Um and a shadow impact study was prepared in 2024 for the development, which demonstrates a minimum amount of shadow impacts on abutting properties. I will just also briefly touch on a number of comments that were raised tonight, including comments with respect to, um, uh, additional part or at least, um, uh, basement apartment units, uh, as of right within the changes with respect to additional dwelling units within, um, uh, the semi detached component of the property. Um, I will note that there are additional units that are permitted as of right, but are, are you bylaw which was recently passed by council, does require additional parking for basement apartment units, so that would need to be addressed. Uh, on the site through a change of design or perhaps through a minor variance application to address an additional, uh, unit within the basement, uh, to accommodate that parking. Um, with respect to, uh, comments that were raised about privacy concerns and view from, uh, a budding houses on the north side of Frederick Street.

Speaker 14: [00:45:06] I will note that there have been extensive conversations and discussions with the applicant. The applicant has committed to providing a green screen that was, uh, that is proposed around the parking garage structure to reduce any sort of visual or lighting impacts from, uh, the, uh, the high rise residential use to the north. Um, there have been, uh, also concerns raised tonight about potential noise, uh, issues coming from the proposed residential building. And there has been a noise study that’s been prepared, um, by the applicant, which has identified no, uh, concerns with respect to noise, uh, for the proposed development. And I think there was also a comment I just want to touch on specifically about angular plain. Um, now there are specific ways and functions for how angular plain is measured. I’m happy to go into that further discussion with council as well. But uh, in terms of the, the, the, how angular plain is measured, which is typically measured from, uh, the, the residential road to the south of this property, which would be Frederick Street. Um, the angular plain is, is, is set from that from a point on that street and it measures up 45 degrees from that point. And we have looked at that angular plane from for this proposed development.

Speaker 14: [00:46:35] And it does meet that angular plane, a 45 degree angular plane for the proposed development. And with respect to planning framework, staff have conducted detailed review on the revised proposal and found that the proposed applications are appropriate. The revised development conforms with the Provincial Planning Statement and the York Region Official Plan and the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan. The revised development does conform with the overall intent of the secondary plan. Um with respect to the Keswick Secondary Plan, we note that the lands are within a local strategic growth area, which is intended to be the focus of intensification within Keswick. And given this is a high rise building, and I note the comments that have been coming from the public with respect to concerns about. Considering this, a medium density, a medium rise versus a high rise. It is considered to be a high rise development. So there are policies within the Keswick Secondary plan which addresses compatibility, uh, for high rise development. And staff are confident that the proposal does meet the compatibility provisions that are prescribed within the Keswick Secondary Plan. The redesignation portion of the lands from existing residential to urban centre is also appropriate, as the lands continue to function as a commercial. Have historically functioned as a commercial use for 30 plus years, and the proposed function of the redesignated lands will largely be confined to surface parking, underground parking and outdoor amenity.

Speaker 14: [00:48:17] And then, with respect to the third component of the official plan, the proposed increase in density to the existing residential designation, uh is also appropriate as the increase in density continues to maintain the existing built form of low rise residential development along Frederick Street, and the frontage of of the proposed semi-detached lots are consistent with the existing lot frontages that are proposed or existing along the along Frederick Street currently. And before you tonight. There are standard recommendations for the Committee to consider and that firstly, that the. That the Council receive the report that Council approved the revised applications for official Plan amendments. Zoning bylaw. Amendment. Uh, that Council acknowledges there have been, uh, revisions to the proposed zoning bylaw amendment and that those those changes that have been previously presented from the October 18th, 2023 meeting are considered to be minor in that they do not require an additional public meeting. And that council passed the amending bylaws that are also provided in the addendum at tonight’s meeting. And alternatively, there is an alternative recommendations that in the event there are concerns raised by council or the public that staff report further back to council and provide and that staff provide written notice to um to count or to any interested parties for future public or future council meeting. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you.

Speaker 1: [00:49:55] Great. Thank you very much. Questions and comments from members of Council. Opening up the floor to questions. Comments Councillor Fellini.

Speaker 15: [00:50:09] Thank you, Madam Mayor. And through you. Um great report, lots of detail. And thank you so much for that report. Um, as you had mentioned, I think the next steps are going to be the site plan approval because we’ve gone quite a far ways on this proposal at this point. But next steps, I think it has to go to the site plan approval. And that’s just my comment. So thank you.

Speaker 1: [00:50:31] Okay. Other questions or comments from members of council? You know, I know.

Speaker 5: [00:50:37] Councillor Dale Genge, thank you, Madam Mayor. Through you. Um, I guess to staff, um, can you confirm right now that, uh, basically a six story building would be allowed and they could proceed with that without, uh. Any discussion here?

Speaker 16: [00:50:58] Through you, Madam Mayor Council, again, that is correct. The policy framework for this area, at least for the component within the uptown Keswick area, uh, does provide for mixed use buildings up to six stories in height. Uh, that policy has actually been a long standing policy for this area that goes back 30 years.

Speaker 5: [00:51:18] Thank you. Um, another question. You keep saying the changes are minor. Is that compared to their previous submission, or is that compared to what’s allowed in the Keswick secondary plan?

Speaker 16: [00:51:34] Through you, Madam Mayor. Councillor against the. Yeah. And I’ve noted that that’s been mentioned a couple of times today. And I think that may be a bit of a confusing, uh, point. The reason that staff put those recommendations around minor in places. There are provisions in the Planning Act that suggest that if there are revisions to a proposal that warrant another statutory public meeting, uh, that those can be waived if, uh, if the changes are deemed to be minor. So in this case, staff is, is considering the changes to be minor because ultimately the original proposal was higher and denser. Um, and the changes that have been made have been in response to the comments and concerns have been raised not only from members of council, but staff and the community.

Speaker 1: [00:52:20] Okay. Further questions, Councillor Genge?

Speaker 5: [00:52:21] Yeah. I guess just to comment, I do have a lot of concerns with this, and I appreciate all the public comments that came forward. Um, I understand you want this to be closer to the street, but I feel that even at six stories that would kind of dominate the neighbourhood, um, similar to the other street that’s on. Um oh, what’s that adjacent street there? Is it Simcoe. What’s. Oh. Queensway. Thank you. Sorry. Um, and even I, I had a quick look at Google Maps here and on Frederick. Um, if I looked at sort of the width of the existing um lots for the houses there, we should only be looking at possibly three houses in that lot on Frederick. So I, I can’t support this. I think if the developer wants to go ahead and meet all the requirements of this secondary plan, that has to be allowed, but I don’t see that we should be allowing these exceptions at this location. Thank you.

Speaker 1: [00:53:23] Other questions or comments at this time, councillor Dale?

Speaker 3: [00:53:26] Actually, Madam Mayor. I think councillor regional Councillor Davidson has been having her hand up. So. All right.

Speaker 1: [00:53:32] Regional Councillor Davidson, did you want to ask questions make comment.

Speaker 17: [00:53:36] Thank you. Yeah. Happy to wait my turn. And again apologies. I’m not there in person today. It’s for the protection of everyone in that room because I don’t want anyone there to feel like I’m feeling currently. But here I am. I apologise for the voice as well. Um, couple of things if I could. Through you, Madam Mayor. Um, one of the things that I have a concern about and was mentioned, I think by two of the different um deputants today was with respect to the upkeep of the property. So it is a property that um I think. Page 22. If you or page 24, if you look at the parking lot going into that building, um, there are piles of bits and pieces there. The kerbs are falling over. The parking lot is is broken. Um, I don’t feel a great swell of joy with the idea of approving a larger building. If a smaller building like this is not being kept up, kept. I mean, I understand when they build, everything will be new, but I want to make sure that, um, whatever building is there, um, is up kept to appropriate standards. So I wanted to put that out there. Um, I also have concerns about the existing businesses and if, if they’re going to build on the same, um, footprint, if the businesses that are there, should they wish to continue on in the new building, um, wondering from the proponent whether that would be possible. Um, and then the roadway, I guess I’m wondering through you to staff whether or not the requirement will be to the proponent for upgrading um, Simcoe street with the number of people going through.

Speaker 17: [00:55:15] I mean, uh, somebody had mentioned where the roads designed for this. I think that was Miss Evans, and that’d be a question I’d have to staff. Um, were they designed for this? Is it enough or do we need to ask for sort of additional kerbing and whatnot, running up to that area to make sure that it can handle the, um, sorry, this is this is tough. Again, you don’t want this. Um, so that’s why I’m here. So those were my main concerns. Um, I think miss McCann mentioned the water table and impacts. I know that when we do sometimes some work we’ll do before and after pictures so we can make sure that there’s no negative impacts to the surrounding area. So if this does go forward I’d want to see that happen. Um. And sorry, 123 for the location of the entry to the parking garage. I’m happy to see that that’s now on the front and away from the The residence is on the back side that are more, um. Uh, due to lower density homes. So those are my general comments. It’s mainly upkeep the roadway. I know that they could build six. Um, so to me, six seven isn’t really that much of a difference, but I would really want to make sure that this site is cleaned up in the interim. Um, I don’t expect buildings going to start next year, so I’d love to see that site cleaned up, um, before moving forward with additional buildings. Again, apologies. My brain’s not what it normally is today. Thank you, Mayor Quirk.

