Committee of the Whole – May 12, 2026

00:00:22
gradual fade with light of Jesus. Red light glow. chairing the committee of the whole

00:15:07
meeting today, which is a continuation of the meeting that began at 9:30 a.m. yesterday, Monday, May 11th. I’ll now read a safety notice for those present in council chambers. In the event of an emergency, please evacuate the council chambers by the nearest exit staircase, which is located through the doorway marked with the exit symbol.

00:15:24
Once you have evacuated the building, please gather in Veteran Square outside of city hall. All City of Burlington committee and council meetings are live webcasted and archived on the city’s website. Today’s meeting is being captioned digitally through our agenda management software, reminding everyone to slow down and speak clearly so your words can be captured by the software.

00:15:44
I would also ask everyone attending virtually to please use appropriate microphones. We do have rules of engagement in committee meetings. We ask everyone to please be respectful while others are speaking and listen as you would want to be listened to. Reminder to committee members to limit your questions to two at a time only for the purpose of obtaining facts relevant to the matter.

00:16:06
We’re not making decisions at this meeting only recommendations to go to city council for final consideration on May 26, 2026. Delegates are welcome to register to speak at the council meeting. I would like to introduce members of committee. Councelor Calvin Galbrath, councelor Lisa Karns, councelor Shauna Stolti sends regrets, councelor Paul Charman, councelor Angela Bentovenia, and mayor Maryanne Midwart will will be joining us later on.

00:16:35
We are also joined by Chief Administrative Officer Kurt Benson and committee clerk Joanne Rudy and other staff in attendance will be introduced as needed. The schedule for today’s meeting involves a short break midm morning and lunch from 12 to 1 if required. Well, lunch is always required but maybe not for this meeting. The purpose of the statutory public meeting today is to present this report in a public forum as required by the planning act.

00:17:01
During the course of the statutory public meeting today a ticker tape with delegation registration information. We’ll be scrolling along the bottom of the webcast which provides details on how to submit a delegation request. If there are requests during the course of the meeting, new delegates will be communicated to the committee clerk who will advise the chair.

00:17:19
After all registered delegations are complete, I will then make a last call for delegations and indicate the deadline time. A recess will be called to ensure that all requests made in advance of the deadline can be provided with all applicable access codes and instructions. When all requests have been dealt with to the satisfaction of the chair and the committee clerk, we will reconvene and the remainder of the delegates will be heard by committee.

00:17:44
It is important to note that only the minister, the applicant, specified person and public bodies as defined in the planning act and registered owners of lands to which the bylaw will apply and who made submissions at the public meeting or who have made written submissions to the city before the bylaw is passed will be able to appeal the decision of the city of Burlington to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

00:18:06
So, uh, we have one, uh, substantive item today, uh, 13.1 zoning bylaw amendment for 1022, 1028, and 10:30 Waterdown Road, DGM 3626. Uh, councelor Galbreth declared an interest for this item and will refrain from discussion and voting. Before we proceed to delegations, I will pass it over to Bill Wallace, supervisor of development review, to provide a presentation.

00:18:52
Thank you very much, Chair. Uh, good morning, mayor, counselors, staff, and members of the public. Uh, as noted, I’m Bill Wallace, supervisor of the development review team from the community planning department. I’m here to present the statutory public meeting and recommendation report DGM36-26 for 1022, 1028, and 10:30 Waterown Road, which is a city initiated bylaw zoning amendment.

00:19:19
Next slide, please. The subject property is located northwest of the intersection of Waterdown Road and Plains Road. The surrounding uses to the property include residential buildings, the fire station immediately to the north, industrial and commercial uses and highway 403 further to the north.

00:19:39
The property is within the aldershot go major transit station area and the Emory Commons precinct. The vision for the Emory Commons precinct is provided in the council adopted and MMA or Ministry of uh Municipal Affairs and Housing approved official plan amendment number two. As outlined in official plan amendment number two, the Emory Commons precinct introduces mixed use development permissions in a built form that will serve as transitional area between tall and mid-rise precincts in the MTSA. Next slide, please.

00:20:19
The city provided an initial circulation about the intent to reszone the property to align with the Emory Commons precinct on March 4th, 2026 to technical reviewers via email and the and mailed public meeting circulation went out on March 9th of 2026. The notice for the public openhouse was circulated March 17th, 2026 and the open house was hosted at Lasal Pavilion on March 31st, 2026.

00:20:44
Today, March 12th, is the statutory public meeting and recommendation report for the proposed amendments. Next slide, please. The report recommends the designation of the subject property to be changed from mixeduse corridor employment to mixeduse corridor general with sight specific exceptions to permit a mixeduse development and serve as a transitional area between tall and mid-rise precincts that aligns with the vision for the Emory Commons precinct.

00:21:13
Next slide, please. Staff are recommending to council to approve and enact a zoning bylaw amendment in accordance with appendix C of the report for development and growth management report DGM 3626 and deem that zoning bylaw 2020.518 conforms with the 2020 official plan and the city of Burlington of the city of Burlington, the 1997 official plan of the city of Burlington and the 1995 Burlington regional official plan as applicable.

00:21:46
That concludes my presentation. Thank you. >> Thank you very much, Bill. Uh we will now request delegations to provide comments to committee. As a reminder, during the course of this statutory public meeting, a ticker tape with delegation registration information. We’ll be scrolling along the bottom of the webcast, which provides details on how to submit a request.

00:22:07
So, we have four pre-registered delegates this morning. And first, we have Steven Barrow. Stephen, you’re uh welcome to uh join us uh up at the podium when you’re ready. Stephen Barrow from Community Development Halton. And you have 10 minutes once you get started. >> Um good morning, um Madame Mayor and honorable members of council.

00:22:28
Um thank you for having us this morning. Um, the last time I was here, um, I had a PowerPoint, but this time I thought I might speak a little bit more from the heart and just, um, a little bit more, um, I guess, uh, informally. Um, but I’ll share really briefly like who we are. So, we’re community development Halton.

00:22:48
Um, we have two pillars. The we’re the social planning council uh, for the region of Halton. Um, and we are, um, the volunteer center as well. And so we really focus on civic engagement um addressing community challenges. Um housing, homelessness, food security being major pieces of that. Um and we convene community to try to um understand you know what gifts do people bring.

00:23:11
Um we really start from um a a giftsoriented approach rather than looking at what’s wrong or what’s missing. Um and you know in this work um we’ve we’ve met many community partners. So, I’m joined today by um some friends from um from my my team at CDH and our our peer researcher team. Um where uh you know, we we do a lot of work connecting with folks experiencing homelessness across the region.

00:23:35
Um and we hear from them. We hear their stories. We hear uh what they’d like to see happen and what they need to get there. Um and you know, along the way, we’ve connected with some awesome some wonderful citizen organizations. So, Partnering Alershot, our friends uh from Partnering Alershot and and um the housing faith advocates from across Burlington.

00:23:54
Um and you know, together we’re really advocating for um the need for affordable housing um and supported housing across our region. Um, so as many of us are probably familiar, the cost of an average one-bedroom apartment um in Burlington specifically um although this is reflected across Halton uh is um over 1,700 a month.

00:24:21
So this is far over um the amount that folks living on fixed incomes would get. So whether it’s Ontario Works, uh, ODSP, um, or pensions, um, you know, homelessness is really and housing procarity is really impacting some of the folks that are the most marginalized in our communities already.

00:24:40
Um and um by by allowing for um more diversified zoning and specifically for um wonderful housing providers like Indwell to uh be welcomed into our community would go a long way in ensuring the right to housing for all. When we go out into the community, we do outreach to encampments, um to shelters, to neighborhood centers. Um and we hear from people.

00:25:12
We hear about, you know, what what um you know, if they’re if they’re unhoused, what led to that? um what um but but almost more importantly, you know, what is the story of what stories do they want to tell about their lives and and what they you know what their goals are and their desires and um and so much of of you know the work of getting people housed is building relationships.

00:25:33
And so um a lot of our work has been really focused on that relationship building. And in those relationships, um, you know, people have shared a lot about what it takes to get them from, um, being outside to being, um, housed and finding stability. And, um, so much of that is boils down to trust and having, uh, choice and agency in the process.

