►
From YouTube: Joint Planning and Housing Committee and the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee- Tuesday May 30
Description
Joint Planning and Housing Committee and the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee - Tuesday May 30
A
Good
morning,
everyone
meetings,
Tim
has
sounded
sounded
the
signal
good
morning.
Everyone
welcome
to
planning
and
housing
committee.
This
is
a
special
meeting.
Let's
make
some
magic
happen
before
we
begin.
I
would
just
like
to
acknowledge
that
we
are
on
the
unsurrendered
and
unseated
land
of
the
Algonquin
and
ishnavic
people
could
I
ask
the
clerk
to
do
the
roll
call.
Please.
B
C
B
E
A
You
very
much
everyone,
so
this
is
obviously
meeting
to
take
a
look
at
three
separate
reports.
The
the
one
is
on
the
bill,
109
response.
There
is
the
report
on
the
delegated
authority
and
there
was
also
the
provincial
resource
impact
report.
We're
going
to
try
to
deal
with
the
the
whole
package
today.
So
I
know
staff
have
a
comprehensive
presentation
to
make
we're
also
going
to
allow
the
delegations
to
speak
to
all
three
of
the
items.
I
know.
A
One
of
the
delegations
has
split
their
presentations
into
two
to
deal
with
two
separate
reports,
so
they'll
be
doing
one
after
the
other
as
part
of
the
delegations.
We're
going
to
start
out
receiving
that
comprehensive
report.
I'm
going
to
ask
members
I
know
there
are
a
number
of
emotions
that
are
going
to
be
moving
forward
today.
A
So
after
the
stat
presentation,
I'm
going
to
ask
members
who
have
motions
or
who
would
like
to
give
staff
Direction
just
to
put
those
on
the
table,
then
we'll
move
into
the
questions
of
staff
and
and
debate
before
we
vote
one
after
the
other
on
the
Motions
that
amend
the
final
reports.
And
then
we
are
out
of
here.
So
if
that's
good
with
everyone,
I
think
what
I'd
like
to
do
is
start
out
and
ask
staff
to
make
their
presentation.
F
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you,
members
of
the
planning
and
housing
committee
and
agricultural
Affairs
for
the
opportunity
to
present
to
you
today,
I'm
joined
by
Emily,
Davies
who's,
our
manager
of
Special
Projects
who's
been
leading
our
response
to
Bill
109
as
I'm
sure
many
of
you
can
appreciate.
It's
been
a
busy
year
with
changes
and
various
housing
bills
coming
from
the
province
and
staff
have
worked
diligently
to
to
try
to
adapt
to
those,
and
we
do
have
a
presentation
that
will
deal
with
the
three
reports
that
are
before
you
today.
F
F
Some
of
the
things
that
you'll
see
today
and
through
the
delegation
to
Authority
report,
which
is
fairly
standard,
it's
a
standard
report
that
we
report
regularly
on
Bill
109
Emily
will
walk
us
through
the
phase
two
Report
with
an
overview,
a
current
process,
a
comparison
of
the
current
process
and
the
proposed
new
multi-tiered
pre-consultation
process
changes
being
proposed
to
the
public,
consultation
and
governance
and
finally,
we'll
have
the
provincial
resource
impact
report.
Where
we'll
talk
about
a
staffing
request.
F
Next
slide
with
respect
to
the
numbers
on
the
delegation
of
authority,
the
staff
this
year
and
planning
have
dealt
with
13
000
right
away
and
public
realm
permits.
There's
been
95
Heritage
permits,
issued
36,
approved
projects,
138
bylaws
drafted
19,
Community,
environmental
projects
Grant,
and
on
our
inspection
side,
we've
released
Securities
related
to
164
million
dollars
worth
of
construction
activity.
F
F
Foreign
applications
follow
a
similar,
Trend,
obviously
there's
a
peak
in
2021.
There
was
also
a
peak
in
2020
in
2019
that
you'll
see
that
was
related
largely
in
response
to
getting
ahead
of
a
development
charge
update,
but
we
are
still
trending
on
that
sort
of
of
2018
trend
line
next
slide
and
now
I'll
pass
it
over
to
Emily
to
walk
us
through
some
of
the
impacts
with
respect
to
Bill
109
and
where
we're
going
from
here.
G
Thank
you
Derek,
so
I'm
here
to
speak
to
the
bill.
109
component
of
the
report
before
you
just
for
sake
of
jogging
everyone's
memory.
Bill
109,
is
a
piece
of
legislation
that
was
dropped
by
the
province
in
April
of
last
year.
This
piece
of
legislation
had
a
number
of
major
changes
to
the
planning
act.
G
The
portion
of
the
legislation
that
we
are
imposing
today
or
reacting
to
today
is
with
regards
to
the
refunds
of
fees,
so
the
legislation
has
imposed
a
60-day
requirement
for
the
processing
of
site
plan
control
applications
and
a
90-day
requirement
for
the
processing
of
zoning
bylaw
and
then
applications
both
of
those
application
timelines
in
the
current
way.
The
city
processes
them.
G
We
take
on
average
196
days
to
process
the
site
plan,
control
so
well
over
what
the
provincial
allotment
is
mandating
and
then
178
days
to
process
a
zoning
by
law,
Amendment
again
well
over
what
the
provincial
legislation
is
going
to
be
mandating,
come
January
or
July
1st
sorry,
the
the
deadlines
have
continuously
changed,
but
come
July
1st.
There
will
be
a
refunds
imposed
if
the
municipalities
across
Ontario
do
not
meet
those
timelines.
G
The
city
of
Ottawa
is
not
the
only
one
in
this
boat.
The
legislation
is
impacting
all
municipalities
across
Ontario,
and
we
obviously
did
not
ask
for
these
changes,
but
we
have
to
react
and
determine
a
path
forward
to
change
business
processes
in
order
to
meet
these
mandated
timelines
next
slide,
please.
G
This
slide
shows
an
overarching
timeline
of
of
where
we've
gone
to
date.
Since
the
legislation
did
pass
last
year,
we
did
bring
forward
a
report
in
July
of
last
year,
reacting
to
it
a
number
of
the
pieces
of
the
legislation
primarily
surrounding
site
plan
controls
and
the
delegation
of
authority,
so
that
was
before
committees
and
Council
last
summer.
G
Since
then,
we've
been
working
over
the
course
of
the
winter
to
determine
a
number
of
internal
and
process
changes
in
order
to
lead
us
up
to
today,
with
the
report
before
you
with
a
number
of
recommendations,
reacting
to
Bill
109
refunds
of
fees.
Next
slide,
please
the
existing
process.
I
wanted
to
Showcase
this
and
and
let
everybody
know
what
we
are
working
with
today.
G
What
what
has
been
our
business
process
for
processing,
site
plan
controls
and
Zoning
bylaw
amendments
is
typically,
an
application
will
come
in
for
pre-consultation
and
Derek
just
showed
the
numbers
that
we've
seen
historically,
which
are
a
variety
of
a
thousand
per
year.
Once
the
application
has
concluded
their
one
stage
pre-consultation,
they
then
submit
their
application
and
it's
teamed
complete
after
its
team
complete.
G
So
we
had
to
analyze
this
process,
how
it
was
working,
how
it
had
been
working
over
the
last
decade
and
find
ways
to
improve
it
and
to
make
sure
that
we
can
process
applications
faster
in
order
to
hit
the
deadlines
allotted
by
The
Province,
so
that
we're
not
going
to
be
taking
a
massive
Financial
hit,
with
the
implication
of
refunds
of
fees.
Next
slide,
please
this
slide
before
you
shows
the
proposed
process,
which
is
going
to
be
implemented
by
the
changes
before
you
in
the
bill
109
report.
G
We
are
proposing
that
a
multi-tiered
pre-consultation
process
be
put
into
place.
This
multi-tiered
pre-consultation
process
will
require
site
plan,
controls
and
Zoning
bylaw
amendments,
those
two
files
only
so
not
all
planning
act
applications.
We
are
only
targeting
the
two
that
are
subject
to
the
bill:
109
legislation
that
those
two
files
would
have
to
go
through
multiple
steps
for
pre-consultation
in
order
to
ensure
that
they're
getting
the
necessary
feedback
from
the
city
from
staff
from
stakeholders
in
order
to
revise
their
application
before
they
submit
it
once
they
go
through
the
proposed
three-phase
pre-consultation.
G
The
application
would
then
be
in
a
position
to
be
submitted
and
deemed
complete
once
it's
deemed
complete.
It
then
enters
into
what
we
call
official
review,
which
is
where
we're
counting
every
day
that
the
province
has
allotted
so
we're
counting
60
days
for
cycling,
control
and
90
days
for
zoning
by
law.
Amendment
next
slide,
please.
G
The
report
before
you
has
nine
recommendations.
We've
grouped
those
nine
recommendations
really
into
three
different
buckets.
The
first
bucket
is
with
regards
to
internal
process
changes,
so
a
number
of
things
that
we're
looking
to
change
in
our
typical
business
process
in
order
to
streamline
applications
internally.
The
second
bucket
is
with
regards
to
bylaw
amendments.
There
are
five
bylaw
amendments
that
we
are
proposing
in
order
to
align
ourselves
with
setting
up
for
a
pre-consultation
process,
ensuring
that
we
have
proper
fee
structure
for
it
and
so
forth.
G
G
Some
of
the
key
changes
regarding
the
internal
business
process
changes
are
with
regards
to
adjusting
the
circulation
timelines
for
site
plan
control.
In
today's
current
process,
we
allow
for
28
days
for
circulation
for
cycling
control
and,
having
analyzed
how
we
can
utilize
those
60
days
that
the
province
has
assigned,
we
can
no
longer
afford
28
of
those
60
days
to
be
dedicated
to
circulation,
so
we
are
proposing
to
reduce
that
circulation
time
to
a
14-day
window
and
allow
continue
to
support
constituents
and
stakeholders
to
submit
comments
on
site
plan
controls
within
that
14-day
window.
G
The
other
Pro
internal
process,
change
that
we
are
looking
to
Institute
is
a
very
strict
timeline
for
circulation
comments
in
the
past
for
site
plan
controls
and
Zoning
bylaw
amendments.
We've
had
a
lot
of
leeway
in
allowing
comments
to
trickle
in
well
past
the
deadlines
and
still
consider
them
for
changes
to
the
the
report
or
the
record.
The
proposal
given
that
the
province
has
instituted
very
strict
timelines.
G
G
G
G
So
we
are
going
to
have
a
rule
that
those
two
types
of
applications
will
be
processed
separately,
a
zoning
by
law,
Amendment
coming
first
and
then
a
site
by
control
coming
after
that
said,
those
two
applications
can
go
through
pre-consultation
together
and
we
will
encourage
that
of
applicants
so
that
a
whole
package
will
be
considered
by
staff
in
order
to
provide
comprehensive
feedback,
but
once
it
enters
into
official
review,
we
will
have
to
process
pipeline
controls
after
zoning
by
law.
Amendments.
G
The
caveat
to
that
rule
is
that
the
planning
act
does
allow
for
official
plan
amendments
and
Zoning
bylaw
amendments
to
come
together
and
in
those
instances
the
planning
act
allows
for
120
days
for
the
municipality
to
process
it.
So
they
do
specifically
recognize
those
two
types
of
applications
can
come
forward
concurrently
next
slide.
Please
I
will
pass
this
slide
over
to
Derek
to
cover.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
F
One
of
the
things
that
I
think
is
important
to
be
clear
is
that
there
is
no
one
solution
that
we're
looking
at
to
bring
us
from
196
days
down
to
60
days
for
a
site
plan.
It's
a
layering
in
a
number
of
different
initiatives
and-
and
you
know,
looking
at
basically
our
entire
process.
You
know,
we've
Emily's
talked
about
the
pre-application
consultation
process,
we're
looking
at
changing
some
of
our
conditions
or
looking
at
opportunities
to
condition
things.
F
But
one
of
the
things
that
we're
looking
at
in
the
middle
is
a
fundamental
change
to
the
way
we
assign
our
work.
Currently,
today,
a
file
comes
in
and
is
assigned
to
an
individual
planner
and
an
engine
and
an
individual
project
manager,
which
is
typically
a
professional
engineer
or
a
civil
engineering
technologist
to
review
those
files
within
respect
to
their
own
disciplines
and
they're
also
responsible
for
the
carriage
of
that
file
from
essentially
Soup
To
Nuts.
F
And
so,
if
there's
issues
with
respect
to
the
signs,
if
there's
collating
comments
from
the
public,
that
individual
is
the
individual
that
is
responsible
and
has
carriage
for
that
file.
One
of
the
things
we're
looking
at
and
start
starting
the
implementation
process
of
now
is
a
team
approach
to
files.
Where
we've
got
a
group
of
the
two
different
types
of
disciplines
assigned
to
each
file,
which
will
hope
will
we
hope,
will
give
us
an
opportunity
to
improve
efficiency.
Where
we've
got.
You
know
the
right
type
of
person
doing
the
right
type
of
work.
F
So
I
don't
have
my
some
of
my
most
senior
staff,
doing
administrative
tasks
or
or
following
up
on
sign
details.
We
hope
it
will
give
us
a
resiliency
so
that,
if
a
staff
member
needs
to
take
leave
for
for
whatever
reason
or
attend,
Ontario
Municipal
board
hearings
or
step
away
from
a
file
that
there
are
others
that
are
already
engaged
in
that
file.
F
That
know
what
the
next
steps
are
and
can
continue
to
move
through
the
process,
and
you
know,
through
those
initiatives,
we're
really
hoping
that
they'll
also
increase
consistency
by
having
more
senior
staff
involved
in
more
files.
You
know
not
being
bogged
down
with
some
of
the
administrative
work
that
they
can
really
share
their
knowledge
and
information
with
some
of
our
younger
staff
to
Mentor
them
through
the
process
and
essentially
train
them
as
we
go
and
and
through
that
process
provide
that
consistency
that
we
sometimes
lack
on
applications
and
I'm.
F
Sure
many
of
you
have
heard
from
from
applicants
about
it.
You
know
ish
concerns
related
to
consistency,
and
why
are
they
doing
it
this
way
and
this
person
did
it
some
way
a
different
way
and
we're
hoping
that
that's
something
that
we
can
address
through
this
team
approach.
It
is
really
a
fundamental
difference
to
the
way
we
work.
It
sounds
easy,
but
our
processes
are
very
complex
and
we've
gone
through
a
lot
of
work
to
determine.
F
G
Thank
you,
Derek
I'm,
just
now
going
to
speak
to
a
couple
of
the
other
recommendations
before
you
as
part
of
the
bill
109
report.
One
of
the
recommendations
is
with
regards
to
direction
to
staff,
to
look
into
a
tool
that
is
in
the
planning
act
to
regarding
zoning
by
law
amendments
through
analyzing
the
process
we've
understood
that
our
timeline
for
90
days
to
processes
owning
by
law.
Amendment
is
really
tight,
especially
with
having
to
rise
to
committees
and
Council
and
have
the
bylaw
passed
within
that
90-day
timeline.
G
So
one
of
the
tools
in
the
planning
Act
is
to
delegate
minors
owning
by
law
amendments
to
staff.
There
is
no
decision
before
you
regarding
this
today.
What
is
before
you
is
direction
to
staff,
to
look
into
this
tool
and
determine
options
to
consider
at
a
later
time
that
we
can
bring
back
to
committee
and
Council
for
consideration
next
slide.
Please.
G
The
other
recommendation
before
is
with
regards
to
the
development
Application
Study
policy.
Bylaw,
it's
a
total
mouthful.
It
is
a
bylaw
that
we
need
to
amend
in
order
to
adjust
the
studies
that
are
listed
on
it.
This
bylaw
is
really
important
in
the
wake
of
approving
the
new
official
plan.
The
new
official
plan
no
longer
contains
a
list
of
studies
that
could
be
requested
as
part
of
a
complete
application.
G
If
the
studies
are
not
listed
on
here,
we
do
not
have
the
legal
ability
to
ask
for
them.
So
that
is
why
this
is
really
critical.
So
we
have
analyzed
this
by
law
and
taken
feedback
from
external
stakeholders
as
well
as
internally
and
before
you
are
adjusting
or
suggesting
a
number
of
different
changes
to
the
bylaw.
In
order
to
remove
some
studies,
add
some
new
studies
and
when
I
say
studies,
I
also
mean
information
and
material.
