Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlng & Econ Dev - 1996-01-22PED\1996-01-22 PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JAN UARY 22, 1996 CITY OF KITCHENER The Planning and Economic Development Committee met this date commencing at 3:42 p.m. under Councillor C. Weylie, Chair, with the following members present: Councillors John Smola, K. Redman, B. Vrbanovic, T. Galloway, M. Yantzi, M. Wagner and Jake Smola. Councillors G. Lorentz and J. Ziegler entered the meeting shortly after its commencement. Officials present: Ms. V. Gibaut, S. Frenette, C. Ladd, J. Given and Messrs. T. McKay, T. McCabe, B. Stanley, J. Willmer, R. Mattice, D. Mansell, J. Witmer, J. Shivas and L.W. Neil. PD 95/106 - LACKNER BOULEVARD AT CORFIELD DRIVE - REVISION TO GRAND RIVER SOUTH AREA 1 COMMUNITY PLAN - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 30T-94020 - ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION 941241LIJW - ICI REALTY DEVELOPMENTS INC. - CHICOPEE WARD The Committee was advised that the Department of Planning and Development was in receipt of applications for Zone Change and Subdivision submitted by ICI Realty Developments Inc., with regard to a parcel of land situate at the southwest corner of Lackner Boulevard and Corfield Drive. The zoning change proposed is from Residential Six (R-6) with special use provision 179U to Residential Six (R-6) and Open Space (P-2) all according to By-law 85-1. In this regard the Committee considered Staff Report PD 95/106 dated January 5, 1995 and a proposed by-law dated December 21, 1995 attached to the report. It was noted in the report that the applicant intends to rezone the subject lands comprising 2.4 hectares, to facilitate the development of a plan of subdivision consisting of 45 lots for single detached dwellings and one block for storm water management. Concurrent with the applications, a revision was proposed to the Grand River South Area 1 Community Plan to facilitate the applications. It was pointed out that notice that the Committee would a public meeting this date to consider this matter had previously been given. Mr. T. McCabe briefly summarized the purpose of the applications and noted that the rezoning removes the special use provision. He pointed out that one issue of controversy was that related to the intent of the Municipal Plan nodal policy whose purpose is to encourage higher density but pointed out that in the case of this parcel of land there was some flexibility that could be applied as outlined in the report. Mr. McCabe advised that the developers representative would be making a few requests for revision to the subdivision conditions. Firstly, with respect to Condition #56 the developer requests flexibility in timing of the sidewalk installation and staff have no objection and suggest that additional wording be added to provide for satisfactory financial arrangements with the Department of Public Works. Secondly, in respect to Condition #65 the word "affected" should be inserted in the second sentence so as to refer 'each affected unit.' Councillor G. Lorentz entered the meeting at this point. Mr. B. Clarkson, MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson, appeared as a delegation on behalf of ICI Realty Developments Inc., and indicated that his client was in support of the recommendations in the staff report as well as the two revisions presented by Mr. T. McCabe. He indicated that his client would be both the developer and the builder of the dwellings to be constructed on this site which it is proposed to market to retirees. Mr. Clarkson pointed out that his client has worked with the residents since December 1994 and that it was the preference of the residents that the site be developed with single family homes that lead to the present application. Further, he stated that it was his view that the City's Official Plan allows the rezoning and requested that the zoning by-law be placed on the Council Agenda for three readings on February 29th as the regional clearance letter has already been obtained. Councillor M. Yantzi questioned how Mr. Clarkson's client as a developer justified its request for rezoning. Mr. Clarkson replied that his client has tried unsuccessfully to market the property as a site for multiple residential units for eight years. Councillor J. Ziegler entered the meeting at this point. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JANUARY 22, 1996 - 7 - CITY OF KITCHENER PD 95/106 - LACKNER BOULEVARD AT CORFIELD DRIVE - REVISION TO GRAND RIVER SOUTH AREA 1 COMMUNITY PLAN - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 30T-94020 - ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION 941241LIJW - ICI REALTY DEVELOPMENTS INC. - CHICOPEE WARD (CONT'D) Councillor B. Vrbanovic commented on the application process that has taken place and the cooperation off all parties resulting in the neighbourhood association now supporting the application. Councillor Jake Smola referred to Lots 1-10 backing onto Lackner Boulevard and noted that R-6 would allow for townhomes. In this regard he questioned if his concerns regarding land locked townhouses that were raised at a previous meeting had been addressed. Mr. T. McCabe advised that that concern was a site plan issue which staff were reviewing. The recommendations in the staff report were then considered. The proposed revisions to Clauses 56 and 65 were