00:25:53
Um, one of the major hurdles for, uh, so many of us in this work, um, has been the lack of affordable housing and and vacant units. Um, and so it can be very difficult for people to have that choice and agency. Um and one of the things that uh we see as an opportunity uh for um affordable and supported housing in Burlington um would be to add to those choices for people to be able to stay in their home community when they get housed.

00:26:22
Um a lot of the folks that um would be supported by projects like Indwell um are already here. They’re already our neighbors. Um and but they’re they’re living rough. And so, um, providing choices like this enable people to stay in their home communities, uh, to stay where their relationships of trust are, uh, where the services and supports they rely on might be.

00:26:46
Um, and Burlington is is a a wonderful community with, um, a lot of, um, community support and wraparounds. And so, how can we take it one step further um to ensure that everybody belongs um if they’re uh have a chance to access supported housing um or affordable housing more broadly. Um the last thing I’ll share is a lot of folks have taught me that homelessness isn’t one experience.

00:27:13
Um each of our needs as people, as human beings in general, uh can be diverse and complex. The question before us is how are we going to show up in this moment? Are we going to make room for our neighbors? Um or are we going to put up barriers to people being able to belong in our communities? Um today with the help of our dedicated um friends in the community um and the ongoing support um of those involved in our work uh we can move a major step closer to building belonging for all in the Alershot neighborhood. Thank you. >> Thank you very much for your delegation. I’m not seeing any uh questions on the board. So thank you once again. Appreciate it. >> Thank you very much. I would like to invite Jennifer Monty from Society of St. Vincent Dep Paul

00:28:10
Halton Particular Council joining us in person to speak and uh thank you for being here and you have 10 minutes. >> Good morning madame mayor honorable counselors uh as I was introduced my name is Jennifer Monty. I’m president of the Halton Council of the Society of St. Vincent Nepal. I live in the neighborhood of Glenn Abbey in Oakville which actually has one of the highest concentrations of subsidized housing in Halton.

00:28:36
But I’ll speak about Burlington and the Burlington experience. I along with the 125 St. Vincent Nepal volunteers here in Burlington understand the importance of stable housing for our neighbors who are vulnerable. We visit with those who call us, anyone in need, in their homes, at our churches and food pantries, on the street.

00:28:56
We build relationships. We provide grocery assistance, whatever else might be needed. And we help navigate the supports available in our community. In 2025 alone, we helped over 1,372 people, 882 adults, and 490 children. Our food pantry at St. Raphael Parish, which is in the south end of Burlington, was accessed over 1,000 times.

00:29:22
We dispersed almost $400,000 of assistance throughout Burlington alone. I’m here today to advocate for the Indwell housing project because I believe in the right of each person to safe, affordable housing. To have a housing community designed around the Indwell model of support is the ideal solution. Too often we’ve incensions step into a situation of crisis especially with our neighbors who are most vulnerable.

00:29:53
Often it is a situation caused by a series of small mistakes and miscom miscommunications as simple as lost mail and voice messages not received. The situation escalates into a full-blown crisis. Our neighbors get cut off of services to which they have the right to access because they do not have enough minutes on their phone for the necessary phone call or they do not have the proper phone number or they do not know if they can trust the person who answers their call. They’re isolated and forgotten. Everyone has the best intention and I know because I collaborate with I do it with the town of Oakville. I know our vincensions here in Burlington collaborate with the city people with the Halton region. We’re all trying, but it’s not enough. These vulnerable persons fall through the gaps in our social assistance network. The key piece

00:30:51
missing is the practical support that safe, affordable housing with on-site services can provide. When a vulnerable person knows who they can talk to and they’re in the same building, that makes a difference. Imagine if they could just go down to the main office to ask for help and know that people in that office have their best interests at heart.

00:31:12
They’re not looking to evict them. They want them to have that affordable safe housing. With proposals such as Indwell, we speak about number of units. I know the people who need these units. They have faces. They have stories. Their journeys are daunting. In Halton here, right here, not in some other community we read about in the news.

00:31:32
I’ve walked into unsafe, illegal basement apartments, into market rent homes that cost so much in this inflated market there’s no money left for food or clothing. I’ve had conversations outside tents with people desperate for real walls and with women who need an escape plan. I’ve also had those conversations when the neighbors call to say they found a home.

00:31:54
The relief and joy in their voices, it’s real. We need to care for all persons in our community and give them a safe, stable place that they can call home. The Indwell project fits that need. For these reasons, I respectfully urge council to allow this important project to move forward and thank you for allowing me this opportunity to speak.

00:32:18

And thank you for speaking. I really appreciate it on behalf of committee. And I do not see any questions for you. So, it’s well received. Thank you. I would like to invite Jim Young from Partnering Aldershot who is joining us in person to speak as well. >> Jim, I think you know the drill. >> Good morning to the chair, madame mayor, members of committee or clerk, members of staff and fellow Burlington residents.

00:32:50
I delegate today on behalf of partnering aldershot in support of the city initiated zoning bylaw amendment for 1022 1028 and 1030 water down road partnering alershaw is a group of some 40 charity faith food security educational environment environmental business civic and community organizations who come together to support and promote the interests of alershot a diverse and caring Burlington community.

00:33:25
From our wealthiest neighbors along the Northshore to our residents and alers many supportive and geared to income housing communities. From our most independent and self-reliant individuals and businesses to those in need of a little more help, the Aldershot community includes and embraces all of our neighbors.

00:33:46
A proposal such as this supportive housing endeavor in the very heart of Aldershot forces us to examine just what community means to us. What does that community stand for? Who are our neighbors? And perhaps even are there any we would deny a place in that community. While reservation and caution about a project such as this are understandable, let us remember that there already exist in alershaw five housing projects either geared to income or supportive housing and a community living Burlington, 24-hour supported group home in the heart of our community. All of them housing residents and neighbors who contribute positively to our economy, our city and our community every day. So partnering all the shop welcomes Indwell and this effort in conjunction with the city to provide much needed affordable and supportive

00:34:43
rental housing for our neighbors on water road in the heart of Alershot. Let’s be clear for those who may be cautious of welcoming in Indwell and its tenants. This housing development is not, as some have suggested, an addiction recovery center, nor is it a supervised injection site, transitional or shelter type housing.

00:35:07
It’s a planned welcoming space in our community, providing permanent affordable rental housing for our Alershot and Burlington neighbors, providing various levels of social and health supports for those who will live there and call Oldershot home. I emphasize older short and Burlington neighbors because the folks who will make their homes here are already our neighbors.

00:35:31
People in need of help in all the short and Burlington don’t come from somewhere else. We don’t parachute homeless people in from Bmpton or Brford. They already live here. They’re the people many of us went to school with. The grown children of our neighbors who played in our neighborhood streets. all the short and Burlington people whom life has dealt some economic, health or intellectual challenges, leaving them in need of a little more support, a little more community help which Indwell seem very well suited to provide. As a community, as a city, we will be judged not by how we reward our most successful citizens, but by how we treat each other and particularly how we treat and support those neighbors and families most in need of our help. So let’s show and dwell and our eventual new neighbors a kind of warm welcome Burlington and older shock can provide. Let us accept this zoning amendment application and help move this worthy

00:36:31
development forward. I’d like to thank Enwell for this bold idea and particularly for the engagement they have undertaken within our community to bring it to fruition. I’d like to thank the members of council and staff who seeing the intrinsic value in this project have moved with great diligence to help bring it to realization.

00:36:51
I’d like to thank partnering Alershot for their trusted me to come along here this morning and make this presentation and thanks to the members of the committee for hearing the presentation. Thank you. >> Thank you, Jim. Appreciate it. I’m also looking for questions from committee and I’m seeing none.

00:37:10
So, thank you once again for the delegation. Great to have you here. >> Uh, our fourth delegate is Michael Barton from MB1 Development Consulting joining us to speak in person. >> Michael, once you get started, you have uh 10 minutes as well. >> Uh, good morning members of committee. Um, I did have a written submission that I was hoping you could share on the screen. I had submitted.

00:37:36
We don’t share the written just a presentation. Is that all right? >> That’s fine. I just I just hope the members have it in front of them. >> Yep, we have it available. Yes. >> So, as as mentioned, my name is Michael Barton. I’m a I’m a land use planning consultant. Um I’m here from a different perspective.