Speaker 1: [00:56:59] No, no problem, Mr. Pillow, did you want to answer some of the questions in terms of the, uh, the street and if it needs to be upgraded.

Speaker 16: [00:57:09] Through you, Madam Mayor, regional Councillor Davis, and certainly the first two comments, I think, are best addressed by the proponent in terms of the upkeep and and the impacts to existing businesses and tenants that are within the existing building. Certainly in terms of the comments around upgrades to Simcoe Avenue, that’s not something that’s been identified as a requirement through the review of this application, nor is it something that, quite frankly, we could impose on any one development to undertake that would ultimately have to be a capital project should the town see fit over time for improvements to certain local streets as a result of emerging development or new development as it occurs. So, um, the, the street is um, uh, in its current form does include a, a centre turn lane as well. So it’s not your traditional local street. Uh, it has a different cross section, if you will, than what you would typically see even in a, in a more main street type of environment. So there’s room to play within that existing cross section to look at different ways of making that street better. But that’s not something that’s been considered as a result of this proposal. Specifically, the water table impacts. Again, I think Mr. Healy has addressed that, that there’s, uh, there’s further study that’s required at the detailed design stage through site plan approval. Uh, right now we’re dealing with ultimately, uh, the, the sort of the principle of the development itself through an official plan and zoning bylaw amendment. Uh, the details ultimately come later, which I know is something that most people are more interested in is the details. Um, and that would be through the future site plan approval process. And I believe regional councillor Davison noted that the underground parking garage is at the front. I just want to clarify that it is in the fact that the rear of the proposed apartment building.

Speaker 1: [00:59:01] I think maybe the entrance to it had changed. Is that what you were referring to? Regional Councillor Davison, where they enter it?

Speaker 17: [00:59:08] Yes. Thank you, Mayor Clark. That was the distinction I was looking for. And it was the previous meeting when we spoke to idling cars, waiting for the, um, the lift to come up and down. And the intent was to reduce, um sorry, reduce the noise, um and the potential exhaust from that close residential home and to put it. So my understanding was more on the front. So if the entries at the front, what exactly is at the back then if I could confirm that please.

Speaker 16: [00:59:39] Uh, through you madam Mayor, regional Councillor Davison so there’s the, the main entrance entrance into the development, which is really the top of the parking garage. And ultimately the ramp to the underground is at the rear of the building. And it’s a covered wrap once you start going into the parking garage.

Speaker 17: [00:59:59] Okay, so that was something that I misunderstood. Then from the plan, I would again, it’s similar to I mentioned the last meeting. I really love to see that all at the front, so that any idling happens at the front of the building and, you know, facing commercial as opposed to facing the residential, including the new residential that’s intended to be built at the back. I mean, those are going to be people too. So, um, the, the other question, if I could, through you, Madam Mayor, is, um, with respect to sidewalks and safety initiatives, um, my expectation is, is that the new building will be responsible for the creation of the sidewalk across the front of, um, Simcoe Avenue that continues through, um, and then a little bit on either side. Can I confirm that that’s accurate?

Speaker 16: [01:00:47] Uh, through you, Madam Mayor, Regional Councillor Davidson, there is an existing sidewalk right now, Simcoe Avenue, uh, whether there are any upgrades that are required to that existing sidewalk would be determined through site plan approval.

Speaker 17: [01:01:01] Okay. Thank you for that. Um, I’m still not used to not being part of site plan. So I will trust that our staff, should we get to that point, we’ll do an admirable job of making sure that that sidewalk is excellent for the neighbouring community. Um, and that we’ll look at potential safety initiatives if, if and when this this project is approved. Thank you for that. And then to the proponent, the questions about the existing tenants and, um, cleaning up of the site would be appreciated. Thank you.

Speaker 1: [01:01:28] I’m not sure which of the proponents want to answer that. I assume you’re Corey Chisholm. Come on up.

Speaker 18: [01:01:44] Uh, good evening, members of council. Uh, town staff, members of the public. Uh, my name is Corey Chisholm. I’m a partner and a registered professional planner with MH planning in our Barrie office. Uh, and I’m the planning consultant acting on behalf of the owner for the proposed development. Um, just before I get to the the councillors, uh, questions. I’d like to thank everyone for their time this evening, um, and members of the public for their comments. Um, it was a few years ago that I did the public meeting presentation for this development. Um, I think I see some familiar faces in the crowd going back from that meeting. Um, and we did hear, uh, many of the comments, um, some more comments that evening, which led to the, uh, further discussions with town staff. Um, and, uh, the changes that were addressed through the, uh, the town staff report, um, earlier in the presentation, um, just to the, uh, the councillors, um, specific questions. I’ll start with the, uh, the property upkeep. Um, I can certainly take that back to my, uh, to my client to advise them of that and, uh, that direction from council. Uh, to your point, um, tonight, uh, should council approve the proposed official plan and zoning bylaw amendments. Construction certainly would not or is not permitted to start tomorrow or the day after. Um, there’s still an extensive site plan approval process that needs to be go through.

Speaker 18: [01:03:15] And as staff has mentioned, where many of these technical details, uh, a lot of reports and studies have been done to date. Uh, they’ve been reviewed by town departments and some external peer reviewers. Um, but really there to demonstrate the, the feasibility of the proposed development at a bit of a higher level. Uh, and then when we get to site plan stage, some of these details get hashed out. Um, and a lot more fine grained detail and ultimately, uh, conditions embedded in a site plan agreement, uh, which is a legally enforceable agreement between the applicant, uh, and the town, which gets registered on title. Um, so I’ll let the owner know about that. And then, um, for the municipality to, you know, advance the site plan approval. They certainly expect the the condition of the current building to be to be improved. Um, the second comment I’ve got noted down here from the councillor was about the existing businesses and whether they would be offered the ability to stay. Um again I’ll have to take that back to the owner. But my instinct is the answer to that will be yes. Um there is one member of the 1 or 2 members of the public mentioned that there would be a reduction in commercial from what’s there today.

Speaker 18: [01:04:27] Um and that is accurate from a gross floor area perspective. Um, keeping in mind we’re transitioning from a purely commercial building to a mixed use building. Uh, typically we only see commercial on the ground floor of mixed use buildings and these kind of urban contexts. Um, so it is a reduction in commercial. However, that commercial piece is critical to meet the, the policy framework. Um, and town staff, um, designed the zoning bylaw to ensure that it’s that’s actually required on the ground floor. It’s not just permitted, it’s actually required to be there. Um, but ultimately, the proposed development will have commercial units on the ground floor fronting Simcoe Avenue and will want, uh, whether it’s a tenant or someone actually buying an individual condominium sized commercial unit. Um, and I suspect, uh, they would offer that opportunity to the existing businesses. Um, unfortunately, with the realities of construction, they will be displaced for a period of time when the building, um, ultimately becomes demolished and construction starts. So, um, some businesses might find another home in that intervening period of time. Um, but certainly arrangements could be made where maybe they find a place to lease while construction happens and then they’re able to move back, um, just on the ramp, uh, into the parking garage. Um, I’m not sure if there’ll be an opportunity to bring the, the site plan back up on the screen.

Speaker 18: [01:05:52] Um, but as staff mentioned, it is, uh, to the rear. Um, I don’t believe stacking would permit it to be located right at the front of the street. Um, but it is located centrally to the site towards the back. So it is, uh, as far offset from the adjacent properties as possible. Um, and it would be a ramp, uh, down. So as the, as the cars go down, they are covered and there is a, there would be a garage door. So noise is mitigated as they go into the, the parking garage. Um, and then the last one I have, uh, from the counsellor is just in regards to the sidewalk and um, I can confirm through these redevelopments, it’s, uh, oftentimes this, the portion of sidewalk might need to be reconfigured slightly or improved. It might get damaged through construction and need to be replaced, but that would all be outlined in the site plan agreement. And the municipality generally takes securities to ensure that that happens. So the owner doesn’t get those securities back until those works are completed, checked and signed off by the municipality. Um, so with that, I’ll leave it there. But if there’s other questions from I know there’s a number of councillors that haven’t spoken yet. I’m happy to answer those. Thanks.

Speaker 1: [01:07:03] Thank you, councillor Dale. I think you were next.

Speaker 3: [01:07:08] Thank you, Madam Mayor. And good evening everyone. I actually just wanted to point out how thoughtful the comments were from nearly all the residents. Um, so thank you very much. The proponent. I can get to you first, sir, since you’re since you’re there, um, can you can you tell me what the current square footage or floor square metres of floor space, commercial space that’s there now. And what’s proposed for the new building?