agreed to and the report recommendations as revised were then put to a vote. On motion by Councillor B. Vrbanovic - it was resolved: "A. That the "Grand River South Area 1 Community Plan" be revised by adding the following policy thereto: "3.3.8 THAT a minimum net residential density of 12.6 units per hectare apply to the lands designated "Multiple Residential (40 units/hectare)" and "Multiple Residential (100 units/hectare)", situate at the southwest corner of Lackner Boulevard and Corfield Drive, and being approximately 2.4 hectares in area." It is the opinion of this Committee that approval of this revision to the Community Plan is proper planning for the City. That Zone Change Application 94124/L/JW (ICI Realty Developments Inc.) requesting a change in zoning from Residential Six (R-6) with special use provision 179U to Residential Six (R-6) and Open Space (P-2) according to By-law 85-1, on Blocks 125 and 128, and Part of Block 126, Registered Plan 1647, be approved in the form shown in the attached Proposed By-law dated December 21, 1995, subject to the Subdivision Conditions contained in C below. It is the opinion of this Committee that the approval of this application is proper planning for the City and is in conformity with the City's Municipal Plan. That Subdivision Application 30T-94020 (ICI Realty Developments Inc.) be recommended to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo for draft approval, subject to the following conditions: That the Subdivider enter into a City Standard Form Residential Subdivision Agreement as approved by City Council embracing those lands shown outlined on the attached Plan of Subdivision and that the following special conditions be written therein: The Subdivider covenants and agrees: 51.That the final plan for registration purposes shall be prepared in accordance with the attached Plan of Subdivision dated December 28, 1995, providing that minor amendments to said plan, acceptable to the City's General Manager of Planning and Development and not affecting the numbering of lots or blocks may be permitted without an amendment to this agreement. 1. PD 95/106 - LACKNER BOULEVARD AT CORFIELD DRIVE PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JANUARY 22, 1996 - 8 - CITY OF KITCHENER - REVISION TO GRAND RIVER SOUTH AREA 1 COMMUNITY PLAN - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 30T-94020 - ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION 941241LIJW - ICI REALTY DEVELOPMENTS INC. - CHICOPEE WARD (CONT'D) 52.That a Grading Control Plan be approved by the City's General Manager of Public Works, in consultation with the City's General Manager of Parks and Recreation, the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and the Grand River Conservation Authority, prior to any grading or construction on site and prior to the City's release of the Plan for registration. 53.That prior to any grading or construction on the site, to submit for the approval of the City's General Manager of Public Works, in consultation with the City's General Manager of Parks and Recreation, the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Grand River Conservation Authority, a detailed engineering design for storm water management in accordance with the approved concept plan. Said engi- neering design shall be approved prior to the City's release of the Plan for registration and shall include an erosion and siltation control plan indicating the means whereby erosion will be minimized and silt maintained on-site throughout all phases of grading and construction. The Subdivider further agrees to implement all required measures as outlined in the approved final design. 54.That the names of the streets within the Plan of Subdivision shall be those shown on the attached Plan of Subdivision. 55.That construction traffic to and from the proposed subdivision shall use Corfield Drive directly to Lackner Boulevard. All construction traffic shall be prohibited on Corfield Drive west of Apple Tree Drive. The Subdivider agrees to advise all relevant contractors, builders and other persons of this requirement with the subdivider being responsible for any signage, where required, all to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Traffic and Parking Services. 56.To construct a 1.5 metre concrete sidewalk along the south side of Apple Tree Drive from Corfield Drive to Apple Tree Court as part of the servicing of the plan of subdivision and to make satisfactory financial arrangements with the General Manager of Public Works, prior to the commencement of servicing, for the construction of a 1.5 metre concrete sidewalk along the entire Lackner Boulevard frontage. 57.To provide a planting strip having a minimum width of 4.6 metres and a 1.82 metre high chain link fence along the rear of Lots 1 to 10 abutting Lackner Boulevard. Said planting strip is to be developed at the Subdivider's cost in accordance with plans/drawings approved by the City's Manager of Design, Heritage and Environment prior to issuance of any building permits for said lots. Further, said planting strip shall be installed within the affected lots prior to the transfer of title of such lots to the first time occupants, or in the event of winter conditions shall be installed by June 1, immediately following such transfer of title. The Subdivider agrees to attach the approved planting plan to all Offers to Purchase and Sale of Lots in which the required planting strip has not been installed due to winter conditions. Further, if physical noise attenuation barriers are required in accordance with Section 50, installation of said barrier shall substitute for the planting strip requirement. 