00:37:55
I’m here on behalf of a of an owner of a number of properties in in Aldershot, particularly in the MTSA. MC Development owns uh properties that are adjacent to this property. Uh 1036 Waterdown Road and 1021 Emory Avenue. Um so on on figure one of the the correspondence I provided does show that relative location.

00:38:16
So again, the written submission I provided speaks to the planning matters more so than the details of the specific tenant uh that that’s going to be going into this this proposal. I I am more concerned about the use and built form in general and how that fits in to an MTSA. So there’s no objection to the tenant and the use specifically, just that there may be more appropriate sites from planning context.

00:38:42
Um Mi is invested in long-term development of this MTSA. There’s been a a lot of history with this project as uh or with this area that has gone on as the MTSA has been developed from the mobility hub. Um so the property today does have a twostory commercial building surface parking area landscape open space and there are a number of multiple large trees on this property as well.

00:39:07
So we can see that in in the visuals that I provided in my my written correspondence. Just briefly from the planning perspective as we’ve heard it is in the alershot uh go MTSA that say is designated under the region and city’s official plan. This being a strategic growth area uh that sits in the uh in both these plans.

00:39:29
The idea being that this will be an area that’s a focus for both population and employment intensification and higher density mixeduse built form. Um, specifically in the city’s official plan, we see a reference to MTSAs as being the focal points for higher intensity mixeduse transit supportive development.

00:39:50
Uh, there’s and there’s an intent to balance off the city’s future population and employment growth. Um, specifically the OPA2, which we heard uh is is what’s the the most recent uh policy framework brings in the Emory Commons precinct. Um within the within OPA2 we see a number of general objectives for MTSAs.

00:40:10
Um in section 8.1.21 there’s the reference to supporting the retention and expansion of existing employment functions and encouraging new employment functions and employment uses that includes office major employment uh that’s compatible with the idea of of the MTSA being an employment destination for the city.

00:40:30
um specifically for alershot go within this the vision for the Emory Commons precinct is there’s a there’s a uh there’s policies identified as being a transitional area where you have a concentration uh in the aldershot go central precinct that’s the highest densities greater heights this area is meant to provide a transition as you move towards uh the mid-rise areas to the south this is meant to be an area of concentration of residential retail unemployment uses.

00:41:00
Um the idea is that this is going to become a new community hub. Uh and again there there’s numerous references to a strategic location for investment in this location. For reference the aldershot go central precinct talks about the highest densities the preeminent destination for major office and affordable housing retail service commercial uh and that this is to be the focus for the tallest buildings.

00:41:27
So again, Emory Common’s precinct is really meant to be a mix of uses, a built form that’s providing a transition from the the areas to the south that are mid-rise to the greatest heights and densities in the alershot go precinct. So effectively it’s a to function as a gateway as you see that transition to the areas of highest density.

00:41:49
So I had provided in my correspondence since 2017 there’s there’s been a number of development concepts that have uh been put in place for the overall aldershot goat MTSA uh but also the the idea that was it was referred to as aldershot mobility hub at that time and it’s largely the area that sits within the emory con uh commons precinct and that plan and I’ I’ve included uh two figures figure six and figure seven in my submission that show that overall concept of a number of blocks uh heights ranging from 10 to 30 stories. Uh you can see there the transition as you’re moving north to the greatest height um and then moving down as as you come towards Plains Road. So this shows the over the the amount of effort that’s gone into a comprehensive vision for this area aso as opposed to developing on a sightby-sight basis. And MC has been working closely with city

00:42:46
staff um to to come up with these different concepts and they’ve been involved through the entire process even up to uh the the implementation of the community planning permit system through OPA2. So in terms of the application that that’s before the committee um it is for a residential building um between the zoning is is seeking between 5 and 11 stories.

00:43:10
When we look at the the specific regulations uh there’ be no ground floor commercial. This is meant to uh to be a residential standalone building including residential dwelling units at grade. So the the intent is to align with the vision for the Emory Commons precinct. um this is not part of a larger exercise to to update the zoning for all the properties in Emory Commons or the larger alder shotg MTSA.

00:43:37
So in that sense it does represent a peacemeal zoning uh where it doesn’t align with that comprehensive vision that’s been looked at since since 2017 for the MTSA more specifically from the Emory Commons precinct perspective. The proposal is including as I indicated residential dwelling units only.

00:43:55
We don’t see ground floor um commercial and a mix of uses that are generally meant to animate the street, provide transit support of uh complete streets and communities. Uh and then providing that balance of employment and residential. Um the existing commercial uses that are on this site are being eliminated and they’re being replaced uh with with residential with no ground floor uh component that’s that’s commercial or mixed use.

00:44:22
uh the the proposed 5 to 11 story height is not representing that gateway of transition from from the midrise to the south into the area of greatest heights and densities to the north. Um really again it’s it’s looking at what is this area intended to do that overall vision uh of providing the transition the the transitoriented pedestrianoriented street.

00:44:45
Um so MC had provided uh has had some discussions with the city. The one alternative site that that MC had offered and that’s discussed in my report as well is 1385 North Service Road. Um it’s a property that’s near the the Burlington Power Center. There’s existing transit service along on North Service Road.

00:45:03
Municipal services are there. Uh there’s convenient walk walking to the retail and commercial uses in that area. It’s already zoned regional commercial. So that permits uh the mixeduse development. You could have dwelling units uh above the ground floor permitted a threetory building of 12 m as of right.

00:45:23
So this does represent a shovel ready site with existing transit and municipal service convenient uh services for for the residents. The developable limits of the site have already been confirmed and reviewed uh by Miy and there had been a number of concepts considered here. Um, I had provided in my written correspondence uh an office site plan concept that showed how this could fit onto the site, how access would work, um, location relative to existing trees and vegetated area near the site.

00:45:56
There’s also an elevation provided there showing that threetory building that could be constructed as of right. So in in summary and conclusion, the reason for my uh my delegation here is just is just pointing out that there are alternative sites that would provide the same benefits without being located in MTSA and particularly an area that’s meant to uh provide that transition to the the greatest heights and densities.

00:46:23
Uh this is an area that was intended for significant investment. Um the proposal does not align with that comprehensive vision. and we’re seeing their commercial uses removed. We’re seeing uh no animation of the street pedestrian transit oriented forms of development. And again, it really won’t function as that gateway uh character that that’s meant to be provided here.

00:46:44
So, the concern is that this proposal is going to jeopardize that vision for for the comprehensive redevelopment of the MTSA. And we’re requesting that the committee uh direct staff to re-evaluate alternative sites including 1385 North Service Road. >> Well, thank you very much. Any questions from committee? Yes, I see a couple and I see councelor Karns first. Go ahead.

00:47:17

Thank you very much for joining us through the chair. Just picking up on that last comment, tell me more about 1385 North Service Road as I don’t see that in the report >> in council report or my report. >> Uh council >> Oh, okay. Yes. So 1385 North Service Road is a site that MC brought to city staff for consideration of of an alternative site.

00:47:39
So it it sits uh west of the Burlington Power Center at Brandt in North Service. So it’s as it’s a site that MC’s been looking at development options for and and considering. So they looked at a number of different concepts, the most recent being an office concept. So they’ve proposed that as a swap with this site for the city that could be an alternative for development of the proposal.

00:48:03

Okay. Thank you very much. And then um because of the height which is smaller than what would normally be permitted in this particular area that’s gone through a lot of work related to the MTSAs um is there a way that this can sort of be sequenced or paced? Um I am concerned with the with the demand that I’m hearing from a number of the delegates that I’m only thinking it’s five 5 to 11 stories.

00:48:28
I’m just looking at my notes here. um that it should be more or it could be a large building, a tall building with the units also built in um to be connected into that community. >> Yes. So um just just in terms of the the staff the way that the zoning is written in the proposed zoning amendment is showing the 5 to 11 stories.

00:48:47
So there isn’t necessarily a concept that this is what’s going to be built. I’m just reading that that that’s what the intent is. The 11 stories would be the maximum there. Um so again the the zoning is needed for that height. It’s also needed to allow uh the residential uses. So the current zoning doesn’t allow residential and ground floor.

00:49:04
So the the site on North Service does allow residential as of right today. And it would provide an opportunity for additional height through a process such as a minor variance which would be more expeditious than a zoning amendment. So I I I am aware of the timing concerns as well with the project.

