Planning, Environment and Water Advisory Committee

0:02Are there any other action?

0:06First thing I want to start with is the land acknowledgement.

0:10As we gather, let us take time to reflect on our privilege to live and working well, a city built over rich indigenous histories.

0:19We are guests here and we should reflect upon the responsibility to care for this land, the people who live here today and the generations to come.

0:27If our actions today can move us towards reconciliation, we should take pause and make those decisions with intention and gratitude.

0:35This place we call Guelph has served as traditional lands and place of refuge for many people over time.

0:41But more specifically, the Adirwanderunk and the Haudenosaunee.

0:46This land is held as a treaty lands and territory in the Mississaugas of the Credit for its Nation.

0:51Guelph lies directly adjacent to the Hallowen track and is part of a long-established traditional hunting ground for the six nations of the Grand River.

0:59Many First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples who have come across the Turtle Island called Guelph home today.

1:09Is there a disclosure of any pecurean interest or general and the general nature thereof?

1:16If not, we'll go on.

1:18Today we've got a I think a pretty full agenda.

1:22But we'll make clear presentations from the presentation from Lucas O'Limie on the official plan update.

1:37We have two delegations this evening.

1:41Oh no, we haven't. I'm just going over.

1:43Yeah.

1:46We'll have two delegations and we can we'll ask them any points of clarification when they're complete and then we can get into our discussions committee as well.

1:55And then we'll have a presentation from Malik Najeed on the

2:00Green Development Framework.

2:03So before we get to that

2:06we have to approve the minutes from the last meeting of October 14th.

2:10Any errors or omissions? Not in the high-gold.

2:14Good.

2:15Anybody else? No.

2:18Move to adopt them, Lauren.

2:20Yes.

2:21Seconder.

2:21Forrest.

2:22Okay. Thank you.

2:23All in favor?

2:27Thanks.

2:28Okay.

2:31Okay. So the first committee item then is official plan update phase one of the official plan amendment in a presentation from Lucas.

2:40Yes, of course.

2:41We have delegates. People want to speak to us.

2:44Yes.

2:44We should let them go first so they don't have to stick around for a bunch of stuff.

2:47Well, they are. Yeah.

2:48Well, yeah. Once the presentations are complete.

2:52No, but I mean before the presentations.

2:54Well, I think we need to hear from staff first.

2:56Are they going to be both?

2:57They're both official plan amendment. Yes.

2:59No, the delegation is both official.

3:01Yes, they are.

3:02All okay.

3:03Yeah.

3:03I wasn't aware of that.

3:04I guess they were here for some time.

3:07Anyway, there we go.

3:08Yeah.

3:09So we'll get away, please.

3:10Thanks.

3:11I will be brief.

3:11I don't have slides to share this time, but just as a reminder for the committee.

3:17So this item was previously in front of you in September.

3:20We discussed kind of the scoping of this particular project and this particular phase

3:26of the official plan amendment.

3:28Also included your agenda was just the brief kind of reflector on that just in the form of a staff report

3:34for you to look through as well as the attached official plan amendment.

3:38So just a few things to keep in mind.

3:41Really the catalyst for this particular project is there have been a number of recent provincial

3:47as well as municipal policy changes that we're now looking to reflect and implement in our official plan.

3:55In particular, this is phase one of what we're expecting to be a multi-phase update.

3:59We've titled this before laying the groundwork.

4:03So this particular phase and this particular amendment has been scoped to include the following.

4:10So provincial changes to the planning act as well as to the Ontario Heritage Act.

4:16Changes to reflect and to be consistent with the new provincial planning statement 2024

4:21that do not require supporting work or further study.

4:25In addition, we're also proposing select amendments to implement the following master plans.

4:30The transportation master plan, the parks plan, which was approved by council in 2022,

4:36and the parks and recreation master plan in 2023.

4:39There are also some mapping related amendments.

4:43Again, those are driven primarily by the transportation master plan in particular

4:47updating our road classification schedule as well as the Guelph trails master plan

4:52and updating our trail mapping as it relates to that master plan.

4:57So really kind of the broader objective for this particular update is to provide that certainty

5:03and clarity to the community at large on the planning policy framework in place for the city of Guelph.

5:09Again, following those series of provincial and municipal changes.

5:13As part of this amendment, we are not making changes to how or what where Guelph grows.

5:21The city currently has in effect OPA 80, which was our latest growth management strategy to 2021.

5:28So we're not proposing any specific or site specific changes to land use designation as part

5:34of this amendment. Again, the focus of this amendment in particular is updating to reflect

5:39those larger provincial policy changes, the large part as well as those select master plans

5:44that I went through. So what I'm hoping to do tonight with the committee is,

5:49as I mentioned attached to the report is the draft amendment itself. I know it's quite long.

5:55Hopefully you've had some time to to review it and to take a look. I also mentioned that our

6:01October meeting, the presentation to council on October 15th as well as the have your state page.

6:07So hopefully you've had some opportunity to look through some of those materials, but I'm hoping

6:12to really just to have a discussion with the committee tonight on on those specific amendments

6:17that were that were proposing as part as part of this project. And if there are any questions

6:22or comments from the committee for us to consider, we are hoping to present the final draft to council

6:29in January, 2026. We're looking now for opportunity for from the public and from various

6:37committees. We were just at the heritage advisory committee on Thursday to now provide

6:41some further input now that the draft has been made available. So that's that's it for me and

6:46happy to take comments and questions at the appropriate time. Thank you, Lucas. So we do have

6:52two delegations as I mentioned with the onset. Our first delegate is Hugh Whiteley and he was

6:58provided a ladder which I think is certainly into everybody as well as going to be making

7:05presentation directly to us this evening. So perhaps we'll move to that now. So yes, Forest,

7:11I didn't get that better. It's attached to the revised agenda to clarify for members. Friday

7:21revised agenda was published and email was circulated to you all with that link. It is on

7:2612.ca. I don't deny all that I didn't pick it up and you know, I revised agenda I looked at the

7:34agenda I didn't notice anything but it didn't have significance. I didn't look for a second.

7:43If you would like me to share my screen for that type, I can. Okay, well, we'll turn to Hugh and

7:49you can walk us through your thoughts, Hugh, on this particular item. Okay, the first question is

7:56is my mic on? Yes, now we can hear it. Loud and clear. Okay. I'm going to be speaking tonight

8:07about a principle that I think is important in planning, which is that master plans once adopted

8:15have a lifetime as long as they are not replaced by some other master plan.

8:23And the official plan update that you have before you is supposed to reflect the master plans that

8:31the city has adopted. And there's one item, the eight hectare block that is designated as medium

8:40density residential, which does not meet master plan requirements. In the letter I've sent to you,

8:50I pointed out that one of the stated purposes of official plan update 110 is to implement

8:57recommendations from the active city of Guelph master plans dealing with parks and recreation.