Speaker 18: [01:07:33] Um, I do not have the current, uh, with me this evening. That’s something we would have to, uh, to get and get back to you. Um, but if you give me a moment, I can find the floor area of commercial proposed.

Speaker 3: [01:07:46] Maybe Mr. Bill, you could answer, but I think it’s about 406m². Is that.

Speaker 16: [01:07:52] Through you, Madam Mayor. That sounds great. For 707.

Speaker 3: [01:07:58] So without the numbers, it’s safe to say there’s probably a third of what’s there at best, right? Yeah. Um, so, uh, the other question that I had, um, for you, sir, is, uh, why the shift from townhouses to, to what you’re identifying as semis?

Speaker 18: [01:08:18] Yeah. That’s a, that’s a great question. Um, there were concerns raised at the public meeting, um, around um, compatibility. Um, and appreciating the backside of the property is within that existing neighbourhood, lower density, uh, designation. Um, we felt that um, by breaking it’s the same number of units, so the density has not changed. Um, but by breaking the massing up instead of, you know, if it was eight townhouses, it’s almost one big wall of building. And by breaking that up into semi-detached units, you’re providing that break in the built form. Um, so looking at a semi-detached unit, it appears much more like a single, a single detached unit. Um, you know, there’s two units with spaces in between. Um it also reduced the square footage of those units because we, we lost the what would have been built square footage in between the, the now semis. Um, so the, each semi-detached unit now would be approximately 2200 to 2300ft². Um so it was just, it was a change made thinking it’s more in character with the existing, uh, single detached homes along Frederick Street.

Speaker 3: [01:09:30] Thank you. And just the final question for you, sir. Um, through you again, Madam Mayor. Um, on page 34, you have a rendering of the potential look of the the new building. And just for context, I believe it’s page 23, if I’m not mistaken. Yeah. Has the old building sort of layout. Um, you said that the commercial properties were going to be fronting on Simcoe. I’m just looking at your rendering versus what’s all along Simcoe now. Um, if you’re proposing that, you know, businesses that, you know, have traditionally been there or traditionally habitate those facilities, where would the signage go? Where, where’s the frontage that you’re describing on page 34 in your rendering?

Speaker 18: [01:10:24] Um, I, I don’t have the, the rendering with me here. Um, but the, uh, I believe on the site plan there shows commercial units, um, so they would have front doors fronting onto, uh, Simcoe Street, um, sorry, Simcoe Avenue. Um, and if there again, the renderings conceptual. So, uh, certainly there would need to be commercial signage opportunity incorporated into the the building facade. Um, and that would get detailed more closely at the site plan stage.

Speaker 3: [01:10:54] Okay. Thank you. And, uh, that that’s all for you, sir. And just a few more for staff. Madam mayor, if you don’t mind. Um, through you to Mr. Beaulieu. Um, is there is there a clear and very simple explanation for members of council and members of the public? Um. Why? Um, moving away from the official plan, um from 8 to 6 would be acceptable in this situation. Just the most simple, clear explanation.

Speaker 16: [01:11:30] Uh, through you, Madam Mayor, to councillor Dale. Um, no, there’s not a simple explanation. Certainly. Um, the Planning Act obviously provides for proponents to submit official plan amendment applications and seek something that’s an alternative to what the current policies provide. Uh, that’s a statutory, uh, process that, uh, one must go through. Um, certainly it’s, it’s, uh, it’s council’s prerogative to choose whether or not they support an amendment to the official plan. Uh, ultimately, one of the things that staff are looking at in considering an official plan amendment is obviously upper tier planning policies. So in this case, at a provincial level and a regional level, uh, which, you know, in some cases are really high level and are difficult to sort of translate at the local level. Uh, which is why we lean a lot on our local planning policies, in this case, the Keswick secondary plan and the types of things that we look at are really what’s the vision for that area? What are the guiding principles that have been established for that area? Uh, in this case, And as Miss Doherty mentioned, we have a new Keswick secondary plan. So it’s not an outdated document by any means. Uh, but it does, uh, envision this area along Simcoe Avenue transitioning into a mixed use, higher density, uh, form of urban environment. Uh, and so when we look at things through that context, and then we consider the compatibility policies that Mr. Healy mentioned, uh, that’s how we get to a point of considering the merits of an application in this case that proposes some additional height.

Speaker 16: [01:13:14] And the proposal proposes some additional density versus what, uh, the secondary plan in this case contemplates, uh, sort of as a, as a baseline. So, uh, it’s also understood that not every site is the same. Um, the site characteristics are different. Uh, if you have a look at the lot fabric along Simcoe Avenue, there’s larger sites, there’s deeper sites, there’s smaller sites, there’s shallower sites. And so not every site is going to be able to redevelop in the same way. And certainly there’s an advantage to having a larger property such as this one, because it provides a greater ability and flexibility to put a redevelopment proposal together, uh, while trying to address some of the obvious compatibility and transition concerns. So in, in a, in a situation like this one, uh, because the property benefits from dual frontage on both streets, uh, it provides an opportunity to actually, uh, put in place a built form, a low rise, um, built form along Frederick Street that may not have been possible if there hadn’t been that much land available. So it’s, it’s from that perspective, it helps to soften sort of that transition. Uh, and it introduces a residential built form along Frederick that doesn’t actually exist today, uh, on this site today, of course, it’s the back of a commercial building with an access and a parking lot. And so that wasn’t a short answer, but that’s how we get to at a high level where we are at today.

Speaker 3: [01:14:51] Thank you, Mr. William. And I have no more questions, Madam Mayor, but I do have just a couple of really quick comments. Um, and I do want to recognise that I’m about the furthest away from this development, and I want to be respectful of that. But, uh, I just wanted to leave some comments. The one concern, and it’s not so much with the development, it’s just a statement is that, uh, it’s disappointing if you hear that, um, we’re just filling the minimum requirements in a mixed neighbourhood. Um, you know, we’ve put so much thought and councils before us and put so much thought into what that should look like in the new plan. You guys worked on it for several years. Um, so I would like to see a more thoughtful approach to, uh, to the commercial and a better view. Um, the other comment that I wanted to make was, um, now my, my brain is scattered here as I, as I did that, um, I’m just concerned that, that, um, we’re not answering the questions for residents. I, I, I think that maybe members of the public aren’t aware, but we stood very strong on our development just down the road on the lake and they returned with a nearly 20 story, um, approval from the tribunal.

Speaker 3: [01:16:05] And that’s a very real possibility. And we could all stand here and go, no, no, no, no today and have something really, really more magnificent than what they’re proposing here. So, you know, that’s a very real thing to be understood with respect to a comment made by the gentleman that’s not here anymore. We we aren’t the last stop. Um, that was an incorrect statement. We are definitely not the last stop. While we do the best for our community, there is somewhere to go right after us. And that’s a very real distinct possibility. So, you know, um, I think we have to keep that in mind. Um, I’m obviously, uh, again at the Ward five councillor, way far away from this, but, uh, I would like to see, you know, further conversation about justifying the, the height, but other than that, um, those are my comments, Madam Mayor.

Speaker 1: [01:16:53] Thank you. Further questions or comments? Who wants to go? You going to arm wrestle over it?

Speaker 6: [01:17:02] There you.

Speaker 1: [01:17:02] Go. Rock paper scissors.

Speaker 6: [01:17:06] Thank you very much, Madam Mayor. Um, I guess, um, I’m sitting here trying to look at all my chicken scratch here. I’ve got pages upon pages of notes. And, um, I’ll be honest with you. I think there’s a few things here that really sum it up for me is, um, you know, of course I recall the original, um, the original proposal coming forward and there was concerns with respect to density, height, parking, um shadowing, angular plane. There was a piece there also with respect to commercial. There was a piece with respect to I believe it was drainage actually as well. Um and so I guess in sitting here, you know, I’ve heard quite a bit here about balance and I quite appreciate the comments from the residents and, and others that have spoken about that balance and trying to strike one in. So, um, being open minded again, sitting here, I hear some of the same concerns, which I think are reasonable. I think there’s a piece of it, though, that I think quite rightly was mentioned by, by staff, some of the continued concerns, um, at the very least need to, from a legislative perspective be dealt with through the site plan. And so none of the or some of the concerns can’t be dealt with until you get to that from the technical perspective, until you get to the site plan necessarily. And so but what has been addressed is, is some of the concerns, albeit rightly so. It’s it’s subjective in nature in terms of whether or not that’s sufficient.

