►
From YouTube: Kingston Ontario - Planning Meeting - February 16, 2017
Description
Planning Committee meeting from February 16, 2017. For the full meeting agenda visit https://goo.gl/UBnpOl
A
Good
evening,
everyone
welcome
to
planning
committee
I'm
councillor,
shell
chair.
We
have
our
committee
in
full
councillor,
Neal
vice
chair
councillor,
McLaren
councillor,
a
Senate
counselor
dinner
members
of
the
pub
our
staff
include
our
Commissioner
hurdle
and
director
add
new,
and
we
have
our
manager
Newman
and
mr.
A
of
the
consulting
firm
that
helped
with
our
monumental
Official
Plan
Update
and
city
lawyer,
miss
ray
our
manager,
vendetti
planner
sans
planner,
Didrikson
and
director
wigginton.
In
the
background.
So
welcome
to
everyone
and
of
course
our
clerk.
Mr.
Thompson
I
won't
be
reading
a
very
large
introduction
this
evening,
because
we
have
no
public
meeting
so
I'll
call
the
meeting
to
order
and
ask
for
approval
of
the
agenda
by
councillor
Neal
seconded
by
Councillor
Turner,
all
those
in
favor
and
that's
carried
and
confirmation
of
the
minutes
of
Thursday
februari.
A
Second
moved
by
councillor
Turner
second
of
a
counselor
fanuc
questions,
errors,
omissions
all
those
in
favor
and
that's
carried
disclosures
of
pecuniary
interest.
None
delegations
briefings
and
our
first
order
of
business
is
the
official
plan
updates
comprehensive
report
and
mr.
Newman
is
going
to
give
us
an
introduction.
B
Yeah
imma
come
to
the
mic,
so
I
just
wanted
to
take
a
minute.
This
is
obviously
a
very
exciting
night
for
the
planning
department.
This
has
been
two
and
a
half
years
of
work,
building
to
this
to
what
we
have
before
you
this
evening
and
hundreds
and
hundreds
and
hundreds
of
pieces
of
correspondents
and
conversations
and
thoughtful
discussions
about
the
amendments
that
you
have
before
you
this
evening.
B
I
just
wanted
to
take
a
moment
to
recognize
my
team
and
specifically
the
leadership
of
Greg
Newman
as
it
relates
to
the
work
that's
been
done
on
the
official
plan.
I
think
he's
truly
set
a
new
standard
for
the
way
that
we
are
working
on
our
policy
documents
and
been
very
impressed
with
his
professionalism
and
its
patience
and
his
diligence
on
this
project
and
also
wanted
to
thank
Rory
and
the
team
at
Dillon
for
the
support
that
they've
provided
to
us
as
well.
C
Thank
you
page
and
cue,
madam
chair
members,
the
committee
fellow
staff
and
members
of
the
public,
a
page
mention
my
name-
is
Greg
Newman
I'm,
the
manager
of
policy
planning
I'm
happy
to
present
the
final
draft
of
the
official
plan
with
recommendation
to
the
committee,
so
I'm
going
to
provide
a
fairly
brief
presentation.
I
did
want
the
opportunity,
though
it
is,
to
give
you
an
overview
of
the
revisions
that
have
been
made
since
the
november.
C
Seventeenth
public
meeting
so
has
you
know
the
the
current
plan
was
approved
by
the
minister
in
2010
and
were
required
under
the
Planning
Act
every
five
years
to
do
a
comprehensive
update.
So
the
purpose
of
the
update
is
to
make
sure
that
our
plan
is
consistent
with
provincial
policy
that
it
meets
local
expectations,
recognizes
local
priorities
and
community
needs.
C
So
we
started
this
project
as
Paige
mentioned
that
two
years
ago,
and
we're
continuing
to
move
towards
a
finish
line
so
the
process
today
they
won't
go
through
this
in
detail.
But
you
see
there's
a
bit
of
a
recurring
theme
here.
We
have
a
draft,
an
open
house,
a
public
meeting,
a
lot
of
revisions
and
then
another
draft-
and
we've
done
this
now
we're
on
the
sixth
draft.
