Owen Sound Council Meeting - Special Meeting Transcript — December 15, 2025

00:00:20 Speaker 01: I'm calling the meeting to order.

00:00:22 Speaker 01: Are there any declarations of interest, Councillor Hamley?

00:00:26 Speaker 02: Yep, Your Worship.

00:00:27 Speaker 02: I'd like to declare a direct pecuniary interest in item four A. The nature of my interest is that I work for the Government of Ontario.

00:00:36 Speaker 02: Good.

00:00:36 Speaker 02: Thank you.

00:00:37 Speaker 02: Anyone else?

00:00:38 Speaker 02: Seeing none.

00:00:41 Speaker 03: Number three: Motion to move, Council, into committee on the hall.

00:00:44 Speaker 03: I think you've got them.

00:00:46 Speaker 04: Moved by myself, Deputy Mayor Greig, seconded by Councillor Hamley.

00:00:49 Speaker 04: That City Council now moves into committee on the hall to consider a staff report and undertake a working session.

00:00:55 Speaker 04: Good.

00:00:55 Speaker 01: Thank you.

00:00:55 Speaker 01: In all favour.

00:00:57 Speaker 01: And that is carried.

00:00:59 Speaker 01: So we're in committee.

00:01:00 Speaker 01: The whole at number four: We have a report from city staff, being the Senior Planner, proposed changes to the Conservation Authorities Act, and I think Sabine is going to do it.

00:01:13 Speaker 01: Welcome.

00:01:16 Speaker 01: Good afternoon, Mayor and members of Council.

00:01:20 Speaker 05: Margaret Potter could not be here to present this report today, so I'm here in her stead, and I would like to introduce Tim Lanther, CEO of the Great Salt Lake Conservation Authority.

00:01:33 Speaker 05: So I think he may be able to answer some questions subsequent to the report.

00:01:40 Speaker 05: So we are here regarding CS-2023-123: proposed changes to the Conservation Authorities Act.

00:01:50 Speaker 05: The province has passed Bill 68, establishing the Ontario Provincial Conservation Agency, which is a provincial board-governed agency to provide centralized leadership and governance, strategic direction, and oversight of Ontario's conservation authorities,

00:02:05 Speaker 05: and to oversee the transition to a regional watershed-based framework.

00:02:09 Speaker 05: The bill received first reading on November sixth and royal assent on November twenty-seventh.

00:02:14 Speaker 05: So it was an efficient process through the legislature.

00:02:19 Speaker 05: An ERO posting is open until December twenty-second regarding the regional watershed-based model, which proposes to consolidate thirty-six existing conservation authorities into seven regional authorities: Grey-Sable Conservation Authority,

00:02:32 Speaker 05: which is the one that Owen Sound is a part of, is proposed to be consolidated into the Huron Superior Regional Conservation Authority.

00:02:42 Speaker 05: This regional jurisdiction is proposed to be approximately 230 square kilometres in size, and the municipal membership will span from Grand Bend to Newmarket and north to Thunder Bay:

00:02:55 Speaker 05: a revised structure where Owen Sound goes from one amongst eight municipalities to one municipality amongst eighty.

00:03:03 Speaker 05: Through the ERO posting, the province seeks feedback on the proposed boundaries and the criteria to be applied to inform the regional framework.

00:03:14 Speaker 05: The proposed criteria for determining the boundaries for regional conservation authorities are maintaining watershed-based jurisdiction; aligning with natural hydrological boundaries; consistent with drinking water source protection areas and regions; relationships between conservation authorities and municipalities;

00:03:32 Speaker 05: balancing expertise and capacity across conservation authorities; and finally, service continuity—ensuring uninterrupted delivery of local conservation authority programmememes, including flood forecasting and warning, permitting, and source water protection through and after consolidation.

00:03:49 Speaker 05: City staff have significant concerns about maintaining the city's voice as one of eighty, the impact on budget, the erosion of relationships and responsiveness, and the loss of local knowledge.

00:04:01 Speaker 05: As with the Planning Act,

00:04:03 Speaker 05: there have been a series of changes in recent years to the Conservation Authorities Act that have not been in force long enough to assess whether these changes have had their intended impact.

00:04:12 Speaker 05: Conservation authorities were established at the request of municipalities in a common watershed where they agreed to work together with shared governance on local resource matters;

00:04:21 Speaker 05: conservation authorities governed by local municipalities are flexible in their response to local needs.

00:04:26 Speaker 05: It is locally elected officials who understand their communities.

00:04:30 Speaker 05: The province has not provided a plan for the proposed restructuring: no framework for how the restructuring would be funded, governed, or how relationships with local community groups and ratepayers will be sustained.

00:04:43 Speaker 05: A note at the bottom of the ERO posting states that the ministry will provide further details on timelines, engagement opportunities, and transition supports at a future date.

00:04:53 Speaker 05: Staff recommend that the resolution of Council, the staff report, and its attachments be sent as the city's response to Bill 68 and the ERO posting.

00:05:03 Speaker 05: Also, the report, council resolution, and attachment should be forwarded to MPP Paul Vickers; the Premier of Ontario; the Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks; the Minister of Natural Resources;

00:05:15 Speaker 05: the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing; Grey-Sable Conservation Authority Board of Directors; Conservation Ontario; and AMO.

00:05:24 Speaker 05: In summary, staff recommendations include that the province maintain local, independent, municipally governed watershed-based conservation authorities to ensure strong local representation in decisions related to local levies, community-focused service delivery,

00:05:39 Speaker 05: and the protection and management of conservation lands.

00:05:43 Speaker 05: That Owen Sound not support the proposed Huron Superior Regional Boundary configuration and instead maintain existing CA boundaries; that consolidation is unnecessary and would introduce substantial transition costs and divert resources away from frontline programmememes;

00:05:59 Speaker 05: that a new top-down approach risks creating unnecessary cost, red tape, and bureaucracy; that the province should centralize standards, resources, and tools and provide predictable provincial funding to CAs;

00:06:12 Speaker 05: that the province should undertake a cost-benefit analysis of the current and proposed systems of governance and proceed only if there are known improvement performance outcomes; that the province should engage meaningfully with affected municipalities,

00:06:26 Speaker 05: conservation authorities, and local Indigenous leaders and agencies to ensure any changes reflect local needs and practical realities of implementation.

00:06:36 Speaker 05: Staff caution based on experience with other provincial online permitting portals: that online permitting portals may add to application processing timelines, and that these portals are not accessible to all residents of Ontario.

00:06:53 Speaker 05: That I'm sorry—on Sound supports Lakehead Region's Conservation Authority's recommendation that they remain a standalone conservation authority as they are the only conservation authority in northwestern Ontario;

00:07:05 Speaker 05: and that the city remind the province that local communities should retain influence over decisions that impact them directly and for which they're paying.

00:07:13 Speaker 05: Thank you.

00:07:16 Speaker 05: Thank you.

00:07:18 Speaker 06: Go ahead, through you Mayor: I do move the recommendation as it is presented, but I also have a few questions if I may proceed.

00:07:33 Speaker 06: We have a duty to consult; in fact, we have an obligation to consult.

00:07:40 Speaker 06: If this proceeds without us consulting, then we have potentially not overseen and fulfiled our obligation to consult.

00:07:53 Speaker 06: How can we ensure that our Indigenous community provides additional input, and that we can demonstrate they have been consulted?

00:08:08 Speaker 06: Maybe go to Pam.

00:08:11 Speaker 07: Thank you, Your Worship: I think the spirit of that question is really captured in the report,

00:08:17 Speaker 07: and we certainly encourage the province—not the city—in this case because it's the province proposing the legislation—and we would hope that they undertake consultation with the Indigenous community.

00:08:32 Speaker 06: Through you, Mayor, I noticed that you've listed a bunch of groups and individuals representing each municipality currently included in our conservation authority area.

00:08:43 Speaker 06: Will we be sending a copy to each and every municipality that's part of our Conservation Authority area so they could also use that information should they choose to submit a response?

00:09:00 Speaker 06: Sorry, through you, Mayor.

00:09:02 Speaker 05: So sorry, Councillor Merton, are you requesting that we provide this report to all the municipalities proposed to be part of the regional model or the ones currently part of the Great Salt Lake Conservation Authority?

00:09:20 Speaker 06: Through you, Mayor.

00:09:20 Speaker 06: Currently, my request is for those that are part of our current conservation authority area.

00:09:33 Speaker 01: Given it's your motion and you're suggesting included in Motion Number Two would be the other municipalities that are part of the Grey-Sable Conservation Authority...

00:09:43 Speaker 01: Yes, I wish to have them included.

00:09:46 Speaker 01: Others, go ahead.

00:09:51 Speaker 08: I would just note these are comments to the Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO), so anyone has an opportunity to provide their input within the time frame.

00:10:08 Speaker 08: So I encourage anyone in the community concerned about these changes—which many foresee as being very detrimental for the future of conservation and similar work across southern Ontario—primarily below Sudbury, Low Sudbury,

00:10:28 Speaker 08: and east of North Bay that is overseen by a Conservation Authority—to submit comments to the province.

00:10:43 Speaker 08: I think there's been a real lack of dutiful consultation; however, we've had the benefit here of a really thorough report.

00:10:50 Speaker 08: The author is extremely informed on how Great Saltwater Conservation Authority works through previous employment opportunities.

00:10:51 Speaker 08: I'd like to thank staff for that.

00:11:08 Speaker 08: Council has some good material contained within the report from which we've benefited.

00:11:13 Speaker 08: Thank you to staff for such a thorough report; I couldn't be more resolute in supporting those comments myself.

00:11:26 Speaker 08: Thank you, Councillor Farmer.

00:11:28 Speaker 09: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

00:11:29 Speaker 09: I want to echo that: it's a really good, very thorough report about a very bad idea for so many reasons.

00:11:37 Speaker 09: Looking to staff, perhaps is there an opportunity not just to submit this to the ERO but also put out a press release or have the communications team explicitly communicate that the City is providing feedback?

00:11:50 Speaker 09: This would raise visibility more publicly if people aren't uniformly reading minutes of this particular meeting.

00:12:00 Speaker 03: Given there's media present, they'll choose whether to include it; similarly with a press release, they'll decide whether to print it.

00:12:07 Speaker 03: So I think we're probably covered.

00:12:12 Speaker 10: Separate question through the Mayor: could we hear from staff or our representative—or a representative from GSEA—about potential budget increases resulting from this?

00:12:30 Speaker 10: My understanding is financial implications flow directly down to municipalities, where the province contributes at most seven per cent of a particular departmental budget.

00:12:45 Speaker 10: To my understanding, if we could just hear explicitly around the financial implications...

00:12:50 Speaker 03: Mr. Lanthier, can you advise on any thoughts regarding what the budget effect could be for taxpayers in Owen Sound?

00:12:59 Speaker 03: Does that cover it?

00:13:00 Speaker 03: Yes.

00:13:06 Speaker 03: Thank you.

00:13:07 Speaker 03: Through you, Mr. Mayor.

00:13:08 Speaker 03: Thank you for the opportunity.

00:13:10 Speaker 03: Council: I'll preface this as I do with most talks about this subject—it's a little bit speculative and based on my opinion because information provided is extremely limited.

00:13:24 Speaker 11: What I'm basing this on includes my understanding of the Conservation Authorities Act, proposed changes, experience working with conservation authorities, and developing their budgets.