9:05It's my submission that the city of Guelph master plan for the Hanlon Creek conservation area,

9:12which has very definite recommendations for the block currently designated for

9:20planning for housing, that that recommendations does not meet the master plan and should be

9:30reviewed as part of OPA 110. The master plan for the Hanlon Creek conservation area that the

9:38city council adopted in 1979 includes recommendations for the 116 acre Frank

9:46Courtright Waterfall Park property. And it's important for the committee to know that that

9:52property was acquired by the GRCA at the request of the city of Guelph using city of Guelph funding

10:01and is held in trust by the GRCA to be managed by the city of Guelph as part of their

10:07portfolio of park lands. And that's a statement from the 2014 survey of land holdings of the GRCA.

10:18The recommendation in the master plan is that the court right park lands, including these eight

10:25hectares, come under a new concept for its use and management. The concept envisages one of a

10:33zoological park. The natural features of the area range from cedar swamps to cultivated

10:40upland fields. Due to this variety in landscape and vegetation, it is quite conceivable to establish

10:48and maintain an area that will function with greater variety of species than now exist.

10:54It is quite clear in the master plan that the portions of the court right park lands that

11:01are cultivated upland fields, there's one on either side of Nisga Road, are to be included in the

11:08naturalized zoological park. The official plan for the city of Guelph first designated the court

11:16right waterfall park lands as permanent open space in 1973. This designation applied over many decades

11:29to all the court right waterfall park lands which extend on both sides of Nisga Road

11:34from Tarmigan to the speed. There's even a small segment on the north side of Nisga that

11:42on the other side of the river. For the next 40 years, city plans and zoning by-law showed all

11:49the court right lands designated open space and zoned as P1 conservation awaiting the recommended

11:58change to zoological park as recommended in the Hanlon Creek Conservation Area Master Plan.

12:05However, in 2008 as part of the required conformity to places to grow act, the city of Guelph mistakenly

12:14informed the province that the portion of the court right park lands south of Nisga Road

12:20had not been given permanent open space designation and P1 conservation zoning

12:27and instead remained as unplanned greenfield area. Based on this false information provided to the

12:35province, the province placed the built-up boundary of the city of Guelph at Nisga Road

12:41and classified the area south of Nisga as greenfield area with no planned use. In 2012, the city

12:51acting on the incorrect greenfield area boundary and an apparent ignorance of the master plan

12:58recommendations for the entire court right park lands which was proposed and adopted, I'm sorry,

13:08in the apparent ignorance of the plans. In 2012, the city adopted an official plan

13:15redesignation for the 20-hectare portion of court right land south of Nisga Road between

13:23Tarmigan and Pioneer Trail. It is my opinion that the redesignation of publicly owned land

13:31purchased and designated to be open space, permanent open space and with an approved master plan

13:40that those should never be removed from the open space inventory without a planned justification

13:53report that explains why the loss of designated open space is good planning. In the redesignation

14:02of the 20 acre block, there was never any discussion of the long-term campaign

14:09mounted by the city of Guelph to bring this land into public ownership and to retain it as open

14:16space. There was no planning justification report. When asked for reasons for redesignation, the city

14:24explanation was as follows. The draft OPP proposes a medium density designation on the south side of

14:33Nisga Road. Staff are supportive of this designation to allow for a range and mix of housing types in

14:44the area and to support the achievement of the city density target. City Council was and the public

14:51were never informed this was a long planned open space area with a specific approved master plan.

15:01So it's my request that P-WACC include in the comments that you're going to be passing back

15:08on OPA update number 110. A request that the city provide the required planning justification report

15:20if they propose keeping the redesignation of this important contribution to Guelph's open space

15:29heritage and if they choose to redesignate it back to open space as I think is most appropriate,

15:40that could be accommodated. Okay, I failed to mention that the presentations from delegates

15:48who are supposed to be limited to five minutes. You've gone well over that but it's been very

15:53informative. We appreciate the time you've taken for that. Do we have any points of clarification?

15:59Any questions of clarification for Dr. Weingy? Staff? Okay. He asserts that the city did something

16:10in there. Is that true? I'm not particularly here to speak to Dr. Weingy's comments. The focus

16:21of the OPA update for that I'm presenting to this committee today is on what I laid out. We're

16:27looking at implementing recent changes to the planning to the planning act to the Ontario Heritage

16:34Act from the provincial planning statement and those master plans that I laid out, the

16:39Transportation Master Plan, the 2022 Parks Plan, the 2023 Parks and Recreation Master Plan. That's

16:46been the focus of this update and it's been the focus of this update from the very beginning.

16:52How does provincial legislation changes and the policy change relate to his assertion?

17:00I'm not sure that they do. I think that's been particularly the focus of this update and

17:11what I've been trying to communicate. So his issue is just being dragged along as part of the process.

17:19Is that what you would see? That's what I see. Well, I think Dr. Weingy is trying to

17:23insert his concern into this process. It's not formally part of it. He's asking that it be

17:31considered as part of this phase one of the Official Plan Amendment. Any other, Deb,

17:39anyone have a question for Dr. Weingy? Okay, seeing none then. We appreciate your input, Hugh,

17:49and let's be part of the record of the meeting and perhaps your issues can be addressed a little

17:56more thoroughly at a future time. Okay, thanks for hearing me. Our next delegate is Laura.

18:08You heard? You'd like to... Well, sure. Sure, thank you. Laura, you do have five minutes. I failed to

18:27mention that. Dr. Weingy. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you about the proposed OPA.

18:36I have many concerns about the OPA, but tonight I want to address the past decision

18:42to convert the eight hectares of the viscous waterfowl lands on the south side of Miska Road

18:47from conservation to medium density housing. In the past, the city has relied on detailed

18:52information contained in watershed studies to determine land use. There has never been a

18:58speed river watershed study of this area. Therefore, I'm concerned that the redesignation of the land

19:03was not based on good planning principles and should be reconsidered. These eight hectares have

19:08been identified in the Tier 3 source water report as a high volume recharge area. The underlying

19:15strategy is gravel, and currently there is no surface water features or runoff from the site,

19:21so all of the recharge from the eight hectares just charges as seeps in the adjacent speed river

19:26wetland and feeds the base flow in the speed river. Any reduction in groundwater recharge and

19:32flow will impact the preservation and health of the richly diverse features of the speed river

19:37wetland and the base flow in the river. The speed river wetland, partially fed by the site,

19:45is a highly diverse area containing an astounding 31 different species of eco sites, including

19:51over 15 hectares of swamps, 161 species of birds, 12 species of fish, including brook trout,

19:59seven varieties of mussels, many different types of trees, plants and wildlife, including

20:04amphibian turtles, insect snakes, including milk snakes, and endangered bat species. Without proper

20:11identification of the role these eight hectares play in the recharge that feeds the surrounding area,

20:17we risk the degradation and the potential loss of this unique natural heritage area.

20:22There has been no study to date of how this land contributes to the base flow through discharge to

20:27the wetlands and speed river. We are a large growing city on a small river with summer low

20:32flow conditions. The river is already under stress. We know that 50 percent of the base flow of the

20:38river comes from discharge from our upstream sewage treatment plant. The sewage plant is near

20:43a capacity, so future upgrades may be dependent on the assimilated capacity of the speed river.