Some
of
them
are
just
forms
and
change
the
titles
of
some
of
those
information
and
material
pieces
next
slide.
G
G
We
are
also
going
to
be
proposing
public
meetings
as
part
of
the
planning
act.
Those
will
remain
at
planning
a
housing
committee
as
as
well
as
Agricultural
and
Rural
Affairs
committee.
That
is
the
legal
place
for
those
regarding
cycling
controls.
There
will
no
longer
be
an
opportunity
for
city-led
consultation
meetings
to
clarify
that
consultation
meetings
can
still
continue
at
the
discretion
of
counselors,
as
well
as
at
the
discretion
of
the
industry,
as
well
as
at
the
discretion
of
the
applicant.
G
It's
just
the
city.
It
will
no
longer
have
the
time
to
initiate
those
consultation
sessions
during
that
60-day
window.
Devops
will
still
remain
also
a
critical
touch
point
for
everyone,
where
the
information
on
files
will
be
available
on
devops
and
comments
can
be
taken
through
devops
for
cycling
controls,
as
well
as
zoning
by
alignments
next
slide.
Please,
governance,
changes.
G
I
believe
this
is
recommendation.
Six
in
the
report.
There
are
a
slew
of
governance,
changes
that
we
are
proposing
in
order
to
recognize
that
zoning
by
allow
Amendment
files
have
to
come
through
committees
and
Council,
as
well
as
the
buy
Lobby
past
previously
or
currently
today
is
owning.
Biolumic
can
take
anywhere
up
to
about
46
days
to
go
through
that
process
and
when
we
are
counting
90
days,
46
days
is
almost
half
and
we
can't
a
lot
for
that
that
timeline
anymore.
G
G
G
So
the
proposal
is
to
go
from
10
days
to
sick
days,
six
days
in
publishing
zoning
by
law,
Amendment
reports,
the
last
change
that
is
before
you
is
with
regards
to
rural
zoning
matters
being
able
to
rise
to
planning
and
housing
committee
where
the
rural
zoning
matter
cannot
meet
the
timeline
typically
to
go
to
Iraq,
which
means
once
a
month.
So
that
is
an
option
for
rule
zoning
matters
to
hit
the
timelines
allotted
by
the
province
next
slide.
Please
I
will
pass
it
back
to
Derek
to
speak
to
report
number
three
on
the
resourcing
impacts.
F
Thank
you,
Emily
I,
guess
the
report,
that's
before
you
recommends
changes
to
the
resources
that
recognize
and
take
into
account
the
additional
workload
and
increase
in
service
level
as
a
result
of
the
provincial
bills.
The
objective
is
to
positively
impact
timelines
and
I
guess.
The
meat
of
this
report
is
that
the
staff
are
recommending
the
addition
of
a
total
of
37
additional
ftes
to
support
planning
applications
along
with
two
permanent
positions
being
create
two
temporary
position.
F
I
think
it's
worth
talking
a
little
bit
about
how
our
budget
is
is
derived.
There's
been
some
information
shared
recently
that
you
know
provide
some
of
the
information,
but
maybe
not
the
whole
picture.
So
within
planning
Services,
we
we
go
to
budget,
go
to
two
committees
for
Budget
approval.
We
go
to
planning
and
housing
committee
and
we
go
to
agricultural
Affairs
committee
and
the
staff
that
are
working
and
dedicated
to
rural
files
are
segregated
and
that
those
those
staff
are
approved
ultimately
through
Agriculture
and
Rural
Affairs
committee
and
the
table.
F
That's
before
you
here
shows
that
breakdown.
The
revenues
that
we
generate,
though,
are
all
recognized
in
the
planning
and
housing
committee
budget.
The
rationale
for
that
is
that,
as
applications
come
in
through
the
client
service
center,
and
traditionally
it
has
been
very
difficult
to
determine
at
that
level,
whether
it's
a
real
file
or
a
an
urban
file,
because
we
do
have
a
number
of
split
Wards
and
boundaries
continue
to
change
through
through
various
planning
processes.
Next
slide,
please.
F
So
we
have
a
bit
of
a
breakdown
of
the
of
our
fees
that
show
the
various
types
of
fees
and
where
they
come
from.
The
point
I'd
like
to
highlight
here
is:
you
know:
we
generate
fees,
there
are
application
fees
that
we
generate,
which
are
you
know,
an
official
client,
Amendment
application,
a
zoning
application
site
plan
and
so
forth.
F
Please
I
think
it's
on
next
slide,
so
we
are
proposing
to
increase
those
fees
in
addition
to
our
planning
application
fees
from
four
and
a
half
percent
of
cost
of
Works
to
five
percent
for
hard
servicing
from
two
point,
two:
five
percent
to
two
and
a
half
percent
next
slide.
Please
I
I
should
note,
while
we're
increasing
that
amount,
those
those
design,
review
and
inspection
fees
do
not
not
all
rest
within
planning
Services.
F
Currently
40
of
those
go
to
the
inspection
side
of
things
which
is
managed
through
our
right-of-way
Heritage
and
Urban
Design,
Group
and
and
so
while
we're
increasing
the
amount,
we
are
adjusting
the
split
so
that
the
increase
will
rest
with
planning
Services
the
the
budget
allocation
towards
right-of-way
and
in
the
inspection
group
will
remain
the
same
as
it
is
today,
so
that
split
will
change
slightly
from
that
was
on
the
page.
I
think
it's
64
to
36,
as
opposed
to
60
40.
F
C
F
Next
slide,
that's
it
great,
so
we're
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
If
you
have
any
as
a
I'm
sure
you
can
appreciate
it,
it's
been
a
busy
year
and
I
thank
Emily
and
the
rest
of
staff
that
have
contributed
to
the
process
and
map
things
out.
It
really
has
been
a
bit
of
an
exercise
and
I'm.
Looking
forward
to
the
discussion
as
we
proceed
today,.
A
C
D
Is
on
development
of
a
dispute
resolution
process
so,
whereas
the
bill
109
implementation,
Phase
2
report
introduces
a
multi-phase
pre-consultation
process
for
development
applications,
which
introduces
three
phases
to
allow
the
applicant
to
discuss
their
idea
to
obtain
preliminary
feedback
present.
The
refined
idea
and
any
draft
studies
for
comment
and
finally
submit
their
final
proposal
for
the
study
review
to
ensure
the
studies
are
complete
consistent
with
one
another
and
contain
enough
information
to
allow
a
proper
application
processing
during
the
provincially
timed
review.
D
Therefore,
be
it
resolved
that
planning
services
staff
will
be
directed
to
develop
a
dispute
resolution
procedure
for
the
pre-consultation
process
and
report
back
to
council
by
a
memo
by
the
end
of
Q3
2023
on
the
process
and
implementation
timeline
and
report
on
the
use
of
the
dispute
resolution
process
be
included
as
part
of
the
monitoring
report.
As
per
recommendation,
9.
E
Therefore,
be
it
resolved
that
for
items
that
are
related
to
rural
zoning
matters,
staff
be
directed
to
prioritize
consideration
at
a
special
meaning
of
Iraq
prior
to
considering
routing,
to
phc
and
be
further
resolved.
The
recommendation
8
DB
a
man
to
read
as
follow,
enable
all
zoning
matters
in
in
any
area
of
the
city
to
have
the
ability
to
be
considered
at
planning
and
housing
committee
allowing
a
rural
zoning
file
to
go
to
planning
and
housing
committee
instead
of
agricultural
committee
Affairs.
E
Should
there
be
a
time
pressure
to
meet
the
or
eventually
impose
deadline,
provided
that
the
agricultural
rural
Affair
committee
is,
is
given
opportunity
to
hold
special
meeting
and
is
able
it's
is
able
to
meet
quorum
to
consider
the
matter
be
be
further
resolved
that
requires
special
meetings,
be
regularly
scheduled
on
the
day
planning
and
housing
committee
is
otherwise
scheduled,
it's
a
long
run,
but
you
got
the
Joseph.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
A
Thank
you
very
much.
Vice
chair
the
that
ladder
Direction.
My
intent
is
to
ask
staff
to
take
that
direction
after
we've
heard
from
the
delegations
and
had
an
opportunity
to
debate
the
debate,
the
the
whole
item.
So
we
have
four
delegations
before
we
move
into
counselors
questions.
The
first
is
actually
from
Jason
burgraff
at
goba
he's
joined
today
for
a
presentation
on
3.1
by
filler
osterhut,
and
then
he's
joined
again
for
item
3.2
by
Peter
Norman
with
Altus
group.
J
All
right,
thank
you
very
much
chair
and
everyone
for
the
Joint
Committee.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
this
morning.
As
the
chair
said,
I'm
pleased
to
be
joined
by
Philip
osterhood
of
Solway
Wright,
who
can
answer
some
of
the
legal
questions
as
it
pertains
to
the
pre-consultation
bylaw
and
by
Peter
Norman
of
Altus
group
to
speak
to
the
analysis
on
the
fee
proposal
or
the
user
fee
increase
proposal.
That
is
in
front
of
you
as
well.
J
That
was
an
issue
that
upon
seeing
the
finalized
version
of
the
pre-consultation
bylaw,
that
was
kind
of
the
first
thing
that
jumped
out
on
us
in
our
written
submission.
We've
outlined
amendments
with
a
few
proposed
Clauses
to
ensure
that
there's
accountability
to
keep
those
applications
moving
within
the
identified
timelines
and
the
provisions.
The
dispute
Provisions
that
we've
offered
only
kind
of
confirm
what
the
current
statutory
recourse
is.
J
We're
not
looking
for
anything
new
we're
just
acknowledging
that
the
process
that
should
be
in
place
and
that
we're
not
going
to
throw
out
everything
in
every
case
when
there's
a
dispute
over
one
item
and
generally,
we
feel
the
provisions
clarify
the
process
both
to
the
city's
benefit
as
much
as
it
does
to
to
Industry.
The
second
item
is
on
concurrent
applications.
J
J
The
final
comment
I'm
going
to
make
on
this
first
section
is
on
the
development,
Application
Study
policy
bylaw
and
again,
it's
kind
of
been
somewhat
buried
compared
to
all
these
other
items
that
are
that
are
under
consideration
today,
but
it's
proposes
a
list
of
studies
that
can
be
required
as
part
of
a
complete
application.
But
right
now
the
terms
of
references
for
30
out
of
the
42
studies
that
are
in
the
updated
bylaw
have
been
revised
by
staff
and
are
currently
under
review
by
industry.
J
So
it's
really
an
impossible
task
for
goba
or
its
members
to
endorse
a
list
of
studies,
yay
or
nay,
when
their
individual
contents
have
yet
to
be
finalized.
So
requiring
you
know,
overall,
the
you
know
the
general
principle
should
be
requiring
unnecessary
studies
will
delay
applications
from
being
deemed
complete
and
reducing.
The
number
of
studies
would
certainly
reduce
red
tape
and
reduce
staffer
workload,
which
would
result
in
quicker
and
less
expensive
development
approvals
and
reduce
the
amount
of
studies.
We'll
also
have
a
direct
impact
on
long
long
and
carrying
costs.
J
So
you
know
we
want
to
get
through
our
process
of
reviewing
the
individual
pieces.
What
we're
asking
is,
once
the
terms
of
references
of
all
these
Studies
have
been
finalized.
Let's
bring
the
development
Application
Study
policy
back
for
consideration
in
case
there
are
changes
possible
changes
to
it,
including
we.
You
know
we
want
to
see
a
comparison
of
studies
in
other
jurisdictions
on
what
the
lists
are
required
there.
J
What
the
contents
within
each
of
those
are
and
possible
scoping
of
required
studies
for
opas
for
Zoning
for
site
plan
as
other
jurisdictions
do
as
well,
given
that
maybe
I'll
stop
on
this
first,
this
first
portion
and
I
see
that
there's
a
question
and
I'll
ask:
maybe
the
chair:
do
you
want
me
to
do
you
want
us
to
respond
to
questions
now
or
keep
going
to?
The
second
part.
A
K
Will
be
asked
of
of
an
applicant
on
every
single
application?
Can
you
give
me
an
idea
of
like
what
the
what
the
average
amount
of
studies
are
asked
for
in
you
know
something
like
a
site
plan
review,
something
like
a
like
a
an
Opa
Amendment
and
perhaps
like
a
plan,
a
subdivision
just
just
to
give
me
kind
of
an
idea.
This
might
I
don't
often
sit
at
planning
committee.
We
deal
with
rural
files
only
and
at
a
rack.
So
that
would
be
quite
helpful
if
you
don't
mind.
J
J
J
I
I
can't
speak
to
every
single
instance
under
the
survey
and
all
the
technicalities
under
it,
but
it
is
the
one
it
is
the
biggest
barrier
for
intensification,
especially
you
know,
obviously,
on
areas
where
it's
application
is,
and
then
you
know
if
you
want
to
achieve
your
intensification
goals,
especially
on
an
affordable
sense
of
things,
that
mature
neighborhoods
overlay
is
one
that
I
know.
Members
have
discussed
as
being
a
significant
impediment.
A
A
J
Well,
so
now
we
get
into
the
fun
one
right.
Well,
I
mean,
as
you
can
imagine,
to
increase
planning
fees,
17
and
a
half
percent
has
cost
a
lot
of
consternation
for
the
industry,
but
it's
really
not.
For
the
sake
of
the
increase
itself,
you
know,
Goblin,
its
members
have
always
supported
the
planning
department
having
the
Staffing
and
the
resources
it
needs
to
deliver
its
services.
Well,
it's
that
we've
agreed
to
increase.
You
know:
we've
we've
agreed
to
increase
fees
in
the
past,
with
a
promise
of
more
hiring
that
never
materialized.
J
It's
for
the
fact
that,
despite
the
city's
own
budget
documents
forecasting
a
budget
surplus
of
1.26
million
this
year
that
there's
a
fee
increase
on
the
table
for
1.1
million
for
the
fourth
quarter
of
2023
to
pay
for
this
new
staff.
If
there's
already
enough
money
to
pay
for
staff
expenditures
in
this
fiscal
year,
why
are
we
asking
for
a
fee
increase
now,
especially
after
we
just
completed
an
entire
city
budget
process?
Two
months
ago,
I
mean,
let's
be
honest.
J
J
You
know,
since
I
have
a
few
extra
minutes,
I'm
going
to
speak
to
two
questions
that
I
got
from
staff
yesterday
about
the
analysis,
because
I
won't
get
a
chance
to
ask
them
questions
only
you
guys
get
to
do
that,
but
it's
the
the
first
was
Does.
It
include
the
expenditures
related
to
development,
review,
world
and
items
under
a
rack
and
Peter
can
certainly
also
confirm
that,
in
fact,
the
analysis
does
include
that,
so
that
part
is
covered
as
well.
J
Staff
brought
up
to
me
the
idea
of
having
that
they
have
not
completed
a
comprehensive
review
of
costs,
including
overhead
for
planning.
Services.
That's
not
been
completed
and
I
appreciate
that
point.
The
issue
I
particularly
have
with
it
is
that
I've
also
heard
that
question
for
five
years
it
was
brought
up
and
the
last
fee
increased
it
gets
bring
up
when
I've
referenced
tax
stabilization,
the
the
Surplus
shift
to
tax
stabilization
fund
at
fedco
in
years
past
as
well.
J
You
know
it
just
if
that
report
was
so
important
and
that
cost
analysis
was
so
critical
to
the
planning
Department's
provision
of
services.
I
really
feel
it
would
have
been
done
by
now
and
the
Frank.
You
know,
frankly,
the
fact
that
it
hasn't
really
tells
me
that
either
it's
not
as
critical
or
the
situation
as
it
currently
stands
is
more
beneficial
overall
for
the
city
than
looking
at
those
costs.
J
So
I
really
have
to
you
know,
leave
it
to
dismiss
that
that
that
concern
I
mean
the
other
point
that
was
brought
up
somewhere
along
the
line
is
that
you
know
the
fact
is
Bill
109
didn't
all
of
a
sudden
bring
on
this
sudden
need
for
new
staff.
The
department
has
long
recognized
that
it
needs
more
staff
more
resourcing.
We've
recognized
it
we're
happy
to
support
it.
As
I
said,
we've
supported
fee
increases
in
the
past.
J
This
is
you
know
this.
The
fee
increase
that's
being
proposed
is
on
the
table.
Today
is
not
just
a
reaction
to
new
demands
from
Bill
109.