00:13:39 Speaker 11: From everything seen so far, it suggests this new process should cost more than current processes.

00:13:47 Speaker 11: The reason: we're adding extra levels of bureaucracy.

00:13:52 Speaker 11: We have the province stating no staff or jobs will be lost—so your opportunity via amalgamation to save money through cuts won't exist.

00:14:06 Speaker 11: Local offices are expected to remain open per provincial statements; thus operating costs persist.

00:14:13 Speaker 11: You'll now also pay for a regional governance body, whose senior staff responsibilities involve larger-scale work than today's structure—I expect their office to employ more senior staff accordingly.

00:14:31 Speaker 11: I anticipate leveling up of staffing across the entire region based on what occurred during other amalgamations in the 1980s, '90s and early 2000s.

00:14:43 Speaker 11: Additionally, there is a provincial conservation agency whose legislation allows it to apportion costs to Conservation Authorities—which already have legislative ability to apportion their own costs back to municipalities.

00:15:02 Speaker 11: I caution Council: read changes carefully because the provincial conservation agency can indirectly apportion its costs to municipalities via these mechanisms.

00:15:16 Speaker 11: Therefore, my opinion remains that this will cost municipalities more.

00:15:22 Speaker 11: If I may take one step further, Mr. Mayor—I also have concerns regarding revenue generation.

00:15:32 Speaker 11: Currently, Graceville Conservation Authority (and many others) generate significant own revenues: for us, fifty per cent supports our budget; municipal levies cover forty-three per cent;

00:15:43 Speaker 11: the remaining seven per cent comes from the province—mostly for drinking water source protection funding work in Grey-Sable, Saugeen Valley and North Bruce Peninsula.

00:15:55 Speaker 11: Some monies have been very fortunate due to beautiful properties we care for where parking fees drive about $400,000 this year alone—we reinvest that locally into these properties and programmememes.

00:16:16 Speaker 11: If funneled up to a regional jurisdiction, there are no guarantees such money returns to communities.

00:16:26 Speaker 11: Again, based on experience but without supporting data at this point regarding how changes will be financed: thank you.

00:16:36 Speaker 11: Perfect.

00:16:36 Speaker 12: Thank you, Councillor Koepke.

00:16:40 Speaker 12: Just while you're here, Tim—are you making presentations to other municipalities within the Grey-Sable region as well?

00:16:48 Speaker 12: And can you tell me: is drinking water source protection a separate board?

00:16:53 Speaker 12: Are there changes happening to that board as well?

00:17:00 Speaker 11: Two-part question.

00:17:01 Speaker 11: Yes, I've been attending every council in the municipality.

00:17:05 Speaker 11: The only one left after today is [to] present to the Township of Chatsworth, and the sentiment from all of the councils has been that this does not seem like a good idea for rural Ontario,

00:17:16 Speaker 11: which obviously we are, as well as attending Grey County and speaking with the CAO at Bruce County.

00:17:24 Speaker 11: So, in terms of talking about drinking water source protection: again, we don't have the information right now.

00:17:31 Speaker 11: Drinking water source protection is there's a committee for the drinking water source protection area, and our drinking water source protection area is Gray Sable Conservation Authority's boundaries, Sauble Valley Conservation Authority's boundaries,

00:17:42 Speaker 11: and the municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula.

00:17:45 Speaker 11: There are also separate boards.

00:17:47 Speaker 11: So there's a Source Protection Authority board: which is Gray Sable's board for Gray Sable; it's Sauble Valley's board for [Sauble] Valley.

00:17:54 Speaker 11: So obviously those boards can't exist anymore because the conservation authorities wouldn't exist.

00:18:01 Speaker 11: But we again, we haven't been provided with the information to tell us what that looks like.

00:18:12 Speaker 12: Just one more question: I know there's a lot of organisations such as the Bruce Trail Conservancy;

00:18:18 Speaker 12: "the your" [sic] place where you sell trees—that group of people—several groups of people who are conservation authority lovers and supporters.

00:18:31 Speaker 12: Are connections being made with them to let them know what's happening?

00:18:37 Speaker 11: Yes.

00:18:38 Speaker 11: So, in addition to attending all of our municipal councils because I do think first and foremost as our most immediate and strongest partner, our municipalities need to be informed about what's happening here,

00:18:50 Speaker 11: and certainly our municipalities can be expected to feel the brunt of this impact the strongest.

00:18:57 Speaker 11: But we're also getting out into the community so we're talking with all of our different volunteer groups and informing them; we've met with Rouge Trail Environmental Defence [sic], other organisations like that,

00:19:09 Speaker 11: and I was even able to see Field Naturalists the other night, and then they did a great job providing that message out to all of their members.

00:19:20 Speaker 08: Good then.

00:19:20 Speaker 08: No—go ahead.

00:19:21 Speaker 08: One more: if I could just build off one comment Tim just provided, and that was about drinking water source protection.

00:19:30 Speaker 08: Yes, there's the Source Protection Authority Board; there's also the Source Protection Committee management which exists of the current chair and vice-chair and the CAO of Grey-Sable [sic] and Saugeen and Town of North Bruce.

00:19:45 Speaker 08: That too will be lost.

00:19:47 Speaker 08: So actually, the Source Protection Committee consists of unelected representatives that fulfil that role and do it very well.

00:19:58 Speaker 08: Don't get me wrong: but there is not direct municipal representation on how those funds are expended, and I've always been a pretty adamant believer in no taxation without representation.

00:20:10 Speaker 08: So it actually contradicts moves this government made about seven or eight years ago when they removed a lot—they changed the ratios and percentages of makeup of conservation authority boards in the province—and in doing so

00:20:26 Speaker 08: removed a lot of public appointed roles and provided more power to municipalities.

00:20:33 Speaker 08: And in doing so,

00:20:34 Speaker 08: so this is actually counter—or somewhat hypocritical—to the actions of the same government just seven or eight years ago because the result effectively means the drinking water source committee has no direct conduit to municipalities that

00:20:52 Speaker 08: I'm aware of.

00:20:57 Speaker 03: Okay; I think we'll call the questioning.

00:20:59 Speaker 03: I'm not seeing hands going up any further.

00:21:00 Speaker 03: So Councillor Merton has moved the recommendation with adding the other municipalities of the Great Sable Conservation Authority region: all in favour?

00:21:11 Speaker 03: And that is carried.

00:21:12 Speaker 03: Thanks again for coming in Tim and giving us that background and insight into that; so thank you.

00:21:22 Speaker 03: So next at number five on this agenda we have a working session regarding the zoning by-law amendment and official plan amendment.

00:21:34 Speaker 03: I believe joining us on screen will be Mr. Aston [sic] and Ms. Clark.

00:21:41 Speaker 03: This is a continuation of what we did before.

00:21:47 Speaker 03: Pam, is there anything that you need to say to kick this off or am I just starting with councillors' comments or ideas, questions?

00:21:57 Speaker 07: Thank you Your Worship; I'm not sure if Dave and Aaliyah joined us on the screen.

00:22:02 Speaker 07: I was supposed to message them when we were getting close to finish and I didn't give them a lot of warning.

00:22:09 Speaker 07: But for council: the links were provided in the agenda to the presentation from last meeting.

00:22:16 Speaker 07: If there's anything that you'd like Mr. Aston [sic] to go back over today, we're happy to do that.

00:22:22 Speaker 07: But the goal today was really to finish the opportunity for council to provide feedback/questions.

00:22:30 Speaker 07: We would ask if you're asking for a particular change: do that by way of motion so we know sort of what you are expecting;

00:22:41 Speaker 07: our next steps in terms of process—and you can certainly follow along on our City of Owen Sound web page—will be to consolidate all the feedback that's been received,

00:22:56 Speaker 07: starting with the survey and open house at Bayshore through official public notice through special meeting and public meeting.

00:23:05 Speaker 07: And we'll bring a report to January Community Services Committee with updated draft documents; then minutes of that meeting will come forward to Council.

00:23:18 Speaker 07: With respect to the official plan: County of Grey will then approve the official plan as it's considered a five-year update given provincial planning conformity work.

00:23:32 Speaker 07: So with that, Stacey has Mr. Aston joined?

00:23:37 Speaker 07: Okay so if we could just give him a minute to join Your Worship; thank you Councillor Hamley [sic].

00:23:46 Speaker 02: Councillor Hamley I just have some more questions on process here because: are we here today going to be officially stamping this as the official plan?

00:24:02 Speaker 02: Like there's still two outstanding reports that we're looking for—on height and market study.

00:24:07 Speaker 02: So I just want to make sure we're not making a decision before we have those reports.

00:24:11 Speaker 07: No absolutely Councillor Hamley; you are exactly right.

00:24:19 Speaker 07: So after today we'll take all feedback received.

00:24:24 Speaker 07: Based on that feedback we'll have a report in January which will address among other matters:

00:24:30 Speaker 07: the two items you've mentioned specifically—some options and ideas around market study looking at height and density—and all other feedback received will be addressed in that report.

00:24:43 Speaker 07: So absolutely no decisions today; just an opportunity for council to ask any questions or give any feedback or provide direction, then we'll follow up with that report in January.

00:24:58 Speaker 01: Thank you Pam.

00:25:00 Speaker 01: So Mr. Aston I do see you're on line there: anything that you want to say just before we start?

00:25:05 Speaker 01: The idea is just to start back into the council discussion where we ended a couple of weeks ago and proceed from there; anything you want to add before we get going?

00:25:18 Speaker 13: Good afternoon Mayor; no—I think Pam's overview was great, and I've got our past presentation here in case we need to refer to it.

00:25:28 Speaker 13: But I think we're just looking to receive that feedback or respond to any questions within the context of this workshop session.

00:25:40 Speaker 13: Perfect thank you.

00:25:41 Speaker 13: Okay so who's starting?

00:25:42 Speaker 14: Councillor Farmer; through the Mayor: "Thank you."

00:25:47 Speaker 14: Through the Mayor, I've got questions and potential motions on a variety of subjects.

00:25:52 Speaker 14: To start with: I was hoping to ask Dave some questions about parking minimums.

00:25:58 Speaker 14: It won't surprise anyone who's been here with me last few years that parking minimums are on my mind because I think they get in the way of efficiency of our development thinking just over summer

00:26:11 Speaker 14: around—we needed to sell some land so someone could meet parking requirements for proposed residential development they were building;

00:26:20 Speaker 14: otherwise there was enough space on parcel for building itself but not parking.

00:26:25 Speaker 14: We looking around city: we've got oversupply of parking in number large-scale commercial developments judged by fact that you can always find a parking space.

00:26:36 Speaker 14: And I'm one—and I'm wondering if Dave could speak to what our options are to reduce barriers to development, by way of lessening burden of minimum parking requirements for residential and commercial properties?

00:26:48 Speaker 14: Like: can we remove minimums altogether so developers who know their markets can decide what they need?

00:26:54 Speaker 14: Or can we pair like a sculpted reduction in parking minimums with parking maximums or trade-offs where if you've got certain number transit spots—or—

00:27:04 Speaker 14: Of transit spots or bike parking, or things like that that we don't need as much parking.

00:27:11 Speaker 14: Like, what are our options to lessen the burden of parking minimums on development?

00:27:19 Speaker 14: And who's that directed to?