Speaker 6: [01:18:29] But I guess where I’m sitting. Um, and was just previously mentioned by councillor Dale and of course, that the individual who’s not here is the fact of the matter is, and I also don’t agree that the comment from the speaker stand. Um, the fact of the matter is the province does have jurisdiction over this council and over this legislation, whether people want to hear it or not. Those are the facts. Period. And so what that means is as a community, when we come together and we communicate our concerns about built forms in our neighbourhoods and try and do the best that we can in terms of, um, you know, making, uh, making a better community, which I think everyone in this room would agree with. And that’s what we’re all after, whether that’s for our children’s or whether that’s for, you know, our family or our loved ones, whatever the case may be, and be involved through, you know, the civic engagement process as a form of responsibility, as we see from the individuals that are here, they obviously feel that that is a calling responsibility. And I, quite frankly, I agree with that and applaud them for doing it. But, um, it’s also fair to say that I think there’s some additional work perhaps to do with some of those concerns. I think that that’s fair. And I think that people deserve some form or fashion of response. Um, you know, and going forward in some of those would be, you know, maybe through the site plan could site planning phase.

Speaker 6: [01:19:46] Um, there’s a difference also between trying to strike a balance, there’s a difference between receiving a response and receiving a response that you want to hear. And that’s also fair. And I think we have to balance those things here as well. And we see that quite often, um, you know, and so at the end of the day, I’ll also make mention going back to balance, it was it was mentioned that and quite rightly so, there was something that, you know, was way less than the 21 stories just down the road that was proposed as council said no to. And guess what got approved by the province of Ontario that apparently doesn’t have jurisdiction over this council. Well, guess what? Now it’s there. And that’s the risk. You run as if this council says no and the developer moves forward and either says a non-decision or otherwise is that the decision could be taken out of, um, this council’s hands and also the, the, the local residents. That’s concerning. I think people need to have a say in the development, their neighbourhoods. And that’s what’s happening here today, uh, to a greater or lesser extent. So what I would not want to happen is, you know, what happened in that case and complete control would be lost. Um, so I think it’s at the end of the day, I look at the concessions that have been made. Yes. It’s, it’s only a story.

Speaker 6: [01:20:55] And I understand that that may not be good enough for some individuals. And that’s a fair comment to make. It’s that’s fine. But what’s also pointed out is um as councillor again, quite rightly had asked the question confirmed by staff as if it was one story less, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. It would be permitted, it’s permitted been permitted for over 30 years. So so what we’re talking about here is at the end of the day is a story. So I guess where I’m going with it, where I’m going with it is. I want to. I want to try and strike that balance. Um, but I’m not sure. Um, I’m not sure necessarily going to get where people want to get to, but um, in terms of the next steps, what I’d like to hear about in terms of the site plan with respect to some environmental concerns, de-watering concerns, the technical studies, the road design, the safety concerns with respect to the road. I mean, we heard a few from the proponent, but could we maybe get some more background, Mr. Beaulieu, through you, in terms of what that specifically looks like and what what information folks can expect to get at reasonable, reasonably black with respect to those studies and or if the studies aren’t sufficient from a safety perspective or from an environmental perspective, or what the next steps would be at that particular point and or feasible, I might add. What would that look like?

Speaker 16: [01:22:16] Uh, through you, Madam Mayor, Councillor Neeson, I may also call Mr. Healey because I’m not, uh, entirely up to speed on where things are at in terms of discussions on the actual submission of a site plan application, because typically those would go through a consultation process as well, where you sort of formalise the types of reports and studies that need to either be updated or submitted first and foremost. But the process itself is is largely an administrative one internally. Um, we would work with the proponent to establish what those minimum requirements are for the submission of materials, plans and drawings, studies and reports. And those reports would get, uh, reassessed in detail, um, through that process. Uh, with a, a more detailed design for the site. And so, uh, that’s where you get into things like the actual servicing, grading. Um, in this case, we’ve, we’ve talked a lot about the groundwater issues and the more detailed studies that come through there if there are issues that come up. And again, like I spoke about before at this layer, we’re sort of looking at the feasibility piece.

Speaker 16: [01:23:29] We do require these studies to be submitted to ensure that there aren’t any showstoppers, but there are still work to do in order to refine what that looks like. So, uh, ultimately the process would require the same sort of review and circulation to external agencies as we have now. Uh, the main difference is it’s not a public process the way that these applications are. So, uh, that is, uh, that is one of the components that has changed in, in recent years based on provincial legislation. Um, site plan processes must be delegated to staff. Uh, they’re no longer in counsel’s hands. Uh, and nor is there sort of a more standardised public meeting process. Certainly we would encourage anybody who’s, uh, actively interested in the status of this application to continue to engage with town staff. But at this point, I’m not sure what the timing would be to actually even get a site plan application. So those are the kinds of details that I think the proponent would have to give us a better understanding of them. Okay.

Speaker 1: [01:24:36] Did you want to, Mr. Chisholm, give some idea? Because that was one of my questions as well, timing wise of next steps.

Speaker 18: [01:24:43] Yeah. So thank you for that question. Um, further to, uh, to staff, um, the owner wants to get through the, the official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment process to ensure the principle of the development is there. Um, we’ve been working on it for, uh, give or take three years now. So, um, they’ve definitely spent a lot of time and money to get to where we are tonight. Um, following that, I do expect we would be submitting a pre-consultation meeting as staff mentioned, um, to get that confirmed list of studies and reports. Um, and also in some of them, there’s some back and forth required to confirm the terms of reference with those. And there’s some external agencies that provide input on that. So it can take a little bit of time to nail that down. Um, but then as far as moving forward with the actual site plan application, um, I can’t say for certain if they would want to do it right away or if they want to kind of, you know, feel the market out a little bit to see when they want to move forward because it is a significant investment to move to that next step and, and do all those more detailed reports. Um, I do know that, uh, there is interest in proceeding with the, uh, the construction of the semi detached dwellings, uh, on the backside, um, in advance of the, the mixed use building. Um, at this time.

Speaker 1: [01:26:03] Further questions councillor.

Speaker 6: [01:26:04] Okay. That’s, that’s good information. So um, I guess the last one and then just a statement. So if something came back in terms of the studies, uh, through you, Madam Mayor, perhaps to Mr. Beaulieu. Um, you know, of a concern and or it was not feasible with respect to either the dewatering that was mentioned or, uh, or any other environmental piece. There was quite a few that were also mentioned. Uh, noise was also mentioned. Um, so any of those studies that occur and are deemed to be make the project unfeasible, whether that be from a financial perspective or from a perspective of staff until an alternative proposal is put together something that would, um, become feasible from an engineering perspective, what would happen, um, at that particular application from, uh, a town perspective or from your staff or an engineering staff perspective, would it then stop and be sent back or what would occur then?

Speaker 16: [01:27:01] Uh, through you, Madam Mayor, to Councillor Neeson. So if there are issues that come up through the site plan process that, um, effectively prevent the current proposal from proceeding, uh, obviously staff wouldn’t be in a position to ultimately approve the site plan application and execute an agreement with the proponent. The likely outcome is that there would be either some changes brought forward to address those various concerns, whatever they may be. Um, and depending on the scope of those changes, we may be back in front of council, um, in sort of that worst case scenario. So if they have to kind of go back to the drawing board, uh, there may be some, um, some, some need to come back to council or they may be able to work with the approval that they already have to build. For example, uh, for the sake of argument, something less than what is being approved here today.

Speaker 6: [01:27:56] Being put forward. Okay. Through you, Madam Mayor. I guess a lot just a statement that I would make, and I appreciate the response is that, um, from my perspective, um, you know, I think it’s reasonable to say, notwithstanding the fact that, you know, the provincial party policy puts us forward is The fact is, it’s a. And yes, I understand it abuts a residential area, but it’s a secondary plan. Urban area. I understand urban means different to different people and at some level can be subjective outside of the terms within our official plan or secondary plan. But um, and the same thing, it’s on transit. Whether or not that transit’s effective is a separate matter that needs to be addressed. I don’t disagree with respect to effectiveness either, quite frankly. Um, but you know, it’s on transit has shopping. It’s in a downtown area. It’s slated for development. Um, you know, and so, you know, from my perspective, Madam Mayor, I don’t think, um, I think we need to address some of the concerns. I don’t think the, uh, the development is necessarily unreasonable. And I also stated I don’t want to lose control of something like this through, um, saying no, sending it back and either making it at risk of a non-decision from a statute perspective and having, uh, having that go forward to the board and or an ultimate appeal and losing control of this and ending up with something much bigger, which I think we’ve seen in, in other neighbourhoods as well, quite a bit. And we’re seeing it in ours now as well. Um, so I guess that’s, uh, those are my $0.02, Madam Mayor.

Speaker 1: [01:29:14] Okay. Councillor Vargas.