It's
a
reaction
to
the
lack
of
investment
in
the
planning
Services
over
well
over
the
past
five
years,
and
frankly,
before
that,
certainly
you
know:
we've
been
I've
been
talking
about
this.
You
know
an
entire
time
that
I've
been
in
this
position,
so
I'm
going
to
leave
it
at
that.
As
you
can
imagine,
you
know
a
a
fee
increase.
J
J
You
know
have
looked
at
a
lot
of
money
that
the
serp
that
the
planning
department
has
seen
in
surpluses
over
the
years
that
were
then
not
retained
for
the
reasons
that
they
were
collected
for.
So
we
urge
you
to
reject
a
fee
increase
on
this
today
and
let's
review
it
next
year,
when
you
know
proper
analysis
and
is
done
thanks
very
much
for
your
time.
M
Thank
you.
So
my
question
is
to
Jason:
are
you
hearing
across
the
province
at
all
any
different
stories
from
other
municipalities
with
how
they're
managing
the
costs?
Because
when
the
provincial
government
came
out
and
said
they
would
make
us
whole
I,
don't
know
what
detail
there
was
around.
What
that
meant?
I
mean
we've
heard
them
say
that
before,
but
if
they're
asking
us
to
build
faster,
build
more
homes,
whatever
they're
asking
us
to
do,
and
then
saying,
but
the
cost
for
that
would
have
to
go
to
the
builders.
M
That
doesn't
seem
to
be
something
that
this
provincial
government
would
want
to
have
as
a
message,
because
I
thought
I
understood
that
if
we're
going
to
have
to
put
more
staff
in
place
and
have
faster
processes
that
the
government
would
help
us
do
that
with
funding
for
it.
Not
that
we
then
turn
around
and
increase
our
fees.
But
what
is
I'm
wondering
what
Jason's
hearing
from
other
of
his
colleagues
around
the
province?
I.
J
Understand
that
other
municipalities
are
certainly
are
going
to
propose
similar
changes
to
the
processes
that
that
the
city
of
Ottawa
does
or
is
putting
on
the
table.
Today,
none
of
the
we
don't
have
an
issue
with
most
of
the
processes
like
there's
concern
about
the
pre-consultation
process
and
whether
you
know
it's
it'll
actually
mean
a
longer
timeline
for
sure,
but
I
think
you
know
with
good
oversight
and
good
reporting
and
feedback
on
our
part.
I
think
we
can
make
that
process
work.
J
D
Hi
Jason,
thanks
for
your
presentation
and
for
raising
some
of
the
concerns
here,
although
I
disagree
with
some
of
your
character,
characterizations
about
planning,
department
and
resources,
I
think
a
lot
of
us
are
concerned
about
the
ability
to
ramp
up
and
hire
enough
staff
quickly
enough.
One
thing
I'm
concerned
about
is
is
with
these
significant
changes
in
the
timelines
and
processes
that
the
province
is
mandating.
As
of
July
1st,
what
are
you
hearing
from
your
members?
D
I
guess
my
concern
is
that
we're
going
to
get
a
a
massive
amount
of
applications,
July
1st,
trying
to
take
advantage
of
the
legislative,
shorter
time
frames
and
in
this
transition
to
when
we
are
trying
to
hire
and
build
up
that
that's
going
to
be
a
significant
strain
on
our
resources?
Are
those
concerns
founded
or
what
are
you
hearing
from
the
local
industry?.
J
I
appreciate
I
appreciate
that
concern.
I
have
not
heard
from
members
that
that
there's
going
to
be
that
they're
holding
back
items
now,
for
you
know
for
two
months
from
now
when
when
these
new
timelines
will
come
into
place,
because
obviously
the
timelines
are
much
farther
straightened
out.
I
I
have
to
admit:
I
have
not
heard
that
that
kind
of
concern
I
forgot
this
first
part
of
the
question.
Sorry
well.
D
That
was
basically
it
about
about
whether
or
not
we're
going
to
see
a
real
increase
in
applications
once
July
first
hit
so
you've
answered
that.
Thank
you.
You
had
mentioned
about
the
issue
with
concurrent
site
plan
and
zoning,
and
you
mentioned
perhaps
150-day
window
to
consider
those.
Can
you
just
elaborate
a
bit
on
on
what
what
Global
envisions
is
a
a
solution
for
for
those
kind
of
concurrent
applications.
J
Well,
essentially,
it
would
be
in
the
province
revising
some
of
some
legislation
tool.
You
know
to
allow
the
concurrent
application
to
happen.
It's
staff's
position
that
that,
basically,
the
legislation
does
not
allow
you
to
put
both
of
those
things
in
and
have
them
considered
in
parallel
that
they
have
to
be
split
up,
whereas
our
current
process
is
to
allow
those
two
things
to
to
be
considered
at
the
same
time,
because
they
do
influence
each
other
at
the
end.
J
J
A
N
The
the
motion
that
councilor
Johnson
put
forward
about
pre-consultation
in
in
my
experience,
I
found
it
very
positive
to
have
pre-consultation
with
Community
groups
and
in
the
before
you
apply,
and
it's
actually
been
very
positive
that
that
you,
because
they
don't
like
it
when
you've
applied
and
you're
and
then
they're
told
that's
it
so
I
just
want
to
know.
If
there's
an
openness
to
that,
because
it's
it's
already
been
going
on
and
it's
been
very
successful,
so
just
wanted.
The
feedback
example.
J
You
know
what
much
much
like
my
answer
to
councilor
luloff
I'm
I'm,
not
I,
I,
don't
lead
any
any
specific
applications
myself
and
I've
never
been
in
the
room
for
a
pre-
pre-consultation
discussion
for
I
I
would
again
suggest
perhaps
that
that's
a
question
better
offered
to
someone
who
has
done
that
sort
of
thing
like
Murray
later
on
not
to
put
all
the
burden
on
Murray
but
yeah
given
given
that
I
I
that
I've
not
that
I.
Actually
don't
do
that
sort
of
thing,
I
I!
A
O
Thank
you
very
much
for
this
opportunity
and
it
sounds
like
you,
members
of
committee
may
have
a
lot
of
questions
for
me
when
I'm
done,
which
I
hadn't
necessarily
anticipated
but
I'm
looking
forward
to
it.
Let
me
start
by
saying
I
think
that
some
of
the
concerns
that
I'm
going
to
express
today
may
be
addressed
by
depending
upon
how
staff
respond
to
counselor
gowers
motion
with
respect
to
dispute
resolution.
O
I
have
clients
who
are
abandoning
applications
because
of
the
list
of
required
plans
and
studies,
with
the
result
that,
instead
of
a
project
going
through
site
plan
where
you
might
be
getting
a
low-rise
apartment,
building
with
30
40
60
new
homes
being
developed
instead,
they're
just
going
to
come
forward
with
a
couple
of
10
unit.
Low-Rise
apartment
buildings,
avoid
site
plan,
avoid
all
of
these
studies,
but
miss
the
opportunity
to
build
far
more
residential
units
and
help
to
achieve
the
city's
intensification
targets
as
set
up
in
your
official
plan.
O
So
we
we
need
a
process
to
make
sure
that
the
studies
that
are
being
Quest
requested
are
in
fact
appropriate
and
reasonable.
The
time
and
cost
to
prepare
those
studies
are
intimidating
to
the
smaller
builders
in
the
city
of
Ottawa,
and
we
can
talk
more
about
that.
The
second
aspect
of
this
and
I
think
is
of
Greater
concern.
Is
we
may
end
up
in
an
infinite
loop
at
phase
three
of
the
pre-consultation
process?
O
We
pay
another
fee
pre-consultation
fee,
but
we
don't
ever
cross
the
goal
line
and
so
there's
a
great
deal
of
pressure
with
respect
on
how
staff
respond
to
the
motion
for
Mr
from
sorry
from
councilor
Gower.
With
respect
to
dispute
resolution,
our
clients,
in
fact,
are
rushing
to
file
before
July
1st,
not
the
reverse,
they're,
not
holding
off
saying
oh
we're
going
to
wait
until
July
1st,
so
we're
subject
to
the
bill.
109
guide
timelines
because
we
may
never
get
to
a
point
where
our
application
is
deemed
complete.
O
So
rather
than
wait
till
July
1st
we're
rushing
to
file
now
so
that
we
actually
know
what
we're
dealing
with.
We
know
that
our
applications
will
be
decomplete
and
will
be
processed
in
due
course.
If
we
wait
until
July,
the
second
or
third
to
file
our
applications
may
never
be
deemed
complete.
We
never
May
build
the
houses.
The
city
has
pledged
to
build
by
2031
151
000
of
the
the
city's,
not
building
those
houses.
The
city
isn't
going
to
deliver
on
that
pledge.
O
The
home
builders
have
to
deliver
on
that
pledge
and
I'm,
not
sure
how
they're
going
to
do
that.
If
our
applications
are
never
deemed
complete,
I'm
a
little
skeptical
a
little
cynical,
but
there's
the
possibility
that
we're
going
to
get
into
this
loop
at
phase
three,
the
price
pre-consultation
process
and
never
have
our
applications
deemed
complete.
My
time
is
up.
M
Thank
you,
Mr
Chown,
so
we're
just
talking
about
this
here
this
counselor's
here
and
just
to
be
clear.
So
you
would.
Rather
you
see
this
new
version
as
giving
the
planners
a
ton
of
power
so
because
the
planners
could
keep
you
stuck
in
an
infinite
Loop.
You
potentially
may
never
ever
get
something
go
to
go
forward,
but
if
we
went
with
the
old
process,
what
happens
is
the
counselors
had
more
power
and
their
worried
about
whether
they'll
get
elected
or
not,
whereas
planners
or
not?
M
So,
in
fact,
this
puts
all
the
power
to
a
planner
who
doesn't
care
if
you're,
you
know,
if
you
put
pressure
on
them
or
not,
I
think
that's
what
the
province
was
trying
to
do.
Maybe
I'm
wrong,
but
I
think
the
province
is
trying
to
make
sure
this
is
not
in
the
hands
of
counselors
who
are
swayed
by
residents
and
worried
about
votes
and
all
those
other
things
I'm
not
saying
any
of
us
would
only
make
a
decision
on
that
I'm.
M
O
O
What's
before
you
today,
it
has
nothing
to
do
with
that
decision
of
the
province
what's
before.
You
today
is
the
decision
of
the
province
to
impose
unrealistic
timelines
on
the
city
with
the
penalty
that,
if
you
don't
meet
those
timelines,
you
have
to
refund
application
fees.
Two
different
decisions,
two
different
pieces
of
legislation,
and
we
can
talk
about
the
first
one
if
you
want,
but
in
terms
of
the
one
that's
before
you
today.
O
The
difficulty
and
and
staff
are
in
the
city's
in
a
very
difficult
situation,
but
the
difficulty
today
is
what
staff
have
done
as
opposed
to
the
current
process.
If
they
they
front
loaded.
All
of
that
consultation
work
without
any
prescriptive
timelines
that
they
can
be
held
to
and
if
they
fail
to
meet
those
timelines
that
we
and
our
clients
have
some
recourse
we're
entirely
at
the
mercy
of
Staff
in
terms
of
getting
our
applications
deemed
complete.
M
Okay,
thank
you,
I.
Don't
think
I'm
I'm
really
that
confused
though
what
I
see
here
is
that
staff
have
all
the
power
to
stop
an
application
from
going
forward
really,
and
is
that
not
what
the
province
wanted
eventually
and
what
we
were
just
talking
about
is
that
there
we
could
put
in
a
process
where
we
would
then
see.
How
long
does
this
pre-consultation
phase
take?
A
If
I
may
think,
councilor
gowers
Direction
would
address
that
and
I'm
anticipating
I'm
guessing
that
staff
were
are
going
to
take
that
direction,
and
there
is
also
I
believe
a
mechanism
whereby,
if
staff
refuse
to
deem
an
application
complete,
there
is
the
alternative
of
going
to
the
Olt
to
have
the
tribunal
determined
that
the
application
is
complete.
Councilor
troster.
P
Thank
you
very
much
chair.
Thank
you
Murray,
so
we
all
understand
that
the
timeline
is
being
imposed
and
this
legislation
are
dramatically
tighter
than
what
the
city
is
currently
meeting
and
I
will
note
that
the
timelines
involve
calendar
days,
not
business
days.
So
so
you
know
a
developer
could
submit
an
application.
December
1st
and
we'd
have
to
decide
before
the
end
of
the
month
during
Christmas
Vacation.
P
You
know
when
large
parts
of
the
world
are
shut
down.
So
my
question
to
you
is
assuming
that
the
province
doesn't
change
these
these
deadlines
and
these
obligations
in
Bill
109.
How
else
would
you
see
us
being
able
to
meet
those
deadlines
without
requiring
all
of
that
information
up
front
in
the
pre-application
phase?
Murray,
do
you
have
a
suggestion
for
how
you
would
do
it
differently
and
still
meet
those
timelines.
O
I,
don't
think
staff
had
any
alternative
to
in
terms
of
what
they're
recommending
to
you
today
and
and
as
I
say,
I'm
very
sympathetic
to
them.
They
didn't
bring
this
upon
themselves.
The
provincial
government
imposed
this
on
all
of
us
and
I
think
that,
as
as
Jason
has
articulated
I
think
most
of
the
municipalities
and
across
the
province,
big
and
small,
are
reacting.
The
same
way,
I'm,
seeing
the
same
response
even
at
home
in
the
town
of
arm
prayer,
where
they've
got
to
front
load
the
process,
so
they
can
meet
the
timelines.
I
I.
O
The
problem
we're
going
to
have
is
is
how
does
that
function
and
does
it
at
the
end
of
the
day?
Are
we
going
to
be
taking
longer
to
process
applications
going
forward
than
we
have
in
the
past,
and
certainly
we
at
the
industry
think
it's
actually
going
to
take
longer,
because
this
pre-consultation
process
no
longer
has
any
critical
statutory
timelines
associated
with
it.
We're
going
to
see
how
it
plays
out,
but
I,
don't
think
there
is
an
alternative
in
terms
of
approach.
I
don't
have
an
alternative.
H
You
could
yes
thank
you.
I've
heard
your
name
before,
but
we've
not
met
so
I
was
curious
to
know
what
your
impressions
are
with
the
increased
reporting
guidelines
that
are
also
coming
from
the
province
when
it
comes
to
housing
starts
and
all
the
different
things
that
we're
being
asked
to
report.
Is
there
an
opportunity
there,
given
some
of
the
other
pieces,
that
staff
have
put
forward
with
increased
monitoring
over
the
next
18
months,
something
that
you'd
like
to
see
come
forward
really
specifically,
that
would
help
you
to
to
to
to
watch
that
data.
H
O
O
O
H
O
D
What
do
you
think
is
reasonable
for
a
time
frame
like
if
we
were
to
set
some
expectations
or
targets
for
staff
in
terms
of
how
many
weeks
or
months,
for
a
fairly
well-formed
application?
That's
you
know
not
not
a
extreme
level
of
complexity.
What
would
your
expectation
be
for
how
long
a
pre-consultation
period
should
take.
O
O
It
doesn't
include
the
time
that
the
proponent
needs
to
respond
to
the
response,
so
we
have
our
initial
pre-consultation
meeting
where
we
show
the
initial
project
as
staff
sometime
within
the
next
three
weeks.
Staff
come
back
and
say
well,
here
are
our
comments
and
here's
a
preliminary
list
of
required
plans
and
studies.
O
O
Need
to
refine
these
studies,
we
go
away.
We
prepare
more
studies
or
refined
studies.
That's
another
month,
then
we
come
back
for
the
third
pre-consultation
with
all
of
our
plans
and
studies,
and
we
hope
and
pray
that
staff
receive
those
and
say
yep,
you've
ticked,
all
the
boxes
you're
good
to
go.
So
what
have
we
got?
O
D
O
Really
good
question:
I'm,
not
sure
what
the
answer
is,
because
if,
if
staff
are
asking
for
reports
which
we
think
are
inappropriate
for
an
application,
as
I
say,
I've
I've
had
that
experience
on
a
file
that
I
have
right
now
on
a
simple
minor
rezoning
application
where
staff
are
asking
for
a
whole
bunch
of
plans
and
studies
that
look
awful
lot
like
the
plans
and
studies
that
they
would
normally
require
for
a
site
plan
application.
But
the
project
isn't
subject
to
say:
plan
approval,
phrase,
concerns
or
did
my
concerns
get
me
anywhere.