C
One
of
the
changes
to
the
Planning
Act
last
year
was
that
when
we
present
the
notice
of
decision
of
council,
so
when
this
stimulus
goes
to
counsel
for
a
decision
on
the
implementing
bylaw,
only
post
notices
the
decision
or
when
the
province
posts
notice
of
the
decision,
they
have
to
identify
the
effect
of
public
input
and
so
I
think.
The
effect
of
public
input
is
that
we
are
on
the
six
draft
and
at
each
iteration
we
have
very
much
considered
and
made
changes
to
recognize
the
great
input
that
we've
received
two
weeks
ago.
C
We
posted
to
the
project
web
page
and
I,
provided
an
email
to
all
members
of
council
and
members
on
our
mailing
list
notice
of
a
summary
report
that
was
posted
with
the
final
draft
of
the
opie,
as
requested
by
this
committee,
and
so
the
summary
report
acknowledges
all
the
very
intimate
changes
to
the
fifth
draft
that
were
made.
It's
a
48-page
summary
which
may
seem
like
a
lot.
C
I
would
say
that
20
pages
of
that
48
page
summary
are
things
that
we
we
could
have
changed
through
an
administrative
amendments
and
not
not
certain
necessitating
a
broader
conversation,
things
like
corrections
to
sax
section
references
and
that
sort
of
thing.
We
also
acknowledged
in
the
summary
report
the
changes
that
were
done
to
implement
the
recommendations
of
the
commercial
lands
review
so
again
that
sort
of
made
up
for
about
10.
C
More
pages
of
that
48
page
report
and
I
just
wanted
to
know
here
that
the
changes
related
to
the
commercial
lands
review
we're
actually
presented
in
the
fifth
draft.
So
they
were
available
to
the
public
back
in
October
when
we
made
that
draft
available
on
a
project
web
page
and
were
discussed
briefly
on
the
17
to
November.
C
So
in
terms
of
the
revisions,
I'm
happy
to
refer
members
of
the
committee
to
the
900-page
agenda
for
tonight,
I
won't
go
through
it
and
painstaking
detail,
but
perhaps
I'll
I'll
brush
through
it
and
then,
if,
if
you
have
questions
we
can
get
into
the
specifics,
so
we
added
definition
specifically
as
they
relate
to
source
water
protection.
We
relocated
some
of
the
policies.
The
source
water
protection
was
previously
in
section
6,
which
deals
with
the
environment
and
energy.
C
We
moved
it
section
5,
which
deals
with
health,
human
health
and
safety
in
section
5,
as
it
relates
to
source
water
protection,
is
protection
of
water
quality
for
drinking,
so
it
made
better.
It
made
more
sense
to
have
an
in
section
5
than
in
section
6.
We
made
a
number
of
revisions
to
help
clarify
the
intent
of
policy
we
corrected,
or
we
added
section
cross
cross
references
so
specifically
with
respect
to
section
2.7,
which
deals
with
compatibility.
C
We've
removed
reference
to
as
the
right
zoning
permissions
and
I
wanted
to
give
this
specific
reference,
because
it
is
one
of
the
few
very
specific
policy
changes
that
we
made
that
wasn't
more
of
an
administrative
change.
So
what
this
section
does
section
36
12
it
speaks
to
if
you're
in
a
business
park
like
say,
st.
C
Lawrence
business
park
on
the
east
end
and
you
want
to
put
a
hotel
in
the
four
areas
of
hotel
can
exceed
twenty
five
percent
of
the
total
floor
area
of
all
the
employment
uses
and
the
intent
is
to
make
sure
that
we
protect
the
primary
function,
which
is
to
provide
opportunities
for
employment
and
not
sort
of
water
it
down
so
to
speak
with
commercial
type
uses.
So
what
we
had
in
the
policy
before
was
that
we
were
going
to
enable
as
of
right
permissions
through
zoning,
and
that
was
recognized
in
the
policy.
C
We
don't
want
to
do
that.
