►
From YouTube: Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee - April 5, 2018
Description
Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee meeting – April 5, 2018 – Audio Stream
Agenda and background materials can be found at http://www.ottawa.ca/agendas.
A
A
It
comes
to
a
close
for
fairs
committee
before
it
goes
to
Council,
so
we're
gonna
start
with
the
presentation
from
staff
and
then
we'll
go
to
delegations
as
well.
We
also
have
a
motion
to
introduce,
based
on
things
that
we've
heard
from
the
community
from
the
public
over
the
last
weeks
and
months
and
in
fact,
really
two
years
so
thank
you.
Amy
Macpherson
seer
and
the
Marika
Clark
Thank.
B
C
Good
afternoon
mr.
chair
council
committee
members,
the
topic
before
us
at
this
time
is
the
site
alteration
bylaw,
which,
as
marika
said,
we
have
been
working
on
for
over
two
years.
Actually,
at
the
background,
work
for
this
project
in
fact
began
in
the
last
term
of
council
site
alteration.
You'll
see
the
picture
on
the
slide
behind
you
that
that's
an
if
that's
a
fair
example
of
fairly
extreme
site
alteration
generally.
C
The
definition
of
site
alteration,
although
it
varies
somewhat
from
source
to
source,
does
include
things
like
the
removal
of
topsoil,
the
alteration
of
the
grade
of
land
filling
and
in
many
cases
also
refere
refers
to
the
removal
of
vegetation,
so
Ottawa
is
developing
and
proposing
a
bylaw
not
to
prohibit
but
to
regulate
such
activities.
Site
alteration
is
a
very
necessary
activity
in
many
cases,
so
the
city
does
not
wish
to
prohibit
it
from
occurring.
However,
there
does
need
to
be
some
regulation
of
how
it
is
done
to
avoid
negative
impacts.
Our.
C
C
Most
of
these,
in
fact,
all
other
municipal
bylaws
involving
site
alteration,
include
a
permit
system.
Ottawa
is
not
proposing
to
introduce
such
a
system
here.
The
other
municipalities
have
developed
those
systems
in
response
to
very
specific
issues
that
affect
them.
Our
issues
are
not
quite
the
same.
We
do
not
have
the
same
issue
with
people
trying
to
import
fill
from
Toronto
that
most
of
the
Greater
Golden
Horseshoe
municipalities
are
having
to
deal
with.
So
we
are
not
proposing
a
permit
system
to
address
our
needs.
C
Our
official
plan
first
adopted
after
amalgamation
in
the
first
official
plan
of
the
city
in
2003,
had
policies
calling
for
the
development
of
a
by
law
to
regulate
site
alteration.
So
this
has
been
something
that
the
city
has
intended
to
do
for
quite
some
time
in
2007,
the
city
did
adopt
a
drainage
bylaw,
which
is
a
very
scoped
version
of
site
alteration
bylaw.
It
addresses
the
potential
impacts
to
drainage
resulting
from
site
alteration
activities.
The
city
also
still
has
on
its
books.
C
Eight
pre
amalgamation
topsoil
preservation,
bylaws,
intended
to
protect
agricultural
soils
from
being
removed
from
lands.
These
bylaws
as
I
say,
are
still
on
the
books,
but
have
not
been
terribly
effective
at
protecting
the
soils,
and
so
we
are
looking
in
this
case
to
replace
the
drainage,
bylaw
and
all
of
those
top
soil
preservation
by
laws
with
a
single
consolidated
site
alteration
bylaw.
C
So
just
a
brief
overview
of
the
project.
To
date,
as
I
say,
background,
work
began
in
the
previous
term
of
council,
but
the
active
work
on
this
project
began
in
late
2015
when
staff
began
identifying
stakeholders
and
establishing
the
guiding
principles
for
this
bylaw.
So
we
continued
identifying
stakeholders
and
holding
preliminary
discussions
with
them.
C
We
did,
of
course,
engage
additional
stakeholders
that
these
are
the
stakeholders
who
really
engaged
with
us
in
this
project.
We
we
did,
of
course,
reach
out
as
I
say
to
other
members
of
industry
groups
and
such
that
might
have
been
in
fluent
in
placated
in
this
bylaw,
but
we
did
not
receive
written
comments
from
them
on
this.
C
The
proposed
bylaw
as
I
say,
does
not
have
a
permit
system.
It
instead
takes
a
rules
and
regulation
approach.
This
is
similar
to
the
direction
that
the
province
has
been
taking
with
many
of
its
regulations
recently,
where,
if
you
can
establish
a
basic
set
of
rules
that
will
address
most
concerns
and
reduce
the
risk
of
impacts,
then
life
asking
people
well
directing
people
rather
to
follow
those
rules.
You
eliminate
the
need
to
review
and
approve
every
single
activity
that
someone
wants
to
do
so.
C
This
is
the
approach
we've
chosen
to
take
by
establishing
ten
basic
rules
on
how
site
alteration
is
done.
No
prior
approval
from
the
city
is
required.
In
most
cases,
we
have
identified
one
case
where
we
do
require
that
the
Planning
Department
be
consulted
ahead
of
time,
and
that
is
in
the
case
of
site
alteration
being
done
in
or
within
30
metres
of
one
of
our
identified
natural
areas.
This
is
consistent
with
policies
in
our
official
plan
that
require
us
to
review
and
approve
site
alteration
in
an
adjacent
to
those
areas.
C
The
bylaw
aims
to
protect
local
drainage
patterns
again
that
portion
of
it
was
carried
forward
from
the
existing
drainage
bylaw.
It
aims
to
protect
our
soils
in
the
agricultural
resource
areas
and
the
identified
environmental
areas
and
natural
heritage
features.
In
our
official
plan.
We
have
provided
exceptions
for
normal
everyday
activities
that
we
feel
pose
little
risk.
Of
course,
farming
is
a
major
exemption
in
the
bylaw,
and
farmers
are
exempt
from
most
of
the
rules.
C
Landscaping
yard
maintenance,
woodlot
management.
These
are
all
activities
that
are
similarly
exempt
from
most
of
the
rules
in
the
bylaw
developments
that
have
been
reviewed
and
approved
by
the
city
under
either
the
Planning
Act
or
the
building
code.
Act
are
also
exempt
from
some
of
these
rules.
They
are
instead
bound
to
follow
their
conditions
of
approval
and
by
law,
can
be
used
to
enforce
those
conditions.
C
We're
just
going
to
have
the
ten
rules,
which
are,
of
course
in
the
staff
report
up
on
the
screen
for
a
few
moments
here.
I
think
everyone
will
agree
that
number
one
is
extremely
basic.
You
know.
Hopefully
most
people
would
not
need
to
be
told
this,
but
bylaws
are
often
written
for
those
few
people
who
cause
the
problems
for
everyone
else.
We
do
feel
that
in
most
cases,
these
ten
rules
should
be
simple
enough,
that
most
residents
will
have
no
problem
complying
with
them
and
would
agree
that
they
are
quite
reasonable.
C
There
will
be
information
provided
on
the
city's
website.
Regarding
these
rules.
We
will
be
issuing
brochures
as
well
to
all
the
client
service
centers
so
that
they
can
be
handed
out
with
building
permits
and
and
referred
to
when
people
come
in
with
questions
about
applications
and
what
they
might
need
to
do.
So
we
are
planning
to
provide
information
to
residents
on
how
to
comply
with
these
rules,
and
certainly
staff
would
be
able
to
answer
questions
as
well.
C
So
here
are
the
remaining
rules,
as
I
say
it
did
come
up
to
a
nice
neat
round.
Number
of
ten
and
I
would
draw
your
attention
to
the
last
three
rules
which
do
apply
to
most
residents,
but
in
almost
every
case
where
it's
a
simple
residential
project.
These
are
either
not
likely
to
apply
or
would
be
extremely
simple,
to
comply
with
you'll
note
the
use
of
the
words
where
necessary
and
that's
intended
to
to
you
know,
provide
for
flexibility.
C
All
right
I'd
like
to
be
clear
about
what
this
bylaw
does
not
do.
First
off
it
does
not
apply
in
areas
that
are
already
regulated
by
one
of
our
three
local
conservation
authorities,
so
areas
of
significant
wetland
that
are
identified
in
our
Official
Plan
and
the
adjacent
lands
around
those
wetlands,
floodplains
and
regulated
water
courses.
The
bylaw
does
not
apply
to
those
areas.
Ca
regulations
do
so.
The
conservation
authorities
will
continue
to
review
and
issue
permits
as
needed
to
activities
happening
in
those
areas.
C
The
bylaw
also
does
not
apply
to
several
activities
that
are
approved
under
provincial
processes,
and
that
would
then
have
gone
through
review
and
should
be
able
to
be
implemented
as
approved
without
further
issue.
The
bylaw
does
not
prevent
farmers
from
farming.
It
does
not
prevent
them
from
clearing
land
in
agricultural
resource
areas
or
general
rural
areas,
which
are,
of
course,
areas
identified
in
our
official
plan
as
being
intended
for
farming
and
other
rural
uses.
C
It
does
not
prevent
residents
from
cutting
trees.
This
is
not
a
tree
cutting
bylaw.
The
city
does
have
such
a
bylaw
in
the
urban
area,
but
not
in
the
rural
area.
This
bylaw,
although
it
does
reference
the
clearing
or
stripping
of
vegetation,
does
not
speak
to
tree
cutting.
So
the
removal
of
individual
trees
pruning
removal
of
shrubs,
not
an
issue
under
this
bylaw.
C
Those
are
natural
environment
areas,
so
the
bylaw
would
then
require
that
anyone
who
wanted
to
do
site
alteration
in
reg,
a
scense
to
such
an
area
come
and
talk
to
the
Planning
Department
first
and
gain
our
approval
for
what
they
propose
to
do.
There
may
be
a
requirement
for
an
environmental
impact
statement
to
be
completed
first,
as
per
the
policies
in
our
Official
Plan
exceptions,
however,
do
apply
for
simple
activities
such
as
yard,
maintenance,
woodlot
management,
farming,
all
of
those
sorts
of
things,
the
agricultural
resource
areas.
C
These
are
the
golden
brown
areas
that
take
up
the
majority
actually
of
Schedule
A.
This
is
the
section
of
the
city
to
which
the
topsoil
protection
applies.
So
in
those
areas
we
do
not
want
to
see
any
activities
such
as
topsoil,
removal
or
dumping
of
substandard
quality
fill
on
top
of
good
farmland.