O
O
You
know,
chair,
leaper
indicated
that
that's
an
option
available
to
us
I
understand
it's
only
available
to
us.
If
we
actually
file
an
application
and
take
the
position,
it's
complete
and
staff
refuse
to
deem
it
complete,
but
we're
not
with
the
process
that's
set
out
to
you
today.
We
can't
actually
file
that
application.
O
The
the
third
pre-consultation
process
doesn't
get
us
there.
We
only
get
to
that
date
when
staff
open
the
door
and
say
you're
allowed
to
walk
through
the
door
and
file
the
application.
Otherwise
we
never
get
there
and
therefore
we
don't
ever
get
to
a
point
where
we
have
those
appeal
rights
under
the
planning
act.
O
So
maybe
it's
an
ombudsman
that
that
can
offer
an
arm's
length
perspective
on
the
question
as
to
whether
or
not
the
required
plans
and
studies
are
appropriate
and,
secondly,
to
my
second
Point,
whether
or
not
the
plans
and
studies
are
actually
sufficient
for
the
application
to
be
deemed
complete,
but
it
it
needs
to
be
somebody
who's
outside
of
that
process
and
that
person
certainly
doesn't
exist
today.
But
maybe
it's
a
new
position.
That's
created
that's
kind
of
outside
of
the
of
the
department,
I,
don't
just
thinking
out
loud
yeah,.
D
The
the
other,
the
other
thing
that
counteracts
I
mean
I,
don't
think
I
hope
it's
not
staff's
intention.
I,
don't
think
it
is
to
to
unreasonably
delay
through
the
pre-consultation
process.
We
are
going
to
be
getting
regular
reports
on
this
and,
if
all
of
a
sudden
we
start
seeing
the
pre-consultations
are
taking
on
average
six
months
nine
months
a
year,
you
know
that's
not
going
to
be
acceptable
to
to
our
committee
or
our
Council.
D
But
obviously
this
is
this
is
all
new
territory,
all
new
processes
and
and
we'll
need
to
continue
to
develop
and
learn,
and
we
may
be
back
a
year
or
two
from
now
with
I'm
sure
we
will
be
actually
with
recommendations
on
how
we
can
further
streamline
and
improve.
So
thank
you
for
your
your
thoughts
today.
Marie
thanks
chair.
O
A
N
Thank
you
very
much
chair.
Thank
you,
Murray
I
think
you
know
the
question
I
was
going
to
ask
because
I
already
asked
it
to
Jason
and
he
he
pitched
it
to
to
you
so
and
it's
about
having
the
public
consultation
during
that
pre-consultation
period,
which
I
find
usually
developers
are
Keen
to
do
usually,
and
it's
been
successful
because
the
public
feels
they
have
more
save
before
you
file,
and
so
it's
so
we've
gone
through
it
a
few
times
and
I
just
wanted
to
get
your
feedback.
O
So
so
thank
you
for
the
question.
Counselor
I
think
there's
really
two
two
aspects
to
the
question
and
one
relates
to
one
of
the
Motions
that's
been
tabled
this
morning,
and
that
is
the
practice
that
we're
falling
following
with
applications
and
some
of
the
inner
city
Wards
and
neighborhoods,
where
the
community
associations
are
invited
to
our
initial
pre-consultation
meeting.
O
S
O
At
the
table,
when
we
have
the
initial
discussions
with
respect
to
the
project
and
there
have
the
opportunity
to
provide
comments
on
the
project
and
I
I
guess
the
expectation
would
be
with
the
three-stage
pre-consultation
process,
maybe
get
clarification
from
staff
that
they
would
be
invited
to
each
of
those
three
stages:
I'm,
not
clear
on
that
and
and
the
the
motion
that
would
look
at
exploring
that
practice
to
other
Wards.
Certainly
I
I.
Don't
think
anybody
in
the
industry
would
have
any
objections
to
that.
O
The
other
aspect
to
public
consultation,
which
I
think
it
was
your
experience
in
your
ward,
which
is
where
the
proponents
will
you
know
through
your
office.
You
know,
arrange
for
informal
information
meetings
with
the
community
and
the
Neighbors
about
the
project
either
before
they
filed
or
shortly
after
they
filed
an
application
to
to
have
initiate
that
dialogue.
O
As
long
as
that's
not
prescribed
and
I
and
I
say
that
because
I
don't
think
two
two
things
one
is
I,
don't
think
the
municiple
is
the
authority
to
prescribe
it
and
the
second
these
how
it
fits
into
the
timeline
is
something
that
we
would
have
to
think
about.
But
I
don't
think
that
this
process
or
this
report
in
any
way
prevents
us
and
our
clients
from
continuing
to
do
what
they've
already
done
in
terms
of
reaching
out
to
the
community
associations,
either
directly
or
through
the
counselor's
offices.
O
N
Well,
that's
been
my
experience
is
that
it's
already
being
done
and
I
don't
see
it
as
a
delay.
Usually
it's
it's
pretty
positive
to
to
go
to
the
community
to
get
that
stage.
It's
appreciated
by
the
communities
and
and
the
developers
here
what
the
what
the
top
concerns
are.
So
I
I
hope
to
to
see
that
continue.
Thank
you.
A
T
How
many
pre-consultations
on
files
for
a
river
would
happen
at
any
given
year.
That
I
don't
even
know
about,
because
I
haven't
been
included
yet,
but
haven't
seen
the
light
of
day
and
don't
make
the
light
of
day
and
we're
going
to
suggest
that
volunteer
members
of
community
associations
are
going
to
participate
three
different
pre-consult
phases
for
25
files.
That's
that's
not
going
to
happen.
T
I
appreciate
them
having
the
opportunity,
because
some
applications
may
be
more
engaged
than
others,
but
I
I
just
want
to
reinforce
Mr
Chown
that
you
know
we're
going
to
have
to
come
to
an
agreement
on,
even
though
the
legislation
says.
The
public
meeting
that
is
required
is
the
actual
planning
and
housing
committee
meeting.
The
public
expects
a
lot
more
than
that
public
wants
to
be
engaged
in
applications.
T
They
want
to
have
input
before
the
application
is,
is
filed
and
they
want
to
be
able
to
impact
what
the
final
product
looks
like
and
if
it's
continue
as
as
normal,
then
that's
great
but
I'm.
Just
getting
from
your
comments,
you're
concerned
about
the
pre-application
process
and
the
amount
of
time
that
this
process
will
take
and
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we
reinforce
with
you
the
importance
of
engaging
the
public
during
this
process.
So
if
you
have
any
additional
comments,
I'm
all
yours.
O
Yeah,
so
just
just
to
sum
up,
I,
don't
think,
there's
anything
in
the
report
or
the
recommendations
before
you
today
that
would
preclude
developers
from
continuing
to
the
practice
of
reaching
out
to
the
community
as
they
have
today
that
that's
that's
a
separate
piece
if
they're
prepared
to
do
that,
they
can
continue
to
do
that.
It
won't
affect
the
timelines.
T
Okay,
I
I
again
I
just
thought,
I
heard
you
at
the
beginning,
say
you
were
concerned
about
the
pre-consultation
phase.
You
weren't
specifically
mentioning
public
consultation.
You
were
concerned
about
a
planner
potentially
holding
this
up.
I
do
believe
that
planners
work
in
good
faith
and
I
don't
believe
there
are
planners
that
are
going
to
deliberately
hold
up
files
unless
there
are
legitimate
issues
that
need
to
be
addressed
and
ironed
out
and
I
want
them
to
continue
to
do
that,
because
they
are
ultimately
working
on
behalf
of
the
people
of
Ottawa
I'll.
T
Just
say,
though,
if
you
could
comment,
even
though
there
may
be
an
increase
to
the
timelines
associated
with
the
new
pre-consultation
process.
At
the
end
of
the
day,
the
provincial
legislation
is
shaving
off
a
significant
amount
of
time
at
the
back
end
that
we've
seen
the
current
average
times
to
deal
with
either
a
zoning
bylaw
Amendment
application
or
site
plan
application
and
the
new
timelines
that
municipalities
are
asked
to
work
under.
Do
you
acknowledge
that
there
will
be
a
net
increase
or
net
savings
and
time
for
an
average
application.
O
I'm
glad
you
put
that
question
to
me,
because
my
response
is
in
the
negative
I
I
believe
that
the
legislative
changes
made
by
the
province
of
Ontario
are
not
going
to
achieve
the
goal
of
getting
projects
approved
faster
I,
believe
the
exact
opposite
is
the
result
of
the
legislative
changes
and
I
think
it's
truly
unfortunate.
I
think
that
the
you
know
the
government
may
have
been
motivated
to
try
and
help
move
things
along
by
shortening
the
timelines
and
imposing
this
burden
on
the
city
that
you're
going
to
have
to
refund
fees.
O
If
you
don't
meet
the
timelines,
but
are
we
going
to
end
up
with
processing
applications
faster
than
we
were
before?
This
is
where
my
cynicism
kicks
in
councilor
Brockington
is
I
honestly
believe.
The
answer
is
no
that
it's
going
to
take
longer
to
process
applications
under
this
no
new
regime
than
it
did
before.
I
hope
I'm
wrong.
But
that's
my
expectation.
T
Okay,
thank
you
for
that.
You
know
this
is
the
importance
of
why
we
we
will
need
to
measure
this
very
closely
and
have
reports
coming
back
to
committee,
because,
potentially
it's
lose
lose
developers
see
a
longer
process.
The
public
is
less
engaged
because
there's
less
opportunities
and
shortened
timelines
to
be
engaged
in
the
city
ultimately
will
lose
revenues
that
it
needs
to
to
support
the
programming
and
service.
U
Thank
you
very
much
chair
and
thanks
to
the
the
delegations
that
have
come
before
us.
I
also
want
to
just
thank
councilor,
Johnson
and
councilor.
Dude
asks
for
their
emotions
in
particular,
I'm.
Very
supportive
of
those
and
I
think
that
that
will
help
I
know.
Councilor
gowers
also
put
forward
a
motion
around
dispute
resolution,
which
is
appreciated,
I
I
just
to
to
you,
Mr
Chown,
I
I,
think
you've
talked
a
lot
about
the
pre-application
process.
U
I
wanted
to
get
your
thoughts
on
the
the
resubmission
process
or
I
guess
the
lack
of
resubmission
option
that
would
take
place
as
a
result
of
these.
These
changes
and
I'll
just
preface
that
by
saying
that
many
of
the
applications,
I
I,
think
you
feel
the
same
way
in
my
ward
anyway.
I
think
have
been
dramatically
improved
through
that
iterative
process
that
the
province
is
essentially
forcing
us
to
get
to
get
rid
of.
U
So
you
know
I've
proposed
to
staff
a
condition
where
there
could
be
for
minor
amendments
that
we'd
have
to
Define
that
that
there
would
still
be
an
allowable
resubmission.
So
just
want
to
get
your
your
take
on
that
and
on
the
resubmission
process,
in
particular
after
the
application's
been
submitted.
O
They
may
make
a
recommendation
for
approval
of
something
that's
slightly
different
than
what
was
actually
submitted
based
on
that
feedback
that
that
they
do
receive
during
the
official
review
period.
So
there
is
the
the
opportunity,
as
I
understand
it,
for
staff
to
approve
something
that
is
different
from
what
was
actually
submitted
without
requiring
the
applicant
or
the
proponent
to
start
that
process
all
over
again.
U
A
A
Q
V
Thank
you
so
I'm
here
on
behalf
of
make
housing
affordable,
which
comes
before
this
community
quite
often,
and
Canada
currently
ranks
64th
out
of
120
countries,
or
at
least
it
did
in
2020
in
in
the
world,
in
development.
Approval
efficiency
for
routine
building
projects
and
again
in
2020
on
average
each
month
adds
about
1.46
dollars
per
square
foot.
So
this
report
and
implementing
Bill
109
dealing
with
kind
of
efficiency
in
the
planning
process
does
have
some
good
things.
It
has
a
simplification
of
some
studies.
V
It
has
reductions
in
some
consultations.
Community
input
is
already
given
in
the
official
and
the
secondary
plans.
So
when
it
comes
to
some
developments,
there's
we
feel
that
there's
not
a
need
to
have
as
much
Community
input
and
delegations
to
staff
minor
bylaw
amendments
that
a
lot
of
the
questions
that
come
up
before
the
council
are
already
answered
just
by
referencing,
the
official
plan,
and
so
this
politically
fraught
process
complicates
things
and,
of
course,
the
internal
streamlining
of
processes.
V
V
Instead,
there's
obviously
a
lot
to
be
unhappy
about,
and
the
province's
top-down
approach
to
housing
and
Municipal
policy,
but
the
solution
to
that
is
not
to
begrudgingly
just
put
forward
something
to
deal
with
it,
but
to
be
bold
and
Innovative,
and
so
the
city
kind
of.
Obviously
this
is
a
lot
of
this.
V
That
committee
is
able
to
encourage
staff
to
look
at
even
more
ways
to
potentially
streamline
the
entire
process,
for
example,
if
when
it
comes
to
the
zoning
bylaw
review,
that
we
have
the
official
plan
implemented
and
we
have
the
zoning
bylaw
that
will
only
be
implemented
in
2025..
In
the
meantime,
staff
have
to
actually
work
on
all
of
these
projects
and
it's
a
tremendous
waste
of
Staff
time
to
have
to
examine
zoning
bylaws
to
see
if
they,
if
they
should
be
approved
or
not
when
the
official
plan
would
already
permit
it
another.
V
So
so
that's
sort
of
a
use
of
Staff
time
that
would
be
better
spent
on
other
things.
Other
things
like
other
provinces
have
in
the
past
have
they've
had
pre-approval
of
a
bunch
of
standard
designs
that
can
be
implemented
by
right,
city-wide,
so
just
sort
of
innovative
Innovative
strategies
like
that
can
be
used
to
really
maximize
staff's
time.
V
As
a
counselor
leaper
rightly
noted
in
the
CBC
this
week
that
nobody
wants
unsafe
projects
to
slip
through
or
shoddy
projects,
so
allowing
staff
to
focus
more
on
the
projects
that
really
need
it
would
be
beneficial
to
to
everyone.
So,
just
in
conclusion,
we
we
hope
that
this
can
be
seen
by
the
city
as
more
than
just
so
we're
complying
with
something
the
province
is
telling
us
and
really
as
a
way
to
to
innovate
and
achieve
more
in
streamlining
approval
and
getting
more
housing
built.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
very
much.
Mr
ostrowsky.
Are
there
any
questions
for
the
delegation?
I
think
most
of
the
hands
are
up
for
staff
just
catch
my
eye.
If
you
want
to
pose
anything,
no.
Thank
you
very
much.
Joseph
I
appreciate
your
delegation
today.
So
with
that
now
we'll
move
into
questions
staff,
counselor
Tierney,
please
feel.
C
Free
and
thank
you
Mr
chair
first
of
all,
thank
you
for
for
the
report.
I
know
it's
a
weird
world
out
there
right
now
and
the
four
government
is
pressing
ahead
with
many
things:
they're,
even
speeding
along
legislation
today
to
split
peel
up
and
do
all
these
things
Fast
and
Furious,
but
we
also
do
want
to
make
sure
things
are
done
correct
and
when
it
comes
to
Bill
109,
it's
about
building
faster,
obviously
and
streaming
lining
things
and
some
of
the
questions
and
delegations
I
heard
some
some
things
today.
C
F
So
the
mix
that
we
put
for
you
is
not
they're,
not
all
Planters,
there's
a
mixture
of
planners
and
Engineers.
There's
certain
specializations
with
respect
to
forestry,
or
you
know
some
of
those.
A
lot
of
those
staff
that
are
identified
are
actually
within
other
departments
that
provide
feed
feedback
and
information
into
the
development
review
process
and
the
rationale
for
that
is
to
give
them
dedicated
resources
to
focus
on
development
applications
and
meet
the
timelines
within
our
circulation
period.
F
You
know
today,
they're
working
off
the
side
of
their
desk,
sorry
I
think
within
the
planning
realm
we
have
done
a
reasonably
good
job
at
attracting
planning
Talent.
We
have
different
programs
where
we
can
bring
in
junior
staff
as
Co-op
students
and
and
sort
of
you
know
in
in
indoctrinate
them,
but
like
bring
them
in
early
and
get
them
look
looking
at
the
city
as
a
positive
employment
option
for
them
with
the
implementation
of
our
team
approach.