00:27:21 Speaker 03: It's directed to you, Dave.

00:27:23 Speaker 03: If you can answer that one.

00:27:26 Speaker 13: Yeah, I think there's a lot in there as far as parking goes, and well, it always seems to come down to site planning,

00:27:39 Speaker 13: building development—you know how many parking spaces are required and how many are provided.

00:27:45 Speaker 13: I think there's some way to take a look at minimums and maximums.

00:27:52 Speaker 13: I think there's a lot of municipalities that have minimums and maximums.

00:27:59 Speaker 13: I've seen some municipalities where there's no parking, but...

00:28:02 Speaker 13: I've only seen that in areas where you have major transit station areas—not even in areas where there's just typical bus routes.

00:28:16 Speaker 13: So I would say in the city, in my opinion, that you are not going to a scenario where you're totally removing parking requirements.

00:28:27 Speaker 13: Now that's not to say that there may be a site-specific location or use where someone may look to a variance or an amendment to the bylaw to reduce the parking.

00:28:40 Speaker 13: But I wouldn't recommend that you establish your parent zoning bylaw with no parking.

00:28:48 Speaker 13: I think if you want to look at maximums, that would kind of set out the total amount of parking.

00:28:58 Speaker 13: Say... reference was to commercial areas.

00:29:02 Speaker 13: We have minimums in the parking requirements now.

00:29:07 Speaker 13: I would say most people are working toward minimums.

00:29:11 Speaker 13: In some of the commercial areas, there may be more than the minimums.

00:29:15 Speaker 13: And as I mentioned before,

00:29:18 Speaker 13: we're trying to look at parking lots and commercial areas in the design guidelines to see where we can—you know—see those parking areas have some more trees or some more green spaces or whatever the case

00:29:34 Speaker 13: may be,

00:29:34 Speaker 13: which may bring down ultimately the parking needs.

00:29:38 Speaker 13: So, minimum and maximum parking; yes, that's something that you could take a look at.

00:29:46 Speaker 13: Are there ways to build into the bylaw to further reduce parking?

00:29:51 Speaker 13: You could, if you wanted to—you could suggest that in some areas they have different overlays of different areas that have different parking requirements.

00:30:07 Speaker 13: So you have your River District where you already have reduced parking.

00:30:11 Speaker 13: If you wanted to say—for example—within walking distance of a transit stop, you may be able to reduce parking if you're within that area by some amount;

00:30:27 Speaker 13: or if you provide X percent over the minimum required amount of bicycle parking or EV parking, you could reduce your main parking.

00:30:37 Speaker 13: So I think there are some ways that you could look at setting up for further reduction of parking.

00:30:47 Speaker 13: But I would still always stick to some type of a minimum or maximum base.

00:30:53 Speaker 13: I'm just going to go to Pam.

00:30:57 Speaker 07: Thank you, Worship, and thanks, Dave.

00:30:59 Speaker 07: And Mr. Austin touched on it, but just as a reminder for Council: in the River District and the C-One area—which is slightly larger than sort of the official River District—we do, in its simplest terms,

00:31:14 Speaker 07: allow the redevelopment of existing buildings without providing parking; and on top of that there is an opportunity—if you were increasing the GFA and you were required to have parking—that I think it was somebody mentioned:

00:31:32 Speaker 07: the development this summer did cash-in-lieu-of-parking.

00:31:35 Speaker 07: So it's a fairly nominal fee where a developer, if they're short on spaces—acknowledging the number of municipal parking spaces both on the street and in lots—in the River District.

00:31:50 Speaker 01: So...

00:31:51 Speaker 01: Pam, just interject.

00:31:52 Speaker 01: In the past we would have had a minimum for commercial space; on commercial so many units per square foot.

00:32:03 Speaker 01: What was our minimum?

00:32:04 Speaker 01: Is that still the same?

00:32:06 Speaker 01: What are we proposing here?

00:32:11 Speaker 01: Dave, do you or Leah want to take that?

00:32:16 Speaker 07: But it is generally—it's based on land use—so in the commercial areas—for example there would be different rates.

00:32:24 Speaker 07: So we would have a shopping centre; so it's an eclectic group of commercial things.

00:32:29 Speaker 07: But if it was just a restaurant or just an office—the space requirements would be based on that particular type of use.

00:32:38 Speaker 07: So thinking in a shopping centre, there's some efficiency by putting them all together—that rate is a little bit different—but then...

00:32:47 Speaker 07: Different but then there's a particular rate for each one of those particular uses, based—you know—what other communities do and what our experience is.

00:32:58 Speaker 07: Remembering that we do live in an area where unfortunately snow ends up taking up a little bit of parking area from time to time.

00:33:07 Speaker 13: Okay so I think...

00:33:08 Speaker 13: Oh yeah.

00:33:10 Speaker 13: Go ahead.

00:33:10 Speaker 13: Sorry, Mayor.

00:33:12 Speaker 13: I—I—in addition to what Pam was saying,

00:33:15 Speaker 13: I believe when we did the first bylaw—the comprehensive bylaw years ago—that we did look at reducing the parking when we first did this bylaw and it actually dropped to one point two five.

00:33:36 Speaker 13: Now I think in some cases before it was one point five in the city.

00:33:42 Speaker 13: So this bylaw isn't proposing any further reduction to what we had worked through as part of the comprehensive bylaw when it was first developed.

00:33:54 Speaker 13: Okay, I'm going to go back to Councillor Farmer.

00:33:56 Speaker 13: He started it.

00:34:01 Speaker 13: I—I—so I would... to that point I would move then formally to request the inclusion of opportunities to explore parking maximums as well as the reduction of minimum parking requirements under prescribed circumstances which may include

00:34:19 Speaker 10: an oversupply of multimodal parking spaces or proximity to transit stops among others.

00:34:31 Speaker 10: If that's clear and captures Dave's comments previously, that was a motion.

00:34:37 Speaker 10: So that's a motion on the floor.

00:34:38 Speaker 03: Okay on that I'm seeing some puzzled looks.

00:34:42 Speaker 03: Do you want to repeat it?

00:34:44 Speaker 03: "I move the council request similar to what we did—I'm just requesting options like we did in the previous meeting—to say give us some opportunities here to look at this."

00:34:55 Speaker 14: So,

00:34:56 Speaker 14: request that the subsequent report include options to explore parking maximums as well as a scaled reduction in parking minimum when certain conditions are met which may include an oversupply of multimodal parking spaces—like bike parking,

00:35:15 Speaker 14: scooter parking etc.—or proximity to transit stops among others.

00:35:21 Speaker 14: Okay discussion on that motion Councillor Koepke.

00:35:25 Speaker 14: Just a question to staff:

00:35:28 Speaker 14: If a developer doesn't want to provide the number of parking spaces or doesn't feel they need to provide the number of parking spaces required are they able to go through Committee of Adjustment for a

00:35:40 Speaker 12: variance on that?

00:35:43 Speaker 12: Through your Worship in the River District we may be able to use cash-in-lieu.

00:35:48 Speaker 07: But in other areas you're absolutely right there would be a process through the Committee of Adjustment or potentially even a zoning amendment to address the provision of the minimum number of spaces.

00:36:02 Speaker 07: Councillor Burton...

00:36:05 Speaker 07: Through you Mayor I know I had the opportunity to meet with Dave and Aliya prior to our last meeting to talk a lot about parking minimums and all of the requirements.

00:36:20 Speaker 06: I understand that we're talking about development however one of the questions in my group of questions that I asked was how does the reality that our daytime population increases by approximately double primarily vehicle-related—and the

00:36:36 Speaker 06: fact that we are a regional service hub—factor into decisions relating to parking minimums that may not apply to other municipalities?

00:36:45 Speaker 06: So the issue of parking minimums and ranges is important however it's not just about development.

00:36:54 Speaker 06: It is the fact that we have a volume of traffic statistically proven because we are a regional hub—and how would that fact,

00:37:03 Speaker 06: Hub—and how would that factor in to any additional report that might come back to Council?

00:37:14 Speaker 06: That was to Dave.

00:37:18 Speaker 06: Well I think when from what I'm hearing there—we're talking—there's people who live in Owen Sound that use Owen Sound services then there's people from Etobicoke and surrounding areas that use services in Owen Sound and

00:37:42 Speaker 13: they come into Owen Sound.

00:37:46 Speaker 13: And I think that's where it's important that we continue to think about that from a parking perspective—and when we talk about parking minimums—you know—things have just been brought up as examples maybe some reductions if

00:38:11 Speaker 13: a site's close to transit and so on and so forth.

00:38:14 Speaker 13: My perspective would be that that may assist those in the city who could utilise that service,

00:38:25 Speaker 13: transit service—who'd like to go to the commercial or you know the doctor's office—but ultimately if there's people coming from out of town that don't have access to the transit service or it's too far to

00:38:39 Speaker 13: ride their bike they're still going to need somewhere to park to utilise that service—and so that's why my recommendation is you still need to look at and maintain a minimum amount of parking within all

00:38:59 Speaker 13: your zones—saving except for what we've already been providing in the River District where there's parking reduction and transit—and some as Pam had mentioned some potential where there's cross-parking because of different uses.

00:39:23 Speaker 13: So you park once downtown—you go to various different locations and various different uses.

00:39:30 Speaker 13: So there's kind of a shared parking approach.

00:39:36 Speaker 13: Good thanks, Deputy Mayor Greig.

00:39:40 Speaker 13: Thank you.

00:39:41 Speaker 04: In this question, I'll direct first to staff or Dave, perhaps Councillor Farmer.

00:39:48 Speaker 04: It's his motion as to how, depending on the outcome of my question,

00:39:52 Speaker 04: how you might want to encapsulate my question but I have wanted to see or have some discussion about like a bonusing system where underground parking would be encouraged through some ability to make it more

00:40:17 Speaker 04: desirable for the developer to add one or two stories or whatever as a trade-off.

00:40:22 Speaker 04: Trade-off: Would such an action or discussion be part of this motion, or would it be germane to parking minimums and maximums?

00:40:36 Speaker 04: Because I don't want to lose that opportunity.

00:40:40 Speaker 04: If it is actually something that should be part of minimums and maximums, it's just a different way of creating the allowance for the developer.

00:40:55 Speaker 04: Your Worship, I was just going to say, Your Worship, if you could just give us a minute, I'm just checking the current zoning bylaw.

00:41:03 Speaker 07: I want to make sure there used to be a provision that said where parking is provided in covered or underground structures, there was a special provision.

00:41:12 Speaker 07: But I'm just looking to refresh my memory on what's existing.

00:41:16 Speaker 07: So if we could come back to that, I'd appreciate it.

00:41:20 Speaker 07: Deputy Mayor Greig has taken us down a rabbit hole, so to speak.

00:41:35 Speaker 03: Your Worship, Section 5108-15 is a provision currently regarding underground parking, and it says a parking structure, whether attached or detached to the main building, that is located below grade, may be erected; to do so,

00:41:50 Speaker 07: there are special provisions with respect to setbacks from the lot line.

00:41:55 Speaker 07: But I don't see any other special provision related to underground parking.

00:42:08 Speaker 07: Through Mayor, if I may, density bonusing was something of the past, if you will.

00:42:23 Speaker 13: Community permit systems could give some potential to look at that.

00:42:31 Speaker 13: As far as we know, if you go underground, you can build higher.