This
land
is
intended
for
farming.
It
is
designated
as
such
and
zoned
in
our
zoning
bylaw.
That
is
its
primary
purpose
again.
C
However,
if
we
have
reviewed
and
approved
a
development
that
is
permitted
under
the
policies
of
our
plan,
then
that
development
would
be
allowed
to
be
implemented,
of
course,
subject
to
its
conditions
of
approval.
The
general
rural
areas
are
the
pale
tan
color
in
those
areas
again,
farmers
have
the
ability
to
clear,
significant
woodlands
or
other
natural
heritage
features
designated
on
schedule,
L
without
prior
approval
from
the
city
and
in
the
villages.
C
C
C
An
additional
word
about
our
natural
heritage
features.
This
is
an
excerpt
from
Schedule
L
in
the
Official
Plan.
The
green
blotches
show
natural
heritage
features
such
as
significant
woodlands
and
significant
wetlands.
Again,
however,
the
bylaw
does
not
apply
to
significant
wetlands
and
the
adjacent
lands
around
them.
So
I
have
overlaid
this
with
the
conservation
authority
regulation
limits
in
the
black
hatching,
so
that
you
can
see
that,
in
fact,
large
areas
of
the
natural
heritage
system
and
the
floodplain
areas
as
well
are
in
fact
not
regulated
under
this
bylaw.
C
In
closing,
we
would
like
to
recommend
that
the
committee
approved
the
bylaw,
and
we
would
also
request
that
you
direct
staff
to
conduct
a
review
of
this
bylaw
after
2
years
of
implementation,
so
that
we
can
report
back
to
you
on
its
performance
and
any
recommended
improvements.
We
are
quite
aware,
through
our
work
with
our
stakeholders,
that
we
have,
although
we
have
tried
to
reach
a
reasonable
compromise
between
everyone's
interests.
C
We
are
quite
aware
that
we
have
not
managed
to
resolve
everyone's
concerns
and
that
certainly
you're,
never
quite
certain
how
something
works
until
you've
had
a
chance
to
try
it
and
test
it.
So
we
would
very
much
like
to
be
able
to
come
back
to
you
in
two
years
and
make
those
recommendations
for
any
improvements
that
we've
managed
to
identify
in
that
time.
A
All
right,
thank
you,
as
I
mentioned
at
the
start
of
the
meeting
couple
hours
ago,
I
that
we
do
have
some
delegations
on
this
I
do
just
remembers.
This
committee
have
heard
a
lot
from
residents.
We've
been
involved
in
the
process
for
this
in
their
different
iterations
as
it's
been
developed.
So
we've
we've
heard
a
lot
of
the
concerns
from
some
of
our
groups.
I
know,
I.
A
Think
three
of
the
group's
definitely
too
are
covered
here
today,
the
ones
that
were
listed
on
here,
the
woodlot
association
and
the
landowner
association
that
were
a
part
of
the
consultation
process.
There
they're
here
to
speak
with
some
concerns
regarding
how
its
seen
before
us,
we
do
have
a
motion
that
councillor,
Shen
Siri
will
put
forward
and
I'm
just
asking
to
introduce
it
because
I
think
it.
A
D
D
If
this
restriction
apply
and
whereas
the
report
was
considered
and
carried
by
Planning
Committee
at
the
meeting
of
27
February
2018,
therefore
be
it
resolved
that
the
agricultural
rural
affair
committee
referred.
This
matter
to
staff,
would
request,
amend
document
one
so
that
section
and
only
apply
to
the
area
generally
delineated
by
the
closest
municipal,
road
or
natural
boundary
to
kilometer
outside
of
the
urban
boundary,
as
shown
on
Schedule
A
of
the
Official
Plan
and
be
it
FURTHER
RESOLVED.
D
The
staff
include
a
map
showing
how
the
boundary
line
has
applied
as
a
schedule
in
the
bylaw
and
bring
the
report
back
to
agriculture
and
Rural
Affairs
Committee
in
such
a
time
as
permitted
consideration
prior
to
Council
on
May
23rd
2018,
there
be
a
further
resolved
that
the
agricultural
affair
committee
direct
legal
staff
to
review
the
text
of
the
draft
by
law,
to
add
it
possible
improvement
to
clarify
normal
farm
practice
before
the
bylaw
has
brought
back
to
agriculture.
Rural
affair
committee.
D
D
We
saw
some
activities
on
those
property
and
really
we
had
very
little
to
be
able
to
stop
some
of
that
so
I'm,
hoping
with
this
motion
and
give
the
ability
for
for
the
rural
prat,
the
rural
farmers
or
rural
resident
to
to
continue
that
practice
with
their
with
with
their
land
and
to
put
a
stop
for
some
of
those
future
land
development
with
there
with
this
approach.
So
hopefully
that
will
address
some
of
the
concern
with
her
from
our
Lassiter
Thank
You.
Mr.
chair
thank.
A
You
and
following
delegations
I
think
we're
gonna
after
we
were
here,
I
think
I'm
likely
be
adding
some
further
direction
to
the
the
aspect
of
legal
services,
specifically
around
the
agricultural
exemption
and
one
section
on
drainage
to
make
sure
that
we're
capturing
all
the
all
the
aspects
of
what
our
own
internal
department
does
when
it
comes
to
drainage
operations
in
the
city.
So
we'll
go
right
to
delegations.
It's
our
first
delegation
as
mr.
Ted
would.
A
I,
don't
imagine
Ted's
gonna
be
able
to
address
all
the
things
that
he's
submitted
already,
but
he
has
submitted
comments
to
us
in
specific
documents
leading
up
to
today's
committee
meeting
I.
Don't
think
he
can
run
through
it
all
so.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
aware
that
he
that
we
do
have
that
information
from
him.
E
They
go
there,
we
go
alright.
Thank
you.
Hey
you
good
morning,
Thank
You
chair
for
giving
me
this
opportunity
to
address
the
committee.
I
didn't
bring
a
CV,
so
I
didn't
realize
that
was
required,
but
very
briefly,
I
am
NOT
a
lawyer,
even
though
this
is
a
technical
presentation.
I
am
a
forest
engineer
by
training,
but
my
whole
working
career
has
been
in
the
federal
government
first
at
forestry,
Canada
and
then
25
years
at
the
office
of
the
Auditor
General
of
Canada.
E
So
basically
I
spent
my
whole
life
looking
at
legislation
and
understanding
it
and
then
applying
it
to
people
I
appear
here
today.
As
a
private
citizen
earlier
in
the
week,
I
sent
a
full
analysis
of
the
issues
with
the
proposed
site.
Alteration
bylaw
to
the
committee
administrator
for
your
information.
You've
had
a
chance
to
review
this.
This
presentation
is
based
on
that
report.
There
seems
to
be
confusion
as
to
whether
the
proposed
site
alteration
by
law
applies
to
farming
as
currently
written.
It
definitely
does
in
so
doing.
E
E
For
you,
the
Act
has
other
clauses
with
which
the
proposed
bylaw
is
non-compliant.
The
Act
says
that
a
farmer
is
not
liable
in
nuisance
to
any
person
for
a
disturbance
resulting
from
an
agricultural
operation
carried
out
on
character.
He
carried
on
as
a
normal
farm
practice.
Unfortunately,
the
proposed
bylaw
lists
preventing
public
nuisance
from
site
alteration
as
one
of
its
objectives.
The
Act
also
goes
on
to
say
that
no
court
shall
issue
an
injunction
or
other
order
that
prohibits
a
farmer
from
carrying
on
the
agricultural
operation,
because
it
causes
a
disturbance.
E
The
proposed
bylaw
has
provision
for
city
staff
to
issue
a
stop-work
order.
I
also
found
that
the
provincial
policy
statement
with
respect
to
the
protection
of
natural
heritage
includes
a
statement.
Basically
that
says
nothing
in
the
policy
is
intended
to
limit
the
ability
of
agriculture
uses
to
continue
very
simply,
this
bylaw,
as
written,
does
not
have
the
authority
to
impose
the
restrictions,
as
listed
in
Section
10
and
Schedule
A,
which
most
people
don't
realize
apply
to
farming
on
an
agricultural
operation
carrying
on
a
normal
farm
practice.
E
Additional
evidence,
including
from
city
and
sources,
is
also
available.
If
you
want
it,
fortunately
the
solution
is
easy.
All
staff
have
to
do
to
make
the
bylaw
compliant
with
the
Act,
and
the
provincial
policy
statement
is
include
a
clause
in
the
definition
of
site
alteration
that
states
site
alteration
does
not
apply
to
normal
farm
practices
carried
on
as
a
part
of
an
agricultural
operation,
I
noted
similar
wording
and
other
municipalities
bylaws.
The
bylaw
should
also
include
the
full
definition
of
agricultural
operation
from
the
Act
and
the
definition
of
agricultural
uses
from
the
provincial
policy
statement.
E
As
a
personal
observation,
if
the
drafters
do
not
want
to
make
this
simple
change
to
clear
up
any
potential
confusion,
then
it's
clear
to
me
that
their
aim
has
been
to
restrict
farming
all
along
as
it
stands.
Enforcing
the
provisions
of
the
bylaw,
including
an
investigation,
would
inflict
unacceptable
and
unnecessary
harm
to
a
farmer.
I
have
some
other
possible
issues
if
time
permits
time
restrictions.
Do
not
permit
me
to
list
all
of
the
other
issues
with
this
bylaw.
E
You
know
I've
been
at
this
for
18
months,
and
and
my
old
audit
instincts
kicked
in
I've
got
a
room
full
of
paper.
Councillors
may
wish
to
have
staff
address
the
following
issues:
the
original
public,
publicly
stated
intent
of
the
bylaw,
was
based
on
power
142
of
the
Municipal
Act,
which
only
lists
the
clearing
and
grading
of
land,
including
the
removal
of
topsoil
and
dumping
of
fill.
E
C
E
For
the
return
of
land,
which
means
the
land
had
to
already
have
been
cleared
once
upon
a
time,
and
you
have
to
be
able
to
prove
to
city
staff
that
it
was
cleared,
the
power
of
entry
as
currently
written,
excludes
dwellings,
but
does
not
define
what
a
dwelling
is.
In
addition,
the
city
gives
itself
the
power
to
enter
other
structures,
barns
workshops,
while
homes
who
knows
it's
not
defined
the
bylaw
conflicts
with
the
Official
Plan
in
paragraph
three
point
two
point
two
point
three.