In
fact,
what
we
want
to
be
able
to
do
is
when
someone
comes
in
and
proposes
a
hotel
in
whatever
business
parks,
we
want
to
subject
them
to
a
rezoning,
and
the
test
is
established
in
this
policy
of
the
official
plan.
So
we
took
out
from
the
opie
the
as
of
right
permissions
or
the
expectation
that
we
would
put
the
permissions
in
the
zoning
and
we're
leaving
it
now
to
being
an
actual
public
process
for
a
rezoning
application.
C
We've
been
working
through
the
planning
committee
been
working
on
changes
to
the
parking
associated
with
accessible
parking
spaces
and
in
reviewing
the
regulations
associated
with
the
accessibility
for
Ontarians
with
Disabilities
Act.
There
are
some
considerations
to
be
made
if
you
were
ever
going
to
look
at
it,
I've
relief
from
the
required
supply
of
accessible
parking.
So
what
we
did
is
we
wanted
the
exceptions
that
are
considered
in
the
regulations
to
be
recognized
in
our
official
plans
so
that
they're
not
lost
by
staff
for
members
of
the
public
that
are
reviewing
an
application.
C
Lastly,
with
respect
to
the
general
changes
we
so
in
earlier
iterations
of
the
plan,
we
took
the
clogs
Road
area
out.
It
was
previously
identified
as
deferred
area,
which
means
we'll
if
we
grow
beyond
or
boundary
will
grow
into
that
next
area
we
had
an
earlier
iteration
has
changed
it
to
business
park,
industrial,
but
we,
but
there
are
a
number
of
residences
existing
today
in
there.
So
we
wanted
the
policy
to
recognize
that
the
residents
residences
are
there
and
they
will
continue
to
be
contemplated,
in
whatever
happens
through
the
secondary
planning
process
for
that
area.
C
So
we
didn't
want
there
to
be
a
perception
that
someone's
losing
their
right
to
the
residents
that
exist
today,
matters
of
provincial
interest,
so
assuming
this
goes
to
council
and
then
council
supports.
This
was
then
goes
to
the
province
for
a
decision,
and
so
we've
been
working
very
closely
over
the
last
three
months
with
the
province
to
resolve
the
outstanding
sort
of
two
or
three
things
of
concern
or
interest.
C
One
of
the
things
that
were
was
concerning
to
the
provinces
that
we
had
policies
that
said
homes
for
the
aged
group,
homes,
the
toxic
ation
centre
and
those
types
of
uses,
so
it
was
very
specific
to
the
user
as
opposed
to
just
the
general
nature
of
the
land
use.
So
what
we've
done
is
we've
refined
that
fairly
lengthy
section
in
section
3.2?
It
was
community
and
care
facilities.
C
C
C
A
big
change
in
terms
of
I
think
the
likelihood
of
success
with
the
ministry
is
the
removal
of
the
proposed
urban
boundary
expansion
in
the
same
large
business
park.
So
I
have
to
admit
the
planner
at
the
ministry
breathed
a
sigh
of
relief
when
she
heard
we
were
going
to
remove
that
from
this
plan,
so
I
hope
for
a
smoother
review
amendment
to
clarify
the
hierarchy
of
provincial
interest.
So
this
is
where
we
have
things
like
fish,
habitat
and
a
mineral
resource.
So
someone
comes
forward.
C
They
want
to
propose
extraction
of
rock
in
an
area
where
we
show
a
water
course
that
fish
bearing
we
as
planning
staff,
become
a
little
confused
because
there's
they're
different
they're
competing
provincial
interests.
One
says
you
should
give
priority
to
the
priority
to
the
extraction.
The
other
says
you
should
give
prior
to
the
fish.
So
what
we've
done
is
we've
clarified
and
we've
worked
with
the
province
to
ensure
that
policies
are
really
clear
to
say.
C
The
last
item
on
this,
in
with
respect
to
the
province,
is
the
Ministry
of
Natural,
Resources
and
forestry.