Speaker 4: [01:29:16] Through you, Madam Mayor. Um, lots of great questions and, uh, input from the public, of course. Um, yes, there’s there’s concerns. And, uh, it’s nice to see the proponent come back with some adjustments with that. Um, a lot of wisdom. Councillor Neeson on, on balance, what I also thought was a good thing was, you know, that word compatibility, right? But it’s not, it’s not just compatibility with what’s there. It’s also compatibility and what’s the future. So there’s that balance. And I think that that’s sometimes, um, gets sticky. So I think that came to light tonight. And I think that’s an important thing to consider as well. Um, I did have a couple questions for clarity because I heard a lot of concerns about traffic. Um, but when I look, so this is, uh, through you, Madam Mayor, of course, to the proponent, I just want to be sure that I’m looking at it correctly. The mid rise traffic or um vehicles are not accessing through Frederick because it is going to have a wall, a fencing. And Frederick has eight units on it. Correct.

Speaker 18: [01:30:28] That’s correct. The two kind of components of the development are completely separate from one another. Um with the semi detached units having individual driveways off of Frederick and then the mixed use building, only having the vehicular access off of Simcoe Avenue.

Speaker 4: [01:30:45] Okay. Thank you. So on Frederick. So I did see it. Correct. I’m just trying to make sure I’m there’s always, you know, one has to make sure they’re seeing things right. Um, so there’s eight units with two cars per unit and that’s, um, that’s the traffic that’s going to be added to Frederick and Cedar potentially.

Speaker 18: [01:31:06] That’s correct. And the traffic report that was done by our traffic expert did look at the two components kind of separately, because as you point, the traffic is going to two different streets. Um, and with the, the maximum potential would be 16 cars if that’s if one in the garage, one in the driveway on each of those units. Um, they project traffic for the, what they call the AM and PM peak hour. So they’re trying to say, okay, what the worst hour? How many additional cars is generated? Um, in that one hour period. And the forecast for the peak hour was 4 to 5 vehicles on Frederick. Uh, which again is spread out over an hour. So that’s one vehicle every 15 minutes if it would be for, um, 12, if it would be five. Um, and again, those traffic could go east or west. So they would be dispersed, um on Frederick and the two directions as well.

Speaker 4: [01:31:58] Through you, Madam Mayor. Thank you. I just wanted to really feel clear that, um, the whole mid-rise wasn’t. There wasn’t an exit that I missed because that that felt a little overloaded. Yeah. Thank you. I do have a couple more questions. Thank you. Um, through you, Madam Mayor, to, um, Mr. Beaulieu, if it’s okay at a high level, can you explain, um, potentially what the local houses around, um, the development may get? Um I’ve heard things in the past, like the developer would go in kind of check, um for, for cracks and these sorts of things at a high level. Can you explain what, what the potential, um, care is.

Speaker 16: [01:32:45] Uh, through you, madam mayor, councillor Biggerstaff so it’s, it’s pretty common for, uh, an assessment of adjacent properties to be undertaken, uh, prior to, um, larger scale developments. Certainly in this case, uh, we would expect that to be the case here, given the underground parking garage and the sheer magnitude of the construction above grade. So it’s these are the types of reports and studies that get required at the site plan approval stage and get formalised through conditions of site plan approval. And that there’s an assessment, essentially a, you know, a door to door assessment of the existing condition of various properties to ensure that if there is any damage, that’s, uh, that comes as a result of the construction, uh, that there’s a proper process in place, uh, to accommodate compensation.

Speaker 4: [01:33:38] Through you, Madam Mayor. Another question again. Thank you. I think that may be helpful to those in the area. Um. I did want to talk just a little bit about the area itself and some of the growth that’s already happened on the top of Simcoe Street. I think there’s I think this would be to staff and or to anyone else who knows. Um, I think there’s a six storey building there on the top of Simcoe. Yeah. And there’s another one just down the way that we just approved. Is that another 6 or 7 storey? Does anyone remember? Sorry. It’s okay. It’s okay if we don’t.

Speaker 16: [01:34:14] Five.

Speaker 4: [01:34:15] Five. Thank you. All right. All right. So, um. And York Region also just we just approved another building there on the Queensway for further south. But still in that. No, but it’s another five storey. Right? Okay. So I’m just I’m just seeing some of this, this growth happening. So I’m just trying to get my bearings, make sure I see what I’m seeing. Thank you. And, um, I think one last thing here. Uh, through you, Madam Mayor, to, um, Mr. Beaulieu again at a high level, councillor and Councillor Dales already mentioned sort of what lightly what the process looks like if a council were to stop a development of this nature to say no, let’s say tonight, what does that look like? I think it’s important for the public to understand sort of as a step by step. We’ve mentioned it, but I think it would be really good for clarity. Thank you.

Speaker 16: [01:35:18] Through you, Madam Mayor. Councillor Biggerstaff. So ultimately, the the Ontario Land Tribunal is a quasi judicial tribunal that administers land use planning disputes. So in this case, for example, if, uh if there was a decision not to approve this application, the proponent would have the opportunity to appeal Council’s decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal. Uh, in a case like that, then there would be effectively, uh, a setting up of participants and parties to a future hearing of that appeal. And ultimately, each of the parties would be responsible for bringing forward expert evidence. So whether it’s planning evidence, traffic evidence or otherwise, to make an argument for or against why this is this proposal, this this application is good planning or not. And ultimately, it’s for all intents and purposes, the tribunal’s has the ultimate decision.

Speaker 4: [01:36:18] Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor. I appreciate that.

Speaker 1: [01:36:23] Just to go a little further along on that, because the staff recommendation has recommended approval. What would we have to do if we turned this down in terms of getting other staff to put forward our case?

Speaker 16: [01:36:40] Uh, to you, Madam Mayor. Because staff are putting forward a independent professional planning opinion in support of the application. Uh, we would not be able to defend council’s position in the event of a hearing before the tribunal. So ultimately, council and our town solicitor would be in charge of hiring experts to act on behalf of and defend Council’s position before the tribunal.

Speaker 1: [01:37:09] And the reference was made by Councillor Neeson and maybe others to the 20 storey tower that was not approved by this council at that time. Staff report did not support that. That application Council supported Council’s staff’s position. The developer appealed it and ultimately won at the Lpat and got the approval for 20 stories that this council did not approve and that that staff did not recommend. So there is a huge risk. And I know people say, well, you know, you shouldn’t just be scared to take something to to the Lpat Land Tribunal, OMB, whatever you want to call it. But the reality is once it goes there, we do lose control. And they could come back with the previous application and report, which is the nine stories. Or maybe they’d say, hey, maybe we really wanted ten or we really want 11. I’m not putting words in your mouth, Mr. Chisholm, but the reality is, it’s it’s a whole new game. They could put a different application forward and we have no control over that. And I know, um, that there’s, there’s a time and a place to make the good fight.

Speaker 1: [01:38:25] And we tried the good fight with the, the other application and we lost soundly. Um, with this application, when you’re looking at, they could build six stories for the last 30 years. There could be six stories on this property. This is eight stories, not six, not nine as the original. So to defend um, not approving based on that is. And when staff have said we’re working with the developer, we’ve mitigated, we’ve worked with them on on issues to try to bring it into, uh, you know, closer to what residents want to see. Um, the reality is that, uh, not approving this doesn’t mean it stops. We don’t have the ultimate say around this table. We do not. Um, so that’s, that’s the reality of, of that. If we send this back to count to staff for further review, we have to make sure that we’re asking for what are we asking them to review. That then opens up the issue of a non decision. And maybe Mr. Barlow you can explain what that means and what that gives the proponent the ability to do as well.

Speaker 16: [01:39:38] Uh, certainly, Madam Mayor, the Planning Act stipulates that if decisions are not made by council within certain statutory timelines. Uh, in the case. Well, again, these applications are submitted. A few years ago, the rules were different a few years ago, but if, for example, they were submitted today, applications and decisions would need to be made within 120 days of the receipt of a complete application. Otherwise, the proponent is in a position, should they so choose to appeal to the tribunal based on a non-decision.

Speaker 1: [01:40:09] So if I get this straight, if we send it back to staff with a particular purpose in mind, and it has to be particular purpose, it can’t just be, you know, we it’s got to be a reason why we’re sending it back. What else are we looking for? What other information? What other details? If we send it back, that opens up the avenue for a non decision and an appeal to the to the Lpat. If we turn down the recommendations as presented in the first set of recommendations, that certainly sets the stage for an appeal from from the Lpat to the Lpat. The other issue is there’s been a lot of changes from the provincial government over the last number of years, and regional councillor Davidson referenced at once. We used to be in control of site plan. It came before council. We had the ability to review it, to ask for certain concessions, asked for whether it was aesthetics or other screenings or plantings. All of that is no longer around this table. It’s been mandated by the province that site plans are done internally by staff and staff alone, not with council and not with the public. And they’re not appealable. So that’s the reality. We work in. We don’t have that ability to say we want to be involved with the site plan. We cannot do that. That’s not part of, uh, of the the way that the government has worked.