00:49:21
So it is a site that would be relatively uh uh quick to move forward on as an alternative. Okay, thank you for your insights. >> Thank you, Mayor Midwart. >> Thank you, chair. Uh, thank you very much for being here and um talking to us about various options. So, I’m curious uh I know I think that you’ve had some conversation with staff.

00:49:47
Can you share with us uh the feedback that they’ve provided in terms of why they’re proceeding to bring this recommendation for us today to stay with the water down road site? >> So my understanding is the and thank you for that question may um is it’s part largely timing related. So I understand there’s a concerns about having a shovel ready project.

00:50:10
Um timing to move this forward by the end of the year. um this being a property that the city is able to have a lease with with Indwell on. So the that that is my understanding is the is the primary concern is it is the timing of I guess reviewing alternative sites or moving the process backward. Um I think that is why um what’s driving it from the timing side of things.

00:50:36

Okay. And we can certainly ask them about that as well. But thank you uh very much for being here. >> Thank you. Thank you councelor Shley. Thank you very much. Um so with respect to the shift from OPA2 to now what is being put forward was was MC ever consulted with respect to what they had worked on for what 10 years? >> So my understanding is that M’s been involved so I haven’t been involved in this process for all that time.

00:51:10
I I’ll just to be transparent there is that there were these con number of concepts been in development there uh the alder shot mobility hub team that was in place at that time I think a number of those members of staff maybe aren’t here anymore with the city um but there had been numerous discussions on that and then when this this was coming forward that was when Mi had had presented some concerns and then alternative sites there was actually a discussion of of an neighboring site to this property being a swap as well. There have been discussions there. So, MC has had uh numerous discussions with staff about their concerns and alternatives that may be available and and like I said, they have been now again, I think the just in full transparency, the concepts I was showing weren’t something that were approved or formally adopted. They’ve been meant to more to show a vision. This is what could be done. This is what would align with the I, you know, what’s considered alignment with an MTSA. But yes, they have been involved for quite a

00:52:09
extended period of time. >> Okay, thank you for that. With respect to 1385 North Service Road, um is that fully serviced land? Is it ready to go? >> Yes. Uh again, there’s there’s always, you know, sight specific elements, connections and that, but the site is serviced. Uh just transit service as well.

00:52:26
Um and even down to the point studies that have been done looking at uh developable limits. I know there’s some trees uh on the site adjacent to the site that’s been explored in terms of what would be considered developable limits uh site access as well looking at traffic and and again it all depends on this on this particulars as well.

00:52:44
So in this case this site’s not proposing any parking. So again you’d have a very limited amount of traffic you would be generated if if the prop if the proposal was located at 1385 North Service. >> Thank you. I have some more questions if I uh continue. >> So, so coming to the point of that land um versus the property on water down the drive the gating it issue is $3 million from the half fund that has to be dealt with by December 31st.

00:53:15
Um what is what is MC uh proposing that would you know mitigate that particular challenge uh in order to make this an attractive proposition to end well into the city. So and again it’s the as of right permissions on the site it’s so site service to go um if you needed to look for sub you know provision whether it’s height density that could be done through a variance.

00:53:48
So you’re looking at a property that’s already zoned to allow residential. Um so it’s much more straightforward than a full reszoning to to permit you know residential that doesn’t exist today. So it’s a site that could be swapped off um moved directly forward um even if you don’t need variance at this point.

00:54:04
there’s a bigger opportunity for a footprint on this site. So, you wouldn’t necessarily need to go to five or 11 stories depending on the number of units that you’re looking to achieve. And just that point of you could continue down that path, you might be able to go straight directly to that site plan and building permit stage with this property.

00:54:23
So, the idea of it being as of right property, it’s something that you could move forward with. So, so I want to come back to the $3 million which seems to be making driving the rush to get this done. Um, to what degree would that be necessary for 1385 North Service Road >> for this just to understand for the $3 million >> the half do you know if the half fund would still be necessary or Indwell could just build immediately or get into plan on 1385? I mean, I’m wondering why $3 million is gating this whole choice >> rather than putting it on another project on another piece of land. That’s my question. >> Do you want to ask staff that question? Councelor Sharon. >> Sorry. >> Would you like to ask staff that question first? Be the first one. >> I’m actually asking the proponent representative here because I think they should have a view on that in terms of the viability of that property. >> Yeah. and and again I’m I have not insight on you know the way the funding

00:55:22
works but again it it is it’s always great to have investment and to and to have those incentives um but again I think there is an opportunity for uh the site so there there’s the two elements there’s for the best site that would work for the proposal and then it’s also the be what works best for the MTSA in this area so um it for me the $3 million as coming from the perspective of land use planners development consulting $3 million is not you know wouldn’t be something that normally would sort of be break the bank on a proforma if maybe if that’s from my perspective of of the matter >> okay thank you >> interesting uh councelor Benavania go ahead >> thank you chair uh just along those same lines um have you had the opportunity obviously you speak spoken to our staff have you had the opportunity to speak to regional staff regarding this project and and their take on on some of the

00:56:21
information that you’re uh you’re talking about. >> Uh I haven’t I haven’t spoke to regional staff so I’ve been uh I’ve been brought in sort of last lead in this process and and she has been communicating more directly with the municipality. So I’ve been looking at it and I’ve also come at it from a land use perspective as opposed to um some of the concerns or issues raised by other delegates.

00:56:41
I’m I’m not coming at it from the idea of what is the specifics of this use. Um assist of housing, you know, what whatever the proper definition is. I’m looking at from the perspective of of protecting both the city’s interest in in individual land within the MTSA. Is that part of that overall comprehensive vision? So, that’s that’s been the perspective I’ve looked at it from.

00:57:06

Well, thank you. And and again, I’m just trying to bring back that $3 million because that’s one of the big issues that the region is sort of concerned about. Um $3 million. I know it’s you want to put it into the performer situation, but it’s still $3 million somebody has to pay for it. >> Yeah.

00:57:25
So, I think it and and the opportunity is there to still in my opinion to meet those timelines if the motivation is there if you’re on another site that is zoned. So you’re you’re not running into the problems of the the potential delays that come along with the official plan zoning amendment. You you could move forward on that site as his own site and still you know deliver what you would call a shovel ready project.

00:57:51
So in terms of that the funding I the funding could still be there on an alternative site as long as long as you’re not looking at going backwards and starting over again and having to you know start with a resoning on a property. something that’s there ready to go already. >> I’ll ask staff some questions as well after. Thank you.

00:58:12

Thank you very much, Councelor Sherman. Go ahead. >> Thanks. We’re all very keen to see this endwell project occur on time. Is it your opinion that the property on 1385 North Service Road is provides a superior location for Indwell than the one on Waterdown? It would it would depend on I guess it depends on your perspective honestly.

00:58:38
So when it’s a balancing of considerations. So in a in a project like this certainly what you’re thinking about is access to transit, access to services uh within a convenient location. So it’s certainly part of what’s been considered by looking at the north service road site. You have convenient access services, shopping amenities.

00:59:02
Uh you have transit access on North Service that then gives you access to uh Brandt Street. it gives you access to get to alershot go. So it’s not compromising those those elements of of the proposal. What it’s doing then is it’s it’s maintaining the opportunity for the the MTSA itself to be considered within that comprehensive uh context as part of a re so as you you’re aware the residential zoning has been redone that there’s a need to update the commercial zoning and mixed uses in the in the city. So as part of an overall comprehensive review as opposed to uh on this sight specific basis rem you know it it doesn’t allow residential today it’s clear it’s that the current zoning is is employment um but the the site specific is removing that opportunity to see a mixeduse development uh part of that comprehensive overall development of the site. So in terms of superior as as

01:00:01
you’ve asked it, I would say it’s it’s allowing a better balance of what the vision is for the MTSA um while not compromising the needs of what Inwell would be needing on a on a property. >> Okay. And my last question is with respect to speed. So if since there appears to be a hard deadline of December the 31st, could any any reasonzoning any zoning amendment or anything like that or any other actions that were required to accomplish the delivery um on December 31st for Waterdown? Could that all be accomplished for 1385 North Service Road by December 31st? >> I believe so. with if the the motivation is there to to achieve it on that property. >> Those are my questions. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. I see no more questions. So, I thank you very much, Michael, for your delegation. >> Thank you very much, Committee. >> We have no further pre-registered

01:01:00
delegates to this public meeting. So, I will now ask if there is anyone watching the live stream or present in council chambers who would like to delegate to development and growth management report DGM 3626 regarding zoning bylaw amendment for 10:22, 1028, and 10:30 Wired Down Road to please submit your request by 10:22 a.m. to clerks at Burlington.