Promises
adamant
that
we
ask
for
these
aggregate
impact
assessments
whenever
we
propose
an
activity
that
has
the
potential
to
compromise
the
extraction
of
bedrock
and
in
Kingston
we
sit
on
a
limestone
plane.
So
we
sit
on
a
lot
of
bedrock
and
if
we
have
to
ask
for
an
aggregate
impact
assessment
with
every
planning
application,
we're
going
to
deter
a
lot
of
things
from
happening
just
as
a
starting
point.
C
So
we've
agreed
with
the
Ministry
to
work
together
on
refining
the
scope
of
what
an
aggregate
impact
assessment
will
will
say
and
when
it
will
be
required
so
kind
of
a
placeholder
for
doing
some
more
work
to
better
define
when
we're
going
to
ask
for
this
assessment,
a
lot
of
corrections
to
just
general
section
references
agency,
names,
bullet
format
in
grammar
site,
specific
policies.
So
we
had
policies
where
it
refers
to
439,
King,
Street
and
now,
for
whatever
reason
number
severance
is
from
now,
the
address
has
changed
to
450
King
Street.
C
So
we're
just
doing
some
clarification
of
actual
civic
addresses
and
street
name.
We've
removed
policy
duplication,
discretionary
language
in
what
I'll
refer
to
as
vague
term.
So
we
have
things
like
wherever
possible,
we'd
like
you
to
do
to
do
this.
Well,
that
doesn't
really
help
us
when
we're
actually
looking
at
an
application
and
we're
going
to
ask
you
to
stringently
do
something
again.
What
does
that
mean
from
just
simply
doing
it?
So
we've
removed
some
of
that
flexible
language.
C
There
are
a
number
of
changes
to
the
schedule.
I
won't
walk
you
through
each
one
on
the
map.
Here
but
I
think
the
big
one,
the
one
that
affected
the
most
properties
was
certainly
the
removal
of
the
urban
boundary
expansion.
It
was
shown
on
almost
every
schedule
so
where
it
was
it
was.
It
was
up
here
the
top
right
of
the
screen
there,
so
we've
removed
that
from
the
proposal.
C
We've
recognized
some
properties
that
have
been
approved
for
official
plan
amendment
since
we
started
this
project
so,
for
example,
23
soccer
Lane,
which
is
where
the
walmart
was
going
to
go
off
of
division.
That
property
received
approval
for
an
old
P
amendment,
so
we
recognize
it
in
schedule,
3d,
which
recognizes
all
the
properties
with
sites
policies
just
north
of
the
401
in
the
lands
largely
owned
by
the
CRC.
A
it's
a
clay
bridge
aunty
and
our
policies
say
that
any
anti
should
be
designated
environmental
protection
area.
C
This
this
ansi
was
not
designated
EPA,
so
we've
actually
changed.
A
designation
and
I've
been
in
contact
with
said
the
CRC
a
in
there
you're.
Okay,
with
the
changes
through
the
primary
landowner.
The
City
of
Kingston
owns
a
small
chunk
of
land
in
there
as
well.
So
that's
reflected
on
schedule.
3,
be
there
were
some
minor
corrections
to
schedule.
C
5,
which
is
the
pathways,
is
to
recognize
the
waterfront
master
plan
and
some
tweaking
there
just
to
make
sure
we
we
had
it
right
correction
to
some
of
the
labeling
with
the
source
water
protection
plan
set
schedule.
11
be
so
we
were
collaborating
with
the
crc
a
just.
We
got
some
terminology
wrong,
easily
fix
that.
C
And
I
guess,
with
respect
to
the
the
commercial
land
study,
we
made
some
changes
to
schedule,
CN
1,
which
is
the
cataraqui
north,
so
that
canary
plan
I
did
present
that
at
the
november
seventeenth
public
meeting
in
the
current
iteration
the
plan,
all
the
commercial
lands
are
just
recognized
as
commercial.
It
doesn't
distinguish
between
arteriolar
or
regional,
commercial,
district,
commercial,
large
or
Main
Street
commercial.
Yet
the
policies
themselves
do
distinguish
specific
areas
on
the
basis
of
commercial
menus
type.
