►
From YouTube: Ottawa City Council – November 23, 2016
Description
Ottawa City Council meeting – November 23, 2016
Agenda and background materials can be found at http://www.ottawa.ca/agendas
A
D
A
D
A
B
H
H
We're
gonna
begin
today
with
just
a
few
short
remarks
on
a
community
leader
whom
we
we
lost
a
short
time
ago.
It's
with
great
sadness
that
Ottawa
has
recently
lost
an
important
community
leader,
Mitch
Owens,
who
held
public
office
in
what
was
the
first,
the
township
and
then
the
city
of
Gloucester.
For
25
years,
he
passed
away
on
Thursday
November
17th,
born
in
1921
to
a
small
farming
community
north
of
Winnipeg.
Mr.
Owens
made
his
way
to
the
Ottawa
area
in
the
1950s
having
been
posted
here
with
the
RCMP
in
the
early
1960s.
Mr.
H
Owens
left
the
RCMP
and
settled
in
Gloucester,
where
he
started
a
business
obtained
his
real
estate
license
and
entered
politics
as
a
councillor
in
1966.
In
addition
to
councillor
mr.
Owens
held
the
titles
of
deputy
Reeve
and
mayor
before
leaving
politics
in
1991,
the
rural
road
were
his
century
old
stone
home
in
hundred
and
twelve
acre
farm
stood,
was
renamed
Mitch
Owens
Road
a
year
later
and
still
bears
his
name
today.
Our
heartfelt
condolences
today
are
with
the
mr.
Owens
family
and
friends,
and
all
those
who
are
impacted
by
his
loss.
H
H
Thank
you
very
much
and
now
I'll
ask
councilor
Qadri
to
introduce
a
very
impressive
squadron
of
children.
Who've
joined
us
today,
I
think
Chad.
That's
the
biggest
group
I've
ever
seen
in
this
chamber.
If
you
could
take
a
moment
to
introduce
the
wonderful
aquire,
that's
joined
us
from
guardian
angels,
Catholic
elementary
school.
Thank.
I
You
very
much
deputy
mayor
and
good
morning,
everyone
good
morning,
counselor
colleagues,
audience
and
the
hall,
as
well
as
the
audience
on
Rogers
22.
It
is
indeed
my
sincere
honor
and
great
privilege
to
introduce
to
you
a
fine
group
of
young
adults
from
Ward.
Sixth,
it's
Ville.
These
are
the
young
people
from
guardian
angel
Elementary
School
in
Statesville,
and
the
choir
is
made
up
of
students
from
grades
three,
four
five
and
six
and
they're
led
by
their
grade
six
teacher
Joanne
Costanza
welcome
to
ina
once
a
once.
I
A
week,
these
dedicated
individuals
devote
their
lunchtime
recess
to
rehearse
often
often
missing
out
on
opportunities
to
play
outside
and
enjoy
the
great
weather,
especially
in
the
summer.
The
choir
leads
this
their
voice
to
school
masses,
assemblies,
their
annual
remembrance,
a
ceremony,
and
now
here
it
is
at
City
Hall
testing.
For
us
they
are
extremely
excited
and
honored
to
be
here
this
morning
and
to
have
this
opportunity
to
represent
Statesville
ward
six
to
sing
our
National
Anthem.
It
is
my
thrill
to
let
you
know
invite
them
into
this
hall
and
present
to
you.
H
Ladies
and
gentlemen,
it's
my
honor
and
pleasure
today
to
stand
in
for
the
mayor
to
present
the
mayor's
city
builder
award
and
at
this
time,
I'd
like
to
invite
miss
Debbie
who
chart
to
the
podium
for
this
meetings.
City
builder
award
presentation
and
also
like
to
invite
miss
who
charts,
counselor,
counselor,
Lal
Shanti
Rhee
to
join
us
as
well.
H
Executive
boards
of
the
West
Carlton
Minor
Hockey
Association
and
the
West
Carlton
Skating
Club,
where
she
takes
on
responsibilities
above
and
beyond
her
duties.
No
task
is
too
small
for
Debbie.
He
had
organizing
team
photos
and
apparel
extra
training
for
program
assistants
or
helping
on
various
committees
within
the
organizations.
Debbie
also
manages
to
find
time
to
volunteer
with
the
Huntley
Centennial
public
school
Debbie
raise
you
eagle,
mo
I
left
I
by
minute,
Timmy.
E
J
I
A
A
H
A
You
mr.
mayor
and
my
colleague
today
we
have
a
special
guest
with
us.
We
have
44th
student
grade
five
and
six
from
Osgood
public
school
all
the
way
from
Osgood
to
City
Hall
I
like
to
welcome
them
with
their
teacher,
mrs.
Hammonds
and
mr.
Morelle,
for
bringing
them
all
the
way
down
and
giving
them
tours
for
City
Hall,
my
office
staff
and
the
student
and
the
teacher
will
be
touring
City
Hall
this
after
this
this
morning,
and
also
they
are.
They
have
very
interests
to
learning
about
their
citizen
responsibilities
and
seeing
City
Hall
in
action.
A
Also,
they
have
interests
in
poverty,
homelessness
and
transit
issues
in
the
city
they
like
to
learn
about.
So
I
want
to
thank
their
the
student
for
being
here
with
their
parents
that
they
volunteer
their
time
to
bring
them
here,
to
show
them
and
to
give
them
a
tour
in
City
Hall.
So
I
like
to
welcome
them,
and
thank
you
for
coming
here
thanks
mr.
mayor.
H
L
Thank
You
deputy
mayor
I
was
at
the
launch
on
Monday
at
the
OPP
station
for
the
ride
program.
This
is
a
program
they
do
each
year
to
ensure
that
people
who
drink
or
take
drugs
are
not
behind
the
wheel
and
to
rep
to
give
some
publicity
to
that.
They
have
done
these.
The
represent
of
MADD
were
there
two
of
the
Mothers
Against
Drunk
Driving,
and
they
ask
that
you
put
this,
tie
it
to
the
intent
of
your
car
to
indicate
that
your
support
the
program
is
what
these
are
for.
I
have
a
few
extras
here.
L
H
You
very
much
councillor
certainly
a
very
important
message,
particularly
as
we
enter
this
time
of
year.
I'd
also
like
to
point
out
that
this
year,
as
in
other
years,
coming
up
next
week
on
December
1st,
the
Youth
Services
Bureau
is
going
to
be
conducting
its
annual
sleep
out
for
youth
to
raise
awareness
about
youth
homelessness.
I
will
be
sleeping
out
this
year
on
the
redblacks
field,
but
not
at
game.
H
Today,
of
course,
we
are
highly
highly
energized
about
our
redblacks,
going
to
going
to
the
Grey,
Cup
and,
of
course,
looking
forward
to
hosting
the
Grey
Cup
next
year
and
not
to
put
them
on
the
spot.
But
deputy
mayor
Manette,
you
are
the
who
are
the
number
one
football
fan.
Can
you
give
us
offer
some
thoughts
on
our
redblacks
this
year?.
A
H
A
B
M
A
A
H
You
very
much
confirmation
of
minutes
confirmation
of
the
minutes
of
the
regular
council
meeting
of
November
9
2016
carried
declarations
of
interest,
including
those
originally
arising
from
prior
meetings.
Any
declarations
cube
communications
as
listed
received
and
cute
regrets
mayor
Watson
has
indicated
his
absence
today
due
to
illness
motion
to
introduce
reports.
Councillors
cliché
in
Wilkinson
councillor
couch
a
please
Thank
You.
Mr.
A
Deputy
mayor
that
the
report
entitled
status,
update
update
to
council
inquiries
and
motions
for
the
period
ending
18th
of
November
2016,
the
report
from
the
Ottawa
Board
of
Health
entitled
regulating
personal
services,
settings
community
and
Protective
Services
Committee
report.
Nineteen
planning
committee
report
35
a
and
Transit
Commission
report,
11
be
received
and
considered
and
that
pursuant
to
subsection,
35
five
five
of
procedure,
bylaw
2014,
four
four
one
council
receive
and
consider
planning
committee
report.
Thirty
six.
H
Carried
cute
reports
will
go
through
a
consent,
agenda,
city
clerk
and
solicitor's
office
status,
update
council
enquiries
in
motions
for
the
period
ending
18
November
2016
received
q,
Ottawa
Board
of
Health
item
number
two
regulating
personal
services
settings.