20:50There have been no studies that I am aware of that have studied the contribution of the NISCA

20:54lands to base flow or its importance in the assimilated capacity. Could paving over these

21:00eight hectares lead to future constraints on the upgrades to the sewage treatment plant? I don't

21:04know. And without further studies, neither does the city or the GRCA. Therefore, the precautionary

21:10principle of conducting further study should take precedent over previous planning decisions.

21:16As part of the updating of the official plan OPH 110, there should be a comprehensive assessment

21:22of the past decision to convert the lands to residential. This reassessment should include

21:28the consideration of the effective damage that the loss of this parkland recharge could have on

21:34the river and the summer base flow of the speed river. The GRCA stands to make millions of dollars

21:40that this land is sold. The city of wealth should be at 40 percent of the land purchase

21:46in order to preserve it for parkland. Parkland is part of this update, the parkland master plan.

21:51So it is relevant, I think. The board of the GRCA has indicated that if sold, the money will not

21:58come back to benefit wealth. Many years ago, this land was annexed from Pusinsh township and placed

22:04into a P1 conservation zone. In order to protect it and fulfill a vision of a special place where

22:10people could be near nature, the land was to be held in trust as part of the Hamukwit conservation

22:15area. I hope the city will honor this trust. And I'd like to finish with a wise First Nation

22:22Elder Once World. Walk gently on the surface because you're walking on the faces of the

22:26coming children and you will see their tears in the rain at falls. And we know that children need

22:30nature. We need this area to be protected. Thank you. Thank you, Laura. Very formative presentation.

22:40Certainly get a sense of your concerns, the local ecology. Does anyone have a

22:46point of question or clarification for Laura? Are these two presentations?

22:52They're on the same, they're focused on a piece of geography. Yes. Any questions for Laura?

23:05So when you heard his presentation, it wasn't news to you? No. Did it happen? No, I just

23:14under clarified because it certainly didn't. It's much the same to me. Well, we focused on

23:19different aspects, I think. Thank you for allowing me to speak. Thank you, Laura. Think of the time.

23:28Okay, now to the committee. It's our opportunity to ask any specific questions you might have

23:37of Lucas on OPA 110. Anybody have any questions? Laura. Sorry, somebody online?

23:50Yeah, it's just Karen Bromberg here. I'm on the advisory committee. And I really appreciate

23:58Hugh and Laura who seems to have left the meeting, perhaps my phone just cut in and out. But I really

24:04appreciate your time and energy bringing what you've shared with us. I'm not the longest term

24:10resident of golf, but I do appreciate those concerns. And I'm just wondering if Lucas could

24:17speak to that. I know you said that it's not really part of it, but how would this official plan update

24:27change those lands over time? Are those lands really in consideration or would they be affected

24:36by this change? So as currently drafted, OPA 110 makes no change to the lands in question.

24:46We're not proposing any land use changes as part of this project or as part of this official plan

24:52amendment. We are maintaining the growth management strategy that was approved by the province and by

24:58council just a few years ago. We're not proposing any land use changes. Okay, so then Hugh and Laura,

25:06for you guys who have presented, is there anything of concern that you're trying to draw our attention

25:13to if they're not connected at this time? Karen, we've already addressed any questions to the delegates.

25:25Now's the time for the committee to ask questions on their own of their issues they may have concerns

25:31with or questions they may have of Lucas and OPA 110. I think Lucas has spoken to this particular

25:38concern and spoke also to the process that we're involved in. This is sort of the fair phase of

25:45an official plan amendment, sort of just laying the groundwork, if you will, in terms of the

25:51high level changes that have been brought down from the province and those that have been

25:58adopted by the city. So that's the scope of the work that they're currently debating and we've

26:04already dealt with the questions concerns of the delegates. Okay, Karen? I heard what you said.

26:20Thank you. Okay, thank you. Laura, I think you had a question. Yes, thank you. So I was just

26:29looking through some of the proposed amendments. The one that kind of stuck out to me was around,

26:35it was 3.3.1 on intensification. So it was referencing, I don't have the whole thing here,

26:45but there was a removal of a reference to residential intensification and redevelopment.

26:52And I just was hoping for some clarity on why that was taken out, knowing that that's still

26:56something that the city is promoting as a good thing, that we're going to intensify.

27:02It is, overall you're correct in that. The change is really to again, alignment and consistency with

27:10the new PPS policy language. We are still maintaining our growth management strategy

27:16overall, which still speaks to residential intensification as really the primary form of

27:20growth in the city of Guelph, expected to 2051. So that strategy overall isn't changing,

27:26even if the specific words to change to be in alignment with the PPS are changing. So that

27:32our overall growth management strategy is still planned for intensification to be the primary form

27:37of development in the city. Okay, so are they referring to the idea, the concept of intensification

27:43as something different now in the new state policy statement? So if I were to try to put myself in

27:50the province's mind, I think what they're trying to offer municipalities is more flexibility. So

27:55previously in the previous version of the PPS, really in a place to grow in particular,

28:02intensification was more of a requirement than something to be strongly considered or promoted.

28:09It seems now that the province is kind of going back to a place where intensification is something

28:13that municipalities can do, but they don't necessarily have to do. But for Guelph, we are

28:20still doing it. We are still promoting intensification and still requiring intensification

28:25throughout the city. Okay, thank you. Boris, so my understanding of the situation that is that

28:35presumably it was a mistake made way back when, and so going ahead or not going ahead with what you

28:41proposed has no implication on that. That's correct. Through this particular project,

28:47we're not proposing any changes that would affect that. So whether you're going ahead

28:52doesn't help this problem. That's correct. We're not proposing any changes to that

28:58project that are going to strike me. If we're going to do anything, we could ask this,

29:07acknowledge that this was pointed out to us. And it appeared that if there was indeed a mistake,

29:14then we would suggest that the city have a relook of all those situations.

29:19Well, the presentation is part of the record of this meeting. Which one?

29:24Well, there is huge written submission. This part of the package, I guess you could say.

29:34Our focus is to deal with the changes that have been proposed. And it's out of our scope to actually

29:40be making recommendations that are outside of what we're looking at to see Nick. So I prefer

29:46we don't do that. I think the message has become fairly clear from the two delegates and the

29:51additional conversation that's taken place here that there's some concern about what's happening

29:56over there at Nisga Road. And I would assume that staff will be going back and taking a look at it.

30:01But we're not going to direct them or recommend anything direct related to that. I don't think.

30:05I think that would be inappropriate for this evening. I have to look again at the purpose of

30:16our committee. Yeah. Well, we have to deal with thoughts on the agenda.

30:21Yeah.

30:22None of us can actually add to that.

30:25That's not normal. Which doesn't appear to be.

30:30There is an opportunity for any announcements that you'd like to make. If you'd like to make an

30:36announcement at the end to have something brought forward, we can talk about at that time.

30:41So let's go back to the presentation that Lucas gave us on OK 110. And if there's any

30:48additional questions from any of the committee members, okay, I have a couple.

30:58So one of them relates to the corporate boundary settlement area. So I think it's page 22 of the

31:07large package of amendments. New policy 348. Any changes to the corporate boundary

31:17would be controversial, right? They're always difficult to deal with. It requires a lot of study.

