Electronic Development Services Committee Meeting Minutes

Meeting Number: 20

Monday, June 13, 2022 at 9:30 A.m. - 1:00 P.m.

Live streamed

Roll Call

• Mayor Frank Scarpitti
• Deputy Mayor Don Hamilton
• Regional Councillor Jack Heath
• Regional Councillor Joe Li
• Regional Councillor Jim Jones
• Councillor Keith Irish
• Councillor Alan Ho
• Councillor Reid McAlpine
• Councillor Karen Rea
• Councillor Andrew Keyes
• Councillor Amanda Collucci
• Councillor Khalid Usman
• Councillor Isa Lee

Staff

• Andy Taylor, Chief Administrative Officer
• Morgan Jones, Commissioner, Community Services
• Claudia Storto, City Solicitor and Director of Human Resources
• Frank Clarizio, Director, Engineering
• Biju Karumanchery, Director, Planning & Urban Design
• Bryan Frois, Manager of Executive Operations & Strategic Initiatives
• Joel Lustig, Treasurer
• Alain Cachola, Senior Manager, Infrastructure and Capital Projects
• Rick Cefaratti, Senior Planner, West District
• Loy Cheah, Senior Manager, Transportation
• Darryl Lyons, Senior Manager, Policy & Research
• Stephen Lue, Senior Manager, Development
• Amanda Crompton, Senior Planner, Policy & Research
• Dimitri Pagratis, Senior Planner, Central District
• Laura Gold, Council/Committee Coordinator
• Emily Irvine, Special Project Coordinator
• Nhat-Anh Nguyen, Senior Manager, Development & Environmental
• Chris Rickett, Director, Economic Development, Culture and Entrepreneurship
• Hersh Tencer, Senior Manager, Real Property
• Clement Messere, Manager, Development - West District
• Andrew Crickmay, Senior Capital Works Engineer
• Eddy Wu, Director of Environmental Services
• Rob Muir, Manager, Stormwater
• Alice Lam, Director of Operations

​Alternate formats for this document are available upon request

---

1.

CALL TO ORDER

The Development Services Committee convened at 9:33 AM with Regional Councillor Jim Jones in the Chair.

INDIGENOUS LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We begin today by acknowledging the traditional territories of Indigenous peoples and their commitment to stewardship of the land. We acknowledge the communities in circle. The North, West, South and Eastern directions, and Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Anishnabeg, Seneca, Chippewa, and the current treaty holders Mississaugas of the Credit peoples. We share the responsibility with the caretakers of this land to ensure the dish is never empty and to restore relationships that are based on peace, friendship, and trust. We are committed to reconciliation, partnership and enhanced understanding.

2.

DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST

There were no disclosures of pecuniary interest.

3.

APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MINUTES

3.1

SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE MINUTES - MAY 26, 2022 (10.0)

• Moved by Councillor Alan Ho
  Seconded by Councillor Andrew Keyes
  1. That the minutes of the Special Development Services Committee Meeting held on May 26, 2022, be confirmed.
  Carried

3.2

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE MINUTES - MAY 30, 2022 (10.0)

• Moved by Councillor Alan Ho
  Seconded by Councillor Andrew Keyes
  1. That the minutes of the Development Services Committee Meeting held on May 30, 2022, be confirmed.
  Carried

4.

PRESENTATIONS

There was no presentations.

5.

DEPUTATIONS

5.1

SEEKING MUNICIPAL LAND IN MARKHAM TO BUILD AN AFFORDABLE RENTAL ACCOMMODATION FOR SENIORS AND THE DISABLED: A BUSINESS PROPOSAL BY ANAND VIHAR, A REGISTERED CHARITY (10.0)

Surjit Sachdev, President of Anand Vihar, provided a presentation on the Anand Vihar: Centre for Dignified Living Proposal. The presentation provided an overview of the project proposal, including why it is needed, the economic and social benefits it would bring to the community, and the proposed costs and revenue streams of the project. Mr. Sachdev advised that Anand Vihar: Centre for Dignified Living would provide dignified affordable housing to vulnerable seniors, and to individuals with disabilities.