Dr.
levy
is
here
to
answer
any
questions.
I
haven't
received
any
from
any
members
of
council
in
advance.
Does
anybody
wish
to
hold
this
or
may
we
carry
it
Mary?
Thank
you
very
much
community
Protective
Services
Committee
report
19.
H
We
have
three
motions
from
councillor:
Qadri
and
Dean's
Dean's
and
Brockington
brockington
and
Dean's,
as
well
as
the
main
report
updates
to
municipal
alcohol
policy
and
minor
amendments
to
applicable
policies.
I'll
ask
the
councillors
to
introduce
their
reports
and
then,
unless
there's
a
desire
to
debate,
this
will
take
them
all
collectively.
So
councillor
Qadri
councillor
for
yourself
and
councillor
Dean's,
please.
I
Thank
you
very
much
deputy
mayor
and
yeah.
The
motion
is
seconded
by
Councillor
Dean's
and
basically,
what
the
motion
is
suggesting
is
to
include
the
Ottawa
Public
Health
in
terms
of
discussions
going
forward
as
well
as
in
this
particular
motion.
So
I'll
just
read
the
therefore
be
resolved.
This
is
as
a
result
of
a
report
that
was
presented
at
out
of
a
public
board,
a
health
and
it
was
approved
in
November.
Third,
so
therefore,
we
resolved
that
section.
I
5.1
of
the
proposed
municipal
alcohol
policy
document
one
be
amended
to
ensure
that
the
revised
guide
document
entitled
your
planning
guide
for
hosting
an
event
at
which
alcohol
will
be
available.
Include
information
on
the
following
subject
matters
and
be
part
of
the
documentation
given
by
the
city
under
the
city's
municipal,
alcohol
policy
to
every
event,
sponsor
or
organization
for
either
electronically
or
hardcopy,
and
there's
a
seven
list
of
items
there.
Mr.
I
Providing
alternative
non-alcoholic
beverages,
including
the
provisions
of
water,
to
event
participants
and
be
it
further
resolved
that
the
general
manager,
recreation,
culture
and
facility
services,
in
conjunction
with
the
medical
officer
of
Health,
the
general
manager
of
emergency
protective
services
and
legal
services
review
annually
and
update
the
guide
accordingly,
based
on
the
evolving
best
practices
in
the
field
of
safe
alcohol
consumption.
So
mr.
deputy
mayor,
that
is,
the
motion
and
I
will
do
want
to
thank
staff
or
especially
whether
we
can
working
so
hard
along
with
the
chair
community
Protective,
Services
Committee.
Thank.
H
N
You
mr.
chair,
this
motion
is
in
response
to
some
of
the
concerns
that
we
heard
expressed
at
the
committee.
It's
very
technical
really
in
nature.
It's
just
clarifying
the
intent,
and
primarily
there
were
concerns
that
the
site
plans
were
prescriptive.
They're,
not
they're,
just
guidelines,
so
the
wording
of
this
most
motion
is
primarily
just
to
clarify
that
and
make
sure
that
we're
all
of
the
same
understanding,
I'm
going
to
dispense
with
the
way
arises
because
it's
a
long
motion
but
I
will
read.
There,
therefore
be
it
resolved.
N
That
council
meant
the
municipal
alcohol
policy
attached
as
document
one
to
the
staff
report
as
follows:
one
paragraphs
one
and
two
under
Section
four,
three
outdoor
events
to
clarify
that
the
site
plans
in
Appendix
A
to
the
policy
are
examples
for
reference
purposes
only
as
follows.
A
events
on
highways
at
which
alcohol
is
to
be
sold
served
are
consumed,
are
permitted
only
under
the
following
circumstances:
a
a
special
event
on
a
closed
Highway,
where
establishments
licensed
by
the
AJ
Co
receive
approval
from
the
haco
to
establish
or
extend
a
patio
onto
the
closed
street.
N
As
noted
in
and
it's
a
site
plan,
one
for
reference
example
purposes
only
or
be
a
special
event
on
a
closed
highway,
with
an
enclosed
area
licensed
by
the
AG
Co
to
sell
and
allow
the
consumption
of
alcohol
by
SOP
issued
to
a
charity.
Raj
Co
recognized
nonprofit
organization,
as
noted
in
Appendix
A
site
plan
to
for
reference
example
purposes.
Only
the
events
at
which
alcohol
is
to
be
sold
served
are
consumed
occurring
outdoors
on
municipal
properties,
other
than
highways
are
permitted
only
under
the
following
circumstances.
A
the
license
area
to
sell
a
permit.
N
The
consumption
of
alcohol
by
SOP,
which
is
issued
to
a
charity
or
AGCO
recognized
nonprofit
organization,
is
enclosed,
as
noted
in
Appendix
A
site
plan
3
for
reference
example
purposes
only
or
be
an
event
which
only
a
small
portion
of
the
entire
event
area
example.
A
tent
is
enclosed
and
licensed
to
sell
a
permit.
The
consumption
of
alcohol
by
SOP,
which
is
issued
to
a
charity
or
AGCO
recognized
nonprofit
organization,
as
noted
in
Appendix
A
site
plan
for
for
reference
example
purposes
only
and
to
section
3
application
to
clarify
that
liquor.
N
Sales
licenses
with
catering,
endorsements
and
other
liquor
related
approvals
by
the
a
JCL
may
be
considered
as
follows.
This
policy
applies
to
the
sale
serving
and
consumption
of
alcohol
and
city
property
or
at
locations
or
for
events
under
the
city's
control.
Whether
or
not
a
facility
is
operating
under
a
liquor
license
issued
by
the
alcohol
Gaming
Commission
of
Ontario
a
special
occasion
permit
or
a
liquor
license
with
the
catering
endorsement
or
any
other
approval
that
is
been
issued
by
the
aesop
AGCO
and
any
other
section
of
the
policy
referencing.
H
H
A
H
H
C
Yes,
thank
you.
Mr.
deputy
mayor,
after
speaking
with
the
chair
of
the
committee,
as
well
as
the
mayor's
office
on
this
and
mr.
de
Monte,
it
is
agreed
that
there
could
be
a
report.
There
would
be
a
report
in
2017
highlighting
this
successes
challenges
and
a
year
after
the
policy
and
also
specifically
in
terms
of
direction,
to
staff
that,
based
on
the
feedback
we
received
from
different
community
association
that
staff
meet
with
the
FCA
to
update
them
on
the
policy
and
its
implication,
that's
received.
H
C
H
C
Perfect
so
I'll
just
read
the
motion.
It
is
a
technical
one,
whereas
on
November
8,
2016
Planning
Committee
recommended
amendments
to
the
city's
comprehensive
zoning
bylaw
for
112,
Monterey,
Road
and
314
Gardiner
streets
and
whereas,
as
part
of
the
approval
staff
were
given
direction
to
work
with
the
applicant
to
review
the
location
and
setbacks
relative
to
the
property
lines.
C
And
whereas
these
changes
are
represented
in
the
attach
height
and
yard
schedule,
whereas
it
is
desired
that
only
townhouses
units
can
front
onto
Gardiner.
Street,
therefore
be
resolved
that
height
and
yard
schedule
of
item
3
be
replaced
by
the
attached
schedule.
Therefore,
be
it
resolved.
That's
that
council
approved
the
following
change
to
document
2
of
report,
ACS
2
to
2012,
pipey,
gm0
and
29,
as
amended
by
further
amendment
to
the
following
text
in
column.
C
V
only
townhouse
dwellings
are
permitted
within
area
II
on
schedule
and
further
and
be
it
FURTHER
RESOLVED
that,
pursuant
to
the
Planning
Act
subsection,
34
17
be
further
notice,
be
given.
So
just
to
give
you
context,
we
work
with
the
applicant
and
I
want
to
thank
the
chair
of
planning
committee.
We
were
able
to
on
the
west
wall,
establish
a
better
setback
in
terms
of
my
concern
around
transition
and
following
committees
comments
in
the
bottom
property,
the
the
property.
C
That's
on
a
section
II
the
applicant
had
talked
about
townhouses
and
and
as
has
confirmed
that
that
is
what
they
plan
to
to
pursue.
And
again
we
looked
at
the
Montreal
road
frontage
to
have
more
of
a
an
activation
on
Lynch
railroad,
but
also
to
establish
a
proper
setbacks
after
the
Ford
story.
So
I
want
to
thank
the
applicant
and
and
a
chair
for
their
work
on
on
this.