F
We're
also
hopeful
that
you
know
bringing
in
that
will
give
us
an
opportunity
to
bring
in
junior
staff
or
or
potentially
even
staff
that
don't
have
professional
planning
qualifications
to
fulfill
some
of
those
tasks.
That
are
currently
being
done
by
planners
with
respect
to
Engineers.
We
have
a
program
where
we
currently
bring
in
junior
Engineers
fresh
out
of
school.
You
know
work
with
them
as
they
get
their
engineering
designation,
and
that
has
been
a
great
tool
to
attract
Engineers.
F
The
other
thing
I
will
add
that
is
I
I,
believe
the
city
is
an
employer
of
choice
for
female
Engineers.
We
have
a
comprehensive
benefits
and
and
employment
package
that
I
think
is
a
aggressive
in
in
that
industry
and
and
certainly
I
think
we
look
at
we've
had
a
great
success
in
hiring
young
and
female
Engineers
into
the
fold
and
so
I
think
we'll
be
successful
until
we
go
to
market.
We
won't
know
for
sure
I'm,
conscious
that
the
there
are
other
municipalities
across
the
province
that
are
also
in
a
hiring
mode.
F
C
And
that
gives
me
hope,
obviously-
and
the
reason
is
coming
up
to
us
just
at
a
conference
for
five
days
in
Toronto
at
fcm
and
all
municipalities
despite
well.
Obviously,
Ontario
municipalities
we're
all
worried
about
the
same
thing.
So
from
our
reporting
perspective
on
hiring
as
well
as
I
did
hear
about
the
pre-consult
phase,
there
was
talks
of
reporting.
C
What
is
some
kind
of
report
that
can
come
back
on
whether
it's
hiring,
whether
it's
the
length
of
the
pre-consultation
fees
versus
time
of
application,
Derek,
I
I,
know
it's
resource
intensive,
but
I
think
it's
important
that
we
stay
on
top
of
this
one
is
this?
Would
this
be
like
a
quarterly
report
that
could
be
brought
back
to
a
planning
committee,
for
example,.
F
Mr
chair,
the
recommendation,
nine
does
speak
to
monitoring
and
those
items
that
you've
talked
about
will
form
part
of
that,
but
that
is
identified
in
in
recommendation
nine
as
to
come
back
to
committee
and
Council
to
give
them
some
of
that
information.
The
recommendation
is
before
used
to
report
annually
as
opposed
to
quarterly,
but
we
certainly
are
supportive
of
of
keeping
Council
in
the
loop
with
respect
to
our
progress.
Okay,.
W
Thank
you
chair.
Thank
you
for
the
presentation,
lots
of
information,
I'm
I'm
wondering
if
we
are
budgeting
for
risk
at
all,
I
I,
think
it's
safe
to
assume.
We
won't
meet
the
timelines
100
of
the
time
and
there's
also
I
think
a
risk
that
will
be
at
the
tribunal.
More
so
is
that.
Are
we
dedicating
resources
to
that
proactively?.
F
At
this
point,
we
don't
I.
I
certainly
do
appreciate
the
comments
with
respect
to
risk
of
being
at
the
tribunal.
You
know
the
task
that's
been
put
forward
to
us
in
planning
is
to
meet
these
timelines
and
we're.
You
know
that
is
what
we're
working
towards
as
opposed
to
building
in
a
slippage.
At
this
point,
I
do
appreciate
your
comments
with
respect
to
you
know
the
potential
to
be
at
the
board
more
and
that
could
have
an
impact
on
us,
especially
as
we're
faced
with
making
a
decision
to
meet
those
timelines.
F
That
you
know
may
not
necessarily
be
the
decision.
The
applicants
are
looking
for
and
so
I
I
recognize.
It
I
think
that
the
direction
that's
been
provided
to
analyze,
some
of
that
with
respect
to
the
legal
services
budget
and
as
part
of
the
process
for
2024
we'll
address
some
of
that.
But
it's
something
we're
going
to
have
to
continue
to
Monitor
and
identify
how
much
time
we're
spending
at
the
board
and
what
the
impact
that
is
on
our
overall
operations.
W
There's
still
that
that
expectation
that
counselors
do
have
influence
and
a
say
over
site
plan
and
I
think
it's
going
to
take
some
real
work
combating
that
narrative.
So
if
staff
could
assist
with
that,
I
think
we're
all
going
to
need
to
sing
from
the
same
song
book
on
this
one
to
really
drive
the
message
home.
F
The
city
staff
are
looking
at
updating
the
planning
primer
to
make
sure
that
it
reflects
the
current
information,
and
that
has
been
a
great
tool
in
communicating
that
message
out
to
Residents
that
are,
you
know,
somewhat
civically
engaged
or
in
the
learning
process
about
the
planning
process.
We
will
be
updating
the
city's
webpage
as
well
as
we
get
approval
for
for
the
new
process
and
outlining
what
that
process
is.
Is
that
maybe
a
tool
that
council
could
use
to
help
share
that
information
with
your
community.
W
F
We
do
have
a
site
alteration
by
law
that
you
know
does
have
Provisions
within
it,
but
with
respect
to
development
applications.
Early
simple
earth
works
on
a
subdivision,
as
an
example
is
not
something
that
we
typically
require
notification
on.
We
do
issue
a
commence
work
as
part
of
our
process
before
they
can
start
doing
actual
construction
so
any
before
they
can
lay
any
sewer
pipes
or
water
pipes
start
to
build
roads.
W
F
W
R
Thank
you
chair.
It
seems
like
you
know.
I
may
be
uninformed
on
this,
but
it
seems
like
196
days
for
a
site
plan,
control
and
178
days
for
his
own
bylaw
Amendment
are,
it
does
seem
like
a
lot,
but
that
may
be
just
from
an
outsider.
You
know
outsider's
point
of
view.
How
did
we
get
to
a
point
where
our
timelines
were
that
long
and
I'm
not
suggesting
that
anything
was
done
wrong?
R
F
I
think
the
current
culture
within
the
city
has
been
always
to
work
towards
yes
and
to
to
work
towards
the
support
of
application,
where
we
can
come
forward
with
a
positive
recommendation
that
196
days
on
a
site
plan
is
not
all
within
the
city's
purview.
A
lot
of
that
time
is
within
the
applicants,
purview
as
they
as
they
formulate
the
response
to
our
applications,
and
so
you
know
that
that
is
a
calendar
days.
You
know
all
things
considered
and
we
don't
control
how
long
applicants
take
to
refile
their
applications.
F
Certainly,
you
know
over
time
our
process
has
become
more
complex
and
we're
looking
at
more
things.
You
know
today
than
we
were
10
years
ago,
but
that
is
you
know.
We've
also
seen
application
hit
volumes
increase,
which
contributes
to
the
overall
workload,
which
contributes
to
the
the
overall
timelines,
which
is
part
of
the
rationale
for
adding
additional
staff.
Today,
it's
not
one
thing
counselor
or
chair:
it's
it's
a
variety
of
things
that
layer
into
that,
and
it's
also
worth
noting
that.
That's
not
you
know,
not
all
staff
review
time.
R
F
There
was
a
review
that
was
done
with
our
our
colleagues
in
other
departments.
First
and
first
and
foremost,
we
we
approached
our
other
colleagues
to
determine
what
they
would
need
in
order
to
meet
the
timelines
that
we're
looking
to
impose
upon
them
through
Bill
109
and
and
to
ensure
that
they
had
dedicated
resources
identified.
To
respond
to
our
questions
that
accounts
for
I
think
it's
17
of
the
total,
the
additional
15
you
know
are
within
our
group
and
we've
looked
at
ways.
F
You
know,
as
we
look
to
implement
the
team
approach,
we
are
looking
at
what
types
of
positions
we
will
need
to
make
those
teams
work
better.
It's
not
just
about
the
number
of
applications.
It's
you
know.
There
is
an
argument
that
we're
not
increasing
the
volume
of
applications,
so
we're
not
increasing
the
volume
of
work.
What
we
are
looking
to
do
is
increase
the
service
level
that
we're
providing
to
them
and
move
them
through
the
process
quicker,
and
so
that
is,
you
know.
F
R
F
I
think
there's
a
couple
of
things
that
are
worth
you
know
touching
on,
while
it
may
be
the
speaker's
experience
that
you
know
he's
ready
to
go
in
two
months,
I
think
a
typical
timeline
between
when
we
see
a
pre-application
consultation
and
when
we
actually
see
the
application
generally
is,
is
greater
than
that.
It's
greater
I
would
I
would
have
said
answer
that
question
in
a
three
to
six
month
window
appreciating
that
some
people
are
ready
to
go.
F
You
know
before
they
submit
the
pre-application
consultation
and
they
have
to
check
the
box
and
they
come
in
the
next
day
with
an
application.
Typically,
if
they're
actually
engaging
in
the
process,
you
know
there
is
time
that
they
require
to
complete
the
studies.
After
that
meeting
and
a
three
to
six
month,
window
is
not
out
of
out
of
the
norm
with.
R
F
F
You
know
it's
on
us
to
make
sure
we
identify
everything
early
and
that
we
are.
You
know
we're
coming
to
that
meeting,
prepared
and
ready
to
identify
every
requirement
that
they're
going
to
have
the
phase
two
of
that
process
really
only
kicks
in
if
they
make
a
significant
change
to
their
application,
and
so
today
you
know
we
see
some
people
come
in
with
a
pre-consultation
when
they
actually
submit
the
project.
F
Doesn't
look
the
same,
we're
saying
if
they're
coming,
if
they're
going
to
make
changes
to
their
application,
they're
going
to
have
to
go
through
phase
two,
so
the
we're
sure
they're,
not
missing
studies
or
requirements,
and
we
don't
have
to
cut.
We
don't
have
time
to
come
in
as
we
do
today
and
say:
oh
you
added
another
three
floors.
You
know
we
need
you
to
update
your
transportation
study
or
we
need
an
additional
level
of
study
in
order
to
process
that
application.
F
If
applications
don't
change
from
phase
one
to
when
they
submit
phase,
two
can
be
waived.
Phase
three
is
essentially
deeming
the
application
complete
and-
and
we
have
that
process
in
our
system
today,
where
staff
deal
deem
that
application
complete
that
happens
before
council
is
engaged
or
before
the
public
knows
that
there's
an
application.
F
Essentially,
this
step
is
similar
to
what
we
are
today.
What
we're
changing
now
is
that
staff's
review
in
that
phase
will
be
more
comprehensive,
we'll
be
looking
at
those
reports
to
ensure
that
they're
consistent
with
one
another
that
they
meet
the
requirements
that
were
identified
in
the
pre-application
consultation
and
that
they
meet
the
terms
of
reference
of
the
studies,
and
so
it
is
a
more
comprehensive
review
than
we
currently
do
to
demon
application
complete.
F
But
it
is
you
know
we,
we
have
a
step
in
our
process
today
to
deem
applications
complete
before
the
public
gets
notified
and
before
Council
gets
is
made
aware
of
a
file,
and
so
that
process
I
think
I.
Think
if
I'm
I'm,
surmising
and
I,
you
know
I
I,
hope,
I'm,
not
I,
hope
I'm,
not
miss
communicating
what
I
think
the
speaker's
concern
was.
Is
that
he's
going
to
submit
an
application
and
we're
going
to
say
it's?
Not
it's
not
adequate.
F
Now
we're
going
to
end
up
in
a
loop
and
I
I
appreciate
you
know
the
source
of
his
cynicism.
It
will
be
on
staff
and
on
management
to
ensure
that
we're
not
digging
too
far
into
the
applications
to
you
know
to
the
direction
that
or
the
motion
that's
coming.
I
think
staff
are
supportive
of
a
form
of
dispute
resolution
if
we
get
into
that,
but
we
do
have
that.
F
We
do
have
a
step
in
our
process
today
to
deem
it
complete,
and
should
they
not
agree
with
us
in
that
step
today
they
have
the
ability
to
go
to
the
Olt
tomorrow
they
will
have
the
ability
to
go
to
the
Olt.
So
we're
not
changing
that
regard.
I
think
it's!
You
know
we
will
have
to
work
through
that
cynicism
and
skepticism
with
the
industry.
I
appreciate
where
they're
coming
from-
and
you
know
we
are
committed
to
continue
to
work
with
them
to
work
through
them.
R
Okay-
and
you
know
with
I,
know
the
I
know.
I
said
that
was
my
last
question.
The
pre-consultation
is
going
to
be,
is
going
to
be,
you
know
lengthened
a
little
bit
then
as
a
result
right,
but
with
the
change
in
timelines
after
the
completion
like
will
that
kind
of
offset
it
so
in
terms
of
the
overall
timeline,
like
we'll
applicants,
see
any
major
changes
at
all.
F
F
N
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
to
my
colleagues
for
their
emotions.
I
think
they're,
all
very
positive,
I'm
I,
just
came
back
from
fcm
as
well,
and
I
did
get
a
chance
to
talk
to
a
planner
in
Toronto.
So
we
did
a
walking
tour
of
some
neighborhoods
missing
middle
I
know
they're
concerned
as
well.
What
is
what
are
we
learning
from
other
municipalities
on
this
process.
G
Foreign,
thank
you
for
the
question
at
the
very
beginning
of
this
process.
In
the
province
dropping
this
legislation,
we
actually
triggered
a
municipal
Roundtable
session
with
all
of
the
other
major
Urban
municipalities
across
Ontario,
where
we
got
to
collaborate
with
them
and
understand
a
path
forward
and
interpret
the
legislation.
Most
of
the
legislation
in
Bill
109
is
interpretive
and
there
are
different
approaches
that
could
be
tackled
in
order
to
put
in
place
business
procedures
to
address
the
the
new
timelines.
G
All
in
all,
most
of
the
urban
municipalities
and
I
think
Murray
and
others
have
already
spoken
to.
This
are
moving
in
the
same
direction
of
putting
a
lot
more
emphasis
on
pre-consultation
in
order
to
ensure
that
we
get
good
applications
in
at
the
beginning
that
will
set
Ontario
municipalities
up
to
be
able
to
process
applications
in
the
timeline
that
is
allotted
by
the
province.
In
addition
to
that,
most
of
the
other
Ontario
municipalities
are
also
significantly
increasing
their
pre-consultation
fees
somewhere.
Some
of
them
are
upwards
of
fifteen
thousand
dollars
for
pre-consultation.
N
Thank
you
very
appreciated.
I.
Think
one
of
the
things
that
public
might
worry
about
in
terms
of
the
shorter
deadlines
is
that
something
will
get
missed,
that
we're
rushing
that,
because
we
have
to
rush
and
they're
worried
about
what
what
could
possibly
be
missed.
What
is
the
most
important
thing
in
terms
of
like
in
terms
of
the
checklist?
What
is
the
one
that
is
probably
the
most
time
consuming.
F
Foreign
process,
you
know,
issue
resolution
is
something
that
takes
a
lot
of
our
time
in
working
through
issues.
I
think
we're.
The
biggest
difference
today
is:
is
staff
are
going
to
be
faced
with
a
decision
of
either
supporting
an
application
or
not
supporting
an
application
and
with
respect
to
zoning,
because
we
have
you
know,
there's
four
options
available
to
us:
we
can
approve
it
as
it
was
submitted.
We
can
refuse
it.
We
can
approve
it
with
a
holding
provision.
F
So
if
there
is
a
piece
of
technical
information,
that's
still
outstanding,
for
instance,
if
they're,
if
they
have
yet
to
adequately
convince
us
that
there's
sanitary
capacity
or
something
of
that
nature,
you
know
we
can.
We
can
approve
the
zoning
saying
we
approve
the
intent
of
this
building,
but
there's
a
final
check
and
balance
that's
required
in
order
for
them
to
proceed
to
permit.
The
other
thing
we
can
do
is
approve
it
with
modifications
either
with
or
without
the
support
of
the
applicant
and
and
that's
something
that
I
think
we're
going
to
see.
N
N
N
N
N
X
Thank
you
chair.
Yes,
all
of
the
we
will
be
updating
all
of
our
highlight
sheets,
our
planning
primer,
all
of
the
education
awareness
I,
will
be
completing
like
a
template,
so
that
can
be
used
at
your
different
consultations.
But
really
it
is
about
that
education,
awareness
piece
and,
as
was
mentioned
several
times
in
plain
language,
so
we
can
all
understand
it,
not
just
the
experts.