Thank
you
very
much
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
A
Thank
you,
I
mean
I,
know.
You've,
you've
read
the
bylaw
throughout
multiple
times
to
the
different
iterations
of
a
chi
over
the
past
18
months.
I
know
you
recognize
that
there
are
agricultural
exemption
z'
throughout
the
bylaw.
Your
concern,
of
course,
is
that
there's
no
overarching
agricultural
exemption
that
some
things
are
subject
to
the
bylaws,
but
she
specifically
scheduled
a
correct,
no
I
agree.
I
mean
this
is
something
we'll
be
looking
at
from
the
start
is
that
agricultural
exemption?
There
aren't
a
lot
of
things
but
agree.
E
And
I
think
it
would
benefit
from
a
legal
opinion,
is
to
how
the
farming
and
food
production
Protection
Act
applies,
because
the
way
other
municipalities
have
read,
that
is,
they
need
a
blanket
exemption
and
they
put
it
right
up
front
in
the
definition
of
site
alteration
and
then
there's
no
discussion.
There's
no
there's
no
confusion.
So
you
don't
end
up
sending
by
law
officers
out
to
stop
a
farmer
because
it
doesn't
apply.
A
A
B
A
G
G
Ward
inside
shows
them
a
three
acre
lot
with
trees
were
than
where
there's
a
new
owner
who
just
purchase
it
from
an
existing
owner,
and
he
wants
to
remove
1.5
acres
of
cedar,
trees
and
landscape
with
patios
pathways,
water
ponds
and
water
features,
but
no
under
no
under
no
underground
pool,
in
other
words,
no
digging
for
a
pool.
So
what
happens
is
my
question
on
this?
G
One
I
just
asked
the
scenarios
and
then
okay
scenario
to
a
50
acre
woodlot
rural
woodlot,
where
the
owners
want
to
develop
a
system
of
trails
which
involve
building
bridges
over
creeks
boardwalks
through
marshy
areas,
removal
of
vegetation
for
trails
and
regrading
of
slopes
to
reduce
the
steep
walking
grades
through
hills
and
valleys.
What
happens
scenario?
Three:
a
rural
commercial
lot
where
the
owner
wants
to
a
pave,
a
gravel,
lean
way
and
parking
area
be
expand.
G
And
and
regrading
a
very
steep
slope,
something
that
actually
has
happened
scenario
for
existing
country
lot
of
two
acres,
where
owners
want
to
clear
all
the
trees,
install
solar,
arrays
to
power,
their
property
regarded
and
regrading.
The
land
for
optimal
orientation
of
the
solar
arrays
would
also
be
required
scenario.
Five,
a
large
distinctive
tree
on
a
residential
rural
lot
in
a
rural
village
needs
to
be
removed
in
the
neighbor
complaints
tree
is
completely
on
the
owner's
lot
in
some
distance
from
a
lot
line.
G
What
happens
the
last
point
I
want
to
make
is
that
there
are
terms
in
the
bylaw
that
are
not
defined
but
are
used.
The
term
yard
for
a
property
is
is
identified.
A
yard
in
a
normal
residential
lot
is
here
in
the
sense
from
the
from
the
lot
line
to
the
to
the
dwelling
and
all
the
sides.
That's
why
you
have
a
front
yard,
a
side
yard
in
the
back,
but
when
you're
talking
about
rural
properties
that
may
be
50
acres
or
more
long
or
large,
what
is
a
definition
of
the
lot?
The
yard?
G
Rather,
a
few
trees
have
been
used
in
in
the
bylaw
to
say
it's
okay,
to
cut
a
few
trees.
The
question
is:
how
many
is
a
few
trees
and
what
happens
if
it's
more
than
few
trees?
So
these
are
the
questions
that
that
come
up
through
these
scenarios
and
know
what
happens
what
is
going
to
happen
in
terms
of
the
process
with
respect
to
the
bylaw?
What
does
the
landowner
have
to
do?
What
will
the
city
be
doing.
A
A
Be
good
to
send
it
to
SAP,
because
I
I
have
done
similar
things
to
what
you
did:
I've
I've
since
Amy
random
pictures
of
aerial
photos
and
said
what
about
this?
What
that's,
of
course,
there's
always
more
information
needed
in
any
of
these
situations.
You've
seen
in
the
report,
they
have
a
sort
of
an
investigation
process
as
to
how
they
would
look
at
something
so
I,
I
can't
guaranteed
and
I
know
she
took
down
notes.
H
I
just
I
hope
that
Amy
took
some
notes.
Some
of
the
question
we
can
answer
them.
After
when
we
start
a
question
to
staff.
I
want
to
thank
mr.
Resnick
for
coming
here,
just
a
clarification
yeah.
He
advised
on
us
good
word
advisory
committee
that
represent
42
farmer,
people,
community
association,
president
just
clarification
to
you
because
I
understand,
maybe
probably
or
don't
have
one
like
this
and
leader
Coburn,
but
we
do
have
Onalaska
Ward.
Thank
you.
Mr.
Blessington.
I
I'd
also
like
to
say
that
I
do
support
having
an
upfront
exemption
for
a
farm
land
I
think
that's
been
one
of
the
issues
I've
read
through
the
report
and
the
site,
alteration
by
law
and
the
current
land
owners
association
has
worked
with
Amy
and
with
staff
when
we
were
going
through
this.
So
we
appreciate
that
opportunity.
I
Later
on
in
the
process,
I
discovered
something
called
the
natural
heritage
systems
overlays
and
those
are
causing
me
quite
a
bit
of
concern
and
I
have
to
admit
that
today,
I'm
even
more
confused
about
when
I'm
in
and
when
I'm
out
that
there
are
so
many
different
names
that
these
natural
heritage
systems
go
by.
For
one
thing,
I
know
it
has
been
stated
that
if
you
are
returning
farmland
to
its
natural
state,
then
you're
allowed
to
clear
it.
But
what?
If
the
farm?
What?
If
you're?
Not
doing
that?
Do
you
have
to
seek
permission?
I
I
For
me,
these
natural
heritage
systems
is
one
of
the
areas
where
it
is
most
confusing,
I'm,
not
sure,
as
of
today
sitting
here,
whether
or
not
on
my
farm,
if
I
were
to
go
and
clear
an
area
and
I
didn't
return
that
immediately
to
farmland
whether
or
not
I'd
be
allowed
to
do
that,
even
if
I
am
permitted
to
do
it,
it's
not
clear
to
me
whether
I
would
have
to
go
and
check
the
other
issue.
I
have
is
I'm
not
sure
whether
or
not
people
understand
the
significance
of
these
natural
heritage
system
overlays.
I
I
In
looking
at
the
implications,
I
understand
that
the
natural
heritage
system
overlays
are
guidelines
and
that
there
is
some
additional
work
that
has
to
be
done
to
decide
whether
or
not
you're
actually
would
be
prevented
from
doing
something
based
on
the
site.
Alteration
bylaw.
So
it's
not
just
by
looking
at
those
l1
to
l-3
documents
that
you
would
be
able
to
know
whether
or
not
you
have
to
seek
permission.
You
have
to
go
and
really
find
out
whether
or
not
you're
in
one
of
these
areas.
I
Now
one
of
the
things
that
Miss
McPherson
raised
today
was
natural
heritage
systems
and
conservation
authorities.
I
did
ask
one
of
the
conservation
authorities
whether
or
not
they
had
jurisdiction
in
natural
heritage,
and
they
said
no,
but
today
I'm
not
sure
that
that's
exactly
true
and
again
it's
it's
just
the
language
and
I
think
not
being
able
to
understand
the
language,
so
I
I,
think
part
of
your
motion
is
asking
for
clarifications
on
those
and
I
and
I.
Do
think.
That's
good
I!
I
Don't
know
why
this
thing
maybe
I
have
Eli's
Mike
I'm,
not
sure
it's
just
cutting
out
what
one
of
the
things
I
wanted
to
speak
to
was
the
effectiveness
of
the
the
bylaw
I
think
everybody
all
of
the
delegates
are
in
agreement
that
we
want
to
preserve
farmlands
and
we
want
to
preserve
the
environment
as
well.
I'm
sure
that
this
is
the
to
do
it
and
I
I
have
here
today
and
I.
Think
I
mentioned
this
in
my
a
document
that
I
sent
you
as
well.
I
Thanks
Eli
International
municipal
Lawyers
Association,
it
was
done
in
2014
and
it
does
relate
mostly
to
the
Toronto
area,
and
it
does
relate
mostly
to
trying
to
prevent
the
dumping
of
dirty
fill.
But
what
they
said
in
there
is
it
was
their
finding
in
doing
their
study
that
the
site
alteration
bylaw
was
not
very
effective.
I
You
know
they
would
that
they
do
want
to
do
that.
So
we
need
to
put
the
burden
where
we
think
the
the
problem.
The
problem
is,
and
that's
not
to
say
that
we
shouldn't
have
developers
developing
land.
People
need
a
place
to
to
live
so
I'm.
Just
saying
that
we
need
to
think
about
this,
a
little
bit
more.
Just
one
more
thing:
if
I
may
I
think
I'm
you.
I
That's,
oh
okay,
good,
okay,
just
just
speaking
about
knowing
whether
or
not
the
site
alteration
is
or
will
be
effective.
I
know
that
staff
is
being
directed
to
keep
some
performance
measures.
Can
we
know
what
those
performance
measures
are
and
can
we
have
input
to
those
performance
measures
because
they
may
be
different
depending
on
what
it
is
you're?
Looking
for
that's
my
presentation.
Thank
you
very
much.
J
Designation
and
the
wetland
designation
is
being
put
there
because
the
water
can't
get
away
is
being
provided.
No
wetland
for
flowing
Creek,
that's
documented
in
the
city
of
Ottawa's
engineer's
report
and
I.
Think
all
this
stuff's
God
get
cured
before
this
site
alteration
by
law
is
allowed
to
go
through,
like
we
got
to
get
the
drains
fixed,
that's
going
to
alter
the
the
the
water
situation
in
our
area.
J
I
had
an
extensive
call
from
a
lady
last
summer
and
piles
of
emails
from
her
had
a
meeting
with
her
at
Tim
Hortons
in
Statesville
finally
found
out
she's
part
of
the
people
that
are
trying
to
have
created
water
retention
areas
in
our
area.