Thank.
H
O
I
C
H
C
I
speak
to
the
report.
Briefly,
it
does
in
us
in
one
more
mr.
deputy
I
just
want
to
thank
again
the
the
staff,
the
applicant
and
the
chair
of
Planning
and
members
of
planning.
It
is
an
important
project
in
vania,
long
beach,
wood
with
the
protection
of
the
st.
Charles
Church,
a
really
great
program,
that's
coming
together
with
cycling
tracks,
outdoor
park
and
great
additions
to
the
residential
and
commercial
fronts.
So
I
want
to
thank
the
applicant
for
for
this
very
comprehensive
program.
Thank.
H
You
very
much
councillor
and
I
think
we
already
carried
that,
but
confirmation
carried.
Thank
you
very
much.
The
response
to
provincial
consultation
of
Ontario
Municipal
Board
reform,
we're
going
to
hold
that
for
a
moment.
I
know,
there's
gonna,
be
there's
two
motions
and
will
be
some
discussion
on
that.
The
next
item
item
number:
seven:
the
zoning
bylaw
amendment
three,
three,
four,
nine
Navin
Road
that
we
were
being
asked
to
carry
that
carried
carried.
Thank
you
very
much
on
the
bulk
consent
agenda.
H
There's
only
one
item
there's
been
no
request
to
lift
that
item
so
on
the
bulk
consent
agenda
as
presented
carried.
Thank
you
very
much,
and
that
brings
us
back
to
the
response
to
provincial
consultation
on
a
Theriot
municipal
board
reforms.
So
we
do
have
the
report.
We
also
have
two
motions,
one
from
councillor:
Leeper
and
Nussbaum,
one
from
councillor
harder
and
eagle-eye
I'm,
going
to
ask
that
we
reintroduce
councillor
leapers.
B
You,
chair
I'll,
take
just
a
moment
to
introduce
the
motion
I'm
making
for
many
years
now,
the
residents
of
Ottawa
have
been
asking
for
OMB
reform
in
order
to
ensure
that
it
works
better
for
residents
and
thanks
in
large
part,
I
want
to
recognize
the
leadership
of
our
MPP
in
dynamic
kitchen
sippy
Ward
for
Ottawa
Centre
Yassir
Naqvi,
to
give
us
the
opportunity
that
we
have
now
to
weigh
in
on
what
direction
that
reforms
should
take.
The
crux
of
the
current
consultation
is
the
question
that's
been
posed
by
Queens
Park.
B
Should
the
province
limit
the
scope
of
OMB
Appeals
to
a
standard
of
reasonableness
for
whatever
reason,
the
document
that
is
current
before
us
is
silent
on
that
issue
and
I'd
like
to
take
this
opportunity
to
correct
that
oversight.
My
motion
would
amend
the
the
draft
documents
as
input
to
the
provinces,
consultation
to
address
and
explicitly
endorse
the
provinces,
suggestion
that
it
might
limit
OMB
appeals
to
a
standard
of
reasonableness,
and
in
doing
so
we
would
endorse
an
approach
that
is
well
established
in
law
already.
B
B
Establishing
the
standard
of
reasonableness
would
do
the
same
thing
for
planning
before
I
introduce
my
motion.
I
know
the
counselor
hardener
would
like
to
put
forward
one
of
her
own.
My
best
reading
of
it
is
that
it
would
accomplish
no
real,
significant
change
from
the
document
that
is
currently
in
the
before
us
other
than
some
very
welcome
clarification
that
we
would
endorse.
Strengthening
the
citizens
liaison
office.
I'll,
look
forward
to
the
debate
to
get
a
better
understanding
of
what
Harder's
motion
would
meaningfully
accomplish.
That
is
not
already
before
us.
B
B
And
whereas
the
City
of
Ottawa
spends
approximately
fourteen
million
dollars
per
year
on
a
sophisticate
Planning
Department,
with
the
necessary
expertise
to
interpret
and
make
recommendations
to
a
democratically
elected
City
Council
on
a
wide
variety
of
planning.
Issues.
In
the
context
of
the
relevant
statutory
and
regulatory
framework
for
land-use
planning.
Decisions
in
Ontario,
therefore,
be
it
resolved
that
the
wording
on
page
11
of
the
report
under
the
heading
City
of
Ottawa
position
be
replaced
with
the
following.
B
The
City
of
Ottawa
supports
the
consultations
paper
suggestion
to
require
OMB
to
review
municipal
approval,
Authority
decisions
on
a
standard
of
reasonableness.
As
the
approach
that
demonstrates
appropriate
deference
to
sophisticated
and
locally
sensitive
planning
departments
and
elected
councils,
alternatively,
should
the
province
not
adopt
the
above
approach?
The
City
of
Ottawa
supports
the
province
providing
binding
interpretations
of
shall
have
regard
to
so
that
it
can
be
applied
consistently
across
all
OMB
decisions.
This
interpretation
should
be
incorporated
into
the
OMB
s,
rules
of
practice
and
procedure.
Mr.
P
You
mr.
Deputy
Mayor
and
I
wanted
to
before
I
do
that.
I
wanted
to
suggest
that,
before
with
your
indulgence
before
you
go
to
councillors
with
questions
and
that
sort
of
thing
on
either
of
the
motions
that
you
allow
staff
to
comment
on
de
novo
and
reasonable
so
that
we
understand
the
terminology,
the
province
is
undertaking
a
review
of
the
interior
municipal
board
and
the
province
issued
a
consultation
document
in
November
and
asked
for
feedback
very
quickly.
P
Some
of
our
colleagues
submitted
they're
positioned
by
a
written
letter
to
the
province,
and
six
of
them
did,
and
you
know
who
you
are,
when
staff
started
to
prepare
the
city's
position
for
submission.
I
asked
them
to
take
your
submission
and
to
mirror
it
as
closely
as
possible,
and
they
did
at
Planning
Committee.
On
November
8th.
We
approved
the
staffs
recommendations,
as
well
as
to
council
early
promotions,
which
provided
greater
clarity
on
the
city's
position
to
be
sent
to
the
O
me.
So
we
have
a
strong
report
coming
from
Planning
Committee
that
was
well
supportive.
P
Today,
you
will
be
asked
to
consider
a
motion
that
differs
from
the
staffs
in
my
position.
In
that
one
area,
councilor
leaper
is
asking
you
to
recommend
that
the
OMB
moves
into
uncharted,
therefore
unknown
territory.
Whereas
my
motion
is
improving
on
the
existing
OMB,
with
a
specific
focus
on
clarity
on
the
board,
giving
regard
to
council
decisions
and
providing
support
for
effective
citizen
engagement,
you
have
had
a
chance
to
review
both
motions.
Now
I
apologize
yesterday,
I
sent
out
the
one
that
I
had,
which
really
reflects
the
what
today's
does
as
well.
P
P
That
actually
does
just
that
and
I
also
thought,
because
it's
such
a
complex
issue
and
it's
really
hard
to
understand
for
most
people,
I
mean
I've,
been
engaged
in
it
for
quite
some
time
now,
and
unless
you
really
are
taking
the
time
and
have
the
time
I
thought
it
was
important
to
provide
some
extra
time
to
have
a
look
at
that.
So
over
the
last
12
hours,
we've
refined
the
motion
from
yesterday,
and
hopefully
we
catch
or
capture
all
that
we
feel
is
important
to
communicate
to
the
province
on
o1b
reform.
P
So
today,
I'm
asking
you
to
approve
the
report
from
Planning,
Committee
and
vote
for
my
motion
and
councillor
eggless
motion,
which
captures
an
emphasis
on
community
and
seeks
clarification
from
the
province
in
order
to
keep
a
needed
process
in
place,
but
working
better
and
so
I'm
not
going
to
obviously
read.
All
of
this,
therefore,
be
it
resolved
that
the
province
include
within
its
considerations
for
changes
to
reform
the
OMB.
P
The
following
the
province
provide
clear
direction
or
binding
interpretations
with
respect
to
the
phrase
shall
have
regard
to
as
set
out
in
the
Planning
Act,
so
that
it
can
be
applied
consistently
across
all
OMB
decisions
and
that
this
interpretation
be
incorporated
in
these
rules
of
practice,
a
procedure
and
be.