The following deputations made on the presentation from Anand Vihar: The Centre for Dignified Living:

Jeff Li, long term resident of Markham, spoke in support of the Anand Vihar: The Centre for Dignified Living proposal. Mr. Li noted that many elders would like to live independently, but are unable to as cost is prohibitive and there is not enough supply of affordable housing for seniors.  Mr. Li suggested that elders that live and depend on their family often end up in a long term care facilities, as it effects their overall wellbeing.

Sal Amenta, parent of a 39 year old son with intellectual disability, and advocate for the most vulnerable, spoke in support of the Anand Vihar: The Centre for Dignified Living proposal. Mr. Amenta encouraged Mayor and Members of Council to provide land for this project, as shelter is a basic human right and the proposal aims to provide affordable and accessible housing to adults with disabilities and to seniors that wish to live independently, but that cannot afford to do so independently.

Yvonne Kelly, Affordable Housing Coalition of York Region, spoke in support of the Anand Vihar: The Centre for Dignified Living proposal. Ms. Kelly noted that housing is a basic human right and that increasing the affordable housing options in York Region is one part of solving the housing crisis. Ms. Kelly advised that the proposal focuses on allowing the disabled and aging population to live with dignity. Ms. Kelly noted that York Region has requested its lower tier municipalities to each devote 2 acres of land to affordable housing in the next two years to help address the housing crisis.

Mike Clare, MIACH, spoke in support of the Anand Vihar: The Centre for Dignified Living proposal. Mr. Clare questioned why the City would not want to support an innovation centre for long term care. Mr. Clare advised that the proposal would serve a segment of population that is currently underserved. Mr. Clare highly encourage Council to support the project.

The Committee provided the following feedback on the proposed development:

• Suggested that the request for municipal land is valid given the cost of land is one of greatest barriers to providing affordable housing, and due to York Region’s request that the local municipalities set aside some of their land for this purpose;
• Noted that the municipal return on investment would need to be considered when evaluating this request, suggesting that in this case the return on invest would be driven by the social benefit the community would derive from the project;
• Suggested that the business case may be stronger if the proposal included a greater number of affordable housing units, as it would lower the capital and overhead cost per unit;
• Noted that affordable housing is typically placed in a central location near transit and amenities;
• Suggested that there may be more flexibility in regards to where this affordable housing proposal could be located, as it proposing to provide affordable housing to persons with disabilities and to seniors;
• Noted that other groups interested in building affordable housing should also have the opportunity to present their business proposals prior to committing to this project;
• Noted that the public should be consulted on the project;
• Questioned if a 99 year lease of municipal land could be provided rather than the transferring of the municipal land;
• Clarified that both Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and York Region require the land to be included in any request for funding for affordable housing, and that Anand Vihar needs to own the lands, as they are proposing to offer life leases;
• Questioned if the business case should be reviewed by York Region staff, as affordable housing falls under its jurisdiction;
• Suggested that it may be more suitable for the deputant to present their business case to York Region, and noted that they would like to see a greater commitment from other levels of government prior to approving any municipal land transfers;
• Questioned if the proposal could be combined with an existing affordable housing project, such as the one York Region is proposing;
• Suggested that the operating costs may be underestimated, and noted that the centre would need a reserve for work that may need to be done in the future;
• Suggested that other groups will come forward with land requests if the City provides land for this project;
• Questioned if the deputant would be willing to purchase land from the City at the price the City paid for the land;
• Clarified that Anand Vihar is a registered charity;
• Suggested that staff should not spend time reviewing the business proposal, as this is the responsibility of other levels of government that provide funding to support these types of projects;
• Noted that there are approved affordable housing projects that are no longer viable due to increasing interest rates and construction costs;
• Noted that the City invests in land for various purposes, including social purposes, such as building a Community Centre.

• Moved by Regional Councillor Jack Heath
  Seconded by Councillor Reid McAlpine
  1. That the deputation and presentation by Surjit Sachdev, President of Anand Vihar: The Centre for Dignified Living, be received; and,
  2. That the deputations by Jeff Li, Salvatore Amenta, Yvonne Kelly, and Mike Clare, regarding, the deputation and presentation by Surjit Sachdev, President of Anand Vihar: The Centre for Dignified Living, be received; and further,
  3. That the item “Seeking Municipal Land in Markham be referred to a future Development Services Committee meeting to be held prior to the middle of July 2022.
  Carried

6.