31:23It's not taken very lightly. That's for sure. It's a big, big deal. And the policy speaks to

31:29the kinds of analysis that would be required before that would be considered. But in the

31:33commentary, it says that no, no expansions are planned. No, I just wondered if there could be

31:40a preface to this policy piece that says, while no boundary changes are planned, if in the future

31:48they are considered by council, here's the things that we would have to deal with. Because the way

31:52it's read, the way I read it now, it almost suggests that we're open to it. You just got to do these

31:57studies. Yeah, I can, I can see that. I think the first, the first sentence of that policy is trying

32:04to, trying to speak to, to what you're, you're getting at. But certainly if it wants to be

32:09a comment of this committee, that that sentence or additional language be added to the strength

32:14of it, that's something that we can take a look at. Anybody have any thoughts on that? Or?

32:19Sure, like, you started with a quick read. Okay. I noticed that point too. It first appears as though

32:25there might be a change to the boundary. But yeah, to make it really clear at the beginning,

32:29just to avoid any confusion around that. Yeah, I think that would be it. So the, just for the

32:34benefit of maybe committee members who don't have it in front of them. So the current proposed

32:38language reads as growth within the corporate boundary and settlement area boundary has been

32:42planned to 2051 changes to the corporate boundary and settlement area boundary will be subject to

32:47the following. And then as Mike said, lists a bunch of these requirements come directly from the

32:53PBS. But that's a bunch of requirements about what we need to be demonstrated in order to

32:57boundary changes to, to the following, but that's fine. So the phrasing that's,

33:05it's in the staff comments that says, although corporate boundary expansions are not planned

33:10and are not required to meet our growth targets 2051, if they were to be considered, here's a

33:16thing that would be necessary. Kind of, I think provides a better sort of context for those

33:24requirements. Sure. We can, I mean, it's, I'll take a look at that. Yeah, sort of a growth has been

33:31planned within the existing corporate boundary until 2051. Any further changes would require these.

33:43Through you, chair, as I try to capture the comments of the committee, we are

33:50looking to include a comment and a motion perhaps that considers including language around three,

33:57as it relates to the new policy 3.48. So do we want to just work, I can share my screen

34:02if it helps. Okay. And as we, I just don't want to lose our train of thought. Yeah. Okay.

34:11I'm back to it. So I just captured considering including language as it relates. What is your

34:26specific? Lucas's comment is a good, maybe an easier way to put something in there. So it would be,

34:41has been planned boundary and salary boundary, the existing boundary and salary boundary has

34:48been planned to 2051. Any future changes would be subject to the following. Yeah. That's, that's

34:58sort of what I was thinking. Yeah. Okay. We want, we want to include the specific language here.

35:06You want me to rephrase all. So it would be growth within the corporate boundary and salary boundary.

35:15But I guess we should say growth within the existing corporate boundary, some negative boundaries.

35:33To 2051. I think I think it's a big growth within. Oh, within. Any future changes?

36:04Is that it? Any future changes? And then we can even just add kind of a dot, dot, dot,

36:14from there, where it exists the same. Yeah. Does that help you?

36:18I think I wanted to ask about was

36:29if it's new policies, six, four, seven, page 92 of the table.

36:33Can you give me the item? Item 135. Sorry. No, that's a bad one.

36:40It speaks to all development shall be required to demonstrate consistent table of storm order

36:46management and design and anyone so on so forth. I just wondered if this was a place to also make

36:54reference to ensure implementation of watersheds of watershed plants. Where is that captured in the

37:02stormwater management master plan? So it may be captured in the stormwater management master

37:07plan, but it may also be captured in our existing environmental policies or existing natural

37:12heritage system policies. One of the things that I did fail to mention, you mentioned that this is a

37:19multi-phase update. One of the phases in particular that we're looking at face, which would be phase

37:25three, will be focused on the natural heritage system in particular. So whether that specific

37:31language is already incorporated, I might need to check that, but if not, we would look to add

37:38that kind of language as part of that particular update. The provincial planning statement does speak

37:43to large and fast municipalities, which is one required to undertake watershed planning. So

37:53that alignment does exist already. But whether it's included in this particular update or

38:02as part of a future update, I'll leave that to the committee to decide.

38:11Well, I guess what you're saying is that we may have to kick this later on.

38:15Yes, yeah. I think it might be comfortable. So we'll be until then.

38:22And just a point of clarification. So, I'm an already no longer involved in wetland evaluations

38:27or approving wetland evaluations. I believe that is designating provincially significant wetlands.

38:35That's correct. So the responsibility for that rests now with the municipality,

38:40their consultants, and any partners they might want to bring to the table.

38:43Yes. Like the GRCA. Yes. But you're not in relation with how that approval process would work?

38:50I am not. As familiar with how that would work, I believe that there was a

38:58slew of provincial changes. I believe that there was an update to the

39:02OWES, which is the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System. I think I got my acronyms correct.

39:09I think that would speak to how those types of updates would be done.

39:15Yeah, I think it does. It does sort of shift the responsibility now to the municipality.

39:21And I'm just curious as to know how the municipality

39:26will actually evaluate or review wetland evaluations and formally designate

39:35provincially significant wetlands. This just seems to be a little...

39:43The conservation authority used to be sort of a designated player in that whole process.

39:48And they were no longer by way of legislation again. So it's just the city's a very difficult spot.

39:55So it's something that perhaps again, the natural heritage piece in the future might be the best

40:02place for this. But it's just here. It's made reference to. And I just know that it's a bit...

40:07I mean, I would suspect anyway to be a bit of a challenge for the city to be able to handle.

40:11And it's all... Yes, I would very much tend to agree with that.

40:15Yeah. Yeah. So again, maybe that's it. We set aside and we can revisit it.

40:21Yeah.

40:30So we can maybe revisit the motion. I think we can just remove the word between the word that

41:03after a corporate, existing corporate boundary.

41:10Starting there with that. Yeah.

41:15Okay. So everybody comfortable with that? Can everybody online see this too?

41:19Yes. Okay. Do we need to have any changes to these boundaries?

41:25How many changes? We don't know one. It...

41:29Any future changes will be subject to...

41:32It... You wanted to add any future changes to these boundaries? I would be fine.

41:37Like it's just a clarification. Yeah, really. I want to add one more.

41:40That's the challenge. Okay. Two of these boundaries?

41:43Two of these boundaries. Yeah. Yeah, that does help too.

41:48Oh, you have a hand on line. Okay.

41:51Member of both. Oh, you have a question.

41:54I just wanted to confirm my understanding of what's on the screen right now.

41:59It's really just a recommendation to... The current way it's framed almost makes it sound

42:06like there is a plan, boundary change, when there isn't. And this is just trying to clarify that.

42:12Am I correct? Am I understanding?

42:14That was basically my perspective on it. Yes. Okay.

42:19I think everybody's sort of going along through the ride.

42:23If there are changes, yes, needs to be done. And that's what the dot, dot, dot is.

42:28Right. Yeah. Yeah. And the criteria are all laid out there. Yeah.