01:01:20
ca CA or call 90533577777 extension 7481 as noted in the ticker tape that is scrolling at the bottom of the screen or see the clerk if you’re in chambers. Yeah. Uh we will now take a 7m minute recess to ensure that we have received all requests to delegate. The meeting is recessed until 10:25. Thank you. order. Hello.

01:09:07

We No worries. No worries. We have uh three more delegations joining us to speak to the item. Scott Carpenter is joining us remotely. Uh Scott, whenever you’re we’ll get you in the room here and then we’ll get you started. Hello Scott, we see you there. >> Hi, good morning. Thank you members of council and staff for seeing me today.

01:09:34
I’m sorry I couldn’t be there in person. Um but again, thank you for the opportunity to speak. I’m encouraged by the council’s uh commitment to addressing the housing needs in the city. um particularly providing more affordable and supportive housing um is is you know I think we can all agree is a very important goal.

01:09:51
I do have some reservations about the specific location uh for this indwell uh supportive housing project. My concerns are primarily that the house or pardon me, the project intends to house individuals with um support needs, including those dealing with active substance use and those who may be on the sex offender registry.

01:10:14
Um while supportive housing serves a vulnerable population, placing um a concentrated facility here does raise some safety questions. Um the site is in very close proximity to multiple schools and a heavily used park where children and families including mine play. Um in an a fairly established family neighborhood.

01:10:36
Um several parents that I’ve spoken to in our community are understandably worried about the potential impacts on child safety and daily livability. Um the immediate area has um uh limited on-site or nearby services to help tenants successfully rebuild their lives. Uh water down road as we all know is a very busy arterial road with high traffic volumes and the neighborhood is not highly walkable.

01:11:03
Uh which could limit access to employment treatment programs or just daily necessities. Um, finally, approving this zoning change now could constrain or conflict uh future developments that would bring broader quality of life improvements to all the shot in the Emer Commons precinct.

01:11:20
So, I’m not here to oppose housing solutions overall. Uh, but I do urge council and staff to carefully evaluate whether this site is the right fit given its sensitive surroundings. I respectfully ask that you require strong um enforceable conditions if the project proceeds uh including robust 247 on-site staffing and security.

01:11:42
Uh clear policies on substance use and visitor management and then detailed traffic and safety studies, ongoing monitoring of calls of service, and uh formal community liaison committee with regular reporting uh to nearby residents and schools. Um, with that, thank you for your time and considering these community concerns.

01:12:04

Thank you for your delegation, Scott. Uh, I don’t see anyone on the board, but I will ask, uh, what, uh, what evidence do you have that this area, this development would have people on the sex offender registry to an extent greater than anywhere else in the city. There’s no uh, restriction on people of that registry living in other areas of the city.

01:12:25
So why are you saying that there will be people on the registry uh or could be people on the registry in this development versus any other development such as a condominium next door? >> Sure. And but I’ll be very candid. I I’m not well verssed on these matters so I I can’t really speak um to that specifically.

01:12:45
It was just in brought to my attention during the Indwell meeting that they had at the United Church on fair on pardon me on Plains Road a couple of weeks back. Um I was a little surprised at that. I mean I I think um I understand the supportive needs but hearing that there may be residents on that list uh within close proximity to uh three three of our public schools um was was a little surprising.

01:13:10
But again, as far as the details you’re asking, I don’t have that. >> So you you heard it secondhand at a meeting that someone made a claim. They made a claim that that there could be someone there on the on the registry and that’s what you’re sharing with us. >> Correct. That was what was conveyed to me by one of the indwell representatives um at that meeting.

01:13:32

Okay. Thank you very much. Anyone else? I did not see anybody else uh delegating so or asking a question. Thank you Scott for your delegation. >> Appreciate your time. The second person who has requested to delegate can come forward. That’s Judy Warsley. You’re in the room, Judy. You have up to 10 minutes.

01:13:56

Thank you for the opportunity to address this. Um I’m a little flabbergasted by this um alternative proposal coming up at this time. Um there has been a lot of community meetings and uh discussions in the aldershaw community for the last eight months. There have been different groups that um have come together to talk about how they could support um this new this new um neighbor that we’re going to have.

01:14:30
as far as the school is concerned, um it’s far enough away from where the the um the residence is going to be that I’m not sure that that would be a problem. Uh and I would have to see some really strong evidence on that. Um the other um if you look at the presentation that’s been done by Indwell, um they’ve been very thoughtful and careful about why the site will work for them.

01:15:01
As far as up being up by the power center, um I don’t think that that is an appropriate location for the residents of this um building because there is nothing they could buy up in the power center. I find that a ridiculous concept. Um the only place close for food is Kojako and they certainly wouldn’t have the money to pay for Kojako membership.

01:15:29
Um they’re looking more at Fresco and um uh other places like that. So being close to the power center um is not really a plus for them. and the um access on water down road to the various um like route 4, route one and also very close to the go train station is a much better concept for the residents who um are not going to be having cars most of them and um I don’t see the power center as an appropriate place at all for them for those kind of reasons.

01:16:12
Um I have wasn’t prepared so I don’t have I probably have a few other things to say but um they’ve left my mind at this point in time but I’m going to speak um to say that I I’m very shocked at this proposal coming in at this stage of the game. We need to um as um councelor Charmin has said, we have to get um shovels on the ground.

01:16:35
Um and this if we want to continue to get the federal funding um so uh and Indwell has been working very hard with every with everyone and including the community to make this happen. We would have to start a whole new set of community meetings up in um in the power center area. So, I’m not sure we’d get the community buy in there.

01:17:01
So, um I’m going to leave it at there if anybody has any questions for me. >> Thank you very much. Uh Judy, I’m not seeing uh seeing any questions. I just for clarification, I think you meant to say Costco uh when you said Cooji. You were talking about the Costco. >> You’re right. Thank you for that. >> Local. No worries.

01:17:18
No worries. And obviously there’s a Soies there as well. Um that would be available for people. >> Little little more expensive though. Still, >> I would uh I as I would have to agree. I would have to agree. Thank you, Judy. Okay. >> Okay. No other questions. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Our third delegate is Grace Wilbur.

01:17:39
Grace, you have 10 minutes once you uh get settled up here at the uh podium. >> Grace, you have the option to sit if you prefer. It’s totally up to you. >> I’m okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you so much. >> I appreciate the opportunity to speak here today. I’m coming from a community perspective.

01:18:05
Um, water water down road is in the aldershaw community. There are so many resources in the aldershot community other than the fact that it is a community. It’s not out in the middle of nowhere. It’s it’s a community. There’s four churches. There’s schools. There’s parks. Um, and I think with the wraparound services that are that Indwell is offering, I don’t think there would be a risk to schools or parks or I I I don’t I don’t see the the the connect there with the risk.

01:18:43
Um, there are businesses in Aldershot, there’s shops, there’s homes, and we know that the housing crisis is a major issue. I attended a meeting last night with the Halton Faith Network where they discussed being able to the reasonzoning to build properties uh homes on existing home properties.

01:19:02
That’s not going to cut it though. We need more. It’s it’s a good it’s a good um proposal, but it’s not going to it first of all, it’s not going to happen quickly, and secondly, um it’s still not enough. I myself have housing insecurity. Every month I’m threatened with having to not have a home. And so to know that something like that might be that Indwell might be available in our community, I think is is a a pretty amazing thing.

01:19:37
And to have it in Aldershot um where it’s so close by, I think is is a very good thing. So just just from the community perspective, I mean, you know, we have churches, there’s four churches in Aldershot. Um there’s daycarees, there’s restaurants, there’s multiple services. Um in terms of food, um there’s food banks.

01:20:09
Um I myself supervise a food collection every Wednesday morning. at St. Matthew’s Church. So, working with with the vulnerable population on a regular basis only highlights to me that the need is is so great and to have it have something that can happen quickly almost immediately I think is a very important thing to consider. So, thank you.

01:20:36

Thank you, Grace. Thank you for your delegation this morning. I don’t see any questions. So, thank you very much. There uh there are no further requests to delegate on this item. So I now declare that the public meeting portion of this meeting is closed. And let’s have questions for staff at this time, please.