Speaker 1: [01:41:29] We are a creature of the province. They can rewrite the rules at any time, which they’ve done many times over the almost 30 years that I’ve been on, uh, on council. So they set the, the game plan and they set the rules. The issue of, um, of, uh, going back to the lpat is, uh, is a concern for me. Um, I believe that, uh, we want to stay in control. And I had a number of questions, and a lot of them have been asked and answered by other members of council, which is great because it, it shows we all have the same concerns and same issues. Um, one thing that you had mentioned, Mr. Brillo, and we were it was when Councillor Neeson was asking about, uh, the dewatering and that that’s a big concern. I don’t think in the 30 years I’ve been sitting around this table or the other table in there that I’ve ever seen, a development that has a permanent dewatering, and maybe I’m wrong. I, I, I don’t have a really good memory. I have a pretty good one, but I don’t remember ever seeing a permanent dewatering. And in talking with residents that live in that area, there are artesian springs, artesian wells all through the area. Um, sump pumps that run 24 over seven with a backup sump pump that’s that’s there and alarm systems kicked in and generators so that if the hydro goes off for longer, then it’s kind of like out in, in many parts of, of Georgina where if you’re, if your hydro goes off and your sump pumps not running you, you start bucketing, bailing it out.

Speaker 1: [01:43:01] Um, so I’m concerned about that aspect and especially when you’re looking at, uh, a parking garage and cars being somewhat below grade, um, you had mentioned, and I wrote it down. If there’s a showstopper, if there’s something that comes up when they’re actually getting into the nitty gritty because the hydrological assessment, um, a dewatering plant is required in a deeper look into that assessment review will be part of, I assume the, the site plan, but at what point? And I think Councillor Neeson is going on this path, does it become that showstopper. And how does at what point do we say, you really can’t do this? We thought you could. You’ve got the zoning now you’ve got the the OP, but technically it just isn’t going to work. So what happens then? I know you you mentioned it before, but it’s worth going over, I think, again a second time to, to sort of clearly lay out that this is only the beginning. This is not the end. This council meeting in terms of the work on this development. This is the the technical zoning and official plan amendments issues. But what’s the next step if that showstopper happens?

Speaker 16: [01:44:25] Right. And and I know there’s been some mention of the fact that there’s holding symbols, albeit for different reasons that are on the property. So there are already some caveats and preconditions that need to be cleared, uh, before we can ever get to a point where there’s shovels in the ground to begin with. But, uh, in a case with the dewatering, for example, and again, I’m by no means an expert in dewatering. That’s not that’s not my area of expertise. But, um, you know, those, those things are going to be looked at by multiple different agencies, including the conservation authority, uh, ourselves and our peer reviewers, uh, as well as the region. Ultimately, there’s, uh, regional connection points into storm sewer system here as well. So, you know, when, when I mentioned showstopper, if there is a legitimate reason why something cannot be approved, whether it’s from a technical or environmental perspective or otherwise, um, yes, the land use permissions would still exist on the property, but they’re not mutually exclusive to or they’re not exclusive to this specific project. Uh, there could be other alternative designs that are put forward that are still working within that existing framework, uh, of zoning, for example. Um, that can mitigate or address satisfactorily those issues, whether they be dewatering or otherwise. So that’s, that’s, you know, it’s, it’s not often that we see those types of things happen because it doesn’t benefit a proponent to be going this far down the road and having a showstopper at the end. Right. So, you know, they’ve done their due diligence. I assume that they’re satisfied that this is not going to be a showstopper in the end. And, you know, to this point, that’s the response that we’ve received as well from our technical experts, again, without the benefit of the fine details, because we’re only at a conceptual design at this point.

Speaker 1: [01:46:18] It brings to mind, um, former director Harold Winters saying that the easy sites have already been developed, the easy ones are developed, and many people in this room and listening are living in homes that are that were developed in, in those subdivisions that were easier to, to build. This one is complicated. It’s got two frontages. It’s got a it’s on a slope. It’s got groundwater issues. Um, and I know when I talked to Mr. Healy, you’re there. There you are. Um, we did talk about if the full property size was, could be used for in figuring out the density that it would show a much lower um units per hectare, obviously, because you’re adding in all the property where those um detached homes would be still adding in, but just adding in eight detached. So while I know the residents around in the area are concerned about the increased density, um, going from six storeys to eight storeys, it, it’s, it is a difference, obviously two storeys I can add, but the reality is that that could be built without having to go through this type of rezoning and application. And that’s something that is is a reality, staring at all of us in the face. Because again, if you go to the the lpat and they look at it and they say, well, you could build six, he asked for nine. He’s come down to eight. He’s made some other concessions. What’s the issue? And certainly as a council, we do try to find that balance. And I wrote down many most of the speakers. Most said that they, they weren’t, weren’t um, uh, against development, but it should be compatible, not opposed to redevelopment, but more balanced. Um, issue isn’t growth.

Speaker 1: [01:48:16] It’s the, is the site appropriate. Um, so there is a recognition that that, uh, if you want to maintain the greenbelt, if you want to maintain our secondary Site area and not expand our boundaries and not have urban sprawl. Um, the reality is higher densities. That’s just a factor of, of, of it. And certainly as somebody who’s very much in support of maintaining the green belt and not having urban sprawl, it is something that is, um, in my mind a lot and trying to find that balance. And I know neighbourhoods want to try to maintain the character that they bought into, um, maintain the look and the feel of that, that area. We all do. I, where I live, we’re, we’re all members of council live. It’s, it’s something that we, we desire. Um, the reality is, however, um, developers have a right to put forward an application, um, developers have the ability to, um, look at a property differently than you. And I look at it, they look at it as, as a ability to to make development and to add to the housing that we are all saying that that we need. I read many comments on social media. I get many emails from people asking when we’re going to build more apartment buildings, when we’re going to build more affordable housing. I don’t know what type of housing this is. I don’t believe this is affordable. But maybe, Mr. Chairman, you can give us enlighten us on this is a condo development. The detached homes, the semi detached would be freehold or would they would be freehold. But the apartment building itself would be condo, same as the commercial units. Some could be condo as well.

Speaker 18: [01:50:09] That’s correct. So the on the mixed the semi detached are freehold. Traditional freehold fronting on the public street. The mixed use building. Both the residential units and the commercial units would be part of a condominium. So the condo, the commercial units could either be sold to individual businesses or held by the Condominium Corporation and leased to to commercial tenants. But by becoming a unit, there’s always that option to to sell the unit as part of the condo. Um, they at this time are not proposed as, uh, affordable under the definition, uh, from the, from the province and the region. Um, however, just by the nature of the size of the units, um, compared to single detached semi townhouse, um, you could say they’re more affordable or more attainable than your average price point would be in the municipality.

Speaker 1: [01:50:59] I know I asked staff and they gave me some numbers, but I’ll ask you in terms of number of bedrooms, one, two, three bedrooms, that type of thing.

Speaker 18: [01:51:07] Yeah. So right now there’s a it’s again, there’s not detailed floor plans finalised yet that would be done at the site plan. Um but there is envisioned a range of, of kind of bachelor one bedroom and two bedroom units, um, and approximately ranging from about 400ft² up to about 700ft².

Speaker 1: [01:51:25] Okay.

Speaker 18: [01:51:27] That could change at the site plan stage as they get into floor plans, and also what kind of market dynamics, what’s in demand at the time.

Speaker 1: [01:51:37] Mr.. The Mr. Chisholm had mentioned earlier that when we were asking about timing of when things would happen, that they would want to see about building the semi-detached first, what do they need to overcome in terms of holding zones and servicing, um, to get those homes built? And I’m wondering if you’re able to give some idea in terms of timing of, of that potential development from staff point of view and from, uh, from the proponent point of view.

Speaker 12: [01:52:09] Yeah.

Speaker 16: [01:52:10] Uh, through you, Madam Mayor, there’s, there’s certain conditions that are required through the holding zone associated with the proposed lots on Frederick. Um, the first one being that this site itself is actually comprised of a number of older lots on a plan of subdivision, so the site needs to be consolidated under one ownership to sort of get rid of those property lines that exist today. So that’s one component that’s been highlighted. Another component is, um, you know, ultimately municipal servicing allocation, um, which would likely be again, depending on the, the timing. We don’t know at this point, uh, when we might see a site plan application, these things might be happening concurrently. They might be happening separately. Um, but we’ll have to come back to council to actually assign servicing allocation from the appropriate category, um, at the right time. And then there’s the, the, the creation of the lots themselves, right? So depending on how, uh, they propose to create these lots, um, likely it’ll be through consent if we’re deeming these lands. But again, I don’t know exactly where those property boundaries sit today. Um, so that’s the basics of what they would have to clear. Um, but what I will say is, is we’re going to want to have a pretty good understanding that, uh, by hiving out those semi detached lots. Now, uh, we’re not creating a problem with the actual construction of the, of the apartment building as well.