42:35Okay. So we're all comfortable with that then? Okay. Of course, wants to move. Yes.

42:42Adoption of the recommendation. Anyone want to second that?

42:46I'll go ahead, Lucas. Or just sorry.

42:50You got the L of U. Anyway, okay. All in favor. Everybody on line on board?

43:10Hearing none. Motion carries. Thank you. Okay. The next item is the

43:18city growth draft green development framework. And we have a presentation from Malik.

43:24Take it away, Malik. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Malik Majid, Project Manager Policy Planning

43:32in the Planning Department of the City. Good evening to the committee members and staff.

43:40I'll quickly share my presentation. It's quite a long presentation, but I'll try to cover it

43:47within 15 minutes. Everyone see the presentation? Yes. Okay. Thank you. So this is on the city's

44:30green development framework that is currently being undertaken. So I'll provide an update on

44:37where we are with the project and where we hope to take it. So green development measures developed

44:48by municipalities to encourage developers and builders to create sustainable communities.

44:56There are comprehensive principles to guide the development at a level of planning and design

45:04that focuses on the community. And it's an important policy tool to address the city's

45:12greenhouse gas reduction targets, official plan policies, and so on. So the city has several

45:23targets that have been established through reports and master plans, including, for example,

45:30to become a net zero carbon community by 2050, achieve 62% diversion rate with regard to waste

45:40by 2030, achieve 42% transportation modal shift towards non-auto trips, which is estimated to

45:53result in about 23% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2051. And then a tree canopy cover

46:03target of 40% of the city's land area by 2070 and a reduction, a very specific number of 9147

46:14cubic meters in average of daily production of water based, of course, on reduction of water use.

46:25So the requirement to prepare a green development framework is addressed in the city's natural

46:34heritage action plan, as well as a council motion in earlier this year required staff to look at

46:44regulatory options to require higher energy standards for tall buildings within the downtown

46:51heights study area, such as mandatory net zero energy requirements and moving away from combustion

47:00related energy sources and so on. The project commenced in January. We had the first public

47:10engagement in April this year. That was about visioning and creating awareness about the project.

47:17And over the several months following that, leading up to now we have prepared the draft

47:23green development framework that we intend to present to the public

47:32next Monday, actually, following presentation to the P. Wack committee. And earlier last week,

47:42we had a focus group discussion with representatives of the development community,

47:50community groups, utilities, agencies, and so on. We will present the report to

48:02council committee in February. That will be the first time that council will receive a report

48:08on the green development framework. We will undertake further public engagement after that and then

48:16present recommendation report to committee in May. So that initial public engagement,

48:28there was a very informed input from the public. And they spoke of preparing a vision that is very

48:39motivational, that is innovative, efficient and resilient, and focused on priorities such as

48:48carbon reduction, natural area protection, quality of life, etc. And also they identified

48:56challenges, the limitations of the building code, costs, capacity, enforceability,

49:05and the need to create public awareness, etc. So in the process of preparing the green

49:16development framework, we have had to face various provincial legislation beginning

49:23first with Bill 17 that was adopted in June this year. Basically, it said that municipalities

49:30cannot require anything beyond what is in the building code. And then most recently, in the past

49:40couple of weeks, the new ERO states that municipalities cannot require anything even beyond the building

49:52envelope at the lot level. So those are targeted and impact green development standards. But the

50:04city is of course preparing this green development framework right from their outset as a voluntary

50:14tool, recognizing that if the city is to address its environmental targets that I mentioned before,

50:24it is very important that the city has a tool that will help it to measure progress towards

50:31those targets. So based on best practices, the consultant urban equations with input from staff

50:45and those initial public engagement, we have developed a draft green development framework

50:53that identifies 24 performance criteria as shown here and classified under the themes of

51:03community design, natural environment, and built environment. As well, Guelph's green

51:13development framework will be a tiered framework, which means that there'll be a core, a mid-range,

51:23and a higher level set of performance criteria. And the consultant and the best practices review

51:33tell us that that is a flexible and appropriate approach for developers to gradually move

51:41and improve their performance levels over time. So the first set of criteria is with respect to

51:54sustainable transportation. So this encourages low carbon mobility by prioritizing

52:07transit, cycling, cashier, and micro mobility and so on, basically.

52:14One of the requirements here. The next one is about supporting the shift to electric mobility

52:24by ensuring parking spaces are EV ready or equipped with charging infrastructure.

52:32These requirements are already in the zoning bylaw. So I should say, I think at this stage that

52:40the green development framework is basically a one-stop checklist for sustainability

52:52with regard to development applications. So the next one is on heat mitigation in the urban

53:01environment. So this is about reducing heat through solar reflectance and a combination of

53:07other measures, including pervious surfaces, shade, and high albedo paving. And this one is about

53:19diverse communities to have a range of and mix of housing to promote equity.

53:28It's, I think also, it's a very important tool, recognizing the news that came out today that

53:38most of the condos that are being built are mostly addressing investors and not the market and which

53:47is one of the reasons why condos are not selling. That was the news this morning, I think. So this

54:03one is about compact development and walkable communities so that residents can access

54:14most of their daily needs within walking distance, which relates very much to those targets of 40%

54:24reduction towards non-auto modes. And this one is about people and jobs for hectares so that

54:33residents are close to their employment. There's an interest, important data from a housing background

54:44study just, I think, undertaken in 2023 that nearly 70% of the employed population in Guelph work

54:56within Guelph itself, which then states that it's providing transit and so on is an appropriate

55:10option for travel to work rather than to travel by auto, single-locutement auto use. This criteria

55:22about is about building heights and densities to guide appropriate urban form by meeting the

55:30official plan's height and density goals. The next one is about optimizing land use and build

55:38form efficiency by achieving pro-area ratios consistent with planning policies. One might ask

55:51why all of these policies in the official plan are again brought forward in the green development

55:58framework. Like I said before, it's about bringing all of those sustainability related measures

56:08into one checklist so that it helps to measure progress towards the city's targets,

56:18measure progress towards achieving the city's

56:22official plan policies and ultimately sustainability. This one is about resilience,

56:33that is the community's preparedness by integrating climate adaptation, accessible

56:41refuge areas and backup power and so on in times of climate-related disaster.

56:56Tree canopy cover, we talked of the target of achieving 40% tree canopy cover.

57:04So this performance standard addresses that. This one is about bird-friendly design to avoid

57:19or prevent bird collision and nighttime disorientation through big bird safe glazing and

57:30shielded lighting. The next three criteria are all about stormwater quality,

57:42water balance and stormwater quantity. So those are about preventing pollution,

57:47protecting the waterways by meeting the stormwater treatment performance standards,

57:53maintaining natural hydrology and infiltration and managing runoff volumes. This one is about

58:02reducing portable water use through efficient fixtures and grey water reuse. This performance

58:19criteria is about enhancing local ecology with native drought tolerant and pollinator friendly

58:27plantings and green roofs. So this slide is an explanation of the various terms that are

58:37used to explain the requirements in the following slides. About greenhouse gas intensity, energy use,

58:46energy demand and of course the carbon dioxide equivalent which is a way of boiling down the

58:56emissions of the various greenhouse gases into one common denominator. We have arrived at these

59:07targets like I said through best practices review and this is a largely based I think on the work

59:15that the city of Toronto has undertaken which provided actually the leadership with regard to

59:24green development standards when the city of Toronto adopted its green development standards

59:31back in 2014 I think. This is about building energy and emissions. So low operational carbon

59:53through high efficiency energy design and performance targets and this is about embodied carbon

1:00:04and it talks of the principles of building life cycle and treating materials from extraction to

1:00:20transportation to manufacturing of the building material to ultimately transportation again

1:00:27and ultimately using it in the construction of the building and the carbon that is embodied in

1:00:35all of that process recognizing that cement is contains a significant amount of embodied carbon.