00:42:35 Speaker 13: I think that's something we would have to explore a little bit more to see how those two things could coexist or provide incentives to work with one another.

00:42:59 Speaker 13: I don't think they need to be interconnected, and I think we could deal with them separately.

00:43:07 Speaker 13: Thank you.

00:43:08 Speaker 13: Okay, so Councillor Farmer's motion is on the floor regarding parking maximums and minimums.

00:43:16 Speaker 01: Did anyone else have any comments?

00:43:21 Speaker 01: Councillor Caplan?

00:43:21 Speaker 01: Just for clarity on the motion.

00:43:24 Speaker 12: The motion is to look at options.

00:43:27 Speaker 12: It's not...

00:43:27 Speaker 12: Yeah.

00:43:28 Speaker 12: Okay.

00:43:28 Speaker 12: Thanks, John.

00:43:31 Speaker 12: Try and try to be focused.

00:43:34 Speaker 12: Thank you through the Mayor.

00:43:35 Speaker 14: Yes, I'm just asking for options within the report.

00:43:37 Speaker 14: I also think this is an opportunity where we can, if we know that there are conditions in which we would approve—or the Committee of Adjustment would approve—changes beyond the bylaw.

00:43:46 Speaker 14: This is an opportunity for us to lower the cost of development and shrink the time by enshrining in our plan that under those conditions we would accept the change.

00:43:56 Speaker 14: I think it's a benefit to the development community, or has the potential to be one.

00:43:59 Speaker 14: But I look to the experts for feedback.

00:44:04 Speaker 14: Okay, so everyone understands the motion.

00:44:07 Speaker 03: I'm going to call the question.

00:44:07 Speaker 03: All in favour?

00:44:09 Speaker 03: One, two, three, four.

00:44:10 Speaker 03: It is carried.

00:44:11 Speaker 03: Okay, go ahead.

00:44:14 Speaker 03: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

00:44:15 Speaker 14: Speaking specifically to parking requirements with additional residential units, I think we should re-examine those as laid out in Section 5206 of the Official Plan.

00:44:25 Speaker 14: I think it contradicts the intentions of Part 31-51-2,

00:44:32 Speaker 14: in that it creates barriers to housing and institutes an artificial floor for the cost of development by requiring additional parking spaces regardless of proximity to services or the needs of a potential renter.

00:44:45 Speaker 14: So there I would move so motion: I move the Council request a range of options regarding changes to ARU [Accessory Residential Unit] parking requirements, including one, the removal in all zones; and two,

00:44:58 Speaker 14: the potential for their removal within prescribed walking distances of transit stations, post-secondary institutions, and dedicated employment lands.

00:45:06 Speaker 14: I'm thinking about meeting Georgian College students who are renting part of a house.

00:45:12 Speaker 14: They don't have a vehicle; they live within walking distance; they've got bus passes,

00:45:16 Speaker 14: and I think that we could make it easier to have more housing if we explore the option of removing parking requirements specifically for ARU use.

00:45:28 Speaker 14: Any comments?

00:45:32 Speaker 14: Go ahead.

00:45:35 Speaker 14: I think I'll support the motion.

00:45:35 Speaker 08: I support the motion because I can think of a couple different examples.

00:45:41 Speaker 08: I can think of one example in town here where it's a perfect location for the development of an additional dwelling unit,

00:45:51 Speaker 08: and I wouldn't want to see a zoning bylaw requirement for parking remove the ability to put a student in—or perhaps as you know, a granny suite—or maybe someone who isn't needing a vehicle.

00:46:07 Speaker 08: The flip side of that is...

00:46:09 Speaker 08: I have been on Operations Committee long enough; I can remember the conversations on Eleventh Avenue East and Owen Sound about what do we do with all the cars which are not fitting in driveways.

00:46:28 Speaker 08: So it was a long conversation before, I think, we finally found a solution.

00:46:33 Speaker 08: Yeah.

00:46:36 Speaker 08: But I would—I'll support the motion just because I would hate for there to be some form of red tape or obstacle.

00:46:43 Speaker 08: I think that might encourage some—and albeit I think very limited opportunities—in the community that would support ADUs [Accessory Dwelling Units] but could face a restriction.

00:46:56 Speaker 08: Councillor Merton, through you Mayor, could we ask Dave what the experience has been around this initiative?

00:47:05 Speaker 06: Because it would be helpful to know in other municipalities what's happened and whether there's been any impact on growth as a result of removing that requirement.

00:47:20 Speaker 06: Through the Mayor, sir, when you see me look sideways, Lee is actually sitting beside me; so that's why I'm doing that.

00:47:28 Speaker 13: Our experience—and what we've seen in other municipalities—is that...

00:47:32 Speaker 13: Municipalities where one space for the ARU is being requested: The Planning Act does regulate it.

00:47:40 Speaker 13: It says that it's a maximum, so you can't ask for more than one space, but you can ask for the one space for the ARU.

00:47:52 Speaker 13: So if you have—you know—a house unit and then you're adding the ARU, you can add/ask for this one space for the ARU.

00:48:00 Speaker 13: So there would be two spaces total.

00:48:02 Speaker 13: And we're seeing again in most municipalities—unless you know very specific circumstances—that people are asking for that additional parking space.

00:48:19 Speaker 13: Good.

00:48:19 Speaker 03: Thanks.

00:48:20 Speaker 03: Okay.

00:48:21 Speaker 03: Not seeing any hands go up.

00:48:22 Speaker 03: I'm going to call the question.

00:48:23 Speaker 03: All in favour?

00:48:25 Speaker 03: One, two, three, four, five.

00:48:26 Speaker 03: So that is carried.

00:48:27 Speaker 03: Through the Mayor's question to Dave and Aaliyah: I'm curious—we've had targeted densities in our residential zones—and I'm wondering if there's any policy option to require or suggest ideal densities for different employment land classifications.

00:48:53 Speaker 03: We've heard a lot about the need to preserve industrial and employment lands, and we also see a proliferation of some industries where it's a very small number of jobs on a larger parcel.

00:49:05 Speaker 14: And I'm wondering if there's an opportunity—if that's even possible within the legislative framework—and if we can have options for that coming forward.

00:49:20 Speaker 14: Through the Mayor: Essentially, when we talk about employment lands and areas and jobs, what we're trying to achieve is your growth forecast target number of jobs.

00:49:37 Speaker 13: Just similarly, we're trying to achieve your growth forecast target population.

00:49:43 Speaker 13: Jobs are a little trickier than just—you know—saying residential units per hectare or people per hectare because, as you pointed out in your comment, various types of uses have varying numbers of jobs;

00:50:01 Speaker 13: Official Plans in some cases do identify that.

00:50:08 Speaker 13: Like seeing it target cross-employment areas with so many jobs per hectare—but I... it's always just targets.

00:50:19 Speaker 13: It's not so much establishing a minimum density requirement or job density requirement by user type—it would be, ah, in my opinion, difficult to implement and difficult to monitor over time.

00:50:48 Speaker 13: Thank you.

00:50:49 Speaker 14: Yep.

00:50:51 Speaker 14: I note that the Director had her hand up as well.

00:50:57 Speaker 14: Through your Worship: One of the things to keep in mind with employment uses—while we like to attract new employers—one of our focuses is also on retaining existing ones and getting them to grow.

00:51:09 Speaker 07: So making them sort of max out their lot the first time they're developing...

00:51:15 Speaker 07: What we hope is, they get here, they get established, and that there's room on their property where they can grow.

00:51:24 Speaker 07: So perhaps doing—you know—the spirit of what you're hoping for is efficient use of land.

00:51:28 Speaker 07: There are maybe other policies that can get at that as opposed to having minimums.

00:51:35 Speaker 07: Next, thank you through the Mayor.

00:51:38 Speaker 14: I'm interested... so we've already noted that the River District and C1 zone have unique setback requirements and parking requirements.

00:51:48 Speaker 14: We also celebrate the River District as like a gem and something that we want to support.

00:51:53 Speaker 14: And to my understanding, we've made similar development patterns impossible outside of those zones.

00:51:58 Speaker 14: Is there an opportunity to expand those beyond—beyond just the C1 zone so that we can have a similar kind of mixed-use, compact development outside of just the city's downtown?

00:52:18 Speaker 14: Through the Mayor: There are a few other designations, and I may look to Pam to assist here.

00:52:30 Speaker 13: There's the waterfront mixed-use area, and there are other designations that provide for the concept of mixed use.

00:52:43 Speaker 13: It is hard to establish zoning and an official plan policy to recreate the historic river district; it has created itself over the years successfully.

00:52:58 Speaker 13: However, we do have some areas where we've identified the mixed-use concept and potential, which would support what is being suggested as far as trying to achieve that.

00:53:15 Speaker 13: I don't know if that helps.

00:53:21 Speaker 13: Mayor, does Pam want to add to that?

00:53:28 Speaker 13: Thank you.

00:53:28 Speaker 07: And through you, Your Worship.

00:53:29 Speaker 07: I am not certain if the question is more around the uses permitted or site and building regulations.

00:53:35 Speaker 07: But just recall: we do have sort of these four or five distinct commercial areas; each has a unique function and characteristic.

00:53:48 Speaker 07: The one thing about the river district that makes it tick with respect to site and building regulations as they exist is the provision of municipal parking.

00:53:57 Speaker 07: That comes at a significant cost for the municipality and may be difficult to replicate in other places.

00:54:07 Speaker 07: Go ahead, through the Mayor, as it pertains to setbacks.

00:54:12 Speaker 14: Acknowledging that mixed-use varies across zones, particularly regarding setbacks: my reading of this—and I reserve the right to be wrong or have bad ideas—is that we've made building fully up to the street impossible?

00:54:25 Speaker 14: Things like that are not possible.

00:54:31 Speaker 14: But our design guidelines also encourage infill on narrow lots.

00:54:36 Speaker 14: There is a picture on page 19 showing a couple of tall, narrow houses really close together; however, my understanding is that our setbacks would make that impossible in Owen Sound.

00:54:48 Speaker 14: I am wondering if there are opportunities to further shrink our setbacks or again request conditions under which smaller setbacks would be allowed so we can increase the density of those lands.

00:55:05 Speaker 14: Through Your Worship: I think there are great examples with the LCBO at the corner of Ninth Avenue and Sixteenth Street.

00:55:17 Speaker 07: That building was brought right up to the street—not exactly zero, but very close—with parking located to the rear or side of the building.

00:55:26 Speaker 07: Another great example would be the Sun Life Building and the new MNP Building (formerly BDO), where those buildings have been brought to the street as well as Southbridge.

00:55:36 Speaker 07: So while they are not at zero setback, I think those front yard setbacks are two or three metres.

00:55:42 Speaker 07: Those buildings seem very close to the street, creating a pedestrian-friendly environment with parking tucked in behind.

00:55:49 Speaker 07: So while it may not be exactly the same as the River District, it does create an opportunity to do something similar without creating headaches for our friends trying to move snow.

00:56:03 Speaker 07: And regarding your final question about setbacks specifically pertaining to residential: referencing that picture with side yard setbacks—is there a way for us to reduce side yard setbacks and things like that to increase residential densities?

00:56:28 Speaker 14: Yes; as laid out in our potential design guide, through Your Worship—and Dave will have ideas here too—there are now general exemptions under the Planning Act regarding those minimums.