So
yes,
that
is
part
of
the
the
pieces
that
we
will
be
doing
and
I'll
be
happy
to
work
with
the
counselors.
N
N
B
F
You
know
that
don't
don't
have
the
same
benefit
of
that
public
discussion,
that
a
controversial
file
has
or
don't
need
that
same
benefit,
and
so
that
is
something
that
staff
are
prepared
to
look
at.
But
you
know
one
of
the
challenges
we
face.
Is
you
know
those
really
difficult
files
will
take
the
same
amount
of
time,
as
you
know,
something
that's
very
straightforward.
N
Y
D
Thanks
chair,
I'll
start
with
the
direction.
This
is
the
feasibility
of
planning
Services
reserved,
there's
two
main
benefits
to
this
one.
It
would
provide
some
Financial
stability
because
we
know
applications
do
go
up
and
down
each
year,
but
it
also
addressed
the
concern
from
the
industry,
which
is
that
any
fees
paid
to
planning
services
for
applications
for
meetings
remain
within
planning
services
department.
D
D
Okay,
thank
you.
So
a
few
questions
I
I'm,
convinced
that
the
planning
department
has
a
very
clear
understanding
of
how
imperative
it
is
to
meet
these
deadlines.
There
are
other
groups
within
the
city
that
are
not
under
planning
Services.
Can
you
clarify
for
the
internal
circulation
you're,
proposing
a
a
shorter
time
if
staff
from
another
department
don't
respond
within
that
time
frame?
Do
you
just
assume
that?
Did
you
just
move
forward,
or
do
you
have
to
wait
until
certain
certain
groups
of
the
city
respond.
F
D
Okay
and
I
don't
mean
to
suggest
that
other
other
departments
wouldn't
be
as
concerned
or
or
work
with
urgency,
but
the
financial
penalty
is
on
planning
Services
right,
it's
it's
not
on
any
other
department,
so
obviously
there's
a
direct
accountability
there,
so
I
think
something
we
we
should
watch
should
please
make
Council
aware
if,
if
there's
ongoing
issues,
I
guess
the
other
would
be
external
agencies.
For
example,
provincial
agencies
like
the
MTO,
how
how
it
delays?
How
would
delays
from
external
agencies
affect
our
timelines
and
any
of
the
provincial
requirements.
F
F
According
to
that,
you
know
we
we
will
have
to
continue
to
work
with
our
colleagues
in
those
agencies
and
and
other
you
know,
levels
of
government
but
I
I
think
you
know
that
our
our
requirements
are
clear
and
if
it's
something
that
is
simple,
you
know
we
will
be
moving
on.
If
it's
something
that's
critical
or
you
know
that
is
of
a
very
significant
impact
to
human
health
or
the
environment,
you
know
in
those
cases
we'll
have
to
escalate
within
those
those
agencies
in
order
to
ensure
we
get
an
answer.
F
G
If
I
may
also
just
build
on
that
through
the
chair
in
instances
where
there
are
critical
comments
that
do
come
in
late,
the
two
tools
under
the
planning
act
that
we
can
use
in
a
zoning
bylaw
sense
are
to
place
a
hold
on
the
zoning
where
we
can
condition
whatever
is
outstanding
to
be
resolved
at
a
later
time.
Similarly,
with
site
plan
controls,
we
can
also
condition
whatever
is
outstanding
at
the
end.
So,
if
can
so,
if
comments
do
come
in
through
critical
agencies
at
a
later
time,
we
can.
D
F
D
F
I
can
think
of
on
the
spot.
Mr
chair,
regrettably,
I
wish
I
had
some
that
I
could
pull
out
of
a
out
of
a
hat.
But
it's
something
that
we're
prepared
to
look
at
and
look
for
examples
in
in
our
own
organization,
but
in
other
organizations
as
well
to
come
up
with
something
that
is,
you
know
balanced
and
straightforward.
F
D
I
had
a
question
about
the
the
process
of
canceling
or
rescheduling
planning
committee
meetings
or
Council
meetings,
and
there
was
a
line
in
the
proposed
amendments.
The
procedure
by
law.
That
said
the
meeting
well,
when
the
canceling
or
rescheduling
would
result
in
the
city
incurring
a
cost
as
a
result
of
expiry
of
the
statutory
timeline,
the
meeting
may
only
be
canceled
or
rescheduled
with
written
approval
of
the
whole
of
council.
What
does
that
actually
mean?
How
would
that
work?
From
a
a
practical
point
of
view.
Q
Mr
chair,
we
would
anticipate
that
that
could
occur
in
one
of
two
ways.
One
would
be
via
a
resolution
adopted
at
a
council
meeting.
The
other
would
be
via
a
written
petition
or
circulation
similar
to
the
convening
of
a
special
meeting.
We
do
anticipate.
We
would
know
in
advance
whether
there
are
applications
for
a
given
meeting,
and
so
it
would
only
be
under
extraordinary
circumstances
where
that
process
would
have
to
be
undertaken.
D
F
D
D
D
This
will
be
many
iterations
of
improvement
over
the
next
few
years
and
I'll
end
by
saying
thank
you
to
staff,
it's
a
big
project,
a
big
exercise
to
review
and
change
these
processes
and
you've
done
it
while
the
requirements
from
The
Province
continue
to
change,
so
you've
done
change
management
while
the
while
the
rules
keep
changing
and
would
not.
Surprise
me
if
a
few
weeks
or
a
couple
months
from
now,
there's
even
more
that
gets
thrown
at
us.
So
thank
you
for
putting
this
in
front
of
us
today.
Thank
you,
chair.
T
Thanks
chair
I,
first
want
to
begin
by
saying
I'm
generally
supportive
of
what
the
province
is
trying
to
accomplish.
I
do
believe
that
average
timelines
to
fulfill
these
applications
are
too
long
and
I
believe
we
need
to
strike
a
happy
medium,
and
it
might
be
that
after
a
year
and
so
of
reporting
back
to
various
councils
that
some
tweaks
may
have
to
happen,
but
generally
I'm
supportive
of
what
is
what
the
intention
is
I
do
want
to
ask
Mr
herwire.
T
Question
was
raised
about
cost
recovery,
given
that
the
city
has
to
absorb
costs
for
adding
new
staff
and
resources
in
particular
and
I
know
that
eventually,
we've
been
focusing
on
the
revenue
loss
from
some
of
the
DC's
that
are
being
waived
through
some
other
legislation,
but
I'm
not
aware
of
municipalities
asking
for
cost
to
be
recovered
through
this
particular
legislation.
Can
staff
just
comment
if,
if
either
the
city
of
Ottawa
or
or
others
have
been
asking
for
resources
because
of
new
staff
that
have
to
be
hired
to
meet
these
new
timelines?.
F
Chair
through
not
through
Bill
109
specifically,
but
in
previous
housing
bills,
there
was,
and
through
provincial
announcements,
there
has
been
fundings
to
support
streamlining
of
process.
Okay,
and
so
we
have
taken
advantage
of
that
with
you
know,
hiring
some
staff
that
has
supported
the
some
staff
and
Co-op
students
in
order
to
to
work
through
some
backlog.
T
F
During
that
three-week
staff
will
review
the
studies
and
plans
to
ensure
that
they're
consistent
that
they're
adequate
and
that
they
meet
the
terms
of
reference.
If
they
are
adequate,
then
the
applicant
will
be
given
an
opportunity
to
formally
apply
and
and
that
process
the
official
review
process
will
start
through
the
process.
We
no
longer
have
the
time
to
do
revisions.
The
way
we
have
in
the
past.
F
F
F
I
think
we're
going
to
have
a
mix
and
I
think
if
we
look
at
zoning
in
its
purest
sense
and
I
know
a
lot
of
the
times
we
come
to
to
committee
with
zonings.
Some
of
those
discussions
are
about
site
plan
related
matters
and
those
are
often
the
issues
that
are
are
of
concern
to
the
community.
I
think
when
we're
dealing
with
the
building,
you
know
height
and
massing.
F
You
know
there
will
be
situations
where
we
have
changes
that
we
are
going
to
recommend.
There
will
be
situations
where
we've
got
holding
Provisions.
You
know
we
will
have
some
refusals
more
refusals
than
we
have
in
the
past.
You
know
if
I
think
of
my
time
in
planning
I
can
think
of
like
three
refusal
reports
that
we've
brought
forward,
because
we
do
typically
work
to
yes,
so.
T
The
reason
I'm
asking
this
is
I'm
I'm,
trying
to
figure
out
when
we
insert
true
Community
or
public
consultation.
You
want
to
do
it
before
the
application
has
been
formally
submitted
because,
if
legitimate
constructive
feedback
is
received
from
the
public,
that
directly
applies
to
the
application
that
should
be
implemented.
T
F
They
will
still
be
able
to
reach
out
and
inform
their
Community,
but
the
opportunity
to
have
the
back
and
forth
is
lost.
We
will
be
encouraging,
as
you
know,
regardless
of
the
recommendations
and
directions
that
are
before
us
today,
which
staff
are
comfortable
with
and
support
with,
respect
to
including
counselors
or
Community
groups
in
pre-consultation,
we
will,
as
we
do
today,
encourage
applicants.
T
T
So
it's
possible
that
the
clock
starts
ticking
on
an
application
that
cannot
be
amended
even
before
I'm,
aware
of
it
and
engage
my
community
on
making
them
aware
of
what
the
development
application
is
and
how
they
can
get
involved.
So
I'm
very
concerned
that
this
process
may
be
setting
up
the
public
who
have
expectations
right
now,
which
are
at
times
challenging
to
meet
which
may
ultimately
remove
them
from
a
process
where
their
feedback
can
be
used
to
modify
an
application
because
it'll
already
be
too
late.
T
So
even
if
motions
pass
that
say
hey,
we
want
a
better
engagement
with
Community
associations.
Okay,
fine,
that's
better
than
nothing,
but
the
average
Joe
who
lives
beside
a
development
or
proposed
development
needs
to
be
engaged
as
well.
The
public
as
a
whole
needs
to
be
included
in
this
process,
so
I'm
very
concerned
about
that
three-week
pre-consult
process.
Because
again
the
legislated
requirement
for
a
public
meeting
is
here.
T
There's
no
there's
no
requirement
to
have
a
public
meeting.
Sorry
in
the
community
to
engage
the
community.
That's
really
where
counselors
pick
up
the
slack
and
move
files
forward
by
engaging
so
I
just
want
to
raise
this
as
a
very
real
concern
that
I
have
in
that
regard.
On
the
matter
of
reporting
out.
I
do
appreciate
the
one
year
and
I'm
I
just
wanted
to
get
staffs
reaction
to
a
suggestion.
T
I
have,
and
that
is
that
planning
and
a
rack
receive
a
verbal
update
from
staff
in
January
of
2024,
which
is
basically
the
six
month
mark,
not
a
formal
requirement
for
a
written
report,
but
but
basically
give
us
a
brief
presentation
on
how
things
are
going.
The
functionality
of
the
new
process,
how
our
timelines
being
met.
I'd
like
to
know
if
there's
any
emergencies
sooner
rather
than
later.
If
it's
simply
an
assurance
that
counts
or
yeah.
T
There
have
been
some
some
challenges,
but
Staffing
is
good
and
we're
basically
able
to
to
provide
the
level
of
service
that
the
applicants
need.
That's
the
type
of
an
update
I'd
like
to
to
have
at
the
six
month,
Mark
so
I
like
to
ask
staff
if
that's
possible
and
if
they
agree,
then
sure
I'd
like
to
move
that
as
a
Direction.
F
Are
not
opposed
to
to
keeping
counselors
in
the
loop.
You
know
I
think.
Ultimately,
it's
up
to
the
chairs
to
determine
whether
they
would
want
that
type
of
you
know.
Report
at
their
committee,
I
mean
if
it's
outside
of
a
formal
report.
I
don't
have
a
process
to
feed
it
in,
but
certainly
happy
to
work
with
the
chairs.
If
that's
something
that
they
would
like
to
have
at
their
committees.
So.
T
Y
Y
T
So
we
will
monitor
the
timelines
of
every
application
and
for
every
application
that
is
past.
That
timeline
we'll
have
to
obviously
monitor
whether
it's
just
making
these
numbers
up.
The
first
25
days
is
a
certain
refund
and
then
there's
a
tiered
approach,
but
staff
will
have
to
monitor
every
single
application,
whether
it
met
the
timelines
or
not
and
and
it
the
answer
to
this
question
is
refunds
will
be
automatic.
Y
Mr
chair,
as
I
said,
one
can
one
can
require
that
the
refund
request
be
made
as
part
of
the
process,
but
that
request
having
been
made
there
is
zero
discretion
on
the
part
of
the
municipality
and
the
example
that
I've
given
several
times
to
bring
home
the
difference
is
members
of
committee
may
be
aware
that
for
Heritage
applications
there
is
also
a
90-day
time
period,
but
the
legislation
specifically
allows
for
an
extension
to
that
90
date.
Several
extensions
to
that
90-day
period
upon
agreement
between
the
city
and
the
applicant.
A
P
P
G
P
P
Just
wanted
to
clarify,
thank
you,
I
mean
I.
You
know,
I'm,
really
thankful
for
the
Motions
for
my
colleagues
to
try
to
to
Really
build
consultation
into
this
process,
even
though
it's
not
prescribed
because
it
really
is
important,
and
what
I
like
to
tell
developers
when
they
come
to
me
is
you're.
Gonna
have
a
better
result.
P
If
you,
if
you
work
with
a
community
and
the
alternative
to
to
a
community
meeting,
is
to
have
25
people
come
to
planning
committee
when
you're
applying
for
zoning
Amendment
and
to
speak
against
your
building,
there's
going
to
be
growing
pains
as
we
intensify,
and
we
really
need
the
community
on
board
and
I've.
Seen
so
many
examples
where
that
Community
involvement
in
the
pre-consultation
period
has
made
for
has
made
for
a
better
result.
P
Z
P
Okay,
that's
great
and
I
just
want
to
say:
I
support
the
plan
to
staff
up
both
in
planning
a
Heritage
Department,
there's
absolutely
no
way
we
can
meet
the
timelines
otherwise,
and
as
a
city,
we
obviously
can't
afford
to
forego
these
application
fees.
So
thank
you
very
much
for
to
staff
for
proposing
a
process
that
makes
does
the
best
we
can
with
a
really
tough
situation
and
I
really
do
hope
that
it
leads
to
quicker
approvals,
but
I
also
really
do
share
the
concerns
about
lack
of
community
consultation.
P
Some
weeks,
I
have
three
or
four
development
application
consultations
in
my
ward
because
of
the
pace
of
development,
but
I
I
will
say
that
because
our
community
associations
have
signed
on
to
the
pre-consultation
process
and
we've
been
able
to
negotiate
with
most
developers
to
do
that.
Consultation
early,
I'm,
not
sure
in
my
community
that
this
will
change
things
too
much
on
on
our
end.
But
it
also
means
we
would
really
appreciate
you
know
as
much
information
possible
about
planning
staff.
P
If
you
know
that
someone
is
in
the
precon
consultation
phase,
if
there's
something
something
coming
down
the
pike,
so
we
can
note
it
to
to
contact
those
Builders
and
you
know,
start
working
on
the
Outreach
as
soon
as
possible,
because
I
I
foresee
a
lot
of
legitimate
Community
pushback.
If,
if,
if
neighbors
and
Community
associations
are
not
given
the
chance
to
be
involved,
thank
you.
A
H
H
I've
had
some
good
conversations
with
staff
leading
up
to
today,
but
I
think
it
would
be
helpful
to
understand
from
the
community's
perspective.
As
people
have
said,
you
know,
community
members
may
not
know
to
pay
attention
until
that
placard
goes
up
right.
That's
really
the
sort
of
like
holy
smoke,
something's
happening
so
I'd
like
to
be
able
to
unpack
here
what
community
comments
do
after
the
placard
goes
up.
F
The
public
comments
that
come
in
on
an
application.
You
know
they're
generally
looked
at
differently
if
they're
a
zoning
or
a
site
plan
and
to
be
you
know,
Frank
the
majority
of
comments
we
get
relate
to
site
plan,
even
if
it's
a
zoning
application,
and
so
you
know
those
comments,
you
know
do
go
to
the
planner,
that's
responsible
for
the
file
and-
and
you
know,
there's
there's
sometimes
things
that
you
know
that
are
raised.