1:00:53So this slide actually relates to that what I mentioned just now and these are about

1:01:06renewables within buildings, the use of renewables within buildings, getting buildings

1:01:13and sites solar ready again to reduce energy related to buildings is about requiring a transition plan

1:01:36with regard to energy so that to demonstrate how a building will adapt over time to remove

1:01:43combustion from building operations to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. So

1:01:52proper sorting is key to achieving higher rates of recycling and diversion and this

1:01:59addresses that aspect and then we move on to the circular economy encouraging the use of

1:02:14reuse of materials recycled materials and so on as part of construction.

1:02:25Using modular technology and so on and also facilitating easy disassembly so that

1:02:35materials can be used in other projects. This is about sourcing the raw materials

1:02:50using bio-based materials, wood products, recycled content and so on and these about

1:03:03diverting as much of the construction waste as possible. I read in a book on moving to zero

1:03:14that in the US construction waste is even greater than the waste that goes to landfill.

1:03:24So construction waste is a significant matter that needs to be addressed.

1:03:36So that's the set of 24 criteria that's included in the draft green development framework.

1:03:43As I said it will be voluntary and there'll be a core basic tier, a mid-level tier and a high-level

1:03:52tier that developers can aspire to over time. We will present these at a public open house

1:04:01on this next Monday and like I said take a report to council in February and a recommendation report

1:04:12much more later. That's my presentation and I'm open to discussion. Thank you.

1:04:26Thank you, Malik. Any questions for Malik on the green development framework? Shannon?

1:04:40For a couple of the categories I found the items within the performance range

1:04:50just seemed a bit odd the way they were set up. So on slide 29 it looks at native and adapted species

1:05:00and for the core performance you have to provide roof space or a green roof

1:05:06but for the mid-range performance you just have to provide information to the residents

1:05:12which seems like a really easy thing to do. So I was just wondering like what was the rationale

1:05:17behind making that a mid-range performance requirement rather than maybe having the easy

1:05:23step first and the more challenging one second? It is very important the core

1:05:34if we are to achieve our targets it is very important that those core set of performance

1:05:42criteria are achieved and then everything builds upon the core so it is not simply

1:05:54that you can jump to the easy target at the mid-level.

1:05:57Laura? Thank you, Andrea. I was just pointing to her.

1:06:09We have some others over ahead of you then. Claire, you have a question?

1:06:15I have a couple questions. I guess my first question is what is the what's incentivizing

1:06:22developers to participate voluntarily in this program? There is no financial benefit to the

1:06:38developer except that it would be socially responsible. It is something that is needed

1:06:51to move towards sustainability so there is a societal responsibility that

1:07:00developers I'm sure recognize that. They say that those who may not even support it say that in time

1:07:10that it may be possible that they might adopt. What I would say is that many of those core

1:07:19performance criteria that I've included as I said are those that are already

1:07:27required in the official plan or are part of the official plan and do not involve any cost to the

1:07:35developer so this is also about guiding the developers towards a form of compact walkable

1:07:48sustainable development that doesn't cost them anything. So we have presently a suburban form

1:07:58of development that doesn't support sustainability. It is costly. It contributes significantly to

1:08:08greenhouse gas emissions. I'm sure developers recognize that. So this green development framework

1:08:17I feel that would make developers realize that there is a number of criteria that they can address

1:08:29without much cost. Okay I guess my second question is you said you had a focus group with

1:08:37developers and are you allowed to share what the general reception was of this?

1:08:42Yes. Yes on the we had I think input and views from both sides of the spectrum.

1:08:57I think from the representative of the home builders association there was the question of whether

1:09:05about the legality of it. We of course like I said they're moving forward with an voluntary

1:09:15green development framework. So developers who choose to adopt it and for the reasons that I

1:09:25mentioned before can proceed with it. Did I answer all of your question on that?

1:09:34Yes thank you. Thanks Malik. Cameron do you have a comment? I just wanted to add to Malik's

1:09:43discussion and in response to Claire's question we do have other initiatives ongoing that will

1:09:49support the green development standard voluntary framework I should say

1:09:55such as our circular economy roadmap under the people in economy strategic theme. So we're working

1:10:01in conjunction with Malik's work to develop and incentivize transition towards the green development

1:10:10roadmap. So policy triggers or policy levers around the built environment procurement and

1:10:17reuse and share and things like that. So for instance D-Trip the downtown infrastructure renewal

1:10:23program we're working with engineering on getting data around circular economy type principles and

1:10:29materials management and flow material flow analysis around materials moving in and out

1:10:36where procurement circular procurement could could leverage and incentivize you know certain types

1:10:42of activities where land could be used to store materials for instance for reuse construction

1:10:47materials. So those are the types of things we're doing to help help enable this this good work

1:10:53that Malik's presenting today and I'm sure there's other opportunities so we're also looking for

1:10:59opportunities although it's voluntary looking for opportunities to incentivize and help stimulate

1:11:05that approach. Yeah thanks for that if I might just follow up on Claire's question related to this

1:11:14and it's you know it's really unfortunate that sort of the rug's been pulled from under you in terms of

1:11:20the framework and actually having some teeth behind it to to have it implemented. So marketing

1:11:27and incentives are are going to be critical in terms of moving this forward and if you can find

1:11:33ways of setting the developer's money by doing something more sustainable I think they'll probably

1:11:37buy in pretty quickly but for the vast majority of these suggestions it's going to cost the money

1:11:46and I think we need to find ways of sort of marketing it to them and I you know I'm a little

1:11:52bit familiar with sort of the lead program let's say and not that we would want to go down that road

1:11:57necessarily but the idea of recognizing developers builders who are going the extra mile to to help

1:12:08implement the green development framework whether they get some kind of official designation some

1:12:13kind of a marketing opportunity for them but and that in turn will generate revenue for them if they

1:12:21if they've got a very attractive development and I think within the city of wealth you know

1:12:27we're probably the epicenter of green thinking in a lot of ways and you know if you can promote

1:12:36the developers being someone who's really gone the extra mile it's going to be attractive to

1:12:43to the developer as well as future clients. I think that's something that really needs to be part of

1:12:49the needs of the marketing strategy around this at the end of the day I think to try to get some

1:12:53uptake otherwise it's a kind of a nice to have but it's going to be difficult to implement I think.