01:20:56
Assume there’ll be a couple. Councelor Char, would you like to go first? I see you moving your mouse there, so if you like. >> I’m I’m being volunte. Uh well, thank you so much for all your delegations. Your comments were really important to us. Um as is indeed the provision of housing that Indwell um will uh create.

01:21:20
So very important to us in many ways. Um the questions going through my mind are what’s driving the timing on this? Is it simply $3 million? Is that the biggest issue? >> Uh through the chair. Uh my name is Kyle Plass, manager of development and design with the city. Thanks for the question and through your chair to councelor Charman. Timing is a component of it.

01:21:45
Um you’ll recall at the March 3rd committee of the whole meeting reports LLS1626 and DGM1 1126 were presented to committee and the legal report uh was in regards to a long-term lease for the lands and the planning report development and growth management report DGM 112026 uh recommended that the city endorse the indwell project concept and pursue the site at 1022 to 1030 Waterown Road subject to final design, planning approvals, etc.

01:22:18
And so that’s what we’re responding to is that staff direction, that’s approval from council to pursue planning approvals for this site. And that’s the the subject uh of this uh recommendation that’s before you today. Um as it relates to timing, that that is a consideration. Um Indwell has indicated to us that uh there are some significant funding opportunities that are available.

01:22:41
uh but those are contingent upon uh having approvals and construction underway by the end of this year 2026 and so it is an aggressive uh time frame for us to be um facilitating on their behalf and we are working towards that with them. >> Thank you for the response. I think I was asking for right from the get-go and not necessarily a previous D direction.

01:23:04
And I’m thinking perhaps the commissioner can respond. To what degree is this whole thing been driven by a desire to get the 3 million hash funds utilized on a project, any project? Uh and this got the opportunity uh through the chair of the councelor. The sense of urgency is is related to the federal requirements that these monies be spent by the end of the calendar year.

01:23:31
in terms of the federal government that spent would be demonstrated through um Inwell applying for and receiving a building permit and that would show a commitment then to uh for the expenditure of these funds. Thank you. >> Thank you. That’s what I thought. My second question then is um with respect to um if there were another property that might be larger um more suitable located for a variety of reasons and yet to be proven demonstrated and I recognize the questions that were being asked or comments being made um and and would still either allow the um applicant to get the 3 million funding or if not does it matter in terms of the overall benefits of the project? Would we would we be able to figure that out between now and council uh through the charity of the counselor?

01:24:32
There’s a couple of things there I’m just going to try to unpack. First of all, the reasonzoning and proceeding with this resoning is independent of Inwell securing an alternative site. Inwell has had discussions with various property owners on alternative sites, but none of those other sites are shovel ready.

01:24:49
So that is why Inwell is committed to this site. And secondly, proceeding with this resoning regardless of whether or not Inwell is able to secure another site would actually be to the city’s benefit in the sense that it would add value to the site should the city then decide because Inwell has found an alternative site to dispose of this asset.

01:25:08
So there is no risk to the organ corporation with proceeding with the resoning. But to your question is proceeding with the resoning between now and council or council adopting the resoning would not preclude inwell from securing another site and then having to advance the half funding to them. It may or may not require another council report but staff would undertake that as quickly as possible to ensure that the funding would not be at risk. Thank you.

01:25:34

Thank you. I’m going to give some thought to that. Come back to you. Thank you, Mayor Meboard. >> Thank you, chair. Um, so picking up on that line of uh question, staff, do staff believe that regardless of what happens here, um, you know, whether it’s Indwell or or some other development, that proceeding with the resoning, which is all we’re voting on today, is the right thing to do for the community and for the long term in this area. through chair to the counselor.

01:26:09
The answer is yes. >> Okay. And have you had an opportunity uh at all to review the the proposal um up at North Service to add residential whether it’s Indwell or anyone else? Do you have any thoughts at this at this time? And if not, that’s fine. >> Through the chair to uh the mayor. Uh thank you for the question.

01:26:30
uh we received uh this site as an opportunity or a basis for discussion a few weeks ago. So we’ve done a cursory high level review and uh I think with respect to uh my colleague uh who delegated earlier. I would not categorize this site as a shovel ready site uh there are some uh potential constraints that exist.

01:26:50
The zoning is one example. It’s it allows for residential uses in conjunction with a residential or commercial non-residential component as it is within a regional commercial center. Um it does allow for residential uses on the second and third story of a building. Um but it does not allow for residential uses above a third story.

01:27:11
So whether or not that’s feasible or not, we don’t know at this point. Uh there are some other sight specific constraints that exist. uh the site is adjacent to a highway and so we would have to engage with the Ministry of Transportation to determine what their setbacks would be and the implications of those on the site.

01:27:28
Uh there are other issues relating to a creek block that’s adjacent to the site. So there there are a number of technical constraints or potential constraints that are unknown at this point that would have to be worked through before we’ be in a position to say that that site is ready for uh this proposal to to proceed with.

01:27:47
So, it’s a bit of an unknown at this point, but based on the information and the review that we’ve conducted, we’ve identified that there are some hurdles that would have to be overcome. And if I may can add, the North Service Road site based on our preliminary analysis would have um higher site development costs.

01:28:03
There’s some significant grading that would be required that may also impact the form of development in addition to servicing the site. So in a from a fiscal perspective, the North Service road site is less desirable compared to the watered down road if you’re just looking at the proforma and the economics of development combined with the possible delays in securing all of the necessary planning approvals to make it truly a shovel ready site based on the form of development that’s being contemplated. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um could I ask a follow-up chair? >> Sure. Uh, is there any residential there now? I I don’t think so, but do you know it? It seems all commercial up there. >> Through the chair, to the mayor. Uh, no. There is no residential on that site or the adjacent properties. Currently, I think the the policy framework is such that it anticipates that as those larger regional commercial sites redevelop, there’s the potential to introduce residential in conjunction with existing

01:29:02
employment retail function, but nothing exists in terms of residential on those properties. Now, >> thank you. >> Thank you very much, Councelor Bentia. >> Thank you, chair. Um, we’ve been talking about urgency. Um that is foremost there outside of the technical discussion that we’ve had the zoning and so on does in Inwell would have to agree to the move the change.

01:29:33
Is that correct? through the chair to the counselor. That is correct. And Inwell has advised that they are not interested in pursuing the North Service Road site based on their analysis of the site and discussions with the property owner. Thank you. that and let’s assume that they will move or discuss it move the steps that are needed would be I’m assuming we have to engage with the community we need to negotiate a lease and there was a discussion of maybe not shovel ready in your professional opinion would that get us to the end of December through the chair. Um the the there always is the potential if another site was explored and you know it it had the

01:30:33
ability to accommodate Inwell’s proposal in that time frame that that could be looked at. Um but that becomes ever more challenging for us each day as we you know approach the end of the year. We’ve made significant progress as it relates to the water down road sites in terms of the steps that you had identified, you know, engaging with the public.

01:30:48
Uh we’ve had an open house um a number of open houses I should say for uh the proposal. There’s been a number uh pieces that have advanced on the land lease already. Um if the zoning bylaw amendment is passed here, then that secures the permissions in terms of the land use for the site.

01:31:06
Uh so if we’re looking at another site, we would have to, you know, kind of claw back some of those steps and start over on some of those pieces potentially depending on which site it is that we’re talking about and what the the conditions are relating to that site. >> Just a quick followup, please. Um so I heard everything you’ve said.

01:31:25
Now I’m going to bring in the region into this conversation. How is that going to affect any potential discussion about about moving with the region time wise? >> Yeah. Through the chair to the counselor. Um the region has been a partner in the discussion so far in terms of funding and partnering with indwell.

01:31:53
um it’s a little bit outside of the planning area that that we deal with, but conceivably the region would have to be um you know review whatever the site is and the implications of that and how that would affect the proposal moving forward. So if I can add I would suggest that the regional funding would be put at risk because the region looks for shovel ready sites given the demand or the limited amount of money that they have and the strong need for affordable housing projects.