They
used
to
do
it
above
the
cat,
trans-canada
trail,
but
now
they've
moved
down
to
our
area
because
the
water
can't
get
away
so
I'm
asking
you
not
do
it
not
to
approve
this
beacon
till
we
get
the
problems
in
the
area
resolved.
A
A
Irony,
the
irony
and
I'm,
not
speaking
again,
the
irony
is
that
the
diversion
that
was
created
2005
might
have
been
able
to
be
prevented
if
a
cycle
duration
boil
existed
I'm,
not
speaking
in
support
of
anything
I'm.
Just
saying
there
is
some
irony
in
that,
if
there
was
actually
something
cuz,
that's
one
of
your
biggest
problems
is
that
a
neighbor
of
yours
altered
their
lands.
That
impacted
you
and
there's
no
there's
nothing
that
we
could
have
done
to
prevent
it.
That
right,
oh.
J
Vain
to
get
the
municipal
drain
done
for
flowing
Creek,
but
that
ultimately
failed,
because
the
cost
overruns
I
understand
now
the
other
thing
in
this
in
the
city.
What
the
city
has
done
raised:
Conley
Road
four
feet:
to
keep
it
from
being
flooded,
so
there's
lots
of
evidence
of
our
problem
there,
but
like
we're
willing
to
work
with
the
city,
we
don't
got
nothing
to
get
you.
We
want
to
work
with.
You
want
to
help
you.
We
got
all
the
evidence.
48
years
of
it
I
think
a
little
bit
of
it.
H
Just
have
a
comment:
I
appreciate
your
concern
and
you're
talking
to
the
committee,
but
if
you
staff
they've
been
working
very
and
what
the
chair
really
addressed
to
you,
we
really
have
to
not
voting
for
this
and
not
passing
when
working
with
the
staff
about
the
alteration
site
plan.
That's
what's
gonna!
That's
what
brought
us
brought
you
where
you
are
now.
If
you
had,
we
had
site
alteration
before
and
when
you
or
he/she
had
issue
with
the
drainage
and
when
your
neighbor
or
whenever,
whatever
who's
around
you
start
digging
and
directing
the
water
towards
you.
H
Now
we
at
least
have
some
bylaw.
We
can
be
able
to
help
you
and
basically
that's
what
the
whole
that's,
what
the
whole
exercise
we're
doing
right
now
so
and
Plus.
On
top
of
that,
the
site
alteration
is
a
little
bit
more.
We
have
so
many
layer
and
we
have
eight
by
law
of
drainage
since
Malcolm
ation
and
we're
trying
to
make
sure
we
have
one
one
consistent
bylaw,
that
everybody
can
understood
and
no
one
is
confused.
Yes,.
H
J
A
Thank
you.
It's
it's
a
good
example
that,
because
it
shows
like
just
that,
one
specific
one
with
the
drainage
issue
is
that
it
shows
the
bylaw.
It
walks
a
fine
line
between
being
overreaching
and
being
helpful.
It's
and
that's
the
difficulty
we
have
with
some
ambiguity.
Our
next
speaker
is
Colin,
hurt.
F
K
C
F
F
That
a
number
of
changes
have
been
made
to
the
bylaw
following
our
comments
last
year
and
undoubtedly
owing
to
comments
from
numerous
other
organizations
and
individuals
as
well.
However,
the
main
objection
voiced
by
members
of
our
community
was
in
reference
to
the
powers
of
entry
for
inspection
given
to
the
general
manager.
The
fact
the
city
employee
would
simply
be
given
the
power
to
walk
on
to
private
property
without
permission
previous
communication
or
warrant
ostensibly
to
carry
out
an
inspection
which
could
have
been,
which
could
result
from
even
a
minor
complaint,
was
unanimously
considered
unacceptable.
F
For
one
thing,
the
identification
of
the
city
manager
is
generally
unknown
to
the
public.
I
would
think
what
identification
does
he
or
she
carry?
Would
the
manager
be
allowed
to
sense
one
of
the
staff
in
their
place?
What
identification
would
that
person
carry
the
following
statement
and
I'm
going
to
quote
this
is
from
one
of
the
members
of
the
Northwest
Colburn
Community
Association,
and
does.
F
The
whole
issue
very
succinctly
and
compassionately
and
I
quote:
it
is
our
concern
that
a
bylaw
giving
anyone,
including
city
employees,
unrestricted
access
to
private
property
is
aside
from
obvious
legal
and
privacy
concerns
an
opportunity
for
fraud
and
potential
harm
to
our
children.
Even
the
police
require
warrant
to
inspect
property
and
neighborhood
watches
function,
because
neighbors
are
aware
of
what
is
going
on
in
their
immediate
neighborhood.
Since
many
city
employees
do
not
wear
uniform,
they
are
not
instantly
recognizable
like
the
police,
firefighters,
hydro
or
gas
company
employees
who
typically
phone
to
announce
their
visits.
F
As
an
example,
imagine
a
scenario
in
which
a
man
wearing
a
dress
shirt
walks
into
a
homeowners
yard.
A
few
minutes
after
the
family
car
drives
away
a
neighbor
watching
from
her
own
deck.
Ask
the
man
if
she
can
help
him.
The
man
replies
I'm
with
the
city
I'm
just
doing
a
routine
inspection.
The
neighbor
might
ask
to
see
identification,
although
anyone
with
a
color
printer
can
create
a
believable
ID
card,
but
is
more
likely
to
simply
wish
him
a
good
day
and
ignore
him.
F
The
man
could
be
a
thief
searching
for
weaknesses
in
the
home
perimeter,
for
example,
open
doors
unlocked
windows
that
sort
of
thing
it
could
be
unlocking
the
back
gate
to
allow
access
from
an
alley
or
another
Street.
He
could
even
be
a
predator
looking
to
kidnap
a
child.
There
have
been
several
reported
instances
of
fraudsters
claiming
to
represent
furnace
installers
or
insurance
adjusters
to
gain
access
to
Ontarians
homes.
We
cannot
support
giving
these
criminals
an
additional
vector
by
which
to
invade
private
property.
End
of
quote.
F
A
A
Right
so
I'm
I've
been
on
accounts
for
seven
years.
I,
don't
think
we're
doing
this
any
different
than
we've
ever
done.
Anything
else
before.
If
there
are
questions
generated
from
from
the
delegations,
as
always
councillors
have
the
opportunity,
a
staff,
those
questions,
yeah,
there's
never
been
a
situation
on
any
committee.
I've
ever
been
at
where
residents
ask
staff
direct
questions
and
then
have
an
exchange.
A
L
A
That's
it's
on
comfy
confines,
sometimes
for
certain
people,
and
yesterday
I
happen
to
comment
on,
though
we're
having
a
bike
lane
and
God
forbid,
because
I
happen
to
live
in
rural
Ottawa.
How
dare
I
comment
on
on
something
not
in
real
level,
but
I
welcome
your
presence
here.
I
know:
you've
been
involved
with
the
with
the
adoption,
with
the
sorry
the
development
of
this
of
this
bylaw
as
well
and
I
appreciate
you
taking
the
time
to
come
here,
not.
L
A
problem
I
even
know
people
here
I
know
surely
so
so
I'm
here
representing
the
green
space
alliance.
So
it's
a
nonprofit
advocacy
organization
involved
in
the
protection
and
preservation
of
green
space,
and
so
the
site
Bala
we're
happy
to
see
that
the
city
is
adopting
a
side
by
Allah,
a
side
alteration
by
law,
we're
happy
to
see
that
it
covers
both
rural
and
urban
parts
of
Ottawa.
We're
happy
to
see
that
it
includes
vegetation
removal
of
a
certain
type
as
as
as
a
side
alteration,
so
those
are
all
positives
for
us.
L
The
were
were
were
puzzled
as
to
why
the
city
will
not
adopt
a
permitting
system
for
this.
We
understand
them,
but
there
might
be
a
cost
consideration,
but
it
seems
to
be
a
much
cleaner
upfront
kind
of
way
to
deal
with
once
it's
clarified
exactly
what
our
side
operations
are
tend
to
agree
with
the
definitional
things
that
people
that
brought
forward,
but
we
you
know
we
would.
We
would
support
a
permit
system
rather
than
a
complaint
system.
L
The
the
you
know,
if,
if
not
a
permit
system
at
minimum,
there
ought
to
be
some
kind
of
notice,
some
kind
of
pre
information,
because
otherwise
complaints
come
in
and
you
don't
even
know
well,
you
know
whether
then
anything
is
in
fact
happened
or
happening.
So
at
a
minimum
there
might
be
some
notification
that
at
least
a
local,
the
the
counselor
would
have
a
notice
or
something
that
that
yes,
some
landowners
planning
site
alteration
in
this
location.
L
It's
not
covered
by
this
there's
nothing
to
stop
this
sort
of
pre-emptive
clearing
of
woodlands
in
your
immediate
vicinity
of
your
at
the
urban
boundary,
and
we
would
like
to
see
that
covered
somehow,
because
that
is
a
concern.
It's
an
issue
and
having
some
kind
of
designation
of
this
strip
of
land.
This
peri-urban
piece
of
land
as
something
different,
because
most
of
that
land
isn't
farming,
it's
not
in
even
in
in
in
individual
private
hands.
L
So
it's
only
good
planning
to
try
and
make
sure
that
if
there
are
wood
lands
that
yes
in
a
rural
context,
aren't
considered
significant
in
an
urban
context,
would
be
considered
significant,
that
they'd
be
protected,
that
they'd
be
preserved
and
and
forward-thinking
used
to
try
and
bring
something
either
in
this
bylaw
or
some
other
instrument
that
the
city
can
use
the
tree
protection
bylaw
is
maybe
another
venue,
but
that
issue
has
to
be
addressed
somewhere.
That's
my
presentation.
All.
A
K
Thank
you
for
your
presentation,
just
say:
you're,
suggesting
that
we
move
to
a
permitted
process.
Did
your
group
consider
the
impacts
of
making
this
a
permitted
process
on
the
farmers?
There's
obviously
going
to
be
a
cost?
It's
nothing's
ever
simple
when
government's
involved,
so
there's
going
to
be
paperwork,
approval
processes
and
all
that
to
a
permit
was
that
even
considered.