1:13:03Oh you had a question. Thank you I lowered my hand because I actually had the same questions as Claire

1:13:11and my questions have been answered thank you. Laura you have the incentive question as well so

1:13:17I'm getting across again. Yes. Oh I was I was just going to say that was a very interesting point

1:13:24even if it's something similar to say you know many cities I'm not 100% sure of wealth but having

1:13:30urban design awards things like that that's pretty common whether there's some form of

1:13:38recognition specifically for green development. I also believe I don't know if anyone's

1:13:45going to be quite able to comment on this. It was my understanding when we were hearing about the

1:13:50the whole CPPS program and pilot downtown that it's possible that some of some elements of green

1:14:00development and etc would be considered as community benefits as part of sort of incentivizing it.

1:14:10I don't know Lucas at all if you would be able to comment is that correct? I believe it can be a

1:14:16consideration along with things like affordable housing or clean but it can be a potential consideration.

1:14:27I'm curious on the electric vehicle installation I didn't see on your slide any indication of

1:14:33level one two or three is that included in your standard or is

1:14:43what are the questions again please? This is the chair. They charge your electric vehicle you

1:14:47could do it at 110 volts do 20 50. Did you get to that level of detail? Yeah I can now provide

1:14:58that clarification I don't have that information. I'm just curious. With me yet. Something's better

1:15:07than nothing. Okay I've got some concerns with this I guess Malick is the consultants have been

1:15:20working with your team I guess to develop this framework and with a few exceptions and some

1:15:27fairly substantial exceptions like the climate change section there's a lot of blanks you know

1:15:34so we've got core and then in many cases there's nothing beyond that so there's really little

1:15:41sort of encouragement to go beyond core which in some cases is really the minimum standard

1:15:48like there's some cases where core is complying with the official plan which I don't even like

1:15:56to me that's you can't comply with the official plan you don't even belong at the table right so

1:16:02I think I was wondering if you know you've got opportunity to to flush out this a little bit

1:16:09more to maybe bring some people together who have have worked on these kinds of things like you know

1:16:14there's the Pickering the Caledon the Mississauga there's there's a number of examples and I know

1:16:18the consultant is drawn upon those experiences but there's some ideas there that maybe we could be

1:16:25looking at to sort of try to broaden the the approach to to set higher goals I guess in terms

1:16:34of where the development community can be going some of the things that they should be thinking

1:16:38about beyond the core or in many cases the minimum standard I just wondered you know I know you've

1:16:45got public open house I think you said next Monday yes and who knows might show up I mean it might

1:16:52be a really good discussion but I just wondered if there was an opportunity to bring a bit more

1:16:57meet to some of the the criteria yes like I said this is the first time that we will be going out

1:17:06to the public on November 17th so let's hope that we will get good input but on the point

1:17:19that you made about the core set of criteria that is really the point which is why we have

1:17:26so many official plan amendments and so on that you know that move away from the official plan

1:17:35policies and the bottom line is ultimately what is realized on the ground is not contributing to

1:17:43sustainability we have currently a situation where nearly 30 percent of the greenhouse gas

1:17:52emissions come from transportation and still single occupant auto use is predominant so which

1:18:01is why in that core set of criteria you will see the focus on compact development walkable communities

1:18:10which is the essence of a vibrant urban environment so I think the core set of criteria

1:18:24as you said Mr. Chah they are all based on the best practices of the five municipalities that we

1:18:32studied like Richmond Hill, Mississauga, Hamilton and so on and I think the core set of criteria

1:18:44really strike at the heart of what is needed for sustainability yeah you know I think the

1:19:04public open house on Monday and we've got a very well informed community here no question about that

1:19:09but there are people who have been dealing with this kind of thing in other jurisdictions that

1:19:15have tested and tried other techniques approaches criteria which general population wouldn't be

1:19:24familiar with and I just think that there's probably more out there that we can draw on

1:19:31like I could there's a bunch of examples that I've scratched out here when I was going through it

1:19:37and I don't want to get into the weeds but it just seems to me that there's

1:19:41there could be more work done on this and I think it would be that much more effective

1:19:46and set higher standards and you know set a goal you know for people to think about name for to

1:19:53make it a bit more inspirational I guess is maybe the word I'm looking for rather than

1:19:59you know meeting the minimum requirements which is in many cases what's being suggested here

1:20:04I don't anyway it's a it's not a specific recommendation just just I think we could do more

1:20:15okay of course I just had to think you know initially I thought oh Vancouver that's the only

1:20:21city in Canada there's a charter city it's not subject to provincial not a creature in the province

1:20:28now PC has a much better building code than you do by you know significantly that's better

1:20:34but maybe it's just outside of Ontario there are places that are doing this

1:20:38that you might miss that's just a thought there you have a question comment I just had another

1:20:49thought will there be I guess tracking of participants with the program so you can see

1:20:57how many people are voluntary opting into the program and if there's an uptake throughout the years

1:21:05yes monitoring is key and periodic reporting is key to council to to so that council can assess

1:21:19how we are progressing towards this any other questions or now

1:21:33seeing none thank you very much for your presentation now I hope you don't you're not

1:21:37offended by commentary but no do appreciate all the work that's gone into it there's no question

1:21:42about that so thank you very much for your presentation this evening thank you we have a

1:21:49recommendation before us that we received a report so I guess oh yeah Sharon is also I think

1:22:01opportunity to provide comments and I did try to capture some of the

1:22:07conversation that we had but please committee let me know if I captured it

1:22:16accordingly or if you'd like me to edit prior to to passing the motion

1:22:21I tried to capture that second point which is what you just but I don't know

1:22:26should be more to it I like the idea Justin had with respect to the competition you know like

1:22:34there that's not uncommon that's quite common in many cities where they have the entity itself

1:22:41sponsors them and then there's you know the best kitchen design the best yeah and I think

1:22:48Liz has kind of captured that in the first comment or the urban design awards recognition

1:22:56for the design of arts okay yeah yeah maybe say urban redesign awards and I think the second point

1:23:12and I would say maybe including developing criteria for

1:23:24number of the mid-range and highest performance standards

1:23:31and again that a lot the fact that there's a lot of blanks

1:23:35yeah so mid-range mid-range and highest performance in this not in all cases you know

1:23:42urban piece for instance is highly developed very specific very quantitative

1:23:49but there's many that are not where possible where possible fair enough yeah because that's

1:24:03if in fact there would be a advantageous to do that if you could do that we're stretching out

1:24:08but maybe you can't yeah when I looked at it like I saw that as well a couple of places

1:24:14the honest concentrated honestly about it okay yeah okay um everybody comfortable with that any

1:24:25further amendments to the motion parents give them the thumbs up thank you okay so can I get a

1:24:39mover for this motion then you want to move it there's no mover all yeah sure sure

1:24:49seconder forest all all right okay we're all good great thank you

1:25:00okay um I don't have any announcements um I don't any of the volunteers do uh or

1:25:09committee members rather I should say um and then staff do Lucas yeah so I know we've been talking

1:25:17a lot about uh ritual changes but I just some some of the committee might already be aware of this but

1:25:24if not this might be used to share so the province recently announced bill 60 titled fighting delays