COMMUNICATIONS

6.1

COMMUNICATION - YONGE CORRIDOR LAND USE AND BUILT FORM STUDY (PRELIMINARY STEP TO SECONDARY PLAN) FINAL REPORT (10.4)

Note: Please refer to item 10.1 for report and presentation. 

• 1. That the communication submitted by Robert Kitely with signatures of support from the community be received.

7.

PETITIONS

There were no petitions.

8.

CONSENT REPORTS - DEVELOPMENT AND POLICY ISSUES

8.1

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES - MAY 24, 2022 (10.0)

• Moved by Regional Councillor Jack Heath
  Seconded by Councillor Alan Ho
  1. That the minutes from the Development Services Committee Public meeting held on May 24, 2022 be confirmed.
  Carried

8.2

MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 28, 2022 MILLIKEN SUB-COMMITTEE COMMITTEE (16.0)

• Moved by Regional Councillor Jack Heath
  Seconded by Councillor Alan Ho
  1. That the minutes of the January 28, 2022 Milliken Sub-Committee meetings be received for information purposes.
  Carried

9.

PRESENTATIONS - DEVELOPMENT AND POLICY ISSUES

9.1

AN OVERVIEW OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PONDS AND UNDERGROUND TANKS (10.0)

Biju Karumanchery, Director of Planning & Urban Design, introduced the item, advising that today’s presentation will provide an overview of City’s existing stormwater management ponds, and the approach the City has taken in regards to unground stormwater management facilities. Mr. Karumanchery advised that the staff recommendation focuses on the permitting an underground stormwater management tank for the two draft approved plans of subdivision in the Future Urban Area of the Robinson Glen Secondary Plan, but noted that other developers have also approached the City in regards to permitting underground tanks on their development sites.

Frank Clarizio, Director of Engineering, provided a presentation entitled “An Overview of Stormwater Management Ponds and Unground Tanks”.

The following deputations were made on the presentation “An Overview of Stormwater Management Ponds and Underground Tanks”:

Greg Dziewiecki, Stormcom Inc. was hopeful that the City of Markham will be open to many different concepts pertaining to storm water management facilities. Mr. Dziewiecki supported storm water facilities versus storm water ponds.

Don Given, Malone Given Parsons, requested that the Development Services Committee support the staff recommendation on underground storm water management facilities. Mr. Givens spoke of the benefits of underground stormwater management facilities, such as it promotes a more efficient use of land and it beautifies the community. Mr. Given displayed an aerial sketch of the Robinson Glen Demonstration Plan showing where the underground stormwater facility would be located, and how it will create more parkland for future residents of this community. Mr. Given showed other examples of underground stormwater facilities, including a stormwater storage tank located under a sports field at Bill Crothers Secondary School.

Katya Servalle, Decast Ltd., displayed different types of underground stormwater management systems to the Committee, explaining how they are designed and maintained. Ms. Servalle noted that based on their models their underground stormwater management facilities should not require servicing for 100 years.

Dave Hardy, Hardy Stevenson and Associates Ltd., suggesting that having underground stormwater management facilities increases property values. Mr. Hardy shared the results of a survey his organization took on stormwater management ponds, which found that 97% of the people surveyed would prefer a public park on top of a tanked stormwater management pond rather than a stormwater management pond. Mr. Hardy advised that he did not think the wording of the survey was biased.

The Committee discussed the following relative to the presentation “An Overview of Stormwater Management Ponds and Underground Tanks”:

• Suggested that it is logical to bury stormwater management ponds when land is very expensive;
• Discussed the various types of stormwater management facilities and the types of considerations that are made when selecting a stromwater management facility, such as the load it will need to hold, and the building standards it will have to meet.
• Noted that the City does not typically get complaints regarding the odour of its stormwater management ponds;
• Questioned how the City will protect future residents against substantial future costs related to maintaining parks built on top of stormwater management tanks.