58.To convey to the City of Kitchener, at no cost and free of encumbrance, Block 46 for storm water management purposes, concurrently with the registration of the subdivision plan. 59.To complete the community trail link on Block 126, Registered Plan 1647, from Block 127, Registered Plan 1647, to the sidewalk on Fairway Road, at such time as required by and to the satisfaction of the City's General Manager of Public Works. PD 95/106 - LACKNER BOULEVARD AT CORFIELD DRIVE - REVISION TO GRAND RIVER SOUTH AREA 1 COMMUNITY PLAN - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 30T-94020 - ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION 941241LIJW PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JANUARY 22, 1996 - 9 - CITY OF KITCHENER - ICI REALTY DEVELOPMENTS INC. - CHICOPEE WARD (CONT'D) 60.To install a minimum 1.2 metre high chain link fence along the side lot lines of Lots 20 and 21 and the rear lot lines of Lots 15 and 16 abutting Block 126, Registered Plan 1647, and to install a gate where Block 126 meets the south side of Apple Tree Drive at such time as required by and to the satisfaction of the City's General Manager of Public Works. 61 .To install a minimum 1.2 metre high permanent paige wire fence or alternate marking system along the rear lot lines of Lots 10 to 14 inclusive and Lots 24 to 36 inclusive, and the side lot lines of Lots 42 and 43 abutting Block 126, Registered Plan 1647, at such time as required by and to the satisfaction of the City's General Manager of Parks and Recreation. Further, the Subdivider agrees to include a statement advising of the fencing or marking system requirement in all Offers to Purchase and Agreements of Purchase and Sale for the Lots affected by this clause. 62.To construct Apple Tree Drive across Block 126, Registered Plan 1647, as part of the servicing of this Plan of Subdivision. After the said road is constructed, assumed by the City and is open to traffic, the City shall open the road by by-law. The required reference plan shall be prepared at the Subdivider's cost. 63. Upon completion of Apple Tree Drive, to remove the access road from Block 126, Registered Plan 1647, between Corfield Drive and Apple Tree Drive, and replace it with sod to the satisfaction of the City's General Manager of Public Works. 64.To provide a landscape screen having a minimum width of 3.0 metres along the rear of Lots 37 to 45 inclusive and Block 126, Plan 1647, abutting Corfield Drive for the purpose of screening the rear yards of said lots and establishing a uniform streetscape for this section of Corfield Drive. Said landscape screen is to be developed at the Subdivider's cost in accordance with plans/drawings approved by the City's Manager of Design, Heritage and Environment, in consultation with the Manager of Design, Heritage and Environment, prior to registration of the subdivision plan. Further, said landscape screen shall be installed within the affected lots prior to the transfer of title of such lots to the first time occupants, or in the event of winter conditions shall be installed by June 1, immediately following such transfer of title. The Subdivider agrees to attach the approved plan to all Offers to Purchase and Sale of Lots in which the required landscape screen has not been installed due to winter conditions. 65.That due to high water pressure in the area, each dwelling shall have a minimum finished floor level of 310 metres above sea level. Alternatively, subject to the approval of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo prior to the issuance of building permits, the Subdivider shall install water pressure reducing devices in each affected unit to the satisfaction of the City's Chief Building Official. 66.To obtain from the Grand River Conservation Authority a Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways Permit under Ontario Regulation 149 as amended, as required for storm sewer outfalls or other alterations within the floodplain of Idlewood Creek. Such permit shall be obtained prior to any on-site grading, the installation of services or prior to the City's release of the Subdivision Plan for registration purposes. It is the opinion of this Committee that approval of this application is proper planning for the City. That the implementing Zoning By-law for Zone Change Application 94/24/L/JW (ICI Realty Developments Inc.) not be presented to City Council until Subdivision Application 30T-94020 has received Regional Draft Plan Approval whereupon the PD 95/106 - LACKNER BOULEVARD AT CORFIELD DRIVE - REVISION TO GRAND RIVER SOUTH AREA 1 COMMUNITY PLAN - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 30T-94020 - ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION 941241LIJW - ICI REALTY DEVELOPMENTS INC. - CHICOPEE WARD (CONT'D) PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JANUARY 22, 1996 - 10 - CITY OF KITCHENER amending Zoning By-law shall be presented to Council for all three readings. Alternatively, three readings of the amending zoning by-law may be given if the City Clerk is presented with a letter from the Regional Municipality of Waterloo advising