1:25:31building faster act 2025 it is moving through the legislature quite quickly but just wanted to provide

1:25:40the committee just a very brief overview specifically on the planning related matters

1:25:44that there's a lot it's an omnibus bill touches on a lot of different acts and requirements but

1:25:49I'll I'll focus more so on the planning related changes as well as some of the consultations

1:25:56that are now open as well again just for just for committee awareness so there are proposed changes

1:26:03to minor variances so these are variances to zoning regulations that are deemed to be minor in nature

1:26:10there are four tests to understand if a minor variance is is in fact minor but the province is

1:26:17proposing changes to allow these variances as of right in a future regulation they don't specify

1:26:23the specific zoning regulations that these would fall under whether they be something like height or

1:26:28setback from a property line for example um but this is something that they would propose to do

1:26:34through regulation um what do you mean so for example if somebody came in and they wanted to

1:26:41add an additional story to a building potentially depending on where we don't have specifics on

1:26:49the measurement for example like is it 50 percent of the zoning standard they can vary or is it 10

1:26:54percent we we don't know yet it's just the province is proposing legislative changes to allow them to

1:26:59do this but also like if you had to be back foot yeah you could go yes exactly 50 percent yeah

1:27:07potentially we don't yeah we don't know the exact measurement but typically what you would have to

1:27:11do now is you would have to go to a committee of adjustment you'd have to apply for it there's a

1:27:16public process associated with that uh the province is proposing to remove that again no specifics

1:27:22attached attached to that with a qualifiable limit on conceivably but no no no no no measurement as a

1:27:33year um in addition we just talked about the the provincial planning statement so the provincial

1:27:41planning statement would be inapplicable with respect to all minister decisions so this would

1:27:45be the minister of municipal affairs and housing and this would also include past decisions as well

1:27:51these decisions would be outside of the green belt but typically what we would see is when a

1:27:57minister approves an official plan for example that the minister would have to assert that

1:28:04his decision or their decision I should say is consistent with the the pps instead they're

1:28:11proposing a transparent and accountable oversight framework to be developed

1:28:16um some additional changes some additional relatively minor changes here that that I won't

1:28:26go over in too much detail uh in terms of the consultations that are open so these do not

1:28:31have an associated legislative change as of yet they're just consultations that are open

1:28:36if the committee is interested I can pass uh information on the specific environmental

1:28:42registry of Ontario postings for all of these so you can look for yourself um comments are due

1:28:50on November 22nd um so one of the consultations is to talking about official plans but this would

1:28:56streamline official plans so as part of the consultation the government has published that

1:29:01they have heard official plans are too long too complicated and too restrictive and they take too

1:29:05long to prepare and update so they would limit the development and zoning standards that we could

1:29:11include included in official plans and any existing development standards in official plans would

1:29:16have to be incorporated into an accompanying zoning bylaw they would potentially prohibit the use of

1:29:21secondary or site specific plans they would require a standard chapter order which they've

1:29:26published they would require standardized schedules or mapping which they've also published they would

1:29:31set a page or word limit for official plans and as well they would also give us 10 land use designations

1:29:38to apply for example residential one residential two mixed use areas one mixed use areas two

1:29:45and employment areas it would require a large and fast growing municipalities which wealth is one

1:29:50to update our official plan within two years of this new framework being published and we would

1:29:55submit our official plans for approval through an online portal another consultation that is open

1:30:03is removing minimum residential wotsides so currently municipalities are allowed to regulate

1:30:09the minimum residential lot size for different residential zones so the province is consulting

1:30:15on on potentially removing that or potentially reducing it significantly they've included some

1:30:21examples of other jurisdictions without minimum lot size so for example Tokyo New Zealand Texas

1:30:28as examples to to look at they also have a number of consultation questions included for this

1:30:36we also talked about green roofs and green development standards so they are prohibiting

1:30:40the City of Toronto from requiring green roofs or alternative roof services they are looking at

1:30:45potentially streamlining standardizing when we're prohibiting the mandatory use of what they're

1:30:50calling enhanced development standards so we can take this to mean green development standards that

1:30:56would apply outside of building on rope again the mandatory use of these malix focuses on

1:31:02voluntary use that do not relate to maintaining health and safety their goal is to have something

1:31:08to be in effect by the spring building season but again just consultation hosted as of yet

1:31:18yes so that that is most of the proposed changes but I can share some more information via email

1:31:27as I mentioned the ERO postings are available until November 22nd you are allowed to provide

1:31:34comments if you so choose as of November 30th bill 60th is in second reading already but I think

1:31:43we have heard that they're looking to cut down on time and committee so expect a quick passage

1:31:49of that happy to take any questions on just just passing along some news I'm not sure you

1:32:00happy about any we we are monitoring changes and providing we will be providing comments which

1:32:11again I can pass along to the committee will most likely be in the form of an information

1:32:15report is typically how these things go so I can share that with the committee those

1:32:21will probably most likely be published before the next time we meet in December but I would very

1:32:27much encourage you to look at the ERO postings to provide comments if you so choose thank you

1:32:34very good question sorry me again so I guess that draft bill 60 regarding the requirements for I

1:32:44guess the Toronto mandatory TGS is the reason why the city is going towards a voluntary TGS

1:32:54or green standards no reason right from the outset we decided to adopt a voluntary framework

1:33:17Lucas in terms of your long-term plans and the official plan amendments that you've got in the

1:33:23opera are you sort of moving forward as as normal or are you expecting to slow things down a little

1:33:31bit until you get better word from Ross so it is just the consultation as of yet the province has

1:33:37consulted on other things in the past that they have not moved forward with so we're continuing

1:33:41to operate with the what's currently in effect as of now we do know that there is a requirement to

1:33:51have our official plan to be consistent with the the pps 2024 but we will be of course monitoring

1:33:57things as they as they evolve but for all intents and purposes we're still moving forward as a

1:34:04target yes you have to do what you're going to have to do anyways yes yeah and if you have to

1:34:11help on another community plan within two years you'll have the changes already built in you

1:34:17and we'll try to get ahead of the game it's possible in Ontario

1:34:23any other questions or comments for Lucas thanks for their update Lucas appreciate it

1:34:28there's so much going on yes it can be very difficult to track so I will send that that

1:34:37informational login in an email for you to look at but yeah thank you I think we need a motion to adjourn

1:34:51somebody want to move that motion

1:34:58seconder

1:35:11anyway thank you um all in favor carried thank you see you in December

1:35:19no actually thank you folks it was a 6 30 start time in the agenda

1:35:25heard that the next meeting is that correct oh it's probably just an administrative error it's

1:35:307 p.m. is great yeah you're right let's see that agenda yeah thanks for pointing this

1:35:39okay what can we do about the presentation

1:35:42just take a second and one in the minutes well in fact yeah I mean we have a letter from Hugh

1:35:51which I guess is attached to the it is the five issues

1:35:56and there was a verbal presentation so she recognized on the agenda here in Goodman

1:36:02and meetings are recorded and posted on well that's gay

1:36:04it's a bleed that you could meet it sorry

1:36:28yeah yeah in my favor have