00:56:45 Speaker 14: As of right, you can get a ten per cent reduction to those side yard setbacks.

00:56:52 Speaker 07: However, when you start reducing side yard setbacks, building code and fire code come into play because you're starting to put buildings closer together, which may increase construction costs.

00:57:04 Speaker 07: So we want to be thinking about that.

00:57:06 Speaker 07: Our zoning bylaw now has a provision: if you have two houses located on a street and are proposing one in between, the front yard setback can be reduced to match those provided.

00:57:18 Speaker 07: There is a minimum I just don't know off the top of my head.

00:57:22 Speaker 07: Generally, we try to keep the closest part of a house at six metres or five-and-a-half-metres—wherever a car will park—to ensure that when parking occurs,

00:57:32 Speaker 07: maybe one part of the house could be closer to the street but not where the car is parked;

00:57:37 Speaker 07: it needs to be sufficient so we don't have the front or tail of the car extending onto the boulevard into public space.

00:57:47 Speaker 07: But Dave and Aaliyah might have other ideas as well.

00:57:51 Speaker 07: We can look at it, but this has some provincial exemptions already in place.

00:57:57 Speaker 07: Through the Mayor: with regard to side yard setbacks, what I would suggest is that we generally have 1.2 metres on one side and 0.9 metres on the other; generally,

00:58:20 Speaker 13: that is a pretty reduced requirement when you start exploring around other municipalities.

00:58:32 Speaker 13: In some cases, I've seen a 1.2-metre yard and a 0.6-metre yard in urban centres, but the 1.2-metre and 0.9-metre requirements are well-reduced compared to similar-sized municipalities like Owen Sound.

00:58:57 Speaker 13: Typically, I've seen those instances have a minimum of one-and-a-half metres on each side so you don't have that ability to reduce down on just one side.

00:59:13 Speaker 13: So from a single-detached perspective, we have fairly conservative yet flexible yard setbacks to provide for a pretty good compact form of development.

00:59:28 Speaker 13: In addition, there is the ability to move the front porch or front part of a house forward by four-and-a-half metres while keeping the garage set back for the driveway.

00:59:44 Speaker 13: In my opinion, there's a good amount of flexibility for compact-form development within the city.

00:59:52 Speaker 13: Good; very good.

00:59:56 Speaker 13: Okay, others?

00:59:58 Speaker 13: Councillor Kepkine: Thank you, Your Worship.

01:00:02 Speaker 12: I wonder, Dave—or Pam—if you could expand on the provisions for electric vehicle parking.

01:00:13 Speaker 12: Sure, Mayor.

01:00:14 Speaker 13: Let me just get to them.

01:00:34 Speaker 13: Bear with me one second.

01:00:35 Speaker 13: My apologies.

01:00:37 Speaker 13: Yeah, no problem.

01:00:38 Speaker 13: Thanks.

01:01:00 Speaker 13: Just while that's being looked up, another thought—and Pam can probably answer this, or Sabine—maybe even places that already have electric vehicles:

01:01:12 Speaker 12: is there a possibility of getting a summary of where those are around the city?

01:01:18 Speaker 12: Both public and private?

01:01:22 Speaker 12: Yes; we can certainly work with Curtis in GIS to develop a layer including spaces at City Hall, Canadian Tire, Home Depot, etc., so people coming into the city can locate them.

01:01:45 Speaker 07: If you own a Tesla, for instance, it pops up on your computer screen, and just about anyone who has one will have an app that tells them where their vehicle is located.

01:01:54 Speaker 03: I'm not talking only Teslas though; my company came with an electric vehicle recently, went to Scotia Bank to plug in, but there was no charger available for our specific vehicle model.

01:02:03 Speaker 12: So we are curious as to where the others are.

01:02:09 Speaker 12: Mayor: I have the provisions open now.

01:02:14 Speaker 13: If there's a specific question on the provisions and how we're looking at providing it, it's a total percent of the parking spaces required being designed to permit the installation.

01:02:31 Speaker 13: So, making sure that there's the ability to install the infrastructure required for EV charging; it's not necessarily requiring the plug-in capability immediately.

01:02:48 Speaker 13: It's just making sure there's the design for that infrastructure.

01:02:56 Speaker 13: Okay?

01:02:56 Speaker 13: So can I ask: for instance, regarding the development—maybe the RCA Development property—does that have requirements for electric vehicle parking?

01:03:17 Speaker 12: For non-residential developments going forward, at least one fully available electric vehicle charging space is required.

01:03:32 Speaker 13: And so, how many spaces would they have to provide?

01:03:36 Speaker 12: One of them must be EV-ready.

01:03:40 Speaker 12: Yeah, no, it depends on the size of the development.

01:03:46 Speaker 12: Yes, I see.

01:03:47 Speaker 12: So they have to provide one for sure—like a plug-in capable space—and then whatever percentage based on the number of spaces provided needs to be design-ready so that the conduit or electrical elements are in place

01:04:07 Speaker 13: underground to add additional EV parking spaces if the demand is there later.

01:04:14 Speaker 13: Okay, thanks.

01:04:17 Speaker 13: CarDog app shows all of them?

01:04:21 Speaker 13: Hey, other questions?

01:04:23 Speaker 13: Go ahead, Mike.

01:04:26 Speaker 08: I'm going to circle back to last meeting's lengthy insights provided regarding the new classifications for employment lands: Employment 1 and Employment 2.

01:04:37 Speaker 08: I'm thinking at Grey County; over the last several years, they have been firm proponents along the way of enhancing serviced land options across the county.

01:04:49 Speaker 08: And in Owen Sound right now, we have appropriately zoned lands for employment.

01:04:54 Speaker 08: Recently, a restructuring agreement just occurred between Hanover and West Gray—they're exchanging ten million dollars.

01:05:04 Speaker 08: Some of that is to further Hanover's ability to provide serviced employment lands.

01:05:12 Speaker 08: We've just seen Mefford purchase land for multi-million dollars, and this is similar to what we already have here in Owen Sound.

01:05:26 Speaker 08: So the question: regarding Employment 2 as a new classification—is it protective?

01:05:33 Speaker 08: I mean there was some language about accommodations like janitor quarters or sleeping quarters,

01:05:42 Speaker 08: but seeing what has been undertaken at the county level in terms of looking to create more lands that we already have here in Owen Sound,

01:05:53 Speaker 08: I want to be comfortable that we are protecting our existing employment areas with the new zoning bylaw and Official Plan to the same extent as right now:

01:06:09 Speaker 08: protecting them for employment purposes only and not allowing uses other than employment.

01:06:24 Speaker 08: To Dave or Pam—I guess through Mayor—Employment 1 is the most protective category we're looking at, and in the proposed zoning, that's what we're calling M3, which would essentially protect those employment areas as they are.

01:07:01 Speaker 08: And then, if you'll recall, we had some discussion last meeting about how to deal with this whole concept of accessory dwelling units (ADUs).

01:07:19 Speaker 13: The nature of ADUs is a little bit different now compared to what Employment 2 areas represent, and we agree:

01:07:28 Speaker 13: we don't want to introduce uses within employment areas that ultimately would have a negative impact on those areas.

01:07:39 Speaker 13: So Employment 1 is what we're looking at as the major area for protection.

01:07:46 Speaker 13: Then Employment 2 would still be focused on providing for employment,

01:07:55 Speaker 13: but we are trying to minimize any sensitive uses or other impacts that could affect the ability of that employment land to support a range of future employment uses.

01:08:16 Speaker 13: We're being very mindful that Employment 2 is still important employment land.

01:08:23 Speaker 13: And if you recall from the mapping: the Employment 1 area is kind of surrounded by Employment 2 lands,

01:08:29 Speaker 13: so we also don't want to introduce sensitive uses into the Employment 2 area that would affect the Employment 1 lands.

01:08:42 Speaker 13: That's something we're still looking at—how best to make sure we're not inadvertently introducing sensitive uses into those areas while protecting them for the same purposes I'd agree with you on.

01:08:59 Speaker 13: Other places are going out looking for employment lands for development.

01:09:11 Speaker 13: Thank you, Worship.

01:09:12 Speaker 07: The changes to employment areas and employment lands are, as Council is aware, one of the major changes that the province has introduced.

01:09:23 Speaker 07: We all attended a webinar on Friday that was done by a law firm, and the planning case that was referenced; the planner on that case was Dave Aston.

01:09:34 Speaker 07: So, I feel really fortunate that we've got Dave working on our official plan.

01:09:38 Speaker 07: I wonder if, based on Council or the Deputy Mayor's comments, you just want to ask that by motion for when we report back: do the follow-up report?

01:09:50 Speaker 07: Do the follow-up report that includes some clarity on the protection of all employment lands in the updated Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

01:10:05 Speaker 07: I'd gladly make that motion.

01:10:07 Speaker 08: I just don't want to see any outcome of this that runs somewhat contrary to direction and advocacy that I've been seeing at Grey County for several years here.

01:10:15 Speaker 08: Now, in terms of protecting those lands when you have them—and right now we do—so I'll make that motion.

01:10:22 Speaker 08: Okay?

01:10:23 Speaker 08: Everyone understands the motion?

01:10:25 Speaker 08: Any questions?

01:10:27 Speaker 08: Through the Mayor: sorry, just clarifying that we're requesting more detail in the next report about how employment lands are protected specifically beyond permitted uses as supplied, right?

01:10:48 Speaker 14: Yes—not that we're going to adopt a new Zoning By-law that's going to introduce potential new uses that might be sensitive or detrimental to our existing employment land structure.

01:11:04 Speaker 08: I stole that from you; you hit your hand up.

01:11:08 Speaker 08: To you, Mayor, to the Deputy Mayor: can you be more specific about what your concerns actually are?

01:11:17 Speaker 08: We're using the terms, but sometimes it's really important for us to either have a case study or be really clear about where the pitfalls may come.

01:11:29 Speaker 06: If you wouldn't mind—at the last meeting there was some language which was speaking to sleeping quarters—and I think the word "janitor" was used as an example—but I wouldn't want to introduce anything that's too broad.

01:11:49 Speaker 08: I mean, if it were exactly and narrow in scope: but currently maybe we're not even allowing that.

01:11:56 Speaker 08: So I think we'd want to be very cautious about what that language might incorporate for sensitive uses that are not explicitly employment.

01:12:09 Speaker 08: Through the Mayor—if I may?

01:12:11 Speaker 13: Sorry, I can't see sometimes here; interjects.

01:12:13 Speaker 13: I apologize for doing that.

01:12:16 Speaker 13: In the new zone that we're proposing, that would be the kind of protection of the new area of employment.

01:12:25 Speaker 13: We are not proposing to allow dwelling units accessory to permitted use for custodian or maintenance employee—and that was the language that I think maybe caused some confusion?

01:12:45 Speaker 13: Like: the intent of that unit is to be a person working on site in a facility for that use, not anyone else.

01:12:59 Speaker 13: It's kind of—if I were to say—like an accessory retail.

01:13:02 Speaker 13: So if you're making something, you're selling that thing on site.

01:13:07 Speaker 13: If you have a large facility or a facility that requires an overnight stay or a full-time person on site—that's what that dwelling unit is for—and that is permitted in other industrial zones and employment zones

01:13:30 Speaker 13: but not the Employment Zone or the most restrictive zone.

01:13:33 Speaker 13: We are not permitting that as a use.