01:32:19
So that if Inwell is not able to demonstrate that there the proposed development site is in fact shovel ready the region may have to make the difficult decision to reallocate the funds and that’s why like I said proceeding with today’s you know reasonzoning proposal would help to secure that funding and if an alternative site came up that met the shovel ready then they could have that conversation but there is no risk from a either the city’s asset or maintaining that funding commitment by proceeding with approval of the resoning application. which implements the city’s vision for this site because no official plan amendment is being sought or required. Thank you. >> That is helpful. Thank you, >> Council Kurts. Uh thank you very much to the chair. I just want to make a a point of clarity. So, we’re having a technical conversation here around zoning bylaw change, not necessarily a compassionate conversation. So, I’m working in my comment and my question to untangle the

01:33:19
two. So with what we’re asking for today, it’s to go from MXG to MX. So MXE to MXG, the key differences being amenity space requirements. Am I wrong? Is it are we doing an Emory common sight specific? So I think I just want to hear from staff on how this process is working because we’re not delivering a sightspecific bylaw amendment that’s based on a development application that’s coming forward.

01:33:47
We’re essentially changing zoning for anything, including the possibility of a complete uh collapse of what is being intended. Um, but someone else can come in behind and use it for different purposes. So, I’m really concerned around the way that this process is backwards. So, can you explain that to me? >> Uh, through you, chair to councelor Karns.

01:34:11
Uh, your statements are accurate, council karn. So, current zoning on site is for mixeduse employment. uh doesn’t contemplate residential permissions. Uh staff’s recommendation is to uh amend the zoning to align it with the vision that’s been approved through OPA2 for Emory Commons. It’s looking at a mid-rise built form that would contemplate residential permissions on site.

01:34:34
So that’s the change from the MXE to the MXG. Residential is introduced. Uh and it’s also looking at uh guidance in terms of built form parameters around a mid-rise built form. So that’s where you see the minimum uh height introduced in the zoning bylaw amendment and a maximum to the 11 uh to contain it to the mid-rise built forum which was uh what we looked at for the purposes of the amendment that we’re presenting today.

01:34:57
Uh but staff’s recommendation is not built on the basis of it being a development application for a specific thing even though that is part of the discussion today but to essentially align it to provide for the vision in a a municipally approved or council approved as well as a ministry approved uh vision for these this area these lands.

01:35:21

Okay. Okay. So then my question for clarity is what’s the difference between a site specific vision which is my understanding uh compiling three parcels versus creating the zoning provisions that would facilitate that planning vision for an Emory Commons which would be a contiguous corridor um creating a more comprehensive streetscape and and experience >> through you chair to the counselor.

01:35:50
Uh I I think the the major difference is that if you look at what’s laid out through the official plan amendment and then what it requires, which is a community planning permitting system or bylaw that would actually regulate all of the work that would need to be undertaken into in order to unlock development uh opportunities across that whole area, that whole precinct.

01:36:12
Um the city is not endeavoring to undertake that on behalf of all land owners outside of the fact that we are looking to put forward a community planning permit bylaw at some point if we can actually clear um the appeals. But in the interimm we have city lands that we’re looking at as an opportunity to uh apply a vision that’s already been approved by council and also by the province and taking those lands and saying okay this is this is appropriate.

01:36:38
This is the zoning amendment that we are willing to recommend to council. >> Okay, I appreciate that clarity. Um my next question is related to some of the key pieces where you would see that it’s not a mixed use, it’s a residential use and ab budding and employment area. Um but my concern is more so the internal piece which is the amenity area.

01:36:57
Can you speak to that? It’s noted as 8 square meters per residential unit. That would have to be enacted if the development proposal came forward. Is that correct? >> The uh the amenity area that’s reflected in the zoning bylaw amendment uh aligns with the considerations that went into the community planning permit review work that we’ve done uh in terms of the requirements around what our mar area would look like and it brings that into the zoning bylaw amendment.

01:37:28
Uh with regard to the question around um residential use, you will note um that earlier delegate mentioned that residential is a sole uh use that uh residences would be permitted on the ground floor. If you look at the zoning bylaw amendment, that’s not in fact the case. We have um prohibited the ability for residential units at the ground floor which would otherwise require consideration of something else on the ground floor that could uh essentially activate the street which is what is intended in the vision. >> Okay. Sorry that wasn’t perfectly answering my question but it was very informative. So my question is more specific. If there were to be like 56 units, um, would that still require eight square meters per residential unit of defined amenity space with the zoning bylaw amendment? >> Uh, through you, chair, the zoning bylaw amendment would provide provides eight square meters per unit. So, the number of units that would be provided, eight square meters of amenity space is what

01:38:28
the zoning bylaw requires. >> Okay. Thanks for uh confirming my calculation. I’ll go back in quue. >> Okay. Council Sherman is next. >> Thank you very much. Just a couple of questions of clarification then. Um my understanding then that what we’ve been asked to approve today um does not impair the existing uh OPA 2 and zoning from proceeding if this what we anticipate doesn’t occur through the chair to councelor Charman.

01:39:00
Uh that is correct. nothing that we’re doing here impairs that vision from being realized and in fact I would say it actually implements that vision that was uh set out through OPA too. >> Okay, so that’s really helpful. Thank you. Um and then I think the other thing I just want to make sure everybody heard this Indwell can irrespective of what we’re planning to approve today still choose to to pursue their anticipated plans on some other property.

01:39:31
through the chair to the counselor. That is correct. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Uh back to councelor Kern. >> Uh thank you very much. So my next question is related to the floor area ratio in the zoning. And I just want to understand how this works within the context of the uh neighboring uses.

01:39:48
And so what I’m reading in this zoning bylaw amendment is that it would have a zero uh requirement for floor area ratio, which would mean it could essentially be built from lot line to lot line with the exception of the identified setbacks. Is that correct? >> Through the chair to councelor Karns. Uh you are correct in that the zoning bylaw amendment regulates for built form on the basis of considerations around height and yards.

01:40:20
So contained within the limits of the height that could be achieved and the yards that are the minimum yards that are established through the zoning bylaw. The rest would be developable area. So technically with this um appendix C they could do 11 stories lot line to lot line with the exception of the setbacks and go straight up or would there be something in the bylaw that would require those transitionary policies still and mid-rise guidelines >> through the chair to councelor Karns.

01:40:48
We would always expect the uh built form design guidelines to be applied for mid-rise buildings and they would require some consideration for lower portion of the building and an upper portion of the building. um that is not currently regulated for because we are not regulating a development concept. >> Okay.

01:41:10
So if I could follow up for clarity then we if we pass the bylaw then we and it and any application fits squarely within the bylaw. The development application won’t necessarily come to council at all because at that point it will be as of right >> through the chair to councelor Karns. I’ll just note that any proposal that comes forward for this site whether it’s the Endwell concept or another concept would have to go through a subsequent site plan uh process application review process and that’s more of a detailed design technical review process where we start to get into what is the building design what is the you know the landscaping features site access ingress egress and all of that will still need to occur so I think some of the the the items that you’re highlighting here there’s still an ability for us to influence that through through the subsequent site plan review process. >> Okay, I have another question, but I’ll go back into Q to the chair. >> It’s just you. So, please continue.

01:42:08

Okay, so thanks for that. So, essentially then after today, this file leaves council’s hands and goes to staff solely for site plan. We would not see an application on a sight specific location because we’re essentially approving the envelope and then it leaves us entirely and goes to staff for site plan approval.

01:42:30
Is that correct? >> Through the chair, that is correct. Yes. >> Okay. I’m just not sure how comfortable I am with that. So, I’m just going to pause and think. Thanks. >> Okay. Well, seeing no more questions, I’m going to look for a mover of the report, please. Mayor Meidward, you’d like to move and make a comment. >> Yes. Thank you, Chair.

01:42:59
I really uh want to thank everyone for being here today, all the residents who’ve been engaged in this file. uh everyone who sent um letters uh outlining your thoughts and concerns and questions as as well as those who uh the many folks who outlined your support for um having supportive housing in Burlington which I think is really important.

01:43:20
Uh it is it is uh important to be clear that today all that we are doing is approving a zoning change which allows mixed use and aligns with our existing vision for this area. But we we’ve not implemented uh zoning changes to implement that official plan uh vision yet. So this is here um to help us get there and get closer to that overall vision.

01:43:44
Uh I really found it helpful the comments from staff around uh the fact that regardless of whether Indwell is there or not, this is the appropriate move for council to make uh to approve the zoning today for any future use. Uh found it uh very helpful to learn about um their assessment of alternative sites for Indwell.