L
L
K
B
I
understand
where
you're
coming
from
in
terms
of
clear-cutting,
potentially
developable
land
and
having
mature
trees
in
the
community
once
it
develops,
is
obviously
better
than
planting
trees
and
it
taking
a
generation
with
a
grow
living
in
a
community.
That's
relatively
new
I
completely
appreciate
that
and
understand.
How
do
you
know
many
as
much
of
that
land
assembly
is
on
a
generational
hunch?
It
might
not
be
in
the
boundary
for
30
or
40
years
right
developers.
Many
of
them
are
taking
a
multi-generational
approach
to
their
business
planning.
B
Most
of
the
developers
in
Ottawa
are
all
family-owned
businesses,
as
you
know,
if
they
wanted
to
harvest
those
trees
and
replant
and
have
a
forestry
operation
if
they
wanted
to
harvest
those
trees
and
put
it
into
agricultural
production
to
get
the
tax
deferrals,
but
also
get
some
income
from
whoever
they
might
be
renting
it
to.
How
do
we
on
what
basis
do
we
judge
whether
or
not
it's
an
appropriate
removal
of
of
the
trees?
B
Do
you
know
what
I
mean
like
how
you
know
McQueary
into
a
slippery
slope
where
we're
judging
a
landowner
based
on
its
based
on
who
they
are
or
what
it
is,
as
opposed
to
something
else
and
I'm
wondering
how
we,
how
you
would
recommend
we
find
that
balance.
We
can't
be
punishing
people
just
because
they
build
homes
for
a
living.
B
L
However,
in
in
you
know,
there
seems
to
have
been
many
more
instances
of
this
pre-emptive
clearing
than
otherwise
productive,
woodlot
management.
In
this
in
this
very
urban
area,
some
people
basically
sit
on
that
most
lot
of
it
isn't
even
farmed
anymore,
a
lot
of
it.
People
sometimes
it's
out
for
release,
and
you
know
some
it's
farmed,
even
though
it's
owned
by
the
land
assembly,
but
a
lot
of
it
isn't
so
it's
really
just
kind
of
sitting
there,
but
at
the
same
time,
I
think.
L
The
judgment
that
you'd
want
to
apply
is
how
significant
is
that
piece
of
woodland
in
the
first
place?
Is
it?
Is
it
really
just
second
growth?
Anyways?
Is
it
just
been
used
to
be
farmland,
and
now
it's
it's?
In
the
last
30
years
it's
been
grown
over
and
now
it
would
never
be
considered
significant.
One
way
or
the
other
if
we
were
to
apply
the
urban
significant
woodland
rules,
in
other
words,
is
it
over
40
years
old?
Is
it
larger
than
a
minimum
threshold
that
would
give
you,
you
know
a
way
to
say?
L
Well,
okay,
here's
here's
the
here's,
the
bits
that
we
would
be
considered
that
we
would
concerned
about.
Not
you
know
not
not
this
kind
of
overgrowth,
not
the
cultural
woodlands
that
are
always
regenerating
anyways.
So
that
would
be
one
way
you're
asking
for
some
suggestions.
Have
you
one
way
to
sort
of
apply
the
logic
of
the
significant
woodland
that's
applied
in
the
urban
expansion
area?
Apply
it
side
of
sort
of
preemptively
just
outside
the
urban
boundary.
H
Thank
You
mr.
chair
and
thank
you
for
your
presentation,
but
you
know
you
gotta,
always
balance
and
I'm
happy
that
you
here
you
on
a
balance,
but
the
problem
is
we're
trying
to
create
a
boiler
or
we're
trying
to
create
to
preserve
a
developer
from
coming
to
the
from
urban
area,
to
rural
area,
or
vice
versa.
But
you
are
trying
to
also
punish
a
farmer
by
you
putting
it
as
permanent
system
on
them.
First
of
all,
they
spend
thousands
and
thousands
of
dollar
to
to
buy
land.
H
They
have
to
clear
the
land
to
create
more
agriculture
and,
as
you
know,
the
agriculture
right
now
in
rural
Iowa,
it's
actually
expanding
because
we
have
better
technology
combined
er,
so
they
need
the
proper.
They
need
that
land
and
the
farmer
are
well
responsible
citizen
and
they
look
after
their
property.
In
fact,
they
actually
planned
to
ease
around
their
property,
to
preserve
erosion,
to
the
to
the
soil,
so
they're
spending
all
that
from
their
own
dollar.
They
spend
days
and
nights
and
farming.
H
And
yet
we
are
looking
the
group
that
you're
representing
well,
let's
put,
let's
implement
more
baile,
let's
move
more
policies
and
that
put
more
layer.
This
thing
is
here:
we're
trying
to
accomplish
is
to
help
them
actually
not
to
really
put
more
policies
and
emphasis
on
them
and
get
by
lot
to
go
visit
them
every
time,
they're
cutting
tree
or
moving
trenches
because
they
know
the
land
they
buy
the
land.
They
understand
the
property.
They
know
where
the
water
going
so
I
really
appreciate
lots
of
people
in
the
City
of
Ottawa.
H
We
start
getting
the
phone
calls
and
that's
what
we're
trying
to
avoid
here,
because
we
need
to
help
our
farmer
to
actually
provide
us
with
food
and
to
keep
the
agriculture
farming
Cohen
I'm
not
trying
to
take
it
on
you,
I'm
just
trying
to
tell
you
this
is
we
need
to
balance
the
City
of
Ottawa
different
than
under
municipality?
If
you
look
at
the
City
of
Ottawa,
we
have
urban
and
we
have
rural
and
we're
massive
geographer
kco.
Always
the
cookie
cutter
doesn't
work
everywhere.
So
we
try
to
have
some
respect
for
them.
I.
L
Understand
and
I
would
like
to
sort
of
that.
Doesn't
relie
characterize
our
position
if
the
bylaw
would
not
apply
to
normal
agricultural
operations,
and
we
know
there's
a
definitional
issue
and
that
has
to
be
clarified.
So
there
will
never
be
a
permit
required
anyways
because
it
doesn't
apply
to
agricultural
operations.
It
would
only
be
knows
few
cases
outside
of
normal
agricultural
operations,
where
there
is
a
true
site
alteration
that
requires
attention,
then
applying
a
permit
applying
for
a
permit
and
getting
a
permit
to
me
would
be
less
of
a
hassle.
L
A
Think
on
the
notion
of
just
forget
two
questions
like
the
notion
of
permits:
I
honestly,
whether
it's
permits,
whether
it's
complaint
driven
I,
think
both
are
not
ideal.
I
think
I
think
there'd
be
a
desire
if
there
was
something
in
between
on
both
sides,
I'm
having
assistants
complaint
driven,
it's
difficult
because
you're
pretty
much
asking
neighbors
to
snitch
on
neighbors
having
a
system
that's
permit
driven,
can
be
onerous
and
overarching
or
overreaching
saurian
and
just
creating
more
hassle
than
is
required
for
certain
people.
That
might
be
doing
nothing
wrong.
So
it's
difficult
in
that
regard.
C
Thank
you
can
share
the
the
language
in
those
sections
is
drawn
directly
from
the
Municipal
Act
with
other
city
bylaws
as
an
example
as
well.
The
powers
of
entry
are
established
under
the
municipal
Act
and
they
are
common
to
any
bylaw
where
we
have
the
need
to
go
out
and
inspect
to
see
whether
an
issue
is
in
fact
present
when
we
get
a
complaint,
so
property
standards.
Bylaw
has
the
same
sort
of
provisions,
many
city
bylaws.
C
Do
we
did
refine
the
final
draft
to
explicitly
exclude
dwellings,
which
is
the
term
used
in
the
Municipal
Act,
but
I
mean
the
the
power
of
entry
is
always
limited
to
exclude
dwellings
in
any
case
under
that
act,
whether
or
not
we
have
that
language
in
our
bylaw.
We
put
it
in
because
we
felt
it
would
help
make
things
clearer
for
residents
who
were
concerned
over
those
powers,
but
bylaw
services
certainly
exercises
those
powers.
K
Mr.
chair,
if
I
can
continue
from
there,
the
Maysville
Act
does
provide
conditions
on
the
exercise
of
the
powers,
and
so
pardon
me
you.
The
person
has
to
provide
notice
that
they're
going
to
exercise
the
power
they
have
to
have
identification.
As
Miss
McPherson
said
they
cannot
go
into
a
dwelling,
and
so
there
are
provisions
in
Section
435
of
the
Municipal
Act
that
govern
the
city's
exercise
of
the
power
of
entry.
Can.
K
K
Thank
you.
It
goes
to
what
one
of
the
presenters
talked
about,
where
someone
might
walk
on
the
property
and
say
they're
from
the
city,
what
I'm
understanding
from
what
you're
saying
mr.
mark
and
the
staff
person
it
would
be
by
law.
So
therefore
to
be
a
City
of
Ottawa
car
and
they
would
be
in
uniform.
So
we
wouldn't
have
like
you,
don't
perceive
the
scenario
where
someone
dressed
like
yourself
or
myself-
are
gonna,
walk
up
and
flash
our
city
ID
and
want
to
inspect
the
property
I.
K
Wish
to
distinguish
practice
from
statutory
requirement.
The
practice
of
the
City
of
Ottawa
would
means
that
it
would
be
so
many.
It
would
be
one
of
the
bylaw
staff
and
they
have
their
uniform
and
they
have
the
City
of
Ottawa
card
with
a
lock.
Oh,
that
is
our
practice
as
a
matter
of
law.
All
that
is
required
is
that
the
person
would
have
identification
showing
that
that
person
was
from
the
City
of
Ottawa.
A
All
right
they
just
before
any
of
the
questions
from
comments
from
mr.
belt
sirs
comments.
I
know,
you're,
taking
notes
on
that.
Could
you
quickly
run
through
some
of
those
scenarios?
I
know
like
I
said:
I've
asked
you
scenarios
in
the
past
and
they
don't
often
they
aren't
often
cut
and
dry
right
I,
just
just
if
you
could
just
kind
of
browse
through
that
and
give
us
your
thoughts
on
those
scenarios.
A
C
Start
with
the
easy
one
shall
we
scenario:
number
five,
where
a
resident
has
a
large
distinctive
tree
on
their
property
and
wants
to
cut
it
down
in
a
neighbor
objects.
That
is
not
a
matter
for
the
site.
Alteration
bylaw
cutting
down
a
tree
is
not
site
alteration
that
might
be
an
issue
if
they
were
in
the
urban
area
where
the
urban
tree
conservation
by
law
applies,
and
that
is
in
fact
where
we
use
the
term
a
distinctive
tree.