Speaker 1: [01:53:46] That was sort of my next question was concern about building something. And then it could be years potentially before the, the apartment building is built. And how does that work into, um, you know, a site plan and construction. So do we and Mr. Healy, do you have or Mr. Chisholm, can you enlighten Council and the residents in terms of are we in the midst of a site plan application? Has that been submitted? Um, where are we with that or are you waiting for this before you move forward?

Speaker 18: [01:54:19] Yeah. So I can, I can take that. And I think I mentioned a bit earlier the. We have not submitted a Pre-consultation application for the site plan. Um, the owner would like to get through the official plan and zoning stage before moving on to that next step. Um, but I anticipate if we are successful with these applications, we would move forward with the pre-consultation process. Um, just to confirm all the reports and studies and terms of reference and from there that helps them inform, you know, create a budget and move forward preparation and start that process. So it’s not active right now, but I anticipate we would, we would start following, uh, successful approval of the official plan and zoning.

Speaker 1: [01:55:01] Okay. Are there further questions or comments from members of council? Councillor Dale?

Speaker 3: [01:55:07] Thank you, Madam Mayor, and I’ll be brief. It’s just based on our conversations. And certainly Councillor Neeson’s comments, I think, are a reminder that when you just blanketly say no without any of the thoughtful process that can. It can create further trouble for the municipality as residents or further costs. So I appreciate his, um, in-depth explanation. I think, uh, it was good for the public, maybe some members of council, but, um, I, I heard, I heard about valuation from Mr. Chisholm and, and speaking about hoping to do just as, as you said, Madam Mayor, um, at the end of and that, that was on my mind. Um so through you to Mr. Beaulieu and I’ll try and be brief here. Um are they to be severed? Lots of record for these semis prior to all the construction. How does that work. Um, in that respect, because it sounds like they’re looking to value do the construction to support financing potentially. Right. So how would that work?

Speaker 16: [01:56:09] Uh, through you, Madam Mayor, councillor Dale, again, we haven’t had those discussions in detail yet about how that would actually work. Um, and, you know, I suspect that that will happen as early as the pre-consultation process to get a better understanding of the mechanics of that and the sequencing of the actual creation of those lots and potential construction on Frederick, while things are still progressing with detailed design for the lot, for the for the apartment building. So again, we’re not at that point where we have those answers yet, but it’s not. Um, the approvals don’t preclude that from happening. Let me put it that way. There’s nothing in here that would say that you have to build it all at once.

Speaker 3: [01:56:52] Right. And I think maybe I’m just asking, you know, it seems like almost two developments in one. Right. And and two, two facings, as Mayor Clarke had mentioned. So, you know, if that’s the case and and one, presumably the large building would take longer give that opportunity not only for the public, but for staff and members of council. And, and I want to remind again, I know we’re we’re we’re beating a dead horse, for lack of a better term. We don’t want to take it out of the hands of our staff and, and our engineers to be able to, to work through this as well. Right. So, um, I’m just trying to go around this as many times as I can to, to, to understand because there’s a good part of me that says, um, send it back to staff to, to make sure it’s heard, but all of the things that, that I heard tonight are, are valid from, with respect to the residents, but aren’t dealt with at the OPA, they’re dealt with at site plan. So I’m struggling to see that benefit and putting the municipal taxpayer financially and potentially physically at risk. Right. So, um, I’m just trying to do the best I can with it and, and honour, obviously Councillor Fellini and yourself, Mayor Clarke, but um, yeah, I just, uh, it’s one of those, one of those moments. So thank you.

Speaker 1: [01:58:12] Councillor Genge.

Speaker 5: [01:58:14] Yeah. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Through you. Um, I just want to express how angry this whole process makes me. We’ve heard from the residents. They’ve all got a concern about, um, the density, the height. And I share that. I think even six storeys is a lot for that area, but that that’s what’s allowed. And I don’t feel that eight storeys is appropriate or the eight semi-detached houses is appropriate for that street. But the point has been raised that, yeah, it, it really is out of our hands. Um it’s really out of council’s hands. Staff have come forward with a report that says, yeah, this is fine, and that takes it further out of our hands. Um, there is the danger that um the OLT can come back and just say whatever and that that makes me angry, very angry that we don’t have control over our own town. And I can understand the frustration of the residents that they feel like they’re not heard. And I do hear you and I agree with you. And I also agree that that yeah, if we turn this, this application down or this this official plan amendment down, it’ll be taken out of our hands. So probably the right thing to do is to approve it. I think I’m still going to vote no, just as a protest. So that we do recognise that, uh, I hate this process. And that’s why I’m going to vote no. But I do appreciate the rest of council is going to have to go ahead with this. So thank you.

Speaker 1: [02:00:04] So you’re depending on the rest of us to to carry the weight. In other words, I’m I’m just making a comment. Um members of council, um, it’s something that sure. If we could all say just know it’d be really easy to do that at times. But the reality is if we all say I’m angry and I’m going to vote no, then it’s going to the LPAT and it’s out of our hands and it’s out of your hands, and it’s out of staff’s hands. And it could come back with something a lot more than what any of us are contemplating at at this time. So while I understand what you’re saying, councillor, again, that makes me angry that, uh, um, that you’re letting the rest of us potentially carry that burden of saying, yeah, you know what, we’re holding our noses and we’re, we’re, we’re supporting it because if we don’t, it, it will be going. And if we send it back to staff, it’ll be going to the Lpat. So that, that makes me angry as well because, uh, sometimes the hardest decisions to make are. Are the. The toughest decisions are around this table at times, and sometimes it’s saying no, and sometimes it’s saying yes. And in this case, the harder decision is to say yes. So Councillor Biggerstaff, and I’m going to pull this back to getting a motion on the floor.

Speaker 4: [02:01:29] Through you, Madam Mayor. Um, I just want to take a quick step back. I would like a little bit of context. I think we all talked about the situation, um, where staff came forward with a development and said no. And this council said no, and the application was 20 stories. It went down to Lpat and it got a yes. So we’ve we’ve put that on the table, especially for the public. The one thing we didn’t mention and may I through you, Madam Mayor, our staff. What was the height allowability for that building?

Speaker 16: [02:02:15] Uh, through you, Madam Mayor. Councillor Biggerstaff, the policy framework is actually very similar because it’s another urban centre. In that case, the urban centre. So, uh, same policy framework. Six storey buildings are permitted. Uh, that one, uh, understandably had a long history, uh, of various approvals for, uh, different types of development, uh, that included in that case, a seven story hotel and a six story apartment building. So that’s the historical side of things that played a part in, um, you know, the, the applicant’s approach, um, in, in revising their development proposal, but same policy framework because we’re dealing with now different context.

Speaker 4: [02:03:03] Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor. Again, no ill will to that other applicant. None of us have meant any of it. It’s context for the public. I think that that is what we’re trying to do. And I realised in our conversation the clarity for the public especially was wasn’t there, that it’s the same six stories as a maximum. And we can say no, but we know what it means. And that’s just not, um, it’s not good leadership in my opinion, if you don’t understand that.

Speaker 1: [02:03:44] Okay. Members of council.

Speaker 3: [02:03:45] Mayor Clark. I apologise for interrupting. Naomi. Um, before a few of us. Oh, sorry. Sorry.

Speaker 1: [02:03:51] Regional councillor Davison. Question. Comment.

Speaker 17: [02:03:55] Yeah. Thank you, Mayor Clark. Um, I appreciate you letting me speak. I know you’re trying to wrap this up. I just wanted to clarify. You know, I had a lot of questions at the beginning. Um, and I think one of the things that I said near the end was that we’re going to have to trust our staff to carry this forward. Um, and I do, um, and I think what’s important from our perspective and what a lot of people have said is that this is going to go through whether we want it to or not. Um, so we have the choice of letting our staff, trusting our staff to go through and process this application, or we have the ability to have it overturned at the Lpat. Um, and not have our staff involved, um, who know the area. And, um, I mean, I understand the frustration of the people that live close by and, and I’ve had people suggest to me, well, just do commercial plus one floor on top. That’s not an option on the table. We absolutely do not have that option on the table. Um, so as much as I can understand, having lived in a single detached home in a subdivision, um, what I would want behind my single detached home in a subdivision. But the reality is, is this one is a different kind of scenario. It’s across from commercial. It’s in a downtown area. And what we’re really looking at is 6 or 7 stories. Um, and at the lpat potentially more so. And again, you and Margaret, sorry, Mayor Clark, um, and many other members of council at the table.