So
we've
corrected
the
mapping
to
be
aligned
with
the
policies.
C
So
this
is
one
that
I
got
literally
today
as
a
request
from
Enbridge
who
was
circulated
in
early
2015,
but
Jim
actually
comment
until
today.
But
what
they've
identified
is
that
policies
under
5
30
that
deal
with
pipelines
speak
specifically
to
TransCanada.
Only
so
I
won't
go
through
the
policy
in
detail,
but
it
establishes
expectations
for
when
certain
act.
These
are
happening
within
a
certain
catchment
area
of
a
pipeline.
You
have
to
meet
certain
Lanny's
test
and
then
section
5.3,
32
kind
of
says.
C
The
city
has
the
discretion
to
apply
these
policies
to
not
only
natural
gas
utilities
but
other
Nats
national
energy
board
pipelines,
which
would
capture
Enbridge,
so
I
do
have
I
guess:
I
will
request
if
we
later
in
the
meeting,
if
we
can
have
a
motion
to
direct
staff
through
council
to
make
that
change.
That
would
I
think
address
the
last
minute,
commenter,
but
I
think
in
a
very
practical
way.
C
The
update
that
we've
undertaken
satisfies
the
requirements
of
the
Planning
Act
we've
gone
through
this
with
a
fine-tooth
comb
with
our
internal
and
external
legal
support.
Conformed
excuse
me
conforms
with
all
applicable
provincial
plans
as
regard
for
matters
of
provincial
interest,
as
outlined
in
section
2
of
the
Planning
Act.
C
It's
consistent
with
the
2014
PPS
and
I
did
want
to
note
that
I
really
feel
this
project
has
benefited
greatly
from
from
the
rounds
of
iteration
and,
more
recently,
even
since
november
seventeenth,
we
have
really
spent
a
last
three
months
going
through
a
lot
of
correspondence
again
and
dealing
with
people
individually
to
make
sure
this
is
this:
we
get
this
right.
The
next
step.
You
have
a
recommendation
in
front
of
you
this
evening,
if
you're
supportive
of
it
it'll
go
to
council
march
seventh
and
then
we'll
send
the
package
off
to
the
province.
C
A
Thank
you
very
much,
yeah
a
monumental
task,
as
I
said,
and
what
I'd
like
to
do
now
is
I
know
there
will
be
some
amendments
such
coming
up.
So
if
we
could
put
the
recommendation
on
the
floor
and
then
we
can
ask
questions,
bring
up
any
changes,
council,
McLaren,
moved
and
seconded
by
Councillor
fanuc,
so
I
will
open
the
floor.
If
you
would
like
two
questions
first
or
amendment
councillor
Neal,
I'll,.
D
Hold
off
on
the
amendments
to
hear
other
people,
but
I
did
have
a
couple
of
comments
and
a
couple
of
questions.
First
of
all,
I'm
really
thankful
that
the
urban
boundary
is
being
maintained
as
it
was
originally.
It
recently
established
primarily
because,
as
we
hear
more
and
more,
I
know
there's
great
debate
about
whether
our
population
forecasts
and
how
accurate
they
truly
are.
D
But,
however,
inaccurate
they're,
the
reality
is
that
we're
below
what
is
the
anticipated
growth,
and
so
it
would
seem
foolhardy
now
to
expand
their
urban
boundary
at
this
time,
I'm
on
Mac,
so
I
I
would
like
to
know
you
mentioned
oda
and
that
the
parking
reflects
that
is
it
reflected
in
the
width
of
the
parking
allocated
to
two
I
hate
to
use
the
word
handicap,
but
not
no
other
word
is
coming
to
mind
right
now.
It's
been
a
long
day,
so
is
there
some
provision
for
a
wider
parking
space
as
well.
C
C
So
yeah
I
took
on
the
screen
here,
hi
but
I
guess
to
answer
your
questions,
so
the
policy
was
intentionally
not
getting
into
the
details
of
the
width
of
spaces,
which
will
be
coming
forward.