C
C
Let's
see
Rita
forest
estate,
Lots
I'm
somewhat
familiar
with
that
area.
Having
worked
there
in
my
previous
life
as
a
consultant
doing
the
environmental
impact
statement
for
that
development
to
occur
prior
to
coming
to
the
city
and
joining
the
Planning
Department,
the
Rideau
forest
development
is
in
a
rural
natural
feature,
so
it
is
largely
built
out
at
this
point.
The
Lots
exist
landowners
buy
the
Lots,
go
in
build
their
homes,
any
conditions
of
approval
long
since
discharged.
C
If
a
new
landowner
was
to
buy
one
of
those
Lots
and
decided
that
they
wanted
to
clear
their
portion
of
you
know,
as
mr.
Belzer
said,
one
and
a
half
acres
of
the
3
acre
lot,
which
we
know
has
happened
and
does
continue
to
happen.
Not
everyone
likes
to
have
you
know
cedar
Bush,
all
over
their
property.
That's
landscaping.
C
So,
even
though
it
is
within
a
rural
natural
feature,
their
landscaping,
their
yard.
Yes,
it's
rather
extensive
landscaping,
but
in
so
doing
they
are
not
removing
the
rural
natural
feature
from
the
landscape,
they're
removing
a
part
of
it.
Yes,
but
again,
landscaping
which
is
exempt
from
the
requirement.
So
they
would
not
need
our
approval
to
do
so.
I.
A
C
C
Some
of
the
rules
would
apply
in
terms
of
sediment
erosion
control
where
necessary,
but
again,
if
they're
crossing
a
creek
I
would
caution
that
if
the
Creek
is
regulated
by
the
conservation
authority,
then
they
might
want
to
check
with
the
conservation
authority
to
see
whether
any
permits
are
required
to
install
a
crossing,
whether
that
counts
as
an
alteration
of
the
waterway.
Similarly,
if
it
was
a
municipal
drain,
they
should
consult
with
our
drainage
superintendents
to
ensure
that
you
know
their
crossing
was
adequate
and
and
not
constraining
the
function
of
that
drain.
C
No,
so
the
yes,
the
fifty
acre
property.
If
all
they're
doing
is
installing
a
trail
system,
then
we
would
expect
them
to
follow
the
rules
in
the
bylaw.
Let's
just
review
here
so
obviously
not
working
on
someone
else's
property
check,
not
causing
drainage
problems
for
their
neighbors,
for
example,
if
they
are
installing
crossings
on
waterways
to
make
sure
that
they're
not
impeding
the
flow
of
the
water
following
any
other
applicable
rules.
C
In
some
cases
we
have
species
at
risk,
concerns
that
landowners
should
be
aware
of.
Then
you
may
need
to
deal
with
the
Ministry
of
Natural,
Resources
and
forest
on
that,
for
example,
if
they
have
butternut
trees
and
that
woodlot
they
want
to
be
careful
not
to
remove
any
without
permit,
but
again
that's
between
them
and
the
province.
Not
us.
C
The
productivity
of
soils
obviously
wouldn't
apply
in
that
particular
case.
As
we've
said
this
landscaping,
they
wouldn't
require
our
approval.
If
they're
working
within
10
metres
of
their
property
boundary
will
I
doubt
it,
but
if
they
are
notify
the
adjacent
neighbor
city,
planner
rule
doesn't
apply,
because
this
is
not
a
development
situation.
C
So
if
they
do
need
to
import
any
fill
to
make
minor
grading
changes
or
whatever
to
please
make
sure
that
it's
not
you
know,
contaminated
or
full
of
trash
or
that
sort
of
thing
very
basic
and
I
and
I
mean.
Certainly
it's
been
mentioned
many
times
today
that
farmers
in
particular
are
well
known
for
stewardship
of
their
land.
It's
part
of
their
livelihood
and
the
rules
that
would
apply
to
farmers
under
this
bylaw
include
those
last
three
rules.
Best
practices
for
farming
cover
those.
C
Obviously,
no
farmer
is
going
to
import
and
use
substandard
fill
on
their
land
that
they
use
to
farm.
No
farmer
is
going
to
allow
sedimentation
and
erosion
to
occur.
That's
their
livelihood,
running
off
or
blowing
off
the
field.
So
we
fully
anticipate
that
any
farmer
would
have
no
issue
whatsoever
complying
with
these
rules.
I.
A
Think
I
would
just
say:
I
know
there
was
other
examples,
maybe
if
mr.
Meltzer
can
share
those
with
mr.
Macpherson
and
you
have
that
exchange
sort
of
I
mean
you've
seen
the
answer
to
you
a
couple
of
them
three
of
them.
If
you
could
just
share
them
with
her
and
then
you
can
have
that
discussion,
you
know
like
I,
think
may.
D
Early
miss
Dolan,
asked
me
a
question
and
I
really
didn't
have
the
answer.
Man
I
hope
you
can
clarify
it
to
all
of
us
here.
So,
let's
see,
I
live
on
five
acres
and
I
wanna
do
some
more
with
the
30
meter
from
environment.
That's
across
the
street
from
me
across
the
road
from
me
is
wetland
or
protected
area.
Do
I
need
to
come
to
this
city
for
consultation
or
a
permit
or
I
can
just
do
the
work
on
mine,
because
if
you
measure
the
30
meter
maybe
cross
the
road
is
closer
to
so.
C
Councilor,
it
would
depend
on
the
nature
of
the
work,
certainly,
as
we've
said,
landscaping
yard
maintenance
putting
up
a
fence
any
of
these.
You
know
working
on
your
private
services
in
terms
of
construction
or
maintenance
of
those
services.
All
of
those
things
are
exempt
from
that
rule,
so
you
would
not
require
permission
from
the
city
ahead
of
time
if
there
was
some
more
major
type
of
site
alteration
that
was
still
not
related
to
a
development
and
I'm
having
trouble
thinking
of
an
example
on
a
five
acre
lot
that
that
would
meet
those
criteria.
C
But
in
that
case,
if
the
person
was
to
contact
the
Planning
Department,
we
would
follow
the
same
sort
of
rules
that
we
apply
when
we're
reviewing.
Whether
an
environmental
impact
statement
is
needed
in
a
development
scenario,
and
quite
often
in
cases
where
the
development
is
on
the
other
side
of
a
road
from
the
future
or
there
are
other
mitigating
circumstances
that
would
dictate
just
on
the
I.
Don't
you
know
first
blush,
look
at
it
that
whatever
you
were
planning
to
do
would
not
have
an
impact.
The
environmental
plan
are
doing.
C
That
review
has
the
ability
to
say
you
don't
need
an
environmental
assessment.
You
know
you
don't
need
an
environmental
impact
statement
rather
and
that
you
know,
based
on
what
you've
told
me
you
want
to
do
and
my
understanding
of
the
situation
you're
good
to
go,
and
that
would
be
the
full
extent
of
it.
So,
certainly
if
people
are
confused,
whether
the
rules
apply,
they
can
contact
a
development,
inspection
officer
or
an
information
officer,
as
you
know,
as
they
would
for
any
other
project.
C
I've
been
briefing
the
D
iOS
and
they
will
have
the
brochure
is
available,
so
they
can
help
people
work
their
way
through
this.
If
there
are
any
questions
about
whether
or
not
the
rules
would
apply,
but
certainly
for
most
magic
hour
activities
on
a
small
lot
like
you're
describing
on
the
other
side
of
the
road
I
would
expect
we
would
be
sending
them
on
their
way
to
carry
on
what
they
wanted
to
do
with
very
little
delay.
We.
D
H
You
mr.
chair
and
I
want
to
first
thank
you.
Amy
and
I
know
that
your
extensive
work,
you've
been
you've,
been
great,
going
out
to
the
community
and
talking
to
our
resident,
but
I
want
to
start
where
councillor
Moffat
finish
and
some
of
those
example
that
Klaus
gave
you
do
you
any
of
them.
You
see
any
issue
or
will
trigger
site
alteration.
C
Councillor
to
the
extent
that
any
site
alteration
would
be
expected
to
be
compliant
with
the
rules,
then
it
would
be
triggered,
but
as
I
say,
there
certainly
encloses
examples.
There
were
several
where
it's
very
few
of
these
rules
would
apply.
You
know
the
basic
six,
basically
would
be.
You
know,
don't
work
on
someone
else's
property
without
their
permission,
don't
cause
drainage
problems.
C
C
So
if
there
was
a
site
plan
requirement,
then
they
would
be
expected
to
go
through
that
process
and
then
any
conditions
of
approval
of
the
site
plan
would
be
what
they
were
bound
by,
and
you
know
some
of
these
other
rules
would
then
fall
off
the
table
for
them
in
that
case.
So
in
most
cases,
though,
it's
the
very
very
basic
rules
of
common
sense
really
would
apply
to
anyone
doing
site
alteration
work
on
their
property
and
we
would,
we
would
hope.
C
H
C
Any
of
those
examples
you
just
mentioned
would
serve
certainly
to
get
the
discussion
started.
There
may
be
some
cases
where
we
do
need
to
require
an
environmental
impact
statement
to
be
done
in
cases
where
you
know
something.
Substantial
is
planned
that
might
cause
an
impact
to
one
of
our
identified
natural
areas
in
the
Official
Plan.
However,
in
many
cases,
as
we
find
in
the
in
the
planning
process,
you
know
minor
sorts
of
activities
can
be
reviewed
and
approved
by
the
environmental
planner
quite
quickly
and
written.
You
know,
email,
something
like
that
could
be
issued.
C
That
would
say
that,
based
on
what
you've
submitted
to
us,
you
have
our
approval
to
proceed.
And
again
that's
certainly
one
of
the
rules
that
does
fall
off
the
table
if
they've
gone
through
the
planning
process,
with
an
actual
development
application
or
a
building
permit
application.
So
if
they're
willing
to
wait
until
they
get
their
approval
from
us
under
those
processes
before
beginning
the
work,
then
you
know
that
that
satisfies
that
rule,
but.
C
Certainly
not
for
farmers
know
when
the
you
know,
I'm
aware
of
many
circumstances
where
farmers
are.