It
therefore
resolved
that
counsel
strongly
endorsed
the
initiatives
being
considered
by
the
province
for
expanding
the
provinces,
community
liaison
office
and
providing
funding
supports
to
citizens
to
retain
their
own
planning
experts,
and/or
lawyers
and
encourage
the
province
to
move
forward.
H
E
D
Thank
You
mr.
deputy
mayor,
so
the
term
to
know
Ville
as
councillor
leaper
indicated,
really
does
have
its
genesis
in
in
law
and
basically,
what
it's
referring
to
is
that
you
start
anew.
Basically,
whatever
transpired
in
the
past
is
not
on
the
table
for
consideration.
You
essentially
start
from
new
looking
at
the
information
that's
available
to
arrive
at
a
decision
on
the
matter
that
would
be
before
the
courts
or,
in
this
case
a
quasi
judicial
tribunal
in
practice
and
procedure
a
while.
D
The
OMB
as
a
quasi
judicial
tribunal
does
fall
under
the
umbrella
of
a
tribunal
that
can
make
decisions
in
in
basically
hearings
to
Knovel
in
practice.
That
doesn't
happen
and
that's
very
much
driven
by
the
requirements
or
a
set
out
in
the
Planning
Act,
which
in
fact
stipulates
that
the
OMB
in
giving
consideration
to
appeals
of
council
decisions
is
required
to
have
regard
to
the
council
decision.
There's
also
requirement
for
the
OMB
to
give
consideration
to
the
information
that
was
before
counsel
in
it
arriving
at
its
decision
and
through
bill
73
there's
a
further
requirement.
D
I
was
introduced,
which
basically
requires
that
counsel
document,
how
any
public
delegations
of
representations
that
were
made
before
a
decision
was
taken
by
counsel
on
a
planning
matter,
has
influenced
the
particular
decision
of
counsel.
So,
in
fact,
in
practice
and
procedure,
there
is
no
such
thing
as
the
noble
hearings
in
front
of
the
OMB
by
virtue
of
the
legislative
parameters
within
which
the
OMB
must
operate.
D
Planning
system,
which
is
very
much
a
policy
led
planning
system
and
Ontario,
is
very
unique
in
that
front
in
that
policies
are
in
fact
established
by
the
province,
which
are
expected
to
be
then
implemented
through
the
municipality,
but
through
its
official
plans.
The
whole
essence
in
terms
of
the
OMB
is
to
reflect
and
make
decisions
based
on
good
planning.
D
H
Okay,
thank
you
very
much.
Mr.
Schmitt
appreciate
that
so
we'll
move
to
will
move
to
debate
on
this
and
I'd
ask
members
of
counsel
to
get
on
the
list
we're
going
to
debate
both
motions
and
the
report
at
the
same
time.
So
this
is
your
opportunity
to
speak
and
also
just
for
clarity's
sake.
I
think
I
just
want
to
be
clear
that
what
we're
this
for
the
public's
sake,
what
we
are,
what
we're
considering
here
today
will
form
our
cities
feedback
into
the
OMB
reform
process.
So
this
is
the
provincial
consultation
on
OMB
reform.
H
We're
not
directing
the
outcome
of
today's
vote
will
not
compel
the
OMB
to
be
one
way
or
be
the
other.
It's
simply
our
feedback
into
the
process
and
just
so
that
we're
all
on
the
same
page.
Procedurally
mr.
Clerk,
my
understanding
of
the
two
motions,
the
way
they
are
stacked
introduced
first
voted
on
in
reverse
order.
A
vote
in
support
of
the
harder'
motion.
If
that
motion
is
successful,
will
then
essentially
render
the
leaper
motion
moot?
Is
that
correct
or
not?
Q
H
I'm
I'm
comfortable,
supporting
the
clerk's
interpretation
of
this
members
of
council,
they're,
certainly
free
to
debate
both
motions
and
the
report
as
we
proceed
through
it
just
one
moment:
counselor
but
I'm,
going
to
follow
the
clerk's
guidance
that
if
the
harder
motion
is
successful,
it
renders
the
leaper
motion.
Unless
it's
further
amended
through
this
debate
process,
it
renders
it
moot
so
counselor
Dean's.
You
had
a
question
and
then,
if
counselor
Libre
wishes
to
issue
his
challenge.
N
Thank
you
when
mr.
Clerk
I
specifically
heard
the
chair
at
the
start
of
the
meeting
say
that
he
asked
counselor
labor
to
introduce
his
motion
first
because
he
had
received
it
first,
and
my
understanding
is
that
counselor
at
leapers
motion
is
in
contradiction
to
councilor
Harder's
motion.
So
our
tradition
here
has
been
that
you
take
the
motion
that
has
been
received
first
and
so,
given
that
why
would
you
suggest
the
opposite?.
A
Mr.
deputy
mayor,
I
suggest
the
opposite,
because
that
has
been
the
consistent,
both
practice
and
policy
of
this
council.
The
rules
of
procedure,
section
62,
sub
six
state
that
a
motion
to
a
man
shall
be
put
in
the
reverse
order
to
the
order
in
which
it
was
moved
for
the
purposes
of
voting.
Mr.
deputy
mayor,
you
showed
that
very
early
with
the
three
motions
that
were
done
on
the
municipal
alcohol
policy,
and
then
you
called
them
in
reverse
order
for
the
vote.
So
that
would
be
my
rationale
so.
A
H
You
very
much
so
again
my
interpretation
I'm
following
the
clerk's
direction
here
with
respect
to
how
these
motions
would
fall
out.
Councilor
Lieber.
Is
it
your
intention
to
sustain
that
challenge?
Yes,
okay,
all
right!
So
we're
voting
now
on
the
challenge
to
the
chair
and
the
interpretation
of
the
clerks,
how
the
clerk
is
stacking,
these
motions
so
shall
the
chair
be
sustained,
yeas
and
nays.
Please.
J
K
O
J
N
A
H
The
vote
is
on
sustaining
the
chair
and
my
my
ruling
was
that
we
will
be
taking
the
emotions
as
the
advice
of
the
clerk
in
voting
in
reverse
order
in
which
they
were
presented
and
a
vote
in
success
of
the
heart
or
the
success
of
the
harder'
motion
would
render
the
Libra
motion
moot
so
councillor
leaper
has
challenged
that
that
ruling
of
the
chair
so
you're
voting
to
either
agree
with
me
and
my
ruling
or
disagree.
So
a
vote
of
yes
agrees
with
me.
Okay,.
K
A
K
H
You
very
much,
madam
deputy,
so
with
that
with
that
ruling,
we
will
proceed
with
debate
on
both
of
the
motions
and
the
original
report.
If
we
can
restart
the
board,
please
punch
into
to
speak
debate
on
all
three
at
the
same
time,
questions
to
staff
and
then
we'll
call
the
votes
on
the
harder
motion
and
on
the
leaper
motion,
the
success
of
the
harder'
motion
makes
the
leaper
motion
moot
councillor
sure
Ellie.
Please
thank.
Q
You
you're
acting
worship,
the
I
guess
I
have
a
couple
questions
for
the
clerk.
One
is
in
relation
to
the
subject
matter
itself
because
of
planning.
We
were
dealing
only
with
planning
items
of
fall
within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
OMB,
but
there
are
many
other
things
that
fall
within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
OMB
and
I'm
wondering
specifically
about
the
setting
of
ward
boundaries,
which
council
may
have
a
position
on
setting
of
ward
boundaries.
Q
A
Mr.
mayor
I'm
deputy
mayor
at
this
point
in
time
there
is
no
response
from
council
until
they
vote
on
it,
but
the
member
is
absolutely
correct.
There
are
other
matters.
A
ward
boundary
certainly
looms
larger
on
toes
going
through
theirs,
as
is
Hamilton,
and
those
are
almost
routinely
appealed
to
the
entire
municipal
board.
Yeah.
Q
Q
All
right,
thank
you
on
that
and
then.
Secondly,
when
when
we
look
at
motions
that
narrow
the
scope
of
subject
matter
covered
by
the
OMB
or
the
scope
of
planning
appeals,
then
is
it
correct
that
those
things
that
no
longer
would
fall
under
the
jurisdiction
of
OMB
decision?
Their
appeal
would
lie
with
the
courts.
Q
Q
A
Q
Okay,
yeah
I,
understand
and
agree
with
the
need
for
reform
of
the
OMB,
but
I
think
I.
Think
that
need
is
to
show
more
deference
to
council
and
councils
decisions,
but
at
the
same
because
I
think
usually
planning
decisions
are
supposed
to
be
made
by
democratic
institutions
as
opposed
to
independent
reviews.