that the Region has no objections to the passing of the By-law. Following execution and registration of the subdivision agreement detailed in C above, the City Solicitor be authorized to release Blocks 125 and 128, Registered Plan 1647, from the Subdivision Agreements previously registered thereon." The Chair advised that this recommendation would be considered by City Council at its meeting to be held on Monday, January 29, 1996. DOWNTOWN UPDATE Ms. S. Frenette informed the Committee that the "Celebrating Success Night" would be held on Tuesday, February 27, 1996 at the Walper Hotel commencing at 5:00 p.m. with a reception followed by formalities. She then commented on initiatives currently taking place including analysis of marketing materials relating to Downtown activities, meetings with larger firms to coordinate marketing the Downtown and preparation of an assessment information data system that was now expected would take another two months. PD 96~5 - DISCUSSION PAPER - IMPLICATIONS OF REPEAL OF RESIDENTS' RIGHTS ACT (BILL 120) The Committee was in receipt of Planning and Development Staff Report PD 96/5 dated January 15, 1996 prepared as a discussion paper to deal with implications of repeal of the Residents' Rights Act (Bill 120). Mr. B. Stanley emphasized that the report was developed as a discussion paper addressing the issue of second units in dwelling units. He noted that the alternatives as categorized in the report were divided into five key areas being single detached, semi-detached and townhouse dwellings as well as related issues such as parking regulations, lot size regulations and licensing. The preferred alternatives of staff within each category are summarized at the end of the report. In summary, Mr. Stanley advised that staff were requesting direction from the Committee to the Department as to the form and extent of public input which may involve a public information meeting prior to consideration of the issue at a formal public hearing of the Planning and Economic Development Committee. Councillor T. Galloway referred to the instruction that City Council requested of the Department of Planning and Development at its November 1995 meeting and pointed out that Council was not looking for recommendations, noting that the conclusion puts Council in its previous position on the issue. Mr. J. Willmer commented that staff's position was based on the fact that where units have been legally established there has been no opposition encountered and also there has been no rush to submit applications for second units. Councillor Galloway commented that he disagreed with the reference in the staff report that there was greater public acceptance of second dwellings in units and noted that he did not sense such greater public acceptance. In reference to a comment in the staff report on Page 5 as to inner city neighbourhoods feeling they might be treated badly by returning to previous positions, he suggested duplexing could be removed from inner city zones. Councillor Galloway stated that prior to the provincial legislation incorporating 'as of right' legislation, City Council passed a resolution providing that 50% of new subdivisions would allow for duplexing. He suggested that very soon the suburban areas would have a greater number of areas in which duplexing was permitted compared to inner city neighbourhoods. The prime concern of Councillor Galloway on the entire issue was that individuals, who purchased single family dwelling units because they believed the units PD 96~5 - DISCUSSION PAPER - IMPLICATIONS OF REPEAL OF RESIDENTS' RIGHTS ACT (BILL 120) (CONT'D) would be single detached, had been mistreated as a result of the provincial legislation. Accordingly, he recommended that Council act to eliminate the effects of Bill 120 and support its previous resolution including a 50% ratio of duplexing available within new subdivisions. Councillor J. Ziegler stated that he agreed with the elimination of the 'as of right' legislation but that PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JANUARY 22, 1996 - 11 - CITY OF KITCHENER he disagreed with the 50% duplexing resolution of Kitchener City Council. He suggested that residents want certainty as to the type of community that they move into and the right of duplexing eliminates that certainty. He suggested that the staff report, without the alternatives supported by staff, could form the basis of the public meeting on the matter. Mr. T. McCabe advised that Council could pass a by-law on the issue subject to the passing of the new provincial legislation. Accordingly, he asked that the Committee give the Department direction on the type of by-law staff should prepare for consideration at a public meeting. Councillor J. Ziegler stated that he favoured total elimination of the 'as of right' entitlement with respect to single detached, semi-detached and townhouse units. Councillor M. Yantzi indicated that he was not in favour of removal of the right to duplex single family homes and commented on the complexity of a city as it grows and evolves which is reflected in change from time to time in housing form. He did state that he was opposed to duplexing in already intensified forms of housing such as semi-detached and townhouses. Councillor M. Wagner stated that he would like additional time to formulate his views on the subject. He did note that if duplexing was not