Speaker 17: [02:05:27] This is not the first time we’ve had something like this come across in front of us, knowing full well that we will have more impact at site plan approval, whether it was us doing site plan or whether it was our staff doing site plan. Then if we let it go, um, and there’s always that political decision to say no and let the, the lpat take it and take it out of our hands. But the reality is, is it’s not, it’s not. Um, I mean, it might be politically easier, but it doesn’t really help. So, um, yeah, apologies to the people for that. Live in the area for the, uh, the situation that we are, the reality that we are in. Um, but I do trust our professional staff to take the comments that were made today and put those into action should this go forward. Um, again, I will have to support this application because of the alternative, which is, which is worse. So it’s one of those ones where it’s like, do I like it? Not 100%. Um, but I don’t like the other side even more. So I will support this going forward. Um, thank you, Mayor Quirke for, for your work on this meeting. It’s not been an easy one. And, uh, I appreciate the comments of our staff, uh, the proponent, all of the members of the public, um, and the other members of council. Thank you so much.

Speaker 1: [02:06:53] Thank you. Okay. Members of council, we do have Excuse me. We do have a set of recommendations. We have the first set of recommendations that Council received, the report prepared by Development Planning Services. Um, respecting the revised Official Plan amendment and Zoning Bylaw amendment applications submitted by M H planning, Urban Design and Landscape Architect Care of Corey Chisholm on behalf of 1439468 Ontario, Inc. for the property legally described as lots 29 to 32 and 42 to 45. Plan 317 North Willoughby and municipally address is 813 Simcoe Avenue, Keswick two. That council approved the revised applications for the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning Bylaw amendment, as described in report number DS2026, 0015 and three. That council acknowledges there have been revisions to the proposed zoning Bylaw amendment since the October 18th, 2023 public meeting and that in accordance with section 34. 17. Of the Planning Act as determined these revisions to be minor and not requiring an additional public meeting and for that Council passed the amending bylaws at the May 13th, 2026 Council meeting or, alternatively, that in the event concerns are raised by Council or the public that require further investigation, staff recommend the following the staff report. Further to Council, following the assessment of all public council or public comments received at the Council meeting and be the staff provide written notice of the next Council meeting, a minimum of two weeks in advance of said date of said meeting to the following. Any person or public body that has requested to be notified of any future public meeting and two any person or public body that has requested to be notified of Council’s decision regarding the approval or refusal of the subject, property or the subject. I think I’m missing a subject. Applications. There it is. So I need a recommendation for a set of motion for a set of recommendations. Councillor Fellini.

Speaker 15: [02:08:54] Thank you, Madam Mayor. Madam mayor, to you I would like to support this application.

Speaker 1: [02:08:58] So you want recommendations one, two, three and four, correct? Do I have a seconder for that? Seconded by Councillor Neeson. Questions or comments, councillor Dale?

Speaker 3: [02:09:09] Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just a brief comment to the proponent. Madam mayor, you heard tonight, sir, that how thoughtful and respectful and intelligent our residents were and our our business owners. While it’s not statutory or legally obligated, I hope that you become a partner to these folks as you work through the process and really hear them, because I believe that they came here with good intentions. So thank you.

Speaker 1: [02:09:31] Good comments, councillor Dale. Because um, yeah, you’ve you’ve heard their concerns. This is where they live. This is where their business is. This is something that for many of them has been their home for a number of years. This is change. This is a big change for that area. And certainly, um um we respect that. We’re trying to find that balance. Um, I’ll just make a comment. I think as regional Councillor Davison just said, am I entirely happy with this application? No I’m not. Um, I have concerns, but I also, as regional Councillor Davison mentioned, trust our staff to follow through with ensuring that, uh, things are done appropriately and just know that we’ll all be watching to make sure that it is done appropriately and that if there are if there is a showstopper that happens, then we may be back here or, or at a later date. Another term of council back here, um, discussing, uh, other issues and other applications. The zoning and stuff would be on there, but there could be a different plan that would come forward. So any further questions or comments? We have it duly moved and seconded. All those in favour? Opposed that carries.

Speaker 2: [02:10:46] Madam Mayor. Sorry, madam mayor, we need a motion to receive.

Speaker 1: [02:10:50] Oh, yeah. Motion to. Oh, sorry. Motion to receive all the speakers. Yes. Sorry, I didn’t do that earlier. Uh, move by Councillor Biggerstaff. Seconded by Councillor Neeson. Sorry. Councillor Fellini, all those in favour? Oppose. And that’s carried. And I know residents are here. You may not be happy with all of us or some of us sitting around the table here, I get that. Um, but the reality is we have to ensure that there is a balance. Um, look at this. And to look at weighing out, turning it down and letting the lpat make that decisions and have nine, ten, 12 storeys potentially without our involvement is not something that any of us around the table really want to see. Um, those of us that supported this are not saying that we’re entirely happy with this application, but we accept the reality of the planning world that we live in and the rules of engagement that we don’t set, that somebody else sets for us. And I hope you recognise that. And certainly we do want to work with you on that. And I would think I just want to go back to something that Miss Doherty said earlier. Um, the concern of, um the, uh, the traffic safety. And I think you had asked if there can be some, um, commitment to some safety initiatives. And I think we should be able to, to try to work with our own situation as it exists today in that area to try to, to mitigate and as this development proceeds. Any other, uh, traffic needs, safety needs, um, be put into place to ensure that the community remains a safe community that kids can remain because there are no sidewalks, there are some deep ditches.

Speaker 1: [02:12:41] Um, I think we need to make sure that I know we need to make sure that safety is paramount. So if we can put that as a note to to staff for direction to, to look at either things we can do now or things in the future as this development moves forward. So thank you. In the tree compensation, Councillor Neeson. Yeah. The tree compensation if we can make sure that that is adequately provided for in that area. So okay, that um we’re going to move on to the rest of our meeting. And I, again, I thank all of you for coming. And I know some of you aren’t really happy with all of us around the table. I, I can read faces, I can read expressions. Um, but, uh, it, it is a reality of the world that, uh, that we live in and we will, our staff will work with the proponent to ensure that, uh, as the development moves forward, that it is done in the correct and proper way. Okay. I’m sorry, but, you know, we can’t. I’ll let Mr. Crosbie talk with you. Okay members of Council disposition proclamations. There aren’t any. We don’t have any motions or notices of motions. Oh, yeah. Did you want to give in your your. She wanted to provide her speaking notes. That’s great. Motions of notices, of motions. We don’t have any regional business. We don’t have a meeting tomorrow. So you’re you’re off the hook. So you’re you’ll be able to sleep in tomorrow and try to get feeling better.

Speaker 1: [02:14:09] Um, other business. I don’t believe there is any other business. We do have the bylaws. We have the first bylaw on our agenda, and then we have bylaws two and three. So the first bylaw will separate them out because I’m sure Councillor Genge probably won’t want to support the bylaws. So the first bylaw bylaw to amend bylaw number 500 part one. This is the judges plan. 60249 Rural Lakeway. Do I have a mover and a second for that one? Moved by Councillor Neeson, seconded by councillor Dale. All those in favour? Opposed? That’s carried. The other two bylaws are for the meeting tonight and I’ll put them together. So the bylaws are to adopt the amendment to number 156 to the Town of Georgina. Official plan, lot 29 to 32, 42 to 45. Plan 317183 Simcoe Avenue. And then the bylaw to amend the zoning bylaw number 500 lots. Excuse me. Lots 32 to 40 2 to 45. Plan 317183 Simcoe Avenue. Do you have a mover and a second for those bylaws moved by Councillor Fellini, seconded by Councillor Biggerstaff. All those in favour? Opposed. That’s carried. We don’t have a closed session. I need a confirming bylaw. Moved by Councillor Nelson, seconded by councillor Dale. All those in favour? Opposed? That’s carried. And a motion to adjourn. Moved by Councillor Biggerstaff, seconded by councillor Dale. All those in favour? Opposed? That’s carried. Thank you very much for the meeting and let’s all go home and get a good night’s rest, because my voice is croaky.

/*——–Town is rescheduling discussion on this so we have to wait to speak to Council. If you want updates email planning@georgina.ca with the Report No. DS-2025-0063 or mention 183 Simcoe Ave ——–*/

Speak out against an 8-storey + 4-townhouse plan at 183 Simcoe Ave, Keswick.
Attend in person or online – request to speak through the Town Clerk.

Download the Request to Speak form at:
https://www.georgina.ca/sites/default/files/2024-07/speaker-request-form.pdf

Town Files: 02.204 and 03.1176. Direct inquiries to Jeff Healey, Supervisor of Development Planning at (905) 476-4301 ext. 2244 or jhealey@georgina.ca.

Please reference the file number(s) in all communications.

 

Email us with any concerns social@savetheland.ca

 

Read more about this proposal here.

Upcoming Council Meeting Agenda:

Revised Applications for Official Plan Amendment and Zoning Bylaw Amendment

1439468 Ontario Inc., Lots 29 to 32 and 42 to 45, Plan 317, File No. 02.204, 03.1176