01:13:36 Speaker 13: But I think I want to just clarify: yes, I want to just clarify—is that what that use is?

01:13:41 Speaker 13: Because I think there is some confusion; it could be interpreted to be a dwelling unit.

01:13:49 Speaker 13: Just you know—a dwelling—you can put a dwelling unit in an industrial area.

01:13:52 Speaker 13: That's not what this is for.

01:13:55 Speaker 13: It's directly related as accessory to the business on that site.

01:14:06 Speaker 13: Thanks for that, Dave.

01:14:07 Speaker 08: When I had read that, one of the examples that comes to mind: there's a market just outside Port Algon as you're driving into it;

01:14:14 Speaker 08: it's on agricultural land but would be a great example of what we are introducing with new employment lands?

01:14:22 Speaker 08: Because I—I would have hesitancy in terms of adopting language that would allow for such an enterprise,

01:14:29 Speaker 08: which is adequate and perfectly suited where it is now in agricultural land but could have residency for temporary workers.

01:14:38 Speaker 08: As it is—it's very relevant to the success of the business—but I—would hesitate to think that that would be usage of land preferable in our employment lands or industrial land here in Owen Sound.

01:14:59 Speaker 08: And through the Mayor: I think that's where I wanted to just try and be clear.

01:15:02 Speaker 13: There are two things when you had mentioned temporary workers—that's something very different than what we're talking about here—and then, so—would home occupations as an example be very different?

01:15:18 Speaker 13: Yes; there are home occupations.

01:15:21 Speaker 13: If it is on agricultural land, it could have been identified as an on-farm diversified use—which is again very different than what we're talking about regarding lands in an employment area.

01:15:40 Speaker 13: Councillor Farmer: through the Manager,

01:15:43 Speaker 13: just for clarification—I'm hearing this as the difference between sleeping quarters for a caretaker or employee and the way that firefighters sleep at work sometimes being different from temporary farm workers sleeping where they are for

01:15:58 Speaker 15: a season and living on site.

01:16:00 Speaker 15: Do I understand that properly?

01:16:03 Speaker 15: Where the permitted use—as proposed or described—is: if you're at work and you have to be at work, but you can sleep while there—that's okay—but then you go home through the Mayor.

01:16:16 Speaker 15: I think it—it's not even really a comparison because if there are temporary workers, then that would be kind of—and that would be kind of—a whole different use again.

01:16:34 Speaker 13: If it is—for example—an on-farm or agricultural use and temporary workers—there could be housing; it's something totally different than what this By-law and again what it's talking about: if you're the on-site manager,

01:16:57 Speaker 13: a maintenance person—or someone who needs a dwelling at that operation—and you can stay there.

01:17:07 Speaker 13: Even different from firefighter—but that would be its own use in any event.

01:17:14 Speaker 13: So it is very specific; I feel like I'm repeating myself on this but it's not intended to be flexible: "Oh, temporary workers."

01:17:26 Speaker 13: Oh—if somebody makes something then all of a sudden they can live there?

01:17:32 Speaker 13: That's more of a home occupation—or because these uses—then all of a sudden now there's opportunity to start talking about well if these people work at this facility maybe they should live on site for that

01:17:48 Speaker 13: facility.

01:17:49 Speaker 13: That is not what this is; this is one unit, one person required to be there for the functioning of that use.

01:18:01 Speaker 13: So Deputy Mayor Greig: does that answer your question or do you want to leave the motion there?

01:18:06 Speaker 03: It's up to you.

01:18:07 Speaker 08: Yes—I'll leave the motion there and just I think it'd be complimentary as they're reporting back before final decision on Zoning By-law.

01:18:15 Speaker 08: And Ms. Bloomfield, if you can read it so we all understand it then we'll move forward.

01:18:20 Speaker 08: To your Worship: my understanding is that the motion is to direct staff to report back on options for protection of all employment lands in the updated Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

01:18:44 Speaker 16: Sorry; thanks.

01:18:46 Speaker 16: I did have one question.

01:18:48 Speaker 16: We currently have—and the Director mentioned about downtown parking—there was one instance where there was a bank expanding or doing a little bit of work last year.

01:19:03 Speaker 08: Some of these commercial entities go back forty, fifty, sixty, seventy years—or whatever—in the building envelope: is the new By-law more permissive for?

01:19:16 Speaker 08: I mean when they undertook a building permit they had to go through a process; have we created a little more flexibility?

01:19:23 Speaker 08: Because I think parking was part of the issue there and an entity like that is critical part of our downtown—and condoning and fostering an environment conducive to reducing and removing as much red tape as

01:19:38 Speaker 08: possible is important.

01:19:38 Speaker 08: So what does the new Zoning By-law look like using that bank's expansion as example through—through the Mayor?

01:19:49 Speaker 08: And Dave and Alia won't really have background; I'll just try to give it quickly:

01:19:54 Speaker 07: there was a bank in River District changing its parking so that new parking spaces would meet criteria around accessible spaces today, as per AODA and regulations.

01:20:10 Speaker 07: In doing so they were losing parking—they had site with 11 spaces going to have less spaces—additionally they wanted provide outside access to their bank teller or electronic bank teller which again changed configuration of property.

01:20:29 Speaker 07: In end they had to do cash in lieu for parking because reduced parking provided in old site plan.

01:20:39 Speaker 07: So if I understand what Deputy Mayor is asking perhaps what he's looking for is provision in C1 that goes beyond existing parking reduction to say if change in GFA less than certain percent—and I don't

01:20:58 Speaker 07: want guess what that is—we can turn our mind to that;

01:21:01 Speaker 07: again in that C1 area given municipal parking there wouldn't be requirement for adjustment to parking.

01:21:10 Speaker 07: So it sort of follows on Councillor Farmer's motion: if we're looking at that?

01:21:25 Speaker 07: Yes—I just want see more flexibility.

01:21:28 Speaker 08: I think—mean we had lots street parking and I think everything we can do support businesses downtown—and that great example one which 40 years ago every Friday afternoon everyone rushed to bank deposited paycheck withdrew cash

01:21:43 Speaker 08: spent it downtown men's clothing stores or maybe not all of it but some of it—and certainly things have changed so I would just want see our zoning bylaws change and pivot reflect opportunities fostering businesses

01:22:06 Speaker 08: such as they you know as try to respond certain challenges.

01:22:11 Speaker 08: Yeah—certain challenges crept up and they're just trying respond to it.

01:22:14 Speaker 08: So I want—I want see zoning bylaws that's inclusive, fostering providing staff flexibility; guess support businesses?

01:22:26 Speaker 08: Madam do need motion for that or we Your Worship?

01:22:32 Speaker 08: If understand perhaps helpful have motion says within C1 area if there read

01:22:40 Speaker 07: There's a redevelopment that doesn't change or alter the gross floor area more than X percent, or is making the parking compliant with the accessibility requirements; through zoning, we provide an exemption for this.

01:22:56 Speaker 07: I also move that since I'm not the professional planner and wouldn't pretend to be for one second, you should come up with your own language.

01:23:06 Speaker 08: So that sounds good to me.

01:23:07 Speaker 08: It's good to me.

01:23:09 Speaker 08: So, Branda, you have to be the professional planner and come up with it.

01:23:13 Speaker 03: Thanks very much.

01:23:22 Speaker 03: So we're relying on you through your Worship; the motion would be something like this:

01:23:30 Speaker 03: The follow-up report should look at opportunities within C-1 area to reduce the requirement for parking where there is an expansion of existing buildings that is less than a certain percent of the area,

01:23:47 Speaker 07: or where efforts are being made to make parking compliant with current standards relating to accessibility.

01:24:03 Speaker 07: Got all that?

01:24:08 Speaker 07: Does everyone else kind of understand that?

01:24:12 Speaker 03: Okay.

01:24:14 Speaker 03: So can I call the question?

01:24:15 Speaker 03: Everyone's clear.

01:24:16 Speaker 03: Okay, I'll call the question.

01:24:17 Speaker 03: No in favour; and that is carried.

01:24:22 Speaker 03: And my last one is to circle back through to a conversation we had briefly a few months ago regarding drive-throughs.

01:24:33 Speaker 04: I truly think we can demonstrate ourselves as being progressive and taking a leadership role across Ontario or Canada,

01:24:48 Speaker 04: following suit with some other municipalities who have taken steps in terms of banning or restricting new drive-throughs.

01:24:58 Speaker 04: My motion to prohibit new drive-throughs in any zones doesn't undermine the opportunity for choice; all existing drive-throughs in the City would remain grandfathered as possible drive-throughs.

01:25:19 Speaker 04: In fact, it could increase the value of such properties.

01:25:23 Speaker 04: But to some extent, with continuing to introduce new drive-through uses, it may not increase the value perhaps in the same way,

01:25:34 Speaker 04: shape or form if you're just opening one and closing another while playing that game.

01:25:42 Speaker 04: I have spoken about some benefits in the past: emissions are something small but important; health concerns I think are legitimate.

01:25:55 Speaker 04: It's been demonstrated by various public health units, ministries of Health South of the border also having commentary on the detrimental health impacts of drive-throughs.

01:26:10 Speaker 04: So I think it's encouraging to condone and support new restaurants and encourage people being a little more active.

01:26:18 Speaker 04: But as long as we have a publicly funded healthcare system, I think it is relevant for municipalities to be part of the discussion in terms of determining what through policy is allowed or not allowed.

01:26:33 Speaker 04: So I would make a motion: Council can discuss, support or decline to entertain that the City restricts any future drive-through development in Oceanside by restricting or denying new developments on new properties.

01:27:07 Speaker 04: You could have an existing drive-through when there's simply a change of ownership;

01:27:12 Speaker 04: it continues through its zoning appropriately and is grandfathered so we won't cut off the legs of any existing drive-through entities through a change of ownership, whatever that may be.

01:27:23 Speaker 04: But this would apply to new property development.

01:27:28 Speaker 04: Is a gas station a drive-through?

01:27:36 Speaker 04: Through your Worship, I would say no unless it's a drive-through restaurant.

01:27:42 Speaker 13: I'm understanding the reference is associated with drive-through restaurants, but maybe some clarification is needed because there are also drive-through bank machines; sometimes banks have them too, so some clarification may be helpful as well.

01:28:07 Speaker 13: And the motion would prohibit drive-throughs in similar examples just spoken: banks, pharmacies and gas stations.

01:28:21 Speaker 08: There's a gas station on the west boundary of Owen Sound that was created with a drive-through servicing that building;

01:28:29 Speaker 08: such a property would be protected and grandfathered because it does have an existing approved drive-through for food, not for gas.

01:28:40 Speaker 08: Okay Brock.

01:28:43 Speaker 08: So Your Worship, I won't support the motion.

01:28:47 Speaker 02: You know, I think in the last number of years we've had a lot of success with commercial development, and I think this would send a really bad message to those folks;

01:28:55 Speaker 02: so I can't support that.

01:28:59 Speaker 02: You were going next?

01:28:59 Speaker 02: Go ahead through you Mayor.

01:29:03 Speaker 06: My concern is that we're giving mixed messaging here.

01:29:07 Speaker 06: We've been spending a lot of time debating whether we need a retail needs assessment done.

01:29:13 Speaker 06: We're talking about employment lands, commercial zoning and then function.