allowed it was likely to happen in any event. Further, he stated that most neighbours are not aware when a neighbouring property is functioning as a duplex. Councillor K. Redman stated that she had concerns in that the issue had the potential to pit neighbourhood against neighbourhood and to disallow it would create its own set of problems. Further, she stated that she had concerns about the values of individuals being judged by others in the context of duplexing practice. Finally, she stated that duplexing was not necessarily a burden and should not be thought of in that context. Councillor T. Galloway requested that the City position simply revert back to what it was before Bill 120 was enacted and suggested that a new debate on the entire subject is not necessary nor required. He noted that the previous Council gave clear direction on the issue and only reluctantly went ahead with the 50/50 split with regard to duplexing within new plans of subdivision. He pointed out that Council did not agree with an across the board approach to allow duplexing. Councillor B. Vrbanovic stated that part of the problem with regard to duplexing originated with how Bill 120 was handled, passed and forced on municipalities. He indicated that he supports the preferred alternatives put forward by City staff and suggested that economic and societal realities are substantially changed from 30 years ago and there were valid reasons to justify duplexing for which he provided examples. It was his view that staff provided strong points within the staff report that support continuation of duplexing and he noted that in any event economics was going to force duplexing onto people along with changes in family lifestyle that is currently accepted elsewhere throughout the world. He stated that he supported removing duplexing from already intensified dwelling forms. Mr. T. McCabe advised that the 50/50 ratio was City Council's way to address the problem with implementation being made in only one subdivision and in his view it was extremely difficult administratively. A motion by Councillor J. Ziegler instructing the Department of Planning and Development to prepare a staff report and by-law that would prohibit duplexing in the R-l, R-2, R-3 and R-4 zones was put to a vote and lost. A motion by Councillor M. Yantzi instructing the Department to prepare a staff report and by-law reflecting Alternative 2A in PD 96/5 which would continue to permit second units in single detached dwellings in all zones where single detached dwellings are permitted, subject to the availability of municipal sanitary sewer was voted on and lost on a tie vote. A motion by Councillor Jake Smola instructing the Department to prepare a staff report and by-law prohibiting duplexing in R-l, R-2 and R-3 zones and reflecting Alternative C listed in the section discussing second units in single detached dwellings in PD 96/5 was voted on and lost. PD 96/5 - DISCUSSION PAPER - IMPLICATIONS OF REPEAL OF RESIDENTS' RIGHTS ACT (BILL 120) (CONT'D) On motion by Councillor M. Wagner - it was resolved: "That Planning and Development Staff Report PD 96/5 (Implications of Repeal of Residents' Rights Act, Bill 120 - Discussion Paper) be deferred and referred to the February 5, 1996 Planning and Economic Development Committee meeting for further consideration." PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JANUARY 22, 1996 - 12 - CITY OF KITCHENER PD 96/6 - REVIEW OF BILL 20 - PROPOSED NEW LAND USE PLANNING AND PROTECTION ACT - PROPOSED NEW PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENTS The Committee was in receipt of Planning and Development Staff Report PD 96/6 dated January 12, 1996. The report represents a review of Bill 20 dealing with the proposed New Land Use Planning and Protection Act and proposed New Provincial Policy Statements. It was noted in the report that on November 16, 1995 the Province gave first reading to Bill 20 which is "An Act to promote economic growth and protect the environment by streamlining the land use planning and development system through amendments related to planning, development, municipal and heritage matters." After reviewing the proposed legislation, the Department is of the view that the changes are either a positive step or relatively minor in nature and that overall the proposed changes reintroduce a number of provisions which existed in the 1983 Planning Act and also reduce the majority of timelines associated with the planning and approval process. A brief summary of the major changes was provided in the report. Ms. C. Ladd presented the report and emphasized that what the government was considering were amendments that will essentially take the Planning Act back to the 1983 Planning Act. She noted that an effect of the new legislation was to try and introduce more local decision making into the planning process and she summarized a few of the issues under consideration. One of the major issues is that requirement for Official Plans and Policies have regard to provincial policy rather than be consistent with it. Also, she noted that the actual content of provincial policy is being amended to a much less technical format. Ms. Ladd pointed out that a general freeze has been placed on all local development charge by-laws until the Province has reviewed possible revisions to the Development Charge Act. Finally, she noted that another issue was