I
believe
actually
I
marched.
A
second
of
the
planning
committee
meeting
dealing
with
the
zoning
so
with
the
zoning
will
get
in
this
into
the
specifics
of
widths
and
lengths
and
actually
a
height
restriction
within
the
space
itself.
C
But
the
purpose
of
this
policy
is
actually
to
give
a
framework
for
the
consideration
of
request
for
relief
from
the
required
supply
if
you're
required
to
supply
10
and
some
is
proposing
eight.
This
is
going
to
give
guidance
to
staff
and
to
the
applicant
as
to
how
we're
going
to
consider
that.
So
it's
looking
at
the
distance
between
the
spaces
and
the
accessible
entrance
to
the
building,
secure
the
parts
and
lighting
and
other
factors.
So
it's
giving
guidance
for
the
decision
making
process
as.
D
The
aggregate
placeholder
that
you
mentioned
and
the
discussion
with
about
mining
and
natural
heritage
I'm
just
curious
if,
if
that's
going
to
be
the
equivalent
of
a
what
in
collective
bargaining,
is
a
letter,
a
commitment
to
come
up
with
a
and
that
that
will
be
come
through
as
an
amendment
at
a
later
date.
Is
that
kind
of
accurate
krause
s
wise.
D
Thank
you,
so
your
work
isn't
done
yet.
My
other
question
regards
you
mentioned
more
stringent
language
coming
forward
on
certain
things
is
the
previous
established
goal
of
25%,
affordable
housing?
Is
that
any
more
stringent?
My
problem
is
that
that's
always
been
a
toothless
law
and
in
the
in
the
whole
planning
process
and
very
few,
if
any
developers
actually
achieve
that
that
wish
that
we've
cooked
forward
for.
C
The
way
the
legislation
is
written
is
that
the
city
may
establish
inclusion,
inclusionary
zoning
provisions
to
require
the
supply
of
affordable
housing.
So
when
I
mentioned
half
jokingly,
but
entirely
seriously
that
as
soon
as
we
get
this
off
our
plates
and
are
able
to
focus
on
some
of
the
other
things
that
we
have
in
the
queue
bill,
seven
in
the
consideration
of
inclusionary
zoning
is
is
one
of
those
things
that
are
collaborating
with
housing
on
right
now.
So
so.
C
C
So
when
I
mentioned,
we
have
more
carrots,
more
tools
of
recognized
me.
Oh
PS,
we're
recognizing
the
opportunity
that
inclusionary
zoning
offers
and
we're
also
recognizing
the
opportunity
of
community
benefits,
so
the
opportunity
to
potentially
put
affordable
housing
on
a
tier
above
other
considerations
through
community
benefits
is
also
something
we're
collaborating
right
now
with
housing
on.
E
E
C
Madam
chair
I,
wouldn't
say
all
their
concerns
are
addressed,
what
their
concerns
have
been
very
carefully
considered.
So
the
concerns
revolve
around
the
methodology
used
to
forecast
noise
exposure
impacts
related
to
the
airport,
so
the
methodology
and
then
the
inputs
into
the
model,
and
so
we
have
Third
Transport
Canada
confirmed
that
the
model
that
we've
used
the
method
we've
used
is
the
right
method
and
through
wst
and
David's,
know
who's
the
airport
manager
and
his
team.
C
We've
confirmed
that
the
input,
so
the
forecasted
volume
of
flights
is
also
appropriate
and
with
what
we
should
expect
in
the
future.
So
I
don't
believe
the
Buzzy's
are
entirely
satisfied
with
where
we
are,
but
we
have
given
a
lot
of
consideration
and
responded
accordingly
to
the
Buzzy's
to
their
concerns.
E
F
You,
madam
chair
I'm,
through
you
thanks
so
much
again,
mr.
Newman's,
for
in
this
dress,
showing
where
you
know
like
the
different
highlights
its
different
colors
fonts,
showing
where
the
changes
are
thus
traceroute.
That's
a
big
help
with
some
reading.
This
document
I
have
one
question
about
page
157
and
it's
about
on
large
format.