01:29:18 Speaker 06: We're talking about functionally restricting what possible development could come.

01:29:24 Speaker 06: I know that there is certainly a move towards developing a culture of less vehicle-centric communities, and that we recognize the importance of that.

01:29:38 Speaker 06: There is absolutely the concern about the emissions.

01:29:42 Speaker 06: However, here in our city, you know, drilling down into that particular point seems to be working against what we've been talking about for the last while,

01:29:55 Speaker 06: and I'm thinking at this point should that be something to entertain?

01:30:00 Speaker 06: That may be something that evolves as we see our growth, as we get the zoning done, as we get the official plan in place, and we see the impact on our community.

01:30:14 Speaker 06: We are demonstrating that we want to use more multimodal means of transportation; we're building towards that.

01:30:23 Speaker 06: But the reality is, you know, if we narrow the opportunities, we're potentially closing doors.

01:30:34 Speaker 06: Mr. Farmer, through the Mayor, I have comments, but I'd also just appreciate some more clarity from Councillor Hamley around what the wrong message is, in particular like what is...

01:30:48 Speaker 14: Okay, the Mayor has redirecting me there.

01:30:52 Speaker 14: So I guess I'll speak in favour.

01:30:53 Speaker 14: I think that as we talk about wanting to encourage development, it's not just that we want more places to open and more people to be employed.

01:31:01 Speaker 14: It's that we want to create an economic environment where that is spread more widely.

01:31:07 Speaker 14: And I think that there's a lot of evidence that drive-throughs in particular don't encourage the kind of secondary spending that having places where you're not just driving there and driving home, but instead you're parking;

01:31:21 Speaker 14: you're walking by other spots.

01:31:23 Speaker 14: Drive-throughs use up a small footprint on a property for the building itself and limit the employment opportunities because they require so much space for vehicles to drive around and people to run in and grab

01:31:36 Speaker 14: stuff to go.

01:31:37 Speaker 14: In those ways I wouldn't...

01:31:40 Speaker 14: I don't think I'm supporting the motion because of the perceived health benefits.

01:31:44 Speaker 14: I think the economic benefits are, and I would articulate it as removing drive-throughs is a permitted use.

01:31:50 Speaker 14: There's a lot of language in the plans and zoning that says we allow things; they are a permitted use,

01:31:58 Speaker 14: and if they were here before whatever date then those properties will continue to be a permitted use unless they change in order of ways.

01:32:07 Speaker 14: I'll look to staff to properly kind of word my references that way,

01:32:16 Speaker 14: but as more drive-through businesses are allowed the less opportunity we have for Councillor Merton's point to ever get to a place where we have the kind of location-based spending and secondary like economic spillover that

01:32:34 Speaker 14: we would have otherwise,

01:32:35 Speaker 14: and there's so many places where they add to problems with congestion and make driving and walking feel less safe, which is why we don't allow them anymore in the C-1 zone.

01:32:51 Speaker 14: So on the economic point I support; on land use planning point I will...

01:32:55 Speaker 14: I will support the motion.

01:32:59 Speaker 14: Go ahead Mr. Yury Voschev.

01:33:02 Speaker 17: I would not be supporting this motion because firstly we have businesses trying to open up their drive-through restaurants.

01:33:09 Speaker 17: We should be encouraging that because it's their business model that they are set up on.

01:33:15 Speaker 17: And when we talk about drive-throughs, not everybody is in a financial position to go eat in at a fine dining restaurant or other restaurants which are available across the city.

01:33:27 Speaker 17: We talk about congestion; yes, we still have existing drive-throughs all over the city.

01:33:33 Speaker 17: So if we don't have any more drive-throughs, the existing ones would definitely cause congestion so people would still go there.

01:33:41 Speaker 17: And I also feel...

01:33:42 Speaker 17: I've seen when we had cases like the pandemic COVID those were the only ones that helped those businesses sustain themselves.

01:33:51 Speaker 17: So I think drive-throughs were the only option for people.

01:33:56 Speaker 17: Then you have moms who pick up children from daycare, load in four infants or children in a van right?

01:34:04 Speaker 17: And I don't think it's fair to ask them park your car get out of the car take all of them out go and order your food and pick it up.

01:34:14 Speaker 17: Seniors driving through right?

01:34:16 Speaker 17: And maybe one of the partners is on a disability like they don't want to get out of the car, and drive-through is an option for them.

01:34:25 Speaker 17: So I think...

01:34:26 Speaker 17: I get it that it's a waste of space but there is a business model that drive-throughs are based on; it has always been like how many of us go to Tim Hortons?

01:34:37 Speaker 17: Like I don't go to a Tim Hortons drive-through for coffee, but like it's a busy spot.

01:34:42 Speaker 17: Like sometimes that's the only one that works.

01:34:45 Speaker 17: And yes it does add to employment and a lot of teens work over the drive-through.

01:34:51 Speaker 17: So I just feel there are a lot of economic benefits and I would not be supporting the motion.

01:35:00 Speaker 17: And from my point of view...

01:35:01 Speaker 03: I'm going to oppose it because in five years, at this length of time is going to be 2030, and everyone's going to be driving electric cars that aren't going to put out fumes.

01:35:10 Speaker 03: Perhaps my other thing is I recall certain businesses that did not have windows during COVID putting windows in so they could serve people and keep their doors open and keep their business going;

01:35:21 Speaker 03: they couldn't otherwise.

01:35:23 Speaker 03: But so we'll call the question.

01:35:25 Speaker 03: We've got clarity on the motion.

01:35:27 Speaker 03: Okay all...

01:35:29 Speaker 03: In favour?

01:35:31 Speaker 03: One, two opposed.

01:35:33 Speaker 03: So that's defeated.

01:35:35 Speaker 03: Is there anything else Scott in your list?

01:35:38 Speaker 03: Okay anyone else have anything in their list?

01:35:40 Speaker 03: I've got two things for Dave or Pam.

01:35:47 Speaker 03: City right now owns some industrial lands that are used; well for example where the compost yard and garden compost is.

01:36:01 Speaker 03: Is it in the official plan?

01:36:02 Speaker 03: Does it need to be in the official plan?

01:36:03 Speaker 03: I guess it's the first question.

01:36:05 Speaker 03: And is it continuing to be in the official plan that we can land bank, where the City buys land to be able to flip specifically for industrial commercial use?

01:36:22 Speaker 03: You know this is certainly something that we can take back and talk about but I don't think land banking;

01:36:31 Speaker 07: the City's practice of holding it making getting it development ready making sure it has services that it's ready to develop would be something that needs to be in your official plan.

01:36:44 Speaker 07: Okay second question that's kind of related.

01:36:50 Speaker 01: Is there anything in the official plan that would permit I guess the expansion of the municipal boundaries in the future if we started to build out our industrial park or we needed larger sites for

01:37:16 Speaker 01: industrial need?

01:37:18 Speaker 01: So Joe Blow Widget Manufacturing wants to come to Canada but they need one hundred acres; not Ontario probably, but they need one hundred acres.

01:37:36 Speaker 01: We don't have a one hundred acre parcel.

01:37:39 Speaker 01: At what point do we start to plan ahead to think about boundary expansion?

01:37:44 Speaker 01: And do we need a formula that once our industrial park is built out to X percent or so many acres a minimum of number of acres left that we would start to think about that?

01:37:58 Speaker 01: I'm babbling with ideas but do we have something in the official plan that would trigger be prepared for or permit boundary expansion?

01:38:10 Speaker 01: Subject to Dave disagreeing with me I think the boundary expansion is governed by the Municipal Act.

01:38:20 Speaker 07: I wasn't anticipating answering a question today about boundary expansion so I'd have to go back and dust off my knowledge around those sections.

01:38:28 Speaker 07: But it is something that's governed by the Municipal Act.

01:38:31 Speaker 07: I think something that's really helpful for Council is the work Grey County has done recently on growth management and it looked at both lands for residential and employment.

01:38:41 Speaker 07: So we can take a look at that; we can look at our supply of current industrial lands and just confirm that...

01:38:47 Speaker 07: Just confirmed that process similar to what Hanover and West Grey have just done around their changes in municipal boundaries would be regulated more by the Municipal Act and not by our official plan.

01:39:05 Speaker 07: Carol through you Mayor I'll make a motion that that information be investigated and brought back to Council for review.

01:39:16 Speaker 06: Any further discussion on that?

01:39:18 Speaker 06: Call the question all...

01:39:19 Speaker 06: In favour?

01:39:21 Speaker 06: One two three four five six seven there's one opposed.

01:39:24 Speaker 01: That carries.

01:39:27 Speaker 01: Okay anything else?

01:39:28 Speaker 01: Go ahead.

01:39:30 Speaker 01: I had a question Christy Hempel was at the last meeting and brought up something about institutions that are in a residential zone and then when if they want to flip back to residential that they

01:39:45 Speaker 18: have to come and do a zoning bylaw amendment again.

01:39:48 Speaker 18: Is there a way that we could make it kind of like an as-of-right that a building within the residential zone could always be residential?

01:39:57 Speaker 18: Or like what is the process once we deem it to be institutional then they have to come back if they want to?

01:40:02 Speaker 18: I am thinking about the one that came before us, not too long ago.

01:40:07 Speaker 18: I believe it was the Masons or something.

01:40:10 Speaker 18: They wanted to; they had sold their building, I think, and it was going to be turned back into residential use.

01:40:13 Speaker 18: Through your worship, I wonder if the example that Councillor Metcalfe is referring to for Dave and Aaliyah was the conversion of a long-term care building back into residential.

01:40:28 Speaker 18: So it is permitted by the official plan, but it does trigger a zoning amendment.

01:40:38 Speaker 07: It allows us to look at things like parking compatibility—that type of thing.

01:40:45 Speaker 07: I think also Ms. Hempill spoke about lands at the hospital being surplus.

01:40:51 Speaker 07: And Dave will remember better than I did.

01:40:55 Speaker 07: But when we updated the official plan,

01:40:59 Speaker 07: we did include some special policies for those lands at the hospital to permit residential development on those lands if they were deemed surplus to the needs of the hospital, but certainly so.

01:41:15 Speaker 07: Our process from here will be to look at those comments, including those from Ms. Hempill, and report back.

01:41:22 Speaker 07: So that will be included in the report that comes forward after today.

01:41:30 Speaker 07: Councillor Greg or Deputy Mayor Greig, just quickly, you did touch on an example there.

01:41:35 Speaker 19: I love the examples when we're talking about policy language, but there was one at Inglenook Childcare is just north of Tenth Street; the former location, and that was split into two apartment dwellings,

01:41:48 Speaker 19: and they had to go through the process.

01:41:50 Speaker 19: So I'm just wondering: that was the example that I was also thinking of.

01:41:57 Speaker 19: Is there a correction for that type of process in the new zoning bylaw, or would that process still remain?

01:42:08 Speaker 19: I'm a bit fuzzy on the details of that application, so I'll look to the Manager of Planning for some clarity.

01:42:15 Speaker 20: Thank you through you and Mayor.

01:42:16 Speaker 20: Over the last couple of years, we've had a few applications come through where institutional uses have ceased: The Masons, which housed Inglewood, I think; and then even where Inglewood is now, the former nursing home.

01:42:35 Speaker 05: I think those are all great examples.

01:42:36 Speaker 05: Samples, I think?

01:42:39 Speaker 05: Through this, we can definitely look at those policies.