Q
I'm,
just
not
sure
that
that
the
reasonable
reasonableness
motion
gets
us
there,
because
I
think
it
actually
could
sideline
many
more
decisions
in
the
courts.
The
way
it
used
to
be
what
in
the
70s,
I,
guess
and
so
I'm
a
little
I
agree
with
the
direction
I'm.
Not
so
sure,
I
agree
that
that's
the
road
to
take
you
there.
A
Thank
You
mr.
deputy
mayor,
my
question
is
to
our
legal
counsel,
on
the
be
it
further
resolved.
That
counsel
strongly
endorsed
the
initiatives
where
it
talks
about
funding
supports
to
citizens
to
retain
their
own
planning
experts.
It
cannot
be
interpreted
that
everybody
that
wants
to
appeal
gets
a
lawyer
and
a
planner
or
would
the
common
sense
interpretation
be
that
you
could
hold
an
information
meeting
and
have
a
planner
and
a
lawyer
there
for
everybody
to
get
that
info.
D
D
The
other
component
of
the
initiative
that's
being
considered
by
the
province,
is
to
make
available
funding
to
citizens
groups
where
they
can
retain
their
own
expert
witnesses
on
their
planners
or
lawyers
and
allow
them
to
participate
in
an
OMB
process
having
expertise
to
support
the
positions
that
they're
looking
to
advance
through
the
process.
So
these
two
initiatives
they're
very
soft
right
now
in
terms
of
their
availability
at
the
province,
particularly
through
the
liaison
office,
that
they
now
have
it's
essentially
staffed
by
one
or
two
people.
D
So
it's
not
very
well
known
at
this
office
in
fact
exists.
All
the
intent
is
to
strengthen
that
office
and
and
the
whole
issue
about
providing
funding
supports,
to
allow
citizens
groups
to
retain
their
own
experts.
That's
really
not
on
the
cards
right
now,
but
it
definitely
is
moving
in
the
direction
of
providing
additional
supports
for
the
citizens
to
more,
fully,
engage
in
and
engage
in
a
more
meaningful
way
in
OMB
processes.
D
So
these
are
seen
as
as
fairly
significant
moves
in
terms
of
initiatives
taken
by
the
province
to
allow
for
a
more
accessible
process
for
those
that
would
be
involved
in
all
and
BIA
processes
on
all
fronts
and
is
very
much
supportive
to
the
general
cities
through
citizenry
or
the
public.
If
you
like.
So
that's
the
reason.
D
A
A
D
In
in
our
report,
in
our
position
that
we're
suggesting
council
endorsed
and
bring
forward
to
the
province,
we
make
it
very
clear
that
we
definitely
support
this
initiative,
but
it's
an
initiative
that
should
not
then
be
transferred
to
a
municipality
to
assume
the
cost
for
to
carry.
It
really
should
be
something
that
the
province
looks
to
fund
after
whatever
means
and
methods
they
might
have
to
support
a
funding
for
that
type
of
an
initiative.
But
it's
not
something
that
we
feel
is
appropriate
for
Anisa
parity
to
absorb
those
costs.
L
You
mr.
mayor
I've
been
involved
with
the
OMB
off
and
on
for
a
very
long
time
and
I've
been
on
both
sides
of
OMB
decisions.
I've
been
at
many
OMB
hearings,
I've
been
there
on
with
polity
I've
been
there
with
the
citizens,
groups
I've
been
designated
as
a
because
of
my
background,
actually
as
an
expert
witness
even
in
the
OMB,
so
I
had
know
how
the
OMB
has
worked
over
the
years
and
I've
kept
in
fall
in
following
things.
Even
in
more
recent
years,
when
things
have
changed
a
bit,
I
want
to
remind
Council.
L
Sometimes
we
do
stupid
things.
I
have
no
other
municipality.
When
I
was
president
of
amo
I
used
to
find
some
of
the
small
municipalities
did
really
stupid
things
and
the
OMB
is
a
protection
for
both
the
municipalities
and
the
citizens,
and
they
have
to
a
very
narrow,
a
band
that
they
have
to
follow
it
to
try
to
to
keep
those
both
in
hand
and
I.
L
We
should
have
to
take
a
look
at
council
as
it
makes
its
decisions.
The
same
thing
happened
with
the
urban
expansion
Lance.
We
had
a
20-year
framework,
it
was
all
set
up.
The
whole
prime
was
done
on
that
and
a
council.
The
last
minute
was
that
we
can
change
it
to
15
years
for
housing.
Therefore,
we
don't
need
to
expand.
You
can't
change
the
rules
of
midstream
and
many
of
our
cases
when
we've
lost
have
been
because
we
changed
the
rules
of
midstream.
L
Reasonableness
I've
never
found
the
OMB
and
my
experience
to
be
terribly
reasonable
and
how
they
look
at
things,
and
it's
something
you
can't
define
what's
reasonable
to
me
reasonable
to
you
reasonable
to
him,
may
be
entirely
different
and
I
think
it
would
lead
to
more
Court
decisions
and,
more
other
things,
I
think
it's
clear
and
what
I
find
interesting
in
these
two
motions.
There
is
an
overlap.
L
The
the
part
about
the
music
getting
support
for
communities
is
only
in
jazz,
but
I
think
everybody
else
supports
that
too,
but
the
first
part
of
hers-
it's
like
the
second
part
of
council
early
first
dolphin
and
the
and
I
think
what
it
does
is
say
and
you
make
rules,
make
them
very
clear
and
don't
try
to
change
them
in
midstream,
because
the
reasonableness
is
when
they
changed
them
in
midstream
is
what
creates
that
thing.
So
I'm
a
little
bit
nervous
about
that
paragraph
and
I.
L
That's
why
I
support
the
measure
motion
front,
councillor,
harder,
I,
think
it's
more
realistic
and
it
will
get
actually
a
better
result
for
communities
and
I
thought.
I
was
at
five
five
week
hearing
acting
on
communities
on
the
kinetic
Northlands
and
I'll
tell
you
that
was
a
very
long,
very
detail
of
very
complex
hearing
and
the,
and
we
did
make
some
gains,
but
not
others,
and
the
gains
we
made
were
ones
that
were
the
community
issues
that
were
important.
L
The
gains
we
didn't
make
were
more
on
the
environmental
strength
because
the
province
had
not
yet
brought
in
the
rules
on
environmental
issues.
If
that
hearing
was
held
today,
we
get
an
entirely
different
result,
and
so,
if
the
important
thing
is
then
because
the
province
does
set
the
guidelines
and
they
tie
our
hands,
as
we
know
from
many
things
going
through
plantings
already,
then
making
it
both
guidelines
clear
making
them
be.
L
We
consistently
applied
right
across
this
province
and,
if
they're,
if
their
policies
are
wrong,
we
have
to
fight
against
the
policies,
not
against
the
OMB
whose
hands
are
tied.
They
have
to
follow
those
policies,
and
so
I
think,
having
the
point
of
making
everything
very
clear
and
making
sure
that
what's
not
in
here
really
is
that
they
have
the
right
kind
of
staffing
in
the
OMB
right
now
they
have
a
whole
lot
of
managers
and
not
enough
people
are
out
in
the
field
and
the
managers
keep
changing
the
things
for
the
people
in
the
fields.
L
I've
heard
this
directly
from
people
who
had
here
held
hearings,
the
difficulty,
if
we
can
have
it
done
in
a
much
more
I'll,
call
a
professional
way,
because
we
keep
changing
rules.
It's
not
professional,
then
I
think
that
we
will
have
a
lot
better
results,
not
just
for
the
for
the
city,
but
for
the
public
and
a
business
about
funding
for
the
communities.
That's
already
was
done.
It
was
done,
we're
doing
a
hydro
issue
this
horrid
or
issue.
L
Many
years
ago,
though,
there
was
funding
provided
to
Bewkes
to
go
and
and
have
the
technical
activities
they
needed
to
be
able
to
talk
about
what
was
being
planned.
That
will
help
the
community
people
more
than
anything.
We
didn't
have
it.
When
we
had
that
long
OMB,
we
all
did
it
for
free,
and
we
had
only
enough
money
to
get
a
little
bit
of
technical
studies
done
to
support
us.