Retail.
F
And
it's
the
first
bullet
set
on
the
first
one.
That's
been
added
at
the
top
to
the
page.
So
three
point
four
point:
eight
point:
five
and
I
think
you
said
that
that
side
added,
possibly
and
version
number
five
and
I
guess
I
missed
it.
So
it
has
been
added
it's
in
response
to
the
commercial
land
study
right
and
it
says
about
large
format.
Retail
could
be
a
permitted
use
in
the
downtown.
Is
that
just
so,
if
there's
another
snr
that
might
come
to
the
downtown,
it
would
be
allowed
like
we're.
F
C
Mentor
so
it's
it's
intended
to
contemplate
a
large
format.
Retailer
presenting
an
option
offered
option
to
develop
in
the
downtown
context
for
the
central
business
district,
but
what's
really
important
is
the
framing
of
the
policy,
so
the
policy
is
saying
that
we
would
contemplate
a
large
format
retailer,
not
necessarily
the
large
format,
but
the
large
format
retailer.
F
So
I
don't
know
it's
like
the
downtown
BIA,
even
notice
that
this
decided
and
I
guess
it's.
You
know
an
800-page
document,
but
I
just
wondered.
You
know
if
they
know
that
it's
there
and
if
they're,
okay
with
that
and
I'm,
just
going
back
to
even
like
the
casino
and
the
big
uproar
about
you
know,
we
cannot.
If
we
are
going
to
have
a
casino
to
not
be
in
the
downtown.
You
know
just
how
all
those
conversations
over
the
years
have
come
out.
I'm
just
wondering
if
that
means,
which
is
okay,
ordered.
C
C
G
You
Man
3,
madam
chair
I,
just
want
to
add
that
in
terms
of
what
those
forms
of
commercial
entities
could
be,
it
could
be
grocery
stores
like,
so
that
we
don't
necessarily
assume
that
it's
one
of
those
big
box
stores
so,
for
example,
there
already
some
that
are
existing
in
the
downtown.
I
would
say
probably
the
metro
and
the
staples
will
be
the
larger
format
that
we
would
currently
say
in
the
downtown.
So
it
could
be
another
grocery
store
somewhere
in
downtown
as
well.
That.
F
F
E
F
Do
have
one
amendment
to
it
and
I
talked
to
staff
today
about
it
and
that
send
definition
of
valley,
land
and,
in
the
definition
of
valley,
lands
against
a
bunch
of
characteristics
of
a
valley,
man
and
in
all
those
characteristics.
The
very
last
word
is
and
sort
of
mean,
meaning
that
the
valley
man
has
to
be
all
of
those
characteristics,
whereas
I
want
to
change
it
to
or,
and
it's
because
of
how
it
says
that
Valley
lands
have
to
be
fish
habitat.
F
That's
why
I
want
to
have
or
because,
if
we
use
Collins
crease
as
an
example
of
a
valley
land
right
in
my
district
at
lawrence
park,
there
is
a
big
hole
in
the
limestone
that
was
dynamited
back
in
nineteen.
Ninety,
something
and
now
for
the
months
of
june
july
and
august,
when
it's
really
hot,
there's
no
longer
any
water
in
Collins
Creek
until
you
get
to
Lake
Ontario,
and
so
if
there
are
any
fish
that
want
to
swim
up,
call
and
creeks
you're
only
allowed
in
the
mouth
during
those
hot
summer
months.
F
So
it
is
definitely
a
valley
land
and
most
of
Colin's
creepy,
especially
north
of
there,
is
a
significant
valley
land,
but
definitely
not
just
habitat.
You
know
to
be
considered
fish
habitat
because
how
it's
empty
at
the
Belfair
force
those
three
months
of
the
year
so
on.
What
my
amendment
is
is
that
for
the
definition,
so
item
121
of
schedule,
aight
to
Exhibit
B
of
this
report
be
further
amended
by
deleting
the
word
and
and
replacing
it
with
the
word
or
in
don't
have
clue,
read
it
out.