01:42:41 Speaker 05: But the Official Plan includes policies in the Institutional designation to facilitate the sort of adaptive reuse of those buildings through a zoning bylaw amendment.

01:42:54 Speaker 05: We would probably recommend that a zoning bylaw amendment is an appropriate venue to facilitate that adaptive reuse because it does allow us to look at—like Pam said—compatibility with the existing neighbourhood around and the use

01:43:10 Speaker 05: that's proposed,

01:43:12 Speaker 05: and any other site-specific considerations we need to take into account just because those buildings have been there for some time.

01:43:21 Speaker 05: Depending on what's proposed, you know, some level of analysis is probably a good idea.

01:43:29 Speaker 05: If I can follow up on that, just before you... well, you just ran away?

01:43:33 Speaker 01: I'm aware of one on Eighth Street that was a house where a zoning amendment was approved for a veterinarian clinic.

01:43:45 Speaker 01: When the veterinarian clinic ended, they went to sell it to another commercial use that wasn't veterinary; and they needed an application to apply for a zoning variance again, which seemed cumbersome.

01:44:03 Speaker 01: Through your Worship...

01:44:05 Speaker 07: I think you and I are thinking about the same property.

01:44:11 Speaker 07: In the end, there was a special provision that had been missed, so those uses were permitted, and that was fine.

01:44:18 Speaker 07: The vet clinic had been permitted in its owning?

01:44:21 Speaker 07: There were some other special provisions that allowed for some other things.

01:44:25 Speaker 07: So I think that building is now some type of medical clinic; I think it ended up somewhere between where it started and where we thought it would go,

01:44:35 Speaker 07: but okay—just as long as we're not so framed that we're having trouble being flexible.

01:44:41 Speaker 01: It was a special provision.

01:44:42 Speaker 01: You're absolutely right.

01:44:44 Speaker 01: Someone else?

01:44:44 Speaker 01: John... through the Mayor on a new topic: If we're done talking about this switch of ways,

01:44:50 Speaker 14: one thing that jumped out to me—and this is a very small thing—I didn't know until I read the draft that I had contravened the zoning bylaw by camping with nieces and nephews in a backyard.

01:44:59 Speaker 14: Their first night of camping!

01:45:01 Speaker 14: And yet, the use of any number of vehicles or tents for human occupancy is not allowed.

01:45:08 Speaker 14: I'm wondering if there's a way to make introducing kids to camping in their backyards not be in contravention of the bylaw?

01:45:25 Speaker 14: Section 5.2: Uses prohibited in all zones.

01:45:27 Speaker 14: I believe, in addition to the zoning bylaw, there is also a Streets Bylaw.

01:45:35 Speaker 07: Brianna—can you help me out here?

01:45:37 Speaker 07: There is another piece of legislation that piggybacks with zoning around the occupation of trailers.

01:45:45 Speaker 07: If that's something Council wants us to look at, we could...

01:45:52 Speaker 07: Did you move permanently into a tent in the backyard?

01:45:55 Speaker 07: No. Okay.

01:45:58 Speaker 07: Anyone else?

01:45:58 Speaker 07: You had your hand up or through you, Mayor?

01:46:01 Speaker 07: I was just asking: it would be helpful to have clarification on the definition of the word "occupancy" and what that means—something like a very short-term adventure versus occupancy as in living there.

01:46:16 Speaker 06: And I think defining that term would help clarify things.

01:46:24 Speaker 06: I...

01:46:24 Speaker 06: I would move that Council request options to further define "occupancy" to allow for the temporary use by owners or occupants' properties for camping on their own property?

01:46:45 Speaker 14: Mayor, may I just comment before you go there?

01:46:53 Speaker 13: Um, when looking at the intent of what's written here, I understand kind of the request to provide some clarification.

01:47:04 Speaker 13: But the intent of the bylaw is...

01:47:08 Speaker 13: To your question, Mr. Mayor: are you living there permanently?

01:47:14 Speaker 13: So the intent is—if you're occupying that space, if you have an RV or something parked in your driveway and someone is there because they're living in it—then that would be a contravention of the bylaw.

01:47:35 Speaker 13: It's kind of language that has just continued through various bylaws.

01:47:41 Speaker 13: Rather than...

01:47:45 Speaker 13: I guess the motion is: can we just provide some clarity in our follow-up report?

01:47:51 Speaker 13: I think we can.

01:47:52 Speaker 13: I would defer to staff,

01:47:57 Speaker 13: and maybe we may need a little more opinion on it if we're thinking about starting to get into defining what "occupancy" means in the context of tents and RVs and those types of matters,

01:48:13 Speaker 13: because I could see it becoming something much more than just simple clarification in the bylaw.

01:48:23 Speaker 13: Go ahead... through the Mayor?

01:48:28 Speaker 13: My general question—which I acknowledge may sound silly but I think is important—is that any time we have general uses or a culture where it's not strange for someone to have company over and you've got

01:48:39 Speaker 14: too many people because of events like the Salmon Derby,

01:48:43 Speaker 14: or Summer Follies—sorry, "too many people" in the places you have—you pitch a tent; somebody stays in an RV.

01:48:49 Speaker 14: That Grandma would otherwise drive to Florida over Christmas... any time we have regulations that prohibit what I think are reasonable and general uses, I think we should re-examine those.

01:48:58 Speaker 14: And I am open to staff's feedback for language to request that in this case.

01:49:07 Speaker 14: I think maybe I'll call the question: All in favour?

01:49:12 Speaker 03: One opposed.

01:49:14 Speaker 03: Everyone else—that's defeated.

01:49:16 Speaker 03: Okay...

01:49:19 Speaker 03: So everyone ask their questions before it comes up again.

01:49:22 Speaker 03: Beat it up!

01:49:22 Speaker 03: It's not coming up for another five years, and I don't know about you—don't let me repeat this once again.

01:49:30 Speaker 03: I'll go ahead, Brock.

01:49:33 Speaker 03: Just maybe it'll come out through the one motion that the Deputy made; but just like as an overarching principle,

01:49:41 Speaker 02: it's kind of strange to me because if you look at residential zoning—we've simplified it—and then you go look at employment areas and we've complicated it.

01:49:52 Speaker 02: So I'm wondering why we did that?

01:50:00 Speaker 02: Dave, do you want to... well?

01:50:05 Speaker 02: The short answer is the Province changed the regulations with respect to Employment Lands.

01:50:10 Speaker 07: So there are employment areas that are very strictly required by the Province to be "pure."

01:50:19 Speaker 07: To deal with other areas and acknowledge our existing ones, we've added three zones.

01:50:29 Speaker 07: We can look to see if we can accomplish what we need to be consistent with provincial legislation like the Planning Act and PPS using two zones...

01:50:41 Speaker 07: And Dave, you're the expert in this so I should let you respond.

01:50:46 Speaker 07: Through Mayor: It is complex what the Province did, and there are many places still working through it.

01:50:56 Speaker 13: But ultimately, what the Province has said is we want municipalities to protect employment lands for heavy industrial uses—what I referred to before;

01:51:11 Speaker 13: I would call them "heavy industrial" or those industrial areas focused on large facilities like major Class Industrial operations.

01:51:34 Speaker 13: If you're thinking even of D6 and provincial guidelines regarding Class 3 industrial facilities: a lot of loading, a lot of outdoor storage, a lot of noise,

01:51:45 Speaker 13: a lot of dust—they said protect those areas because they need protection from sensitive uses encroaching.

01:51:54 Speaker 13: Because there's probably only so much of that land available.

01:51:58 Speaker 13: Back to the Deputy Mayor's comment and the Mayor's comment—that's what we're intending to do with the new zone.

01:52:06 Speaker 13: The other zones: we haven't added anything different; we've actually maintained what your other zones permitted in employment areas, so those would still remain as functioning as the City had always intended them to function.

01:52:27 Speaker 13: So what we've done is separate and identify here this area that the City is going to protect over...

01:52:36 Speaker 13: the long term, or that those major users that are there, or may find that they need to locate there, or may be looking to locate somewhere,

01:52:49 Speaker 13: and you may have the land where they could be accommodated without being impacted by other uses, but just like looking at the map.

01:53:06 Speaker 13: So we've had this huge heavy industrial area, and we've shrunk down the heavy industrial area, and we've got this new employment area that's kind of I assume very general in nature and not specifically heavy,

01:53:21 Speaker 02: but could be heavy.

01:53:22 Speaker 02: Like it just seems like we've actually done the opposite, and we've shrunk the amount of Class 3 Employment land.

01:53:34 Speaker 02: Through the Mayor, so part of that was a bit of an exercise on what some uses were there already, and if they were part of employment areas defined by the province or not.

01:53:47 Speaker 13: I understand your comment, and I think that's something.

01:53:52 Speaker 13: Like I said at the last meeting, we're still kind of working through making sure we get the designations right for the employment areas,

01:54:04 Speaker 13: and I think that's part of something that the next report will have quite a bit of discussion on.

01:54:12 Speaker 13: And I think if we can take your comment and make sure that we're responding to that and considering that as part of the review, I hear what you're saying.

01:54:25 Speaker 13: We're supposed to be protecting it yet we're shrinking it.

01:54:28 Speaker 13: And what implication does that have?

01:54:35 Speaker 13: Okay, good.

01:54:36 Speaker 01: Okay, he's sticking his thumb up.

01:54:39 Speaker 01: I just noticed the clock.

01:54:40 Speaker 01: Dave says that you've got about four minutes before your telephone line down there in Kitchener self-destructs.

01:54:47 Speaker 01: So if anyone has any more questions for Dave right now, should do it quickly before time runs out and he'll be halfway through the answer and not finish it.

01:54:56 Speaker 01: Okay, we're good.

01:54:57 Speaker 01: Thank you very much to you and Alia that's just off screen sending smoke signals telling you what to say at the right moment.

01:55:06 Speaker 01: We appreciate you tuning in today and being here two weeks ago to answer our questions and guide us through the public meetings.

01:55:15 Speaker 01: So thank you.

01:55:18 Speaker 01: With that I think we're at number six, motion that the committee of the whole rise and report.

01:55:23 Speaker 01: Moved by myself Deputy Mayor Greig that the committee of the whole rise and report.

01:55:27 Speaker 19: All in favour?

01:55:29 Speaker 19: That is carried.

01:55:30 Speaker 01: Number seven in the formal session, motion to adopt proceedings in committee of the whole.

01:55:34 Speaker 01: Moved by myself Deputy Mayor Greig seconded by Councillor Hamley that the action taken in committee of the whole in considering a staff report and undertaking a working session be confirmed by this council.

01:55:44 Speaker 04: All in favour?

01:55:45 Speaker 04: And that is carried.

01:55:46 Speaker 01: I note Bylaw Number 2025-130 says a bylaw to confirm proceedings of the special meeting of the Council, the Corporation of the City of Owen Sound held on the fifteenth day of December 2024.

01:55:59 Speaker 01: Moved by myself Deputy Mayor Greig seconded by Councillor Hamley that Bylaw Number 2025-130 be passed and enacted.

01:56:08 Speaker 04: All in favour?

01:56:09 Speaker 04: That is carried.

01:56:10 Speaker 01: So it is 4:27 PM.

01:56:12 Speaker 01: That completes our business that we planned to do during the special meeting, and we'll be back here.