You
know
clearing
what
we
would
consider
to
be
significant
woodlands
because
of
rising
commodity
prices
have
made
the
land
much
more
productive
and
made
it
worth
their
while
to
start
farming
them
again,
and
so
you
know,
while
some
folks
may
regret
the
loss
of
the
wood
Lots,
the
city
has
recognized
in
its
Official
Plan,
the
primacy
of
farming
in
agricultural
resource
areas,
and
certainly
in
general
rural
areas.
C
Let's
be
frank.
City
staff
are
quite
well
aware
that
given
ottawa's
long
history
most
of
the
lands
in
the
rural
area,
how
been
attempted
to
be
farmed,
at
least
at
some
point
in
their
history
Ottawa-
has
very
very
few
truly
old
growth,
wood,
Lots
and
other
long-established
natural
areas.
The
natural
areas
that
we
have
designated
for
environmental
preservation
are
still
on
the
landscape
because
they
really
couldn't
be
farmed.
C
There
was
no
way
so
or
they
were
in
in
large
extent,
in
public
ownership
for
a
long
time
like
many
of
the
lands
in
the
Marlborough
Forest
in
those
sorts
of
areas.
So
that's
where
we're
you
know
we
we
do
maintain
the
primacy
of
environmental
protection
in
those
areas,
but
in
most
other
areas
of
the
city,
the
general
area
and
the
agricultural
resource
area.
Those
wood
Lots
are
much
younger
for
the
most
part,
and
so
farming
is
elevated.
There
I.
H
H
Can
you
clarify
the
bylaw
that
right
now,
if
let's
say
someone
clearing
his
property
and
as
you
know,
a
farmer
take
a
dictum
time
by
the
time
they
got
a
contractor's
or
somebody
to
come
to
clear
their
farm
and
I
understand
that
exam,
but
just
just
to
give
you
an
example
of
where
people
are
having
an
anxiety.
So
let's
say
this
farmer
is
cleaning
is
prepping.
He
got
a
contractor
people
coming
out
to
clean
his
property.
H
As
you
know,
it's
a
process
for
them
and
they
also
have
to
make
sure
that
they
have
a
good
weather,
because
mother
nature
is
challenge
to
them.
Also,
and
then
the
work
start
start
right
now
and
then
someone
may
complain
or
make
a
call
on
this
farmer
or
on
this
property
right
now.
We
know
as
a
counselor
one
hour
when
we
get
the
phone
call
in
our
offices,
because
we
know
we
get
them
first
and
then
they
start
calling
biologic
art.
They
start
calling
three
one
one.
H
What
is
this
can
translate
to
the
new
boiler
that
we're
implementing
and
I
understand
where
you
come
in
and
I
am
stand
at
their
exam,
you
and
I.
We
know
that,
but
is
it
the
three
one
one
people
that
are
gonna?
Take
that
call?
Is
it
Candace?
Are
you
going
to
send
a
boiler
now
to
stop
to
the
farmer,
say:
hey
hold
on
what
are
you
doing?
You
don't
have
permission
or
yes,
give
us
permission,
but
for
now
stop
your
operation.
H
These
are
the
two
hours
or
the
one
day
right
now,
if
we
have
a
neighbor,
if
we
have
a
call
by
law
on
in
any
circumstances,
Andrew
Loura,
you
need
a
day
or
two
to
have
a
boiler
up
there
to
investigate
the
situation.
Is
this
what
we
are
trying
to
create
right
now?
Are
we
gonna,
create
nuisance
to
our
farmer
or
we're
gonna
hold
up
their
operation,
and
these
are
where
the
MIS
and
misleading
and
the
language
that
we
are?
H
As
you
know
like
working
with
the
committee
here
sitting
discussing
this
and
as
some
delegation
you
heard
from
them,
they
might
be
wrong.
They
might
be
right,
but
there
is
so
much
translation
and
and
wording
in
this
boiler.
That's
not
clear
and
that's
what
it's
creating
this
and
anxiety.
So
can
you
give
me
an
example?
So
can
you
tell
me
how
the
process
will
proceed
if
someone
call
you
or
call
3-1-1
on
someone
and
when
we,
when
we
implement
this
pilot.
C
Certainly,
there
is
a
flowchart
in
the
staff
report
that
shows
the
basic
process,
but
I
have
been
working
closely
with
3-1-1
operatives
to
ensure
that
they
will
have
that
correct
information
in
front
of
them
to
direct
those
calls.
I
will
say
that
the
Rural
Affairs
Office
is
very
kindly
offered
to
field
all
rural
based
calls
all
the
rural
based
complaints
unless,
of
course,
their
drainage
related,
in
which
case
they
go
to
the
drainage
guys.
C
But
in
those
cases
where
someone's
calling
a
complaint
about
something
that
a
farmer
is
doing
the
instant,
they
say
the
word
farmer,
staffs
antenna
are
going
to
go
up
and
certainly
the
Rural
Affairs
Office
is
very
familiar
with.
You
know:
what's
going
on
out
there
in
the
rural
area,
if
it,
if
the
call
is
complaining
about
a
farmer
clearing
a
natural
area,
that's
where
we
can
stop
the
complainant
right
there
and
say.
Excuse
me,
you
did
say
that
your
neighbor
is
a
farmer
they're
allowed
to
do
that
under
this
bylaw.
H
Let's,
let's
say
the
call
is
not
in
they
didn't
specific,
specify
and
say
a
farmer
somebody
driving
by
saw
a
tractor
and
somebody
cleaning
trees
and
they
throw
their
hands
up
and
trigger
a
flag
and
they
call
3-1-1
and
they
didn't
tell
you
it
as
you
know
that
so
many
some
there
is
always
three
story
to
the
story.
There
is
yours,
mine
and
the
truth.
This
is
the
cases
I'm
talking
about
and
that's
where
I
want
to
really
know
and
and.
C
In
those
cases
where
it's
not
clear,
that's
when
we
might
get
to
the
point
I
mean
you
can
do
a
lot
from
aerial
photography.
These
days
too,
the
city
has
excellent
aerial
photography.
So
again,
if
we're
looking
at
the
site,
you
know
we,
we
obviously
need
an
address.
That's
that's
standard.
You
have
to
have
an
address
to
work
from
so
once
we've
got
the
address,
we
look
it
up
and
we
take
a
look
and
we
say
well,
gee,
look!
That's
you
know
that
land
is
in
the
agricultural
resource
area
and
from
the
aerial
photography.
C
I
can
tell
it's
a
firm,
so
we
have
a
farmer
clearing
a
woodlot
on
his
farm.
That's
not
requiring
our
approval,
that's
not
a
problem
under
the
bylaw.
We
would
tell
the
complainant
that
again,
the
farmer
doesn't
need
to
be
inconvenienced
at
all,
because
we
can
work
from
the
available
information
we
have
if
it
ever
did
come
that
we
couldn't
be
sure.
Maybe
someone
goes
out
and
you
know,
takes
a
quick
drive
past
and
sees
what's
going
on.
They
don't
have
to
stop
and
go
on
the
property.
They
can
go
and
say.
C
C
Information
that
we're
going
to
have
on
the
website
clearly
spells
out
that
farmers
are
allowed
to
farm
and
that
normal
farm
practices
include
a
wide
variety
of
activities,
some
of
which,
yes,
you
know.
Other
people
may
find
objectionable,
but
that's
not
an
offence
under
this
bylaw
and
we
did
actually
revise
the
definition
of
normal
farm
practice
in
consultation
with
the
Ontario
Federation
of
agriculture
to
add
the
ref
Curren.
H
Thank
you,
I
have
like
a
reporting
extra
anytime,
you
implement
a
bylaw
and
anytime
you
implement
in
you.
Do
we
have
a
resources
in
the
city
or
on
the
bylaw?
Have
we
have
this
discussion
with
the
bylaw
to
be
able
to
see
if
they're
going
to
be
able
to
enforce
that
boiler
that
we
are
implementing
and
are
they
well
trained
and
in
a
rural
setting?
Are
they
well
trained
to
know?
What
is
every
area
has
a
different
dynamic?
H
C
Have
had
conversations
with
bylaw
services,
of
course,
as
with
any
new
program
as
you're
aware,
it
is
a
question
of
asking
staff
to
do
more
without
giving
them
more.
We
are
implementing
this
bylaw
using
existing
resources.
The
expertise
required
does
not
always
reside
within
bylaw
services.
That
is
why
the
flowchart
directs
calls
to
areas
with
expertise.
It
will
not
always
be
a
bylaw
officer
that
is,
you
know,
called
upon
to
go
out
to
the
site,
although
certainly
it
may
be
possible
that
we're
needed
by
law
would
be
asked
to
accompany
expert
staff
on
their
inspections.
C
H
We
be
able
to
have-
maybe
mr.
chair
I'm,
not
sure
how,
but
can
we
be
able
to
have
a
comment
from
the
bylaw
themself
and
what
this
is
going
to
impact
and
what
resources
they're
gonna
clear
and
take
off,
because
all
the
time
when
you're
implementing
something
without
giving
them
something
it's
going
to
take
resources
from
somewhere.
As
we
know
right
now,
we
already
stretch
and
bylaws
we
implement
so
many
bylaw.
A
C
Certainly,
just
just
to
clarify,
we
have
worked
with
bylaw
services
throughout
the
development
of
this
bylaw
and
and
I
am
well
aware
that
they
are
indeed
concerned
if
they
were
going
to
be
asked
to
implement
this
fully
on
their
own.
They
wouldn't
be
able
to
do
it
absolutely
not,
which
is
why
we
had
to
come
up
with
the
distributed
system
of
enforcement.
That
is
before
you
in
the
staff
report.
C
So
we
have
had
these
discussions
with
them
and,
as
with
every
other
group,
they
are
always
of
course
concerned
with
being
asked
to
do
more
with
what
they
have.
But
that's
why,
again
we're
not
going
to
be
relying
on
them
to
enforce
this
in
its
entirety.
The
drainage
calls,
as
I
said,
will
continue
to
go
to
the
same
staff
who
are
currently
implementing
those
provisions
under
the
drainage
by
law.
C
H
You
I
I
want
to
thank
you
a
lot
and
I
hope
that
we
have
some
I
still
like
to
hear
from
the
bylaw
before,
with
this
code
to
council.
I
just
want
to
say
it's:
it's
been
long,
it's
been
longer
process.
I
know,
we've
been
consulting
with
us
too
many
stakeholder.
There
was
a
lots
of
question
lots
of
clarification
and
I
I
would
say
if
we
didn't
have
this
motion.