C
D
C
3Mon
chair,
so
the
intent
really
is
to
make
sure
that,
if
the
queue
criteria
that
we're
ultimately
looking
at
here,
one
is
a
lamb
form
depressed
and
does
it
serve
an
ecological
function.
So
the
intent
was
never
that
it
would
that
it
be
an
all
inclusive
thing
that
there
are
the
fundamental
things.
Is
that
it's
depressed
and
that
it
serves
an
ecological
purpose
and
so
the
adding
the
or
in
place
of
the
and
will
allow
us
to
say
that
consideration
can
be
given
to
any
of
the
factors
that
contribute
to
ecological
and
important.
C
A
D
I
had
two
amendments
that
I
shared
with
staff
today
and
I.
Believe
we've
addressed
both
of
them.
The
one
is
concerning
what
my
colleague
Kevlar
sonic
had
brought
up,
which
is
the
whole
idea
of
large
format.
Retail
uses
and
I
know
the
original
language
of
that
was
that
the
city
would
be
sensitive
to
that
to
historic
building
fabric
scale,
pedestrian
humanity
linkages
with
the
lake
and
protected
view.
Corridors
sensitive
struck
me
as
a
somewhat
weak
action,
verb
and
I
had
had
thought.
D
Perhaps
the
word
protect
would
be
better,
but
staff
in
discussion
said
that
they
were
in
support
of
the
idea
of
changing
it
from
sensitive
to
that.
The
built
form
is
compatible
with
the
historic
fabric,
scale,
pedestrian
amenity
and
soul.
So
I
think
that
gives
stronger
direction
than
just
the
word
sensitive.
So
again,
I,
don't
think
I
think
it
enhances
probably
the
original
intent
rather
than
limiting
it.
So
if
there's
a
seconder
I've
already
debated
it
sorry.
A
E
A
D
More
thank
you
item,
396
of
schedule,
a
talks
about
our
all
of
our
favorite
subject,
which
is
drive-throughs
and
the
language
originally
was
to
ensure
the
safe,
efficient
and
comfortable
movement
of
pedestrians
and
in
the
name
of
active
transportation.
I
think
we
should
amend
it
to
include
end
cyclists
because
would
be
an
increase
in
concern
in
the
design
of
drive,
drive,
throughs
and
again.
I
share
that
with
staff
so
and
again,
I've
debated
it.
If
there's
a
secondary.
A
E
E
Okay,
it's
a
summary
of
the
revision
of
and
bridge.
Would
you
like
me
to
read
it
or
but
okay,
yep,
okay,
I
can
see
it
that
item
890
schedule
a
to
Exhibit
B
of
report,
number
pcs
17
to
live
a
further
amendment
and
to
include
the
phrase
or
national
energy
board
regulated
pipeline
following
the
word
utilities,
so
that
it
reads
as
following.
E
A
E
D
A
C
It's
the
amount
of
share
the
impact
will
be
when
Enbridge
comes
in,
with
an
application
to
do
something
with
the
pipeline
or
I.
Think
more
to
the
contrary,
where
someone
proposes
something
in
proximity
to
end
bridges
pipeline.
We
now
have
a
policy
framework
to
look
at
the
potential
impact
to
that
pipeline
that
didn't
it
doesn't
exist
today.
So
today
it
only
speaks
to
TransCanada,
so
we
now
have
the
opportunity
to
apply
it
to
other
pipelines.
A
A
A
Thank
you
and
number
three
is
to
13
to
19
princess
street
zoning
bylaw
amendment,
and
this
is
one
that
did
go
through
the
Heritage
Committee
earlier
and
was
passed
with
a
claim.
Actually
so
I
will
ask
it
for
a
mover
and
seconder
councillor,
Neal
seconded
by
Councillor
Turner.
Any
comments,
questions,
okay,
seeing
that
I
will
call
the
question
all
those
in
favor,
say:
tubes
that
carry
that's
great
is
there
are
no
motions,
notices
of
motion,
no
other
business
and
some
correspondence
from
the
Buzzy's
and
next
meeting
is
March.