01:44:06
Uh that they are not shovel ready and and would themselves have to go through a fairly significant reasoning. Uh I’m not sure it’s the best um place for a standalone um residential use where there is no residential right now. There’s no neighborhood uh there. This is a uh entirely commercial property.

01:44:26
Uh but I want to thank the applicant uh sorry I want to thank uh Mchi for being creative as always and bringing us ideas uh forward. That’s what we want to be able to assess and review. And I think uh you know what we have here is the right uh approach at the right time and it goes back to the um the uh proponents uh to Indwell to start to take further steps should they wish to continue to be in this location.

01:44:54
Uh and it I also would encourage um Mshi to advance by way of application any changes on any of their properties that would add value by being able to advance uh residential. So uh should uh residential be something they wish to pursue on the North Service site, please blink bring us uh an application and go through that process uh because that would be required in any case uh and that would really give us something to uh review that’s that’s not theoretical that’s real.

01:45:24
So, um really looking forward to continuing this uh this process with the community with our provider and want to thank everyone who has continued to be part of this process and uh staff as always for your expert analysis uh review and advice to us as we try to make the best decision for our community now and into the future.

01:45:48

Thank you very much. Not seeing any other comments. So, councelor Karns >> through the chair. Thank you. And uh I do want to echo much of those comments and especially thank our compassionate care community members for coming today to continue to impress upon us the needs for this type of housing.

01:46:07
Um I do again need to delionate the fact that we’re having two conversations right now. This is a planning conversation that is solely related to land use, built form uh and the way in which it works within the planning context. This does not have a conversation related to uh the type of individuals that are housed, the um compassionate care that will be provided, anything like that.

01:46:31
And it’s the same conversation when we ask uh development partners, is it going to be rental or is it going to be um purchase condo? Uh we can’t control what happens inside. Uh but the city is solely responsible for the built form. I am concerned with that last comment around how this zoning bylaw amendment um is going to close off any further participation to the community and it will um move it squarely into the hands of staff who we do trust and do have expertise.

01:47:02
But I feel that with the amount of community um input and visibility to make sure that this is one of the um options that we can be very proud of for quite a long time. I am concerned about that part because it is following a different process than we normally follow which is you get a development application there are supporting studies behind it an incredible list of supporting studies.

01:47:28
uh then you get the development context, you get the images, you get the setbacks um and then you approve that. So what we’re doing I think is it feels like putting the cart before the horse and changing the zoning and then having no visibility to uh what will physically be built especially given that it is a a somewhat sensitive context.

01:47:48
So I am concerned about that. I do know that we have council in two weeks where we can continue to uh explore those considerations and concerns. But I think it’s important that the community know that after this council meeting that will be in a couple of weeks, the community is no longer engaged in anything related to this file and nor is council.

01:48:09
And I do think I may take some issue with that and and I’ll continue to explore that with staff to see um if we can undlegate that process to make sure that it it comes into these chambers so that we can get the best possible outcome for the community that we care about. >> Thank you. Councelor Bentia is next. >> Thank you, Chair, and um thank you my colleagues for all the uh the comments.

01:48:35
I uh I uh I think they’re all great, but um I just do want to remind all of us we had extensive conversations back in March and we made some decisions uh to move forward um and um the zoning was what we’re asked to do here. Uh the clock is running and um at this time we have city-owned land that we can manage and um staff feel that this is the best route to go.

01:49:10
Um pieces are in place and we all talk about needing home, you know, affordable housing. This is an easy fix. Having said all that, with all the discussion we’ve had about Emery and moving other options down the road, um some of that can still happen as plan B, plan C, whatever that that may be.

01:49:42
So, um I’m going to uh support staff’s um recommendation. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councelor Charvin. Thank you very much. The um the file is a fascinating file because we both we value we value totally the goal of having affordable housing for people who are in need of support 100%. Um the challenge has been that late in the game the opportunity to do something different arose.

01:50:18
um and that that had not we had not had the opportunity for that to ripen earlier in the process and it has implications to both parties. Indwell may have had the opportunity to be on a larger um more suitable property or they may not. Um the owners of the the the MEP um corporation is thinking that it could have had an opportunity to do something better on that property or not. and we don’t know.

01:50:46
Um, but right now we have a serious housing problem and we have an especially serious housing problem for those who need supported housing and we are terribly terribly keen to supply to to provide housing for everybody on the continuum. And given given what we’ve heard today with respect to what is what is happening that the change in the zoning um does not impair the existing use of the properties the existing plans of the OPA2 um that Indwell have still got the opportunity to negotiate um a different location for what is proposed. So, I I believe we’re on a path that it’s it’s kind of tough to say anything other than okay. And I’m sorry for those who don’t get the answer they want, but we have to

01:51:44
figure out how we engage earlier in the process. I do think that that Miy would have appreciated a much earlier engagement in the entire cycle. U but I can’t change that right now. Anyway, those are my comments. Thank you. Thank you very much. I see no more comments. I will now call the vote on item 13.

01:52:04
1, zoning bylaw amendment for 1022, 1028, and 10:30 Waterown Road, DGM 3626. The motion is as follows. Approve and enact a zoning bylaw lemon in accordance with appendix C of development and growth management report DGM 3626 and deem that zoning bylaw 202518 conforms to the 2020 official plan of the city of Burlington, the 1997 official plan of the city of Burlington and the 1995 Burlington regional official plan as applicable.

01:52:39
That’s it. All those in favor? Any opposed? That carries. That concludes our agenda for today. Motion to receive and file information items. May I have a motion as such? Councelor Charman. Thank you. I’ll now call the vote. All in favor? Any opposed? That carries. Any staff comments? Any committee comments? Council Karns.

01:53:09

Yeah, thank you very much, Chair. I am going to take the opportunity to use my uh committee comments which is uh not customary in committee but I did check it with the clerks yesterday. Um and I feel that the the weight and the gravity of my comments are so important that they can’t actually wait until council.

01:53:29
So I’m going to exercise this opportunity um with putting the time on the clock >> as a member of Halton Police. services board and local council representative. I’m taking this opportunity to address recent statements by the police board chair and HRPS deputy chief hill following a guilty verdict for charges of first-degree murder recently issued in the tragic death of a 12-year-old Burlington boy which occurred right here in the heart of Burlington’s Ward 2.

01:53:57
The verdict brings a measure of accountability in a case that has profoundly affected Burlington and communities across Halton. While the outcome of these proceedings cannot undo the tragic loss of a young life, it does affirm the importance of justice, accountability, and the rule of law. As both the ward counselor for the community where this horrific act occurred, and as a member of the Halton Police Services board, it’s my obligation to acknowledge the community response. In addition, this case has weighed heavily on me personally and professionally. The circumstances surrounding this tragedy have deeply shaken our community and serve as a painful reminder to the collective responsibility to protect our vulnerable children. My sincere gratitude goes out to the investigators of Halton Regional Police Service, particularly members of the child abuse and sexual assault unit as well as the Halton Crown Attorney’s Office for their professionalism, diligence, and unwavering commitment throughout this lengthy and highly complex investigation. Their work ensured that the facts were carefully

01:54:56
examined and presented before the court with integrity and compassion. The verdict marks the conclusion of a long and difficult legal process for the victim’s loved ones, investigators, and all those deeply impacted by this unimaginable tragedy. Our thoughts remain with the victim, his sibling, his family, and every individual affected by these heartbreaking events.

01:55:17
The tragedy also reminds us of the importance of ensuring that indigenous children, families, and communities are supported through systems grounded in safety, trust, accountability, and culturally informed care. Protecting vulnerable children must remain a shared responsibility across all levels of our community.

01:55:33
And this case also underscores the critical importance of diligence, early intervention, and community responsibility. We continue to strengthen awareness, reporting mechanisms, and support systems to ensure vulnerable children are protected. and that warning signs are recognized and acted upon. While this decision delivers accountability for those responsible, it’s also a moment of reflection.

01:55:57
Burlington remains committed to fostering a safe, compassionate, and responsive community where children are protected, families are supported, and public institutions continue to work together in the public interest. I am becoming aware of vigils that are being organized and I extend every support to those who are looking to reflect, heal and come together as community.

01:56:17
Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other comments? Seeing none, motion to adjurnn. All in favor? Any opposed? Mover as councelor Sherman. All in favor? All opposed? That carries. Thank you.