F
If
that's
critical
information
for
how
the
file
is
going
to
ultimately
develop
and
how
they're
going
to
have
to
accommodate
those
impacts,
you
know,
if
it's
questions
about
you
know
parking
or
access
to
the
street.
It
may
influence
where
you
know
where
the
access
or
or
exit
to
a
site
is.
You
know,
certainly
questions
around
garbage
location,
May
influence
where
it
goes
tree
plantings
things
of
that
nature.
You
know,
zonings
are
a
little
bit
more
difficult.
You
know
the
comments
we
often
hear
on.
Zonings
are
particularly
in
an
urban
context.
F
You
know
are
related
to
height
and
massing,
and,
and
sometimes
those
can
impact.
You
know
the
way
the
building
is
shaped
or
formed,
which
is
one
of
the
reasons
why
we've
got
zoning
coming
forward
before
site
plan
right.
So
if
we,
if
we
have
a
concern
about
a
building
that
comes
up
because
of
a
sensitive
neighbor
or
there's
a
rationale
that
there
is
a
sound
rationale,
you
know
a
Community
member
has
raised
that.
F
There's
impacts
of
that
building
that
you
know
we're
now
aware
of
that
can
influence
the
the
form
and
function
of
the
building,
with
a
step
back
or
a
setback
at
the
second
or
fourth
story,
or
things
like
that
that
can
alter
the
shape
of
the
building.
You
know.
Certainly
those
comments
are,
are
considered
staff,
don't
always
agree
with
the
comments
or
or
you
know,
come
to
the
same
conclusion
that
the
that
the
resident
may
have,
but
their
comments
you
know,
often
do
result
in
a
better
development
or
a
development.
H
Okay,
thank
you
so
comments
that
are
received
once
the
clock
has
started.
Ticking
are
still
there's
still
a
process
to
receive
them
and
they
can
still
impact
the
decision
on
on
on
the
file
if
there
is
a
decision
from
the
planning
staff
that,
like
I,
appreciate
they're,
saying
now
we're
not
going
to
work
towards
yes
in
the
same
way.
But
from
what
I
understand
from
the
report,
you
have
changed
the
mechanism
for
an
applicant
to
withdraw
and
to
start
a
new
application
in
the
case
of
perhaps
a
no
decision
right.
H
So
in
my
mind,
there
is
still
an
opportunity
for
comments
from
the
public
to
inform
whether
planning
staff
will
accept
or
reject
an
application.
That
information
would
be
helpful
to
an
applicant
to
know
like
I
assume.
An
applicant
would
not
like
to
go
to
committee
with
a
report
that
says
no
Then.
The
onus
is
on
that
applicant.
Then,
to
make
a
decision.
Are
you
going
to
roll
the
dice
you're
a
committee
with
a
dis
with
a
report
that
that
doesn't
recommend
pursuing
the
development,
or
are
you
going
to
withdraw
and
create
a
new
application?
H
Is
this
not
also
a
mechanism
whereby
community
members
can
be
assuaged
that
there
is
some
existing
consistent
mechanism
for
those
comments
to
have
an
impact?
I
appreciate
your
your
discretion,
though,
in
saying
that
you
get
a
lot
of
comments
that
aren't
actually
relevant
to
the
question
in
front
of
them,
and
that
is
certainly
the
education
and
and
training
Etc
that
isn't
part
of
my
motion
elsewhere.
H
But
I
I
just
want
to
confirm
that
once
the
placard,
because
otherwise
we
don't
put
the
placard
up
right
so
we're
putting
that
signage
up
to
do
what
and
what
kind
of
impacts
Can
it
have.
Can
you
just
comment
on
the
withdrawal
and
resubmit
or
not
resubmission
at
the
withdrawal
and
new
application
piece?
Please
sure.
G
Through
the
chair
and
thank
you
for
the
question,
that
is
the
exact
reason
why
that
tool
is
before
you
as
part
of
the
fee,
bylaw
Amendment,
just
so
that
during
the
comment
period
for
both
sideline
controls
and
Zoning
by
law
amendments.
If
the
department
is
in
a
position
for
refusal
of
a
zoning
by
law,
Amendment,
for
example,
or
unfavorable
conditions
for
a
site
plan
control
as
an
example,
the
applicant
does
have
a
tool
to
withdraw
their
application
and
submit
a
new
file
for
a
reduced
fee.
G
We
have
mirrored
the
fee
from
what
exists
today
for
a
resubmission.
So
in
today's
process
an
applicant
can
take
feedback
through
the
community
consultation
sessions
or
through
the
ability
to
comment
during
circulation
and
do
a
resubmission
and
they
have
to
pay
a
fee
today.
I
think
it's
upwards
of
four
thousand
dollars,
so
we
we're
mirroring
that
same
process
that
exists
today,
but
through
a
withdrawal
process
and
then
submitting
a
new
file
so
that
they
can
adjust
their
application
based
on
the
comments
receipt
from
communities
from
counselors
and
from
stakeholders.
H
H
I
I
think
that
we
we
can
see
that
there's
an
expectation
of
a
tune-up
not
just
for
City
staff
here,
but
also
for
the
public
and
also
for
the
counselors
right.
So
we
all
are
also
going
to
have
to
be
paying
a
much
more
closer
attention.
We're
going
to
have
to
be
able
to
deploy.
You
know
a
community
consultation
in
a
much
shorter
amount
of
time.
Those
templates
I'm
sure
Charmaine
is
what
you're
trying
to
address
by
that.
H
Bitable
and
lovely
I
would
also
hope
that
we're
going
to
aim
towards
a
win-win-win
whereby
we
create
the
appropriate
investments
in
public
participation
in
City
staff,
but
then
also
within
our
own
teams,
our
own
hiring
and
our
own
engagement
processes
within
the
counselor's
office
to
to
get
this
right
because
the
the
stakes
are
high,
as
councilor
Brockington
says,
but
again
with
the
intention
of
Bill
109
I
think
that
they
are
trying
to
get
more
homes
built
faster
and
we
all
have
a
role
here.
So
thank
you
very
much
chair.
A
K
Thanks,
it
seems
to
me
that
the
bill
109
was
supposed
to
present
an
opportunity
for
us
to
make
decisions
quicker
without
a
markedly
increased
cost,
which
will
in
turn,
allow
for
faster
building,
more
housing
stock
and
lower
housing
prices
due
to
the
increased
Supply,
shorter
timelines
and
less
time
consuming
and
costly
red
tape
during
the
process.
So
the
province
is
attempting
to
make
approval
Easier
by
removing
what
they've
deemed
to
be
Superfluous
process.
F
Mr
chair,
while
I
appreciated,
maybe
counterintuitive
I,
think
that
the
potential
to
reduce
the
timelines
will
actually
increase,
affordability
and,
and
the
rationale
for
that
is
that
you
know
we
are
conscious
that
time
is
money
and
that
delays
in
our
process
result
in
delays
and
then
bringing
product
to
Market
and
and
if
I
use
a
quick.
You
know
back
of
the
napkin
example
and
I'm.
K
G
Yeah
through
the
chair
and
thank
you
for
the
question,
I
think
it's
important
to
recognize
that
the
planning
act
has
a
tool
in
it
to
allow
municipalities
to
create
a
pre-consultation
process.
So
the
fact
that
the
city
of
Ottawa
has
one
is
only
because
the
province
has
afforded
us
the
ability
to
have
one.
We
at
the
city
of
Ottawa
are
very
lucky
that
we
put
in
place
a
pre-consultation
process
back
in
2009,
and
we
had
the
ability
to
then
through
putting
in
through
the
province
instituting
Bill
109
to
analyze
how
that
has
been
working.
F
F
That
may
not
have
communicated.
You
know
perfectly
on
a
project,
and
part
of
our
review
process
is
to
ensure
that
when
we
get
through
the
application,
you
know
that
they've
addressed
those
concerns
that
we've
had
identified,
that
they
are
consistent
and
that
they
meet
the
terms
of
reference
so
that
hopefully,
those
first
round
comments
won't
be
identifying
things
or
whenever
we,
when
we
get
that
official
package,
we
won't
have
issues
with
consistency
or
not
addressing
issues
that
we
identified
at
pre-consult.
F
That's
part
of
it.
The
other
part
of
it
is
when
we
look
at
our
applications.
It
is
not
uncommon
for
a
staff
person
throughout
the
process
to
step
away
from
their
desk,
whether
that's
medical
leave,
whether
that's
you
know
you
know
a
variety
of
leaves
type,
including
vacation
and
and
when
they
step
away
today,
their
application
sits.
F
We
do
have
cover
off
to
deal
with
up
files
if
they're
in
a
if
something
critical
arises,
while
that
that
file
lead
is
away,
but
those
cover-offs
have
their
own
workload
and
own
projects
that
they
need
to
continue
to
move
forward
and
they're,
not
typically
as
engaged
in
the
file
as
the
file
lead
and
by
by
the
implementing
the
team
approach.
Our
hope
is
that
those
files
you
know
unless
everybody
goes
off
at
the
same
time,
that
those
files
will
have
somebody
that's
engaged
in
them.
K
Belt
I
appreciate
I
appreciate
you
raising
that
I
consistently
hear
that
the
city
of
Ottawa
is
one
of
the
most
difficult
Municipal
jurisdictions
to
to
build,
and
because
of
these
inconsistencies,
and
because
of
you
know
the
the
amount
of
red
tape
that
people
have
to
go
through
to
build.
So
I
appreciate
you
raising
that
we
hear
also
about
the
inconsistencies
and
approach
and
approaches
from
from
different
planners,
which
I
suppose
makes
sense.
K
I
mean
given
that
these
are
human
beings
with
bias
and
habit
and
whatnot
and
I'm
glad
to
hear
that
they'll
be
better
cover
off
I've,
had
files
sit
for
four
months
without
the
applicant,
even
knowing
why
it's
not
moving,
because
a
planner
decided
to
take
a
vacation
and
didn't
tell
anybody
about.
So
this
is
good.
But
are
you
concerned
that
having
more
hands
on
a
single
file
will
slow
things
down.
F
Today,
when
we
transfer
a
file
from
one
person
to
another,
for
instance,
if
somebody
goes
on
sick
leave
and
somebody
else
has
to
step
in
and
take
over
ownership
and
carriage
of
that
file,
there
is
nothing
worse
for
a
timeline
than
that
happen
right.
A
fresh
set
of
eyes,
in
my
opinion,
is
very
different
than
having
more
hands
on
deck
and
and
I.
F
You
know
my
experience
has
been
if
we
can
avoid
bringing
in
somebody
new
Midway
through
a
process
to
regurgitate
you
know,
concerns
or
issues
that
have
already
been
addressed
or
identified
early
on
in
the
process.
That's
something
we
need
to
try
to
avoid
having
people
engaged
in
the
file
with
with
identified
tasks
and
responsibilities,
including
a
senior
staff
person
who
has
the
experience
and
understanding
of
our
policies
to
be
able
to
make
decisions,
in
my
opinion,
I
think
will
work,
I,
hope
it
will
work
and
I
guess
you
know.
K
Thank
you
for
that.
You
know
looking
at
that
list
of
studies,
it's
it's
a
pretty
daunting
list
and
I
understand
that
not
every
application
is
going
to
require
that
entire
list
of
40
something
studies,
but
a
May
suggests
that
it
that
it
may
make
sense
to
to
reconsider
whether
or
not
we
require
the
Urban
Design
review
panel
for
Zoning,
for
instance,
energy,
modeling
and
Community
energy
plans
until
the
hpds
is
in
place
because,
right
now
it's
not
the
streetscape
character
analysis.
K
F
F
That
are
related
to
the
hpds
are
on
the
list
and
they've
been
on
the
list.
You
know
we
aren't
currently
requiring
them
at
this
point
in
time
and
that
will
become
an
implementation
as
as
hpds
returns
back
to
committee
and
Council
for
approval.
You
know
one
of
the
things
that
I
think
is
part
of
that
discussion,
and
you
know
Dave
David
Wise
is
at
the
table
and
may
want
to
elaborate
on.
F
That
is
the
ability
to
ensure
that
those
studies
are
required
at
the
right
stage
in
the
process,
so
that
we're
you
know
whether
they
may
be
implemented
as
a
condition
of
site
plan
or
whether
it's
something
that
comes
in
early
on
in
a
zoning.
That's
a
discussion
that
I
think
will
flesh
out
through
the
hpds
discussion.
F
F
You
know
our
official
plan
policies
depending
on
where
a
site
is
and
whether
it's
you
know,
for
instance,
is
it
near
a
provincially,
significant
Wetland
or
is
it
in
the
rural
area
where
we've
got
groundwater
concerns
that
we
may
not
have
the
same
concerns
if
we
were
in
a
downtown?
So
so
you
know
the
long.
The
length
of
the
list
of
the
studies
is
not
the
driver
of
the
amount
of
work
Associated
to
a
file.
It's
it's.
S
F
Is
that's
ultimately
what
drives
those
studies
whether
they're
required
we
are
looking
to
you
know,
I,
think
the
speaker
earlier
spoke
to
you
know
it
would
be
nice
to
have
clarity
as
to
what
types
of
files
will
identify.
Those
that
is
something
staff
is
working
on
is
to
provide
sort
of
a
matrix
as
to
what
triggers
which
files
and
what
types
of
applications
should
expect
to
see.
F
K
Is
there
any
way
or
any
provision
that
we
can
have
that
if
a
study
has
been
done
in
a
neighborhood,
that
you
know
that
that
affects
the
exact
same
property
or
the
exact
same
area
that
that
not
be
required
over
and
over
and
over
again
in
the
same
area
and
not
to
diminish
the
fact
that,
like
you
know,
safety
is
incredibly
important,
but
things
like
seismic
studies.
Seismic
study
is
going
to
be
the
same.
K
You
know
if
you're
within
for
the
most
part,
you
know
as
long
as
the
conditions
are
the
same
on
in
the
same
area.
Obviously
there.
If
there's,
if
there's
changes
you
know
in
in
that
area
or
differences
in
soil
stability
or
differences
in
soil,
of
course,
you
would
require
that.
But
if
it's
on
sitting
on
the
same
area
of
like
sitting
on
the
same
Bedrock
or
sitting
on
the
same
soil
conditions,
why
would
we
why
we
would
require
that
study
to
be
done
over
and
over
and
over
again.
G
Through
the
chair
and
thank
you
for
the
question,
the
terms
of
references
for
each
study
are
sometimes
their
guidelines
is
where
the
triggers
are
outlined,
for
when
a
study
is
required
and
why
those
terms
of
references
or
guidelines
have
discretion
built
within
them.
So
if
there
are
instances
where
a
study
was
recently
submitted
and
the
parameters
are
the
same,
there
could
be
a
discussion
between
the
applicant
and
the
planning
department
in
in
order
to
determine
if
that
study
should
be
waived
in
those
unique
circumstances.
K
Sure,
and
unless
you
don't
mind,
if
I
finish,
is
that
okay,
no
okay
go
ahead!
Thank
you,
chair,
I,
appreciate
it.
Okay,
good
I'm,
glad
to
hear
that
that's
happening
now.
Is
there
some
sort
of
like?
Is
there
some
sort
of
repository
of
these
studies
where
it's
you
know
where
you
can
see
on
a
map?
You
know
what's
what's
been
done
already,
so
that
somebody
can
go
in
and
say
like
okay?
Well,
maybe
I
won't
have
to
do
this
or.
G
G
K
G
K
I
promise
I
only
have
two
more
questions.
Mr
chair.
Can
we
ensure
that
bill
109
is
not
using
up
staff
required
to
complete
the
comprehensive
rezoning
exercise,
so
this
work
is
desperately
needed
and
will
drastically
reduce
the
cost
of
building,
reduce
the
draw
on
staff
resources
and
increase
density.
You
know
once
it's
complete,
so
is
it
the
same
pool
of
resources
that
is
being
used
to
do
both
of
these
projects.
F
Mr,
chair
of
the
development
applications
are
reviewed
by
staff
and
planning
Services.
The
comprehensive
zoning
bylaw
update
is
being
led
through
policy
and
and
UD
whatever.
Whatever
David's
acronym
is
udlrp
edlrp,
so
that
the
staff,
the
the
positions
are
different
when
we
post
for
positions
there
is
often
across
application
and
and
I
cannot
guarantee
that
there
will
not
be
somebody
within
a
policy
branch
that
might
apply
might
not
apply
to
an
application
or
a
position
within
development
services,
and
vice
versa.