I
personally
wouldn't
support
this
report.
I
want
to
thank
mr.
H
Willis
and
yourself
and
your
team
and
my
counselor
colleague
on
understanding
the
situation
and
understand
understanding
the
sensitivity
of
the
language
and
the
bylaw
moving
moving
the
surrounding
boundary
to
two
kilometer,
which
is
one
concession,
I'm,
really
satisfied
with
its.
It
is
an
anxiety
in
our
community
and
for
our
resident
and
also
the
language
that
of
the
bylaw
will
come
back
to
this
committee,
so
we'll
be
able
to
review
and
making
sure
there
is
no
confusion.
You
see
for
you
to
be
successful
to
implement
this.
H
It's
also
important
the
education
piece
of
it
and
if
we're
because
we're
the
frontline
or
people
come
come
to
us,
people
come
to
our
offices,
we
divert
we
direct
a
lots
of
question
that
we
don't
bug
staff,
sometimes
because
what
the
expertise
that
our
staff
we
have
in
our
offices,
we
don't
want,
as
a
city
councillor
get
bombarded
by
calls
by
email
by
extra
steps
that
we
have
to
do,
that
it
doesn't
exist
and
I
hope.
You
appreciate
us.
Looking
at
this
very
I
know
we
put
it
under
the
microscope.
H
I
know
we
have
a
different
language
and
we
call
a
different
name,
but
it's
not
to
attack
what
we're
trying
to
do.
It's
just
important
the
clarification
and
education
piece
to
our
resident
and
to
our
community
because
believe
it
or
not
we're
we
have
a
massive.
The
City
of
Ottawa
is
dynamic.
As
you
know,
it's
a
massive
geographically
and
we
have
a
challenges.
Yes,
we
have
a
drainage
challenge.
We
have
a
lots
of
you
mention
it.
H
That's
so
many
people
that
have
no
common
sense
and
that's
what
it
create
those
us
to
do
those
governor
and
do
those
do
those
by
law.
So
I
I
personally
appreciate
all
the
work
you've
done.
Our
community
appreciate
it
and
I
know
that
it's
always
when
you
have
a
new
boiler
and
a
new
language.
It's
the
education
piece,
it's
the
most
important
and
it
is
the
hardest
believe
it
or
not
to
be
able
to
go
out
to
the
community
and
be
able
to
talk
to
them
about
it.
So
thank
you.
H
I
want
to
thank
my
colleagues
and
I
want
to
talk.
Thank
the
chair,
Scott
has
been,
has
been
taking
lots
of
questions
and
lots
of
heat
from
us
on
this
file,
but
he
really
balanced
the
report
and
work
with
us
very
closely
to
making
sure
we
have
successful,
successful
site
alteration,
bylaw
and
just
want
to.
Thank
you
very
much
and
thank
you,
mr.
Wallace,
also
for
your
clothes
working
on
that
with
us
on
that
file.
H
A
You,
let's
have
some
questions
just
on
the
mr.
would
when
he
was
presenting
mr.
Merck
was
discussing
the
farming
and
food
Protection
Act
and
how
this
by
law
may
not
align
with
that
with
provincial
policy
and
how
it's
written,
I
mean
I.
Think
that's
a
part
of
the
motion
here:
the
direction
of
staff
legal
staff
to
review
the
text
of
the
bylaw
to
ensure
that
we're
covering
off
the
I
cultural
aspect,
adequately,
I
think
we'd
go
a
step
further.
I
do
believe
that
this
bylaw
needs
an
ankylosaur
exemption
and
I
I
know
it's
in
there.
A
I
know
everything.
You've
said
you
know,
I
hear
everything
you
say:
I
have
no
problem
with
it.
I
know,
I
interpret
it
today
as
well.
I'm,
not
personally
I'm,
not
concerned
with
how
I
interpret
it
today.
I'm
not
concerned
with
how
you
contributed
today,
I'm
concerned
with
who's
here
next
who's
here
in
20
years,
whose
insurance
bylaw
later
on.
What
do
they
see
it,
as
and
without
that?
A
Full
agriculture
exemption
I'm
worried
about
what
this
could
become
later,
but
certainly
the
farming
and
food
production
Act
suggests
that
this
should
say
something
that
it
doesn't
I
think
we
need.
We
need
that.
So
just
I
know
you
got
up
here
so
so
Steve
Willis
happens
to
be
the
general
manager
in
question.
He's
he's
the
section
12
guy
it
Mike
sent
lot
he's
got
to
press
it
or.
B
Stealers
mr.
chair
I
think
one
of
the
deputies
made
a
really
good
suggestion
that
other
municipalities
have
language
right
up
front
and
the
bylaws
that
we
don't
have
to
reinvent
the
wheel.
Absolutely
address
this
issue
and
with
mr.
marks
team's
help
we'll
find
that
will
put
something
like
this
in
because
we've
said
all
along.
This
does
not
apply
to
farming
and
I,
see
no
reason
why
we
can't
take
that
suggestion
and
do
as
as
people
recommend
it
to
us
correct.
Thank.
A
A
A
Section
24
each,
which
is
the
portion
that
speaks
to
drainage.
So
it's
currently
says
sigh
alteration
is
undertaken
as
an
incidental
'san
exemption,
so
general
exemptions
salvation
is
undertaken
as
an
incidental
part
of
construction
of
drainage
works
and
the
drainage
act
as
amended
or
tile
drainage
act
as
amended,
it
was
wonderful.
Iike
I
was
hoping
we
could
add
maintenance
and
repair
to
the
wording
there.
The
reality
is
that
under
the
drainage
act,
there's
a
lot
more
than
just
construction
tasks
to
be
taking
it
takes
place.
A
In
fact,
construction
of
a
drain
happens
virtually
once.
Maintenance
and
repair
is
what
happens
all
the
time,
and
the
worry
here
is
that
we
have
a
document,
a
report
or
a
bylaw
that
is
actually
making
it
more
difficult
for
another
one
of
our
city
departments
to
operate
and
function
properly
as
they
as
they
feel
requests
from
residents
on
the
maintenance
of
Musil
drains
under
a
provincial
legislation.
C
Councillor,
we
did
in
fact
look
into
this
with
legal.
The
bylaw
does
not
apply
to
the
city's
own
activities.
There
are
some
who
regret
that,
but
legally
it
does
not
apply
to
any
activities
undertaken
by
the
city.
So
any
work
done
on
a
municipal
drain
to
maintain
or
or
clean
it
out,
he's
exempt
already
fair.
A
C
Only
reason
why
it
wasn't
added
in
the
first
place
is
because
that
is
the
exact
wording
from
the
municipal
act.
They
specifically
explicitly
exempt
construction,
but
for
whatever
reason
they
do
not
men
the
construction,
the
maintenance
aspect
of
it,
as
I
say
in
our
case
that,
may
you
know
it
doesn't
matter,
because
all
such
work
is
done
by
the
municipality.
It
may
be
in
other
municipalities
that
it's
not
perhaps
that's
why
that
wording.
Isn't
there?
My.
A
A
Okay,
so
so
through
this
motion,
the
intent
of
the
motion
will
hopefully
bring
this
back
to
the
intent
of
what
the
bylaw
was
in
the
first
place,
which
was
to
talk
about
concerns
around
land
surrounding
urban
boundary.
I
know,
there's
some
concerns
with
lands
outside
in
the
general
rural
area,
but
I
don't
feel
that
section.
10
I
felt
the
section
10
goes
a
bit
further
than
it
needs
to.
You
know
something
doing
some
work
on
lands
that
are
30
kilometers
away
from
their
boundary
I.
A
Don't
think
she
have
to
worry
about
how
section
10
applies
to
them,
so
I
think
the
motion
that's
before
us
councillor,
interior's
motion
allows
staff
to
go
and
look
at
how
section
10
could
be
revised
to
make
it
more
distinct
to
a
certain
area.
You
know
it's
not
perfect,
I'm
not
going
to
pretend
it's
perfect,
but
it's
I
think
it's
a
it's
a
it's
a
better
step
than
what
we
have
before
us.
As
for
the
the
text,
the
text
of
the
bylaw,
the
motion
also
requests
that
the
actual
text
of
I'll
come
back
to
us.
A
A
We
need
to
see
that
I
think
we
want
to
see
that
at
this
committee
before
it
goes
back
to
council,
it
doesn't
impact
the
urban
side,
whatever
happens,
whatever
planning
committees
approved
that
pertains
to
their
mandates,
their
committee
and
we're
not
touching
that
just
as
planning
committee
wouldn't
touch
our
mandate.
That's
the
whole
point
of
why
this
comes
to
both
committees,
so
I
feel
this
motion
allows
us
to
do
that
and
I
look
forward
to
continuing
work
on
this
in
the
next
month.
A
So
again,
so
so
on
the
any
of
the
questions
on
the
amendment
there,
the
motion
option
here
some
cancellation
shares
motion
carried
and
then
on
the
report
as
amended
carried
so
again.
So
all
things
considered.
This
goes
to
it's
an
awkward
process,
but
this
goes
to
Council
next
week
and
then
it
comes.
Is
that
correct?
This
goes
to
Council
next
week,
but
then
it
comes
back
to
arakh
in
on
May
3rd
and
then
back
to
council
may
9th
as
awkward
as
that
is
that's
the
process
that
this
will
go
through
all
right.
A
So
we
had,
there
was
actually
gonna
be
so
in
camera
items
there.
No
there's!
No
one
can
ever
items
here
because
we
never
have
any
information
previous
distributed
on
our
agenda.
We
have
this
breakfast
on
the
farm.
It's
a
neat,
little
initiative
where
it's
the
food
and
farm
ones.
Here
it's
an
event,
that's
taking
place
at
a
farm
in
North,
corn,
September
and
our
real
affairs
office
has
been
working
with
F
side
group
to
to
put
this
on.
A
Hopefully,
the
group
that
was
putting
it
on
wasn't
able
to
come
here
today,
hoping
that
they
can
come
here
at
a
later
meeting
and
sort
of
just
highlight
exactly
what
this
is
they're
working
with
a
local
farmer
in
in
in
North
corridor.
Foster
on
this
on
this
thing,
so
the
city
is
actually
supporting
it
through
the
Rural
Affairs
Office.
So
that's
just
a
note
here
to
talk
about
what
exactly
that
is
open
mic
session.
There
is
no
one
registered
inquiries,
none
other
business,
none
adjournment!