L
A
E
Organized
by
the
OMB
and
I
was
pleasantly
surprised
by
the
rate
of
participation,
because
a
lot
of
people
are
interested
in
the
issues
and
they
are
knowledgeable
and
one
of
the
criteria
that's
important
to
consider,
except
for
the
City
of
Toronto.
The
City
of
Ottawa
is
the
largest
city
that
was
at
the
table
and
in
recent
consultations.
I
with
I
was
at
the
table
with
someone
from
Renfrew
and
that
a
city
representative
was
the
only
urban
planner
for
the
city.
E
E
Yes,
they
should
deal
with
appeals
with
official
plans
and
and
secondary
plans
and
community
plans,
but
when
it
comes
to
a
specific
site,
zoning
there
shouldn't
be
a
problem
in
terms
of
the
appeals
and
in
terms
of
policy
issues.
I
understand
that
a
counselor
would
not
have
the
support
of
the
community.
They
have
to
get
it
sold
the
objective
program
that
work
hard
on
improving
it,
but
there's
two
levels:
there's
the
Planning,
Committee
and
City
Council.
That
would
review
the
plan
in
a
comprehensive
way.
E
H
O
Thank
You
mr.
deputy
mayor
I'm,
just
going
to
provide
a
few
observations
and
comments
and,
at
the
end
of
my
five
minutes,
I'm
going
to
suggest
an
amendment
which
I
will
read
out
to
the
harder'
motion,
but
first
a
little
bit
of
history
on
this
file.
The
objective
of
the
leaper
motion
is
not
at
all
new.
For
decades,
municipal
councils
across
this
province
have
sought
to
increase
the
deference
that
the
OMB
must
demonstrate
to
democratically
elected
municipal
legislators
in
part
and
I
think
this
is
important.
O
Furthermore,
in
the
last
12
months
alone,
over
70
municipal
councils
in
Ontario
have
passed
motions
seeking
to
raise
the
judicial
standard
used
by
the
OMB.
These
are
not
calls
to
abolish
the
OMB.
These
are
not
calls
to
exempt
council
decisions
from
judicial
review.
These
are
simply
calls
to
ask
the
province
to
ensure
the
OMB
only
be
permitted
to
overrule
decisions
of
councils
when
the
decision
is
not
reasonable
and
I
should
note
that
reaction
to
the
consultation
paper
put
out
by
the
province
has
been
overwhelmingly
positive.
O
Councillor
flurry
talked
about
the
largest
municipality
in
the
province,
the
City
of
Toronto,
which
last
week
approved
a
Planning
Committee.
The
staff
recommendation
that
a
key
recommendation
be
that
the
OMB
focus
on
the
validity
of
a
council
or
approval
Authority
decision.
This
is
what
Toronto
says.
This
approach
to
OMB
oversight
should
focus
on
both
a
reasonableness
standard
and
a
review
of
whether
a
decision
has
followed
local
and
provincial
policies.
The
amo
to
which
of
which
Ottawa
is
an
important
member,
has
articulated
the
principle.
O
That
quote,
municipalities
are
a
mature
form
of
government
and
are
in
a
position
to
take
on
a
more
rigorous
role
in
land-use
planning.
This
requires
a
significant
transformation
of
the
OMB
z'
rules
and
procedures
I.
Also
mr.
deputy
mayor
wanna
just
address
two
of
the
arguments
I've
heard
against
raising
the
judicial
standard.
The
first,
which
we
heard
earlier,
was
this
idea
that
we
would
increase
the
burden
on
the
courts
as
appellant
would
simply
bypass
the
OMB
I.
Don't
think
that's
a
true
observation.
Appellant
would
and
could
still
appeal
decisions
of
councils
to
the
OMB.
O
Raising
the
standard
of
review
would
not
change
that
and
appeals
from
the
OMB
to
the
courts
would
only
be
permitted
under
the
same
rules
that
exist
today.
There
are
very
clear
judicial
review
standards
that
courts
have
to
apply
when
making
a
decision,
whether
they're
going
to
hear
a
decision
of
a
tribunal,
and
that
would
not
change
so
I,
don't
agree
with
the
observation
that
we
would
increased,
cost
or
increase
recourse
to
the
courts.
The
second
observation,
I've
heard,
is
that
elected
representatives
cannot
be
trusted
to
make
the
decisions.
O
As
we
are
plone
we
are
prone
to
political
expediency
and
the
suggestion
there
is
that
we
may
do
what
residents
want
us
to
as
opposed
to
what
someone
else
might
think
is
a
better
planning
outcome
and
hence
the
need
for
the
OMB
to
replace
our
decisions.
I
think
this
argument
fails
for
a
number
of
reasons.
If
13
or
more
of
us
believe
a
certain
outcome
is
in
the
interest
of
the
residents
of
our
city,
someone
who
disagrees
with
us
has
two
options:
they
can
appeal
it
to
the
OMB.
O
If
it
is
not
a
reasonable
decision,
it
will
be
overturned.
Alternatively,
if
it
is
reasonable,
but
an
applicant
or
a
group
of
residents
doesn't
like
it,
they
can
punish
us
at
the
ballot
box.
That's
what
democracy
is
all
about.
So
in
conclusion,
I
think
the
leaper
motion
makes
a
lot
of
sense
because
it's
continuing
on
a
path
which
municipalities
of
this
province
have
been
arguing.
For
decades
now
the
province
has
opened
up
the
door
for
us.
O
So
a
vote
for
this
motion
ultimately
is
a
vote
to
ensure
that
the
decisions
affecting
our
city
are
made
by
the
elected
representatives
of
the
residents
of
our
city
and
not
by
appointed
members
of
the
OMB
from
Queens
Park.
So,
let's
embrace
the
provinces
offer
to
have
the
people
of
Ottawa,
however,
greater
say
in
how
our
city
grows,
and
finally,
mr.
O
So
the
chapeau
to
that
motion
reads
therefore,
be
it
resolved
that
the
province
include
within
its
considerations
for
changes
to
reform
the
OMB
the
following
and
then
my
my
amendment
would
read.
The
province
also
require
the
OMB
to
review
municipal
council
decisions
on
a
standard
of
reasonableness,
so
that
would
be
the
final
Clause
to
the
harder
Thank
You.
Mr.
Deputy
Joe,
okay,.
H
Thank
you
very
much
councillor
Nussbaum,
so
with
councillor
news
bombs,
amendment
to
the
harder'
motion
introduced
that
is
on
the
floor
now
was
there
any
debate
on
the
amendment
counselor
I'm,
looking
at
my
list,
I'm
still
looking
at
the
old
list,
so
yes,
I
was
going
to
assume.
Is
it
friendly,
counselor,
harder.
P
H
So
debate,
then,
on
the
amendment
on
councilor
news,
bombs,
amendment
and
then
we'll
vote
on
the
amendment
before
we
proceed
with
debate
on
the
rest
of
the
rest
of
the
report,
sir
any
desire
to
counselor
I'm
still
looking
at
the
same
list,
counselor
eagle-eye.
Do
you
want
to
speak
to
the
amendment?
Okay
speak
to
them?
No,
it
will
not
even
do
so
on
the
amendment
so
I.
G
Agree
accounts
are
harder.
This
isn't
an
amendment
this.
This
is
just
not
very
transparent
or
I
should
say
very
transparent
approach
to
simply
take
councilor
leapers
motion,
which
we've
already
decided
will
be
dealt
with
second
and
make
it
first.
So
that's
that's
all
counselor
and
response
attempting
to
do.
We've
already
decided
on
that.
The
chair
has
already
been
challenged
on
that
the
rulings
already
been
made
so
on
there's
no
way
I'm
going
to
say
I'm
going
to
support
this.
This
amendment
thank.
B
B
We
can
apply
a
standard
of
reasonableness
to
the
the
grounds
of
on
which
the
board
might
overturn
a
municipal
decision
and,
in
the
course
of
considering
that
I
think
it
implies
that
there
will
be
some
sort
of
deference
or
some
sort
of
consideration
of
why
council
ruled
the
way
it
did.
So.
The
news
bound
motion
that
amends
councillor
Harder's
motion
doesn't
introduce
anything
that
is
mutually
exclusive.
It
doesn't
introduce
any
tensions.
The
city
is
certainly
able
to
go
forward
to
the
province
with
both
of
these
recommendations.
N
You
mr.
chair,
well,
let
me
just
say
that
I
have
been
longing
for
OMB
reform
for
a
long
time
and
I
agree
with
councilor
Harder's
motion.