K
F
So
respectfully,
chair
I
think
that
there's
a
disagreement
in
the
numbers
that
have
been
presented
by
goba
in
the
Altus
report
and
whether
or
not
they
reflect
the
budget.
That's
also,
you
know
attributed
to
the
agricultural
Affairs
through
the
development
review
staff.
I'll
draw
your
attention
for
your
for
your
own
satisfaction
to
you
know
to
the
to
the
budget.
I
think
it's
page,
47
is
agricultural.
Affairs
and
235
is
the
planning
and
housing
and
compare
those
with
the
study
that
was
provided
by
Altus.
W
Thank
you,
chair,
no
problem,
I
did
think
of
one
more
question
after
I
spoke
earlier,
so
we're
no
longer
going
to
have
city-led
consultation
meetings
on
site
plan
control
counselors
will
be
able
to
lead
their
own
meetings.
Should
they
choose
will
will
staff
attend
if
requested,
and
the
reason
I'm
asking
this
out
loud
is
because
I
think
we
all
need
to
understand
the
capacity
of
staff
and
and
respect
it?
F
Staff
are
facing
a
considerable
you
know,
resource
constraint
and
the
current
approaches
that
staff
would
not
be
participating
in
public
consultations
except
in
exceptional
circumstances.
So
those
public
meetings
that
staff
that
counselors
may
be
looking
to
lead.
You
know
we'd
encourage
you
to
bring
out
the
applicants,
but
at
this
point
in
time,
staff
are
not
proposing
to
to
continue
that
process
of
participating
in
those
discussions.
W
F
W
Same
industry,
okay,
thank
you
for
the
clarification
like
I,
said.
I
think
it's
important
for
us
to
all
know
that,
as
we
make
our
own
plans
and
so
I'll
just
co-assign
counselor
troster's
comments.
You
know,
I
I,
know
I'm
sure,
there's
a
lot
of
developers
and
their
Consultants
listening
I
really
do
hope.
W
They
continue
to
work
with
counselors
in
their
communities.
I
think
there
are
a
lot
of
counselors
around
this
table
who
want
to
work
with
you
in
a
constructive
way
and
and
bring
that
that
local
context
to
the
applications
to
make
them
better
I
can
think
of
countless
examples.
My
own
experience,
where
we've
made
good
changes
that
have
improved
an
application
and
I
think
we.
You
know
we
want
to
build
housing,
but
we
also
want
to
build
Healthy
Communities,
so
I'll
leave
it
there.
Thank
you.
L
We
need
to
have
healthy
neighborhoods,
that
that
includes
the
infrastructure
and
services
and
that's
going
to
put
a
lot
of
pressure
on
us
as
a
city
I
think
to
keep
up
with
that
housing
growth,
and
that
includes
also
processing
the
school
applications
and
I
appreciate
Don.
That
you
gave
me
an
update
this
week
that
first
high
school
public
high
school
for
Riverside
South
has
moved
through
the
planning
process.
Second,
public
school-
that's
urgently
needed
in
Finley.
L
Creek
has
moved
to
our
planning
process
and
my
question
to
staff
is:
what
are
we
going
to
do
to
make
sure
that
projects
like
schools,
which
are
not
novel
infrastructure
right?
The
school
boards
are
very
bright
in
that
they
recycle
their
school
plans.
These
are
not
new
development,
the
new
projects
that
that
are
coming
to
the
table.
So
what
are
we
going
to
do
to
ensure
that
the
schools
are
going
to
get
the
proper
attention
they
need
and
we're
going
to
turn
around
as
quickly
as
possible
and
not
have
multiple
circulations
for
a
project
again?
L
That
I
think
we've
seen
time
after
time,
and
we
should
be
able
to
get
it
right
as
long
as
you
know
again,
the
the
the
servicing
is
there
and
kind
of
the
Show
Stoppers
are
addressed
some
of
the
other
items,
while
worthy
of
discussion.
You
know
certainly
certainly
shouldn't
get
in
the
way
of
of
opening
the
doors
for
schools
to
serve
the
growing
communities.
Thanks.
S
S
There
is
some
level
of
duplication.
You
know
that
can
be
applied.
Of
course,
every
site
is
somewhat
different
in
terms
of
the
the
timelines
they're
they're
subject
to
their
own
funding.
You
know
provincial
funding
regime,
so
we're
we're
very
sensitive
to
that
and
certainly
prioritize
those
applications
when
they
do
come
in,
given
those
funding
constraints
and
quite
often
a
lag
time
in
the
community
to
get
those
needed
schools.
So
we're
very
aware
of
that
and
respond
in
terms
of
our
priority
approach.
L
That's
what
I
want
to
hear
and
I
appreciate
that
the
conversation
with
the
provinces
in
terms
of
how
they
fund
them
and
move
them,
but
once
it's
in
our
court,
the
ball
is
in
our
court.
That's
when
I'm
glad
to
hear
we're
going
to
make
it
a
priority,
and
it's
again
these
are
not
novel
projects
that,
especially
in
a
Greenfield
area
again
where
the
services
are
there,
I'm
hopeful
that
we'll
we'll
turn
around
quickly.
Thank
you.
That's
all
true.
P
Thank
you
very
much
chair
I,
want
to
thank
counselor
kits
for
your
questions
and,
frankly,
Derek
I'm
really
shocked
to
hear
that
staff
will
not
be
able
to
attend
consultation
meetings
anymore.
We
often
run
them
through
my
office,
which
is
still
a
tremendous
amount
of
work
for
my
staff,
but
having
city
planners.
There
is
really
crucial
to
helping
the
community
understand
these
developments.
So
my
question
to
you
is:
are
you
seeing
staff
cannot
participate
in
these
consultations
anymore
or
that
they
may
not
work
workload
depending
I.
F
Think
it
will
be
the
exception
rather
than
the
rule
right
and
I
think
the
presentation
highlighted
that
the
public
meeting
of
like
the
requirement
for
public
meeting
is
planning
and
housing
committee
or
agricultural
Affairs,
and
and
with
respect
to
that,
you
know
the
the
timelines
that
we're
under
within
the
new
process
and
the
opportunities
to
amend
that
process
are
limited
or
to
amend
those
applications
are
limited
and
we're
ultimately
facing
that
those
four
choices
that
I
I
outlined.
So
we
you
know
there
will
be
exceptions
to
that
rule.
F
P
I
could
put
that
as
an
inquiry
to
have
you
come
back
with,
but
I'm
I'm
deeply
concerned
now
about
how
these
processes
remove
public
consultation
as
it
is,
and
if
we
choose
to
initiate
it
on
our
own
as
counselors
in
the
pre
in
the
early
phase
to
not
have
City
staff
support
is
extremely
problematic.
It
will
severely
curtail
citizens
ability
to
understand
these
developments.
I
think
it's
going
to
lead
to
a
lot
more
opposition.
F
P
Would
be
very
helpful
because
if
it's
a
matter
of
maybe
you
have
somebody
who's,
an
Outreach
staff
person
who
attends
these
consultations
and
helps
explain
processes
like
if
this
means
another
staff
person
to
make
sure
that
we
can
get
community
consultation
right.
I.
Think
that's
something
we
should
talk
about
at
this
committee,
because
it's
not
just
adapting
to
these
new
processes.
It's
bringing
the
community
on
board
with
us
and
even
though
this
legislation
was
imposed
on
us.
This
is
a
fundamental
shift
in
citizens
ability
to
be
involved
in
the
way
that
their
Community
is
developing.
P
P
P
F
P
Would
be
great
I'm
open
to
Creative
Solutions?
Maybe
there's
an
Outreach
position,
that's
created
or
someone
who's
good
at
giving
plain
language
explanations
of
City
processes,
but
I
do
think
if
it's
just
a
counselor
and
a
developer
in
a
community
consultation
I
think
it
also
might
unnecessarily
politicize
some
of
these.
Some
of
these
consultations,
I,
find
city
staff
are
very
good
at
grounding
these
consultations
in
what's
possible,
what's
not
possible
explaining
processes
and
I
think
that's
really
really
key
to
Citizen
understanding,
understanding
and
engagement.
So
thank
you
very
much
for
taking
that
back
foreign.
I
My
understanding
of
Bill
109
and
then
just
the
various
legislation
pieces
that
the
province
has
put
before
us
hasn't
has
forced
Upon.
Us
means
that
we
can
say
we
can
share
our
concerns.
We
can
Advocate,
we
can
express
them
to
City
staff,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day,
within
the
timelines
you're
now
required
to
meet
within
the
you
know,
legislative
requirements
you're
now
required
to
meet.
I
My
understanding
is
that
consultation
will
not
have
that
much
weight
and
I'm
trying
to
get
through
any
confusion
that
the
community
might
have
we're
in
we're
basically
being
told
we'll
be
informed
of
various
applications,
we'll
be
informed
of
developments,
and
we
may
have
some
ability
to
share
local
concerns.
Local
application
impacts
on
the
community,
but
we
will
not
be
able,
under
the
provincial
legislation,
to
have
major
influence,
am
I
mistaken
on
this,
like,
as
you
can
probably
tell
I'm
quite
Furious,
about
these
provincial
changes.
I
G
Here
to
chair,
and
thank
you
for
the
question:
Community
consultation
through
councilor-led
information
sessions
through
technical
circulation
or
through
comments
through
to
committee
and
Council,
still
have
weight.
They
will
continue
to
have
weight
and
influence
the
decisions.
What
the
change
that
may
be
becoming
for
you
is
that
zoning
by
law
amendments
will
no
longer
be
working
towards
a
yes.
You
will
have
more
refusals
of
zoning
by
law
amendments
before
you
and
you
will
have
more
zoning
by
law.
Amendments
withhold
Provisions
to
continue
to
work
through
issues
regarding
site
plan
controls.
G
I
I
appreciate
that,
because
I
I
get
the
sense
that
what
will
happen
is
we'll,
we
as
counselors
will
continue
to
Advocate.
City
staff
will
be
listening.
They
will
try
to
to
take
into
account
the
community's
concerns
developers,
hopefully
will
be
in
these
meetings
or
listening
to
local
concerns,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day
you
know
these
approvals
will
be
made
and
it'll
go
through
and
we're
going
to
see
more
density,
we're
going
to
see
more
of
what
the
province
is
asking
us
to
see.
I
So
I,
just
I,
really
do
want
to
emphasize
that
you
know
when
it
comes
to
education
for
ourselves,
but
also
the
community
on
what
this
now
means.
I,
don't
want
people,
thinking
that
you
know,
Community
consultations
will
have
the
same
kind
of
weight
as
maybe
they
once
had
for
some
of
these
and
I
I
do
appreciate
you
sharing
that
I
will
just
quickly
say
to
the
the
motion
that
I'm
bringing
forward.
I
You
know
one
of
the
things
that
that
strikes
me
is.
We
know
our
communities
incredibly
well,
we
know
them
from
the
emails
we
get
about
complaints
about
people
parking
on
the
street
or
issues
with
you
know
School
in
it
you
know
drop-off
periods
and
the
traffic
that
creates,
or
maybe
there's
a
pathway.
That's
hasn't
been
redone
in
50
years,
and
we
know
that
that
development
will
have
an
impact
on
it
like.
We
know
them
very
well.
I
I,
don't
know
what
that
will
look
like
and
I've
asked
staff
to
come
back
with
what
that
might
work
with
look
like
under
the
time
frame,
they're
working
with
so
I
I
will
ask
for
people's
support
on
my
emotion,
but
it's
really
to
try
to
have
that
ability
to
share
our
insights.
Our
experience
on
behalf
of
the
residents
and
the
people
that
we
serve
at
that
earliest
stage,
so
I
will
be
asking
for
my
colleagues
support
in
that
motion.
Thank
you.
A
A
I,
don't
see
any
I've
been
knocking
the
questions
off
my
own
list
as
those
have
been
answered,
so
I
only
have
one
and
I'll
be
the
one
who
poses
it.
I
guess
because
I
know
it's
not
good
Optics.
But
if
you
sit
on
planning
committee,
you
now
have,
if
I'm
correct
a
scheduled
meeting
between
Council
and
planning
committee
every
week
of
the
year
without
break.
Q
Mr
chair
for
those
meetings
that
are
scheduled
during
the
traditional
legislative
breaks,
they
will
be
pre-scheduled
as
special
meetings,
I
understand
from
planning
staff.
We
should
know
about
three
months
in
advance
whether
there
will
be
applications
targeting
those
meetings
and
if
there
are
not,
those
meetings
would
be
canceled,
so
it
would
be
up
to
every
week
but
may
not
be
required
on
occasion.
I'm.
A
Trying
to
think
of
a
planning
committee
meeting
in
the
eight
years,
I've
been
a
city
councilor
in
which
there
were
no
development
applications
rezonings
in
front
of
us
and
that's
rhetorical.
Obviously,
there
are
always
zonings
in
front
of
planning
committee
every
two
weeks.
So
if
there
is,
it
is
perfectly
possible
that
planning
committee
members
will
have
no
weeks
without
a
scheduled
meeting
through
the
course
of
the
year.
A
I
guess
my
ask
of
staff.
Given
that
you
know
we
have
a
lot
of
I'm
looking
around
this
table.
There
are
a
lot
of
counselors
who
have
young
kids,
who
want
to
go
on
family
vacations
with
those
kids.
They
don't
want
to
spend
the
several
days
leading
up
to
the
meeting
reading
planning
reports.
They
don't
necessarily
want
to
be
dealing
with
Community
associations
on
those
last
minute
negotiations
with
the
developer
to
try
to
get
better
developments.
A
They
you
know
I.
They
want
to
be
able
to
spare
the
expense
of
of
Summer
Camps
like
most
parents.
Those
two
weeks
of
summer
camp
that
you
save
when
you
get
to
go
on
break
is
a
is
a
nice.
Is
a
nice
break
on
the
the
family
finances
for
those
counselors
who
want
to
go
canoeing
and
actually
be
out
of
cell
range
for
a
week?
A
There's
a
few
of
us
well
and
you
know
we're
going
to
be
the
ones
who
who
go
to
those
meetings
right,
because
those
who
have
young
kids
are
going
to
need
that
summer
break
but
I
just
I'm
I'm
gobsmacked
that
we
are
going
to
have
a
scheduled
meeting
every
week
of
the
year
as
City
councilors
I.
Don't
what
are
there
ways
in
which
we
can
try
to
mitigate
that.
A
The
it's
it's
remarkable
when
I
take
a
look
at
the
you
know
the
requirement
to
do
this
is
being
imposed
on
us
by
the
problems
we
we
can't
skip
planning
committee
meetings
and
we
can't
skip
Council
meetings
and
when
I
take
a
look
at
the
legislative
break
that
the
province
takes
during
the
summer.
Maybe
someone
could
remind
me
how
long
a
break
that
is
it's
a
long
one.
A
So
we'll
and
for
members
of
the
committee,
my
my
commitment
is
to
try
to
find
ways
to
mitigate
the
the
impacts
that
we
can
have
a
summer
break,
maybe
a
Christmas
break
and
maybe
a
March
break,
just
Skip
One
meeting
in
each
of
those
three
months,
all
right.
So
colleagues,
we
have
three
reports
in
front
of
which
in
front
of
us
and
a
couple
of
those
have
got
motions
associated
with
them.
Try
to
work
through
this
fairly
quickly.
There
is
report
three
one
which
is
the
bill.
A
A
To
review
counselor
participation
in
pre-consultation
is
that
item
care,
Amendment
carried
also
a
motion
with
respect
to
3.1
from
councilor
Gower
development
of
a
dispute
resolution
process
for
pre-consultation
is
that
item
carried
okay
and
also
with
respect
to
item
3.1,
Bill
109,
the
from
counselor
Drew's
Agriculture
and
Rural
Affairs
committee
consideration,
amend
recommendation
A.D,
you
is
that
item
carried
good.
Is
the
report
carried
as
amended
yeah
on
item
3.2?
This
is
the
provincial
legislation
resource
impact
report.
A
We
have
a
single
motion
brought
by
counselor
Gower
with
respect
to
the
legal
services
staff.
Compliment
review
in
2024
budget
is
that
Amendment
carried
there's
some
report
carried
as
amended
and
is
three
item:
3.3
planning
real
estate?
Oh
sorry,
the
delegated
authority
report
is
item
3.3
carried.
Thank
you
very
much.