Staff and the deputant provided the following responses to inquiries from the Committee:

Mr. Clarizio clarified that only City managed stormwater management ponds were included in the presentation, and that the developer is responsible for developing the stormwater management pond or facility. Mr. Clarizio noted that some type of an agreement would need to be made with the developer in regards to the maintenance of any underground stormwater facility. Mr. Clarizio advised that the City will need to develop policies to determine when it is suitable to have an unground stormwater management tank, and that requests for underground tanks would need to be reviewed on a case by case basis.

Ms. Servalle advised that water from a stormwater management tank can be used for irrigation or other purposes, and that a bobcat cleaner can be put inside the tank to clean it. Ms. Servalle clarified that water in stormwater management tanks does not typically have an odour, as the water is generally quite clean as it is not exposed to the outer environment and does not stay stagnant for long periods of time. Ms. Servalle suggested that it is unlikely that the entire case of the stormwater tank will ever have to be replaced, rather damage can be addressed locally, similar as to how a bridge would be repaired.

• Moved by Deputy Mayor Don Hamilton
  Seconded by Regional Councillor Joe Li
  1. That the deputations by Dave Dsiewiecki, Don Given, Katya Servalle, and Dave Hardy regarding U/G tanks be received.
  2. That the U/G tanks proposed for the two draft approved plans of subdivision in the FUA Robinson Glen Secondary Plan be permitted, subject to successful negotiations of parkland credits and the appropriate financial contribution to the City to offset the additional future operating and maintenance costs of U/G tanks; and,
  3. That the type, design and specifications of the U/G tanks proposed in the Robinson Glen Secondary Plan be to the satisfaction of Director of Engineering and Director of Environmental Services; and,
  4. That the design of the proposed uses on top of the U/G tanks in the Robinson Glen Secondary Plan be to the satisfaction of Directors of Planning, Engineering, Environmental Services and Operations; and,
  5. That proposals for U/G tanks be reviewed on a case by case basis by Engineering and Planning Departments, in consultation with Environmental Services Department, to ensure that the proposed location is appropriate and the proposed type of U/G tank meets the City’s specifications and criteria; and,
  6. That the Engineering Department, in consultation with Planning and Environmental Services Departments, procures the services of a professional engineering consultant to assist in the development of appropriate criteria of acceptance for the consideration of U/G tanks, along with the acceptable uses above the facilities, along with the necessary specifications on U/G tank facilities; and,
  7. That developers proposing to install U/G tanks in lieu of open stormwater ponds must provide the City with a financial contribution to offset the additional future costs to maintain and operate the U/G tanks and staff be authorized to negotiate the financial contribution from the developers; and further,
  8. That the Planning Department be authorized to determine the applicability of parkland credits for proposed uses on top of U/G tanks and negotiate the appropriate parkland credit for proposed parks deemed suitable to be located on top of U/G tanks.
  Carried

10.

REGULAR REPORTS - DEVELOPMENT AND POLICY ISSUES

10.1

YONGE CORRIDOR LAND USE AND BUILT FORM STUDY (PRELIMINARY STEP TO SECONDARY PLAN) FINAL REPORT (10.4)

Biju Karumanchery, Director of Planning & Urban Design, advised that this item provides a summary of the Yonge Corridor Land Use and Built Form Study, and it seeks Council endorsement of the study.

Darryl Lyons, Senior Manager, Policy and Research, introduced the consultants.

Craig Lametti, Urban Strategies, provided a presentation on the Yonge Corridor Land Use and Built Form Study.

The following deputations were made on the Yonge Corridor Land Use and Built Form Study:

Lauren Capilongo, Malone Given Parsons, representing 8127-8149 Yonge Street, requested the following: 1) building heights continue to be guided by a 45 degree angular plane rather than a cap on the number of floors; and 2) that the parks, and new road connections shown in the land use concept be assessed on a site-specific level for feasibility.

Nick Pileggi, MSH Ltd., representing Times Group and Zonix Homes, landowners in the Yonge and Steeles Area, advised that his clients are generally supportive of the study, but provided the following feedback: 1) that there should be greater flexibility when applying the 45 degree angular plane, suggesting that other things, such as urban design principles, and shadow impacts also be considered; 2) supported the recommendations on community uses and parks, noting that there may be areas outside the study area that work better for community uses and parks; 3) supported reviewing the feasibility of office and employment uses. Mr. Pileggi noted it is imperative that applications move forward in a timely manner, and not be held up by the secondary plan process.