I
I,
don't
see
anything
enhancer
Harder's
motion
that
I
disagree
with.
Having
said
that,
I
also
agree
with
the
amendment,
because
I
think
it
just
strengthens
councilor
Harder's
motion.
The
amendment
just
takes
it
one
step
further,
but
I
think
we're
all
going
in
the
same
direction.
N
The
point
here
is
that
the
OMB
desperately
needs
to
be
reformed.
We
have
needed
that
for
a
long
time
and
I
have
to
tell
you
my
impression
is
that
developers
in
our
city
and
probably
every
city
across
the
province
have
gotten
to
this
point
where
they
believe
they
can
bypass
democratically
elected
councils
and
go
straight
to
the
OMB
where
they
are
going
to
win
and
on
the
balance
of
probability,
they're
always
going
to
win
one.
They
have
way
deeper
pockets.
N
They
have
way
more
money
than
the
average
citizen
and
its
a
david-and-goliath
situation
at
the
Ontario
Municipal
Board.
My
frustration
as
a
democratically
elected
official
and
municipal
government
is
that
the
OMB
does
not
pay
attention
to.
Why
councils
make
decisions
and
I
look
at
the
manitech
decision
years
ago?
I
was
at
this
table.
You
might
think
the
decision
that
this
council
made
was
unreasonable.
It
was
a
19
to
5
vote
by
the
way.
N
So
there
was
a
lot
of
us
that
were
making
as
councillor
Wilkinson
said
a
stupid
I,
don't
think
it
was
a
stupid
decision.
We
were
listening
to
the
public
and
manitech
who
thought
the
growth
was
way
too
fast
way
too
far,
that
they
didn't
have
the
infrastructure
in
place
to
support
it,
and
then
it
was
going
to
change
the
characteristic
of
that
village.
I
think
those
were
all
reasonable
arguments
for
this
council
to
make.
N
Yes,
it
was
overturned
going
through
the
court
system,
but
frankly,
sometimes
democracy
costs
money,
that's
the
reality,
and
if
we
make
a
decision
we
should
be
prepared
to
defend
it,
and
it
is
frustrating
in
the
extreme
to
me
that
the
Ontario
Municipal
Board
have
basically
no
regard
for
the
decision
of
Council
or
for
the
community
that
we
represent.
They
are
faceless.
N
People
to
me,
I
have
no
idea
who
they
are
where
they've
come
from,
but
they
can
come
in
and
have
no
regard
for
a
democratically
elected
council
or
the
community
that
they
represent
and
make
a
decision
that
tends
by
and
large,
to
always
go
in
the
same
direction
against
the
council
and
for
the
developer.
And
if.
N
To
the
amendment
I
think
all
it
does
is
say
if
council,
when
you
look
at
the
manitech
decision,
if
Council
made
a
decision
that
was
reasonable.
Well,
I
would
argue
that
was
reasonable.
They
should
at
least
have
some
regard
for
that
decision
in
the
decision
that
they
make
they
shouldn't
just
be
able
to
pay
set.
It
aside,
pay
no
attention
to
it
and
make
a
decision
of
their
own,
and
that's
why
I
think
council
Labour's
motion
is
just
strengthening
the
good
points
that
councillor
harder
has
in
her
motion.
Thank
you.
Hey.
R
You
mr.
deputy
mayor
I
will
also
be
supporting
the
amendment
councillor
miss
Baum's
amendment.
It
is,
you
know,
no
secret,
that
the
public
one
of
the
the
one
of
the
the
main
things
that
I
hear
from
from
residents
is
that
they
are
frustrated
by
the
fact
that
they
don't
feel
they
have
a
say
in
how
we
develop
their
their
neighborhoods
that
that
they
send.
R
You
know
me
here
they
elect
me
and-
and
they
expect
me
to
make
decisions
that
you
know
protect
our
neighborhoods,
but
also
you
know
that
that
our
decisions
are
our
based
on
our
our
plans.
We've
got
secondary
plans,
we've
got
official
plans,
we've
got
cycling
plans,
we've
got
pedestrian
plans,
we've
got,
you
know,
complete
Street
policy,
we've
got
policies
and
plans
in
place
and
when
I
make
a
decision,
a
planning
decision
I
have
to
look
at
the
whole
the
whole
bucket.
R
That
is
put
in
front
of
me,
and
you
know
it's
it's
one
thing
for
me
as
an
elected
official,
to
be
able
to
sit
down
with
staff
to
look
at
what
the
rationale
is
for
recommendation
to
look
at
a
planning
application
that
that
affects
residents.
In
the
most
crucial
way,
it
can
make
a
difference
between
how
they're
able
to
move
around
their
existing
neighborhood.
Have
we
put
in
place
the
the
levels
of
service
for
pedestrians
when
we're
when
we're
building
you
know
a
new
development
and
new
high-rises
it's
set
back?
R
Is
there
active
frontage
onto
our
streets
so
that
people
can
safely
move
around
these?
Are
you
know?
These
are
the
things
that
that
our
residents
want.
They
want
to
be
involved.
We
have
planning
staff
that
are
expert
planning
staff,
and
you
know
many
times.
People
will
say
to
me.
You
know,
let's
abolish
the
OMB.
Now
I
say
you
know
you
have
to
be
careful
what
you
ask
for,
because
sometimes
you
may
need
to
to
appeal
a
decision
that
we've
made.
R
So
we
need
something
and
when
this,
when
this
paper
landed,
it
was
you
know
it
just
made
such
sense
to
me
that
that
we
would
limit
the
scope
of
OMB
'im
appeals
based
on
a
standard
of
reasonableness
that
are
based
on
our
plans
and
our
policies
that
we
all
around
this
table
have
agreed
to.
We
we
set
our
policies,
we
agree
to
secondary
plans.
We
agree
to
official
plans,
cycling
plans,
pedestrian
plans,
levels
of
service
and,
and
then
it's
it's
up
to
us,
also
to
be
reasonable
in
how
we
approach
development.
R
So
it's
it's
as
it's
coming
upon
us
as
it
is
upon
staff
and
and
eventually
on
the
OMB
who
are
not
here
with
us.
They
don't
know
our
neighborhoods.
You
know,
they've
not
walked
around
lebreton
flats
they've
not
walked
around
Montreal
Road.
We
need
to
be
able
to
make
those
decisions
and
we
need
to
be
able
to
make
them
based
on
planning
at
plans
and
principles
and
and
policies
that
we
have
all
agreed
to
that
make.
R
Q
H
H
M
Mr.
chair
I
would
like
to
speak
to
the
amendment.
Yeah
I
I
see
this
as
one
of
those
cases
where
we
are
starting
to
tie
ourselves
up
in
knots
here
with
amendments
and
trying
to
figure
out
in
what
order.
My
original
intention
as
one
of
the
the
signatory
now
or
the
group
of
six,
the
signatories
of
the
original
letter,
which
was
about
reforming
the
OMB.
M
My
intention,
reading
councilor
Harder's
MOU
reading
the
original
report
and
councilor
harbors
motion
as
well
as
councilor
leapers,
was
that
they
weren't
mutually
exclusive.
What
I
saw
was
can
so
hard
as
motion-captured.
Almost
everything
that
was
in
our
original
letter
and
I
was
prepared
to
vote
in
favor
of
it.
But
then
I
was
also
prepared
to
vote
in
favor
of
councilor
leapers,
because
I
felt
that
that
should
still
be
inserted.
M
That's
why
I
voted
as
I
did
in
the
challenge
to
the
chair,
because
I
did
not
agree
with
or
couldn't
quite
understand,
the
interpretation
from
the
clerk
and
the
chair
that
you
vote
for
the
harder
motion.
Then
it's
done
and
forget
about
discussing
the
leaper
one.
Okay,
I
can
get
that
if
we
have
voted
for
a
motion
that
captures
almost
everything
we
wanted.
M
That
would
then
rule
out
adding
in
more
later
now,
I
see
counselor
news
bonds
motion
not
as
a
disingenuous
or
transparent
case
to
change
the
orders,
but
to
say
can
we
support?
Can
we
still
vote
for
Harder's
motion
and
insert
these
couple
of
important
words?
If
you
don't
agree,
if
you
agree
that
councillor
Harder's
motion
was
good
enough
in
the
first
place,
then
we
would
vote
against
councilor
news
bonds.