that of provincial downloading from various ministries to Regional authorities and the impact that this would have at the Regional and local level is currently being evaluated. Councillor C. Weylie questioned when a decision would have to be made with regard to the process that would be followed respecting disputes and appeals to Committee of Adjustment minor variance decisions. Ms. C. Ladd commented that the issue was a controversial one and suggested that Council not worry about it until it is known if the final Act would reflect the range of options that have been tabled. Mr. T. McKay stated that it was his opinion Council should go on record with regard to the proposed changes affecting development charges. He commented that it was known substantial abuse of development charges has taken place in the Toronto area but that the authority under the Act has been used responsibly elsewhere and has been of substantial benefit in facilitating development within Kitchener. Further, he stated that there was no hard line between hard and soft services and that the City's by-law has in fact aided development. Mr. McKay stated that it would be a retrograde step if the existing act was amended to a form that in his opinion would not stimulate development. Finally, he emphasized that there has been no misuse within the City or the Region of Waterloo of the development charge legislation. Councillor M. Wagner questioned how the changes proposed in the legislation could help the City of Kitchener. Ms. Ladd advised that the opportunity for delegation of approvals from the Region to the City would in effect bring all final decisions to the local level. Mr. T. McCabe advised that the change with respect to the Official Plan Policies to simply have regard to Provincial Policy would provide flexibility for local Council's to decide what aspects were more important locally under certain circumstances. PD 96/6 - REVIEW OF BILL 20 - PROPOSED NEW LAND USE PLANNING AND PROTECTION ACT - PROPOSED NEW PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENTS (CONT'D) Councillor M. Wagner questioned if the legislation allowed for circumvention of environmental concerns and Mr. T. McCabe advised that by delegating a number of provincial responsibilities to the Region allowed the City to deal with one body to resolve concerns. Councillor Wagner questioned if the legislation would change in respect to vistas and Mr. B. Stanley advised that the reference remains in the Regional Plan approved by the Minister and recent statements from the PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JAN UARY 22, 1996 -13- CITY OF KITCHENER Minister indicate that any municipality has the authority to be more restrictive in respect to such issue. Councillor T. Galloway raised concern with respect to legislative changes involving wetland policy, noting that staff also had major concerns particularly in regards to buffer lands which appear to be in jeopardy and elimination of the requirements dealing with environmental impact study. Mr. B. Stanley commented that with the new policy everyone's understanding of the issue changes. At this point in time staff have not received revised implementing policy but are aware that the definition of adjacent area makes no reference to specific measurements. He pointed out that in the case of the City, portions of the Municipal Plan dealing with open space/buffer lands were referred to the Ontario Municipal Board and the City may find itself in future before the Board with a position that is contrary to most recent provincial legislation. Accordingly, the uncertainty of this matter is of concern to staff. On motion by Councillor T. Galloway - it was resolved: "That the Council of the Corporation of the City of Kitchener advise the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing of the following comments with respect to Kitchener's Review of Bill 20 - (Proposed New Land Use Planning and Protection Act and Proposed new Provincial Policy Statements). Firstly, that the City of Kitchener objects to any change that would remove "soft services" from the formula utilized to assess the local charge under the Development Charge By-law. Secondly, that in drafting the new proposed Provincial Policy Statement, Kitchener objects to any change to the 1992 approved Wetland Policy that removes reference in the Policy to: 1) "loss of contiguous wetland area", and to 2) the Policy requirement for an Environmental Impact Statement and also objects to any change in the definition of adjacent lands that removes reference to: 1) "those lands within 120 metres of an individual Wetland Area", and to 2) "all lands connecting individual Wetland Areas within a Wetland Complex." And further, that a copy of this resolution be sent to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario." 5. PD 96/11 - REPORT OF THE SAFE CITY COMMITTEE The Committee was in receipt of Planning and Development Staff Report PD 96/11 dated January 18, 1996. It was noted in the report that the Safe City Committee at its meeting held January 16th elected Trudy Beaulne and Councillor K. Redman as Co-Chairs of the Committee. On motion by Councillor B. Vrbanovic - it was resolved: "That Trudy Beaulne and Councillor Karen Redman be appointed as Co-Chairs of the Safe City Committee." 6. ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m. L.W. Neil, AMCT Assistant City Clerk