The Committee discussed the following relative to the Yonge Corridor Land Use and Built Form Study:

• Noted that the larger context needs to be considered when approving development applications, such as the impact of additional height and density on the existing community;
• Suggested that a commuter parking lot should be contemplated for the Royal Orchard Station;
• Contemplated whether the study should be presented at a public meeting, but decided it would be more effective to engage the public during the secondary plan process;
• Clarified that the Province is aware of the study, and that a copy of the study will be provided to the Province once it is endorsed by Council;
• Clarified that the consultant team and staff met with the City of Vaughan, and the City of Toronto to better understand the applications that have been submitted to date in this area, but that this study focuses on the lands located in Markham;
• Clarified that the study demonstrates how sites along the Yonge Corridor in Markham could contribute to a complete community by incorporating a variety of uses, such as residential, office, retail, community facilities and parks; ;
• Expressed concern that there would be less parkland on development sites;
• Discussed how the City can ensure there will be enough employment in this area and how municipalities can plan for the changing employment sector;
• Discussed the learnings from the City of Toronto’s development of downtown North York, such as how turning Doris Avenue into a ring road successfully protected the established neighbourhood to the east, and how Yonge Street could have been planned to be more friendly for cyclist;
• Clarified that density figures included in the presentation are based on Markham’s existing population and employment plus anticipated future population and employment growth in the area;
• Noted that it would be helpful to understand total population and employment projections along the corridor, including Vaughan on the west side of Yonge Street and Toronto on the south side of Steeles Avenue in this area;
• Asked for a comparison of the parkland that will be provided in Markham Centre versus the parkland being planned for in the Yonge Corridor;
• Suggested that staff look at the possibility of repurposing and additional park space located in the Yonge Corridor, providing the example of the recent upgrading of Grandview Park;
• Clarified that although the Clark Station area will have more developable land, it will only have 300 more residential units than the Royal Orchard Station area, as it will have more open space, and office buildings than the Royal Orchard Station area.

Staff and the Consultant responded and provided clarification to inquiries from the Committee.

• Moved by Regional Councillor Jack Heath
  Seconded by Councillor Reid McAlpine
  1. That this presentation be made a public meeting in the near future and that staff make an effort to invite the public.
  Lost
• Moved by Councillor Keith Irish
  Seconded by Mayor Frank Scarpitti
  1. That the deputations by Lauren Capilongo, Malone Given Parsons Ltd, and Nick Pileggi, MSH Ltd., provided a deputation on the Yonge Corridor Land Use and Built Form Study; and,
  2. That the staff report dated June 13, 2022 entitled “Yonge Corridor Land Use and Built Form Study (Preliminary Step to Secondary Plan) Final Report” be received; and,
  3. That Council endorse the Yonge Corridor Land Use and Built Form Study: Final Report, attached as Appendix ‘A’ and the Yonge North Subway Extension: Funding Transit Investment and Land Value Capture: Final Report, attached as Appendix ‘B’; and,
  4. That this report be circulated to Metrolinx, York Region, Vaughan, Richmond Hill and Toronto; and further,
  5. That staff be authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to this resolution.
  Carried

11.

REGULAR REPORTS - TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES

11.1

HIGHWAY 404 MID-BLOCK CROSSING NORTH OF 16TH AVENUE - PROJECT UPDATE AND UTILITY RELOCATIONS (WARD 2) (10.0)

Biju Karumanchery, Director of Planning & Urban Design, advised that this report is to obtain Council approval to issue a purchase order to York Region for the City of Markham’s share of the Mid-Block Crossing North of 16th Avenue for utility relocations.

Frank Clarizio, Director of Engineering, provided a brief summary of the staff report.

• Moved by Councillor Alan Ho
  Seconded by Deputy Mayor Don Hamilton
  1. That the report entitled “Highway 404 Mid-Block Crossing, North of 16^th Avenue – Project Update and Utility Relocations (Ward 2)”, be received; and,
  2. That the tendering process for the relocation of existing utilities for the Highway 404 Mid-Block Crossing North of 16^th Avenue, be waived in accordance with Purchasing By-Law 2017-8, Part II, Section 7 Non-Competitive Procurement item 11.2 which states “Requests for Tenders, Requests for Proposals and Requests for Quotation may not be required for goods and services provided by any of the following: (b) utilities; and,
  3. That Staff be authorized to issue a Purchase Order to the Regional Municipality of York (“York Region”), in the amount of $929,994.59, inclusive of HST, for Markham’s share of the cost for utility relocation work; and,
  4. That the Engineering Department Capital Administration Fee in the amount of $17,547.07, be transferred to revenue account 640-998-8871 (Capital Administration Fees); and,
  5. That Markham’s portion of the project cost in the amount of $947,541.66 ($929,994.59 + $17,547.07), be funded from capital project #22030 (Highway 404 Mid-Block Crossing, North of 16^th Avenue – Utility Relocation) with an available budget of $2,282,700 as outlined in this report; and,
  6. That the remaining balance in capital project #22030 in the amount of $1,335,158.34 ($2,282,700.00 - $947,541.66) be returned to the original funding source; and further,
  7. That Staff be authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to this resolution.
  Carried

12.

MOTIONS

12.1

UNDERGROUND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES AND PUT PARKLAND ON TOP (10.0)

• Moved by Deputy Mayor Don Hamilton
  Seconded by Regional Councillor Jack Heath

  The Development Services Committee receive the following motion:

  Whereas the City of Markham recognizes that new Community Development should be premised on the efficient use of land for the benefit of the City and its residents; and,

  Whereas underground tank facilities are commonly used to manage stormwater runoff in various settings both locally and around the world and are endorsed by multiple leading industry consultants and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) due to their environmental and ecological benefits; and,

  Whereas managing stormwater runoff in underground municipal facilities represents an opportunity for the City to implement industry leading techniques to create more livable communities; and,

  Whereas municipal underground stormwater management facilities provide opportunities to create active and passive parks on the land above them, thereby increasing social and recreational benefits for the residents of the City and making highly efficient use of land; and,

  Whereas underground stormwater management facilities are structurally capable of supporting a full range of requirements normally associated with active parks including, but not limited to, small scale buildings, playing fields with goal posts, lighting, spectator seating, irrigation systems, and with sufficient soil depths to support landscape plantings as necessary; and,

  Whereas active parks on land above underground stormwater management facilities are eligible for parkland credit, the extent to which will be negotiated on a case-by-case basis; and,

  Whereas the cost of maintaining underground stormwater management facilities is no greater than the cost of maintaining traditional stormwater management ponds; and,

  Whereas underground stormwater management facilities meet or exceed stormwater treatment standards, if appropriately designed and located, and can assist in reducing negative thermal impacts of municipal stormwater runoff; and,

  Whereas the socioeconomic value of the efficient use of land above an underground stormwater management facility is greater than that of single use traditional stormwater management ponds; therefore,

  1. BE IT RESOLVED THAT The City of Markham shall accept municipal underground stormwater management facilities as an alternative to open stormwater management ponds.
  2. Staff shall be authorized and directed to negotiate parkland credit for the land above underground stormwater management facilities on a case-by-case basis;
  3. Staff shall be directed to include underground stormwater management facilities within the Standards of the City of Markham.
  Carried

13.

NOTICES OF MOTION

There were no notices of motion.

14.

NEW/OTHER BUSINESS

There was no other business.

15.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

There were no announcements.

16.

CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS

Moved by Deputy Mayor Don Hamilton
Seconded by Regional Councillor Jack Heath

The Confidential Development Services Committee Agenda was referred to the June 14, 2022, Council meeting:

16.1

DEVELOPMENT AND POLICY ISSUES

16.1.1

LITIGATION OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION, INCLUDING MATTERS BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS, AFFECTING THE MUNICIPALITY OR LOCAL BOARD; (WARD 3)[Section 239(2)(e)] (8.7,10.12)

REQUEST FOR DIRECTION REPORT SCARDRED 7 COMPANY LIMITED APPEAL OF THE OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT

Carried

17.

ADJOURNMENT

Moved by Deputy Mayor Don Hamilton
Seconded by Regional Councillor Jack Heath

That the Development Services Committee adjourned at 4:57 PM.

Carried