Amendment
I,
don't
see
it
in
quite
the
same
way
as
it
was
trying
to
change
the
order,
because
I
was
I.
M
Think,
like
a
number
of
people
prepared
to
say
we
actually
support
all
of
these
before
us,
so
I
guess.
For
this
reason,
trying
to
cut
through
the
knot
I
will
be
supporting
councillor
Nussbaum
some
motion,
believing
that
it
is
actually
a
friendly
amendment,
whether
you
vote
it
down
or
not.
I
guess
would
indicate
whether
you
felt
it
was
friendly.
That's
where
I
come
from!
That's
why
I
will
be
supporting
councilor
noose
bombs,
amendment
believing
it
to
be
more
friendly
than
perhaps
it's
been
received
so
far.
Thank
you.
Thank.
F
You
so
I'm
gonna
be
walking
a
procedural
fine
line
here,
because
one
of
the
comments
that
was
made
earlier
was
made
in
reference
to
something
to
help
support
an
arguments,
but
it
had
misleading
information
in
it.
So
I
need
to
clarify
that
information.
Only
seven
members
of
council
present
today
we're
here
when
counsel
made
the
decision
to
oppose
the
mahogany
development
Minto
in
MANET
by
Minto,
Amanda
tick,
and
we
talked
about
that
decision.
We
have
19
to
5
vote
and
what
that
was
based
on.
F
But
let's
look
clearly
at
the
facts
on
that
as
to
what
the
staff
report
said
and
why
it
was
there.
In
the
first
place,
the
1997
manatee
secondary
plan
said
that
development
in
the
mental
lands
will
be
based
on
two
factors.
It
had
to
be
a
community
design
plan
and
there
had
to
be
water
and
sewer
connections.
That
was
the
only
two
factors
and
Mantic
secondary
plan
that
stated
how
development
proceeded.
Yes,
the
community
opposed
that
development,
but
those
are
the
factors.
F
Those
were
the
policy
statements
that
were
in
the
mansik
secondary
plan
that
were
adopted
by
the
city
after
amalgamation
and
that
would
formed
the
arguments
to
develop
those
lands.
So
when
council
voted
against
the
development,
they
are
opposing
their
own
policy,
you
have
no
standing
at
the
OMB.
If
you
oppose
your
own
policy,
if
you
don't
like
the
policy
change
the
policy,
we
can't
keep
on
using
the
OMB
as
a
scapegoat.
We
don't
like
it.
We
want
to
say
that
we
want
to
placate
our
residents
and
say
that
well,
we're
gonna
oppose
this.
F
We
know
it's
gonna
pass
the
only
because
we
know
our
policy
if
you
don't
like
the
policy
change
the
policy,
but
you
can't
sit
there
and
say
that
well,
we
tried
to
speak
for
the
residents.
If
you
want
to
speak
for
the
residents,
you
should
have
changed
the
policy
in
the
secondary
plan.
You
should
to
change
the
policy
in
the
Official
Plan.
F
That's
the
way
you
represent
people,
you
don't
do
it
by
fluffing
stuff
off
the
OMB,
so
I
just
want
to
make
that
clear
that
vote
into
in
2009
or
2008
whatever
it
was,
was
not
reflective
of
how
an
actual
OMB
case
should
be
heard.
That's
I
just
wanted
to
clarify,
because
nobody
here
should
be
making
their
decision
on
this
today,
based
on
the
Mansi
case
they
may
have.
The
case
is
a
very
poor
case.
Okay,.
Q
You,
mr.
quasi
worship,
there
is
okay,
there's
a
trend.
That's
been
going
on
for
several
years
of
moving
decisions
out
of
the
hands
of
the
representatives
of
the
people,
into
the
hands
of
unelected,
unaccountable
tribunals
and
in
panels
and
I
think
we
should
be
respecting
democracy.
More
and
I
think
we
should
be
doing
that
here.
We
should.
We
should
be
making
the
decisions
on
behalf
of
the
people
who
elect
us,
and
those
decisions
should
have
tremendous
weight
problem.
Is
they
don't
right
now,
but
they
should
have
tremendous
weight.
I.
Q
Q
On
top
of
the
of
the
the
ones
that
exist
today
and
that
brand
new
tests
can
take
excessive
amount
of
time,
and
ironically,
can
shift
the
decision-making
power
away
from
the
elected
representatives
of
the
people
and
into
the
hands
of
courts
or
other
tribunals,
so
I
think
this
amendment.
While
the
intention
I
is
clear
that
it
seeks
to
give
better
weight
to
decisions
of
democratically
elected
tribunals.
Well,
counsel,
I
think
that
the
mechanism
chosen
here
and
the
amendment
does
the
exact
opposite
and
so
I
won't
support
the
amendment.
Q
H
H
P
P
I've
already,
my
point
is
to
be
clear:
I've
already
refused
it
as
a
friendly
amendment.
So
therefore
I
would
think
that
we're
not
voting
to
amend
it.
We're
voting
on
the
amendment
for
its
this
yeah,
which
is
very
different
than
that's
right.
Ok,
so
if
you
want
to
support
councilor
Nussbaum,
you
vote
for
the
amendment,
and
you
say
yes,
if
you
want
to
stick
with
my
motion,
you
vote
no.
Thank
you.
Okay,.
K
H
G
A
Respect
mr.
deputy
mayor
I'm
of
the
view
that
you
are
back
to
where
you
were
a
short
while
ago,
where
you
have
to
live
motions
on
the
floor,
councillor
herders
will
be
voted
on
first,
as
according
to
the
earlier
rudy
ruling
that
was
sustained
on
a
challenge
to
the
chair.
If
that
motion
then
is
defeated,
then
the
council,
early
promotion,
would
still
be
in
play.
A
H
M
At
risk
of
repetition,
but
also
the
opportunity
to
to
express
some
gratitude,
I
appreciate
what
chair
harder
did
and
staff
did
in
order
to
look
at
the
letter
that
we
submitted
and
I
have
to
add.
It
was
more
than
six
of
us
because
a
number
of
colleagues
contacted
us
afterwards
to
say:
hey
how
come
we
didn't
get
invited
to
sign
that
letter
only
so
much
time
in
a
day,
and
so
we
knew
there
was
significant
trust
in
and
and
support
for,
reform.
M
As
I
know,
chair
harder
knows
and
I
appreciate
all
the
effort
that
went
into
that
motion.
I
I
guess:
I
shouldn't
try
to
speak
on
behalf
of
others,
but
from
some
conversations
before
had
it
was
clear
that
we
thought
it
almost
went
there,
but
wasn't
quite
enough,
and
and
for
that
reason
we're
going
to
support
both.
P
M
Adding
leapers
on
to
that,
given
where
we
are
now,
it
is
a
really
a
matter
of
appreciating
or
or
of
voting
for
the
harder
motion
saying
it's
good
enough
for
me
or
not,
and
then
taking
our
chances
on
councillor
leapers
afterwards
with
the
chance
to
make
it
a
little
bit
stronger
in
from
where
we're
coming
from.
So
it
is
only
for
that
reason
that
I
would
be
voting
against
the
harder
motion
at
this
time
with
the
desire
to
have
made
it
that
a
little
bit
stronger.
Thank
you
thank.
I
D
Mr.
deputy
mayor,
the
comment
was
in
response
to
if
there
were
challenges
to
a
decision
under
the
test
of
under
the
reasonableness
test,
we're
moving
into
the
court
system.
Maybe
I'll
ask
Miss
Ann
taught
to
comment
on
that,
but
that's
really
you're
now
moving
into
the
court
system,
whereas
the
OB
is
trying
to
work
within
defined
timelines.
The
court
system
is
a
very
different
system
and
I
think
that's
probably
more
appropriate
for
our
legal
staff
to
answer.
A
R
A
H
A
I
Thank
you
for
that
clarification,
Musante
and
mr.
Smith.
You
know
going
back
and
I
think
was
in
2010,
I,
put
a
motion
forward,
a
planning
committee,
and
the
motion
basically
said
to
the
fact
that
any
decision
that
the
OMB
makes
in
in
opposition
to
the
city
or
in
favor
of
the
city
I
wanted
our
legal
to
go
back
and
review
what
the
decision
was
and
why
it
was
made
that
way
in
terms
of
the
OMB
and
if
there
was
deficiencies
in
our
policies.
I
At
the
time,
then
I
wanted
those
policies
to
be
adjusted
based
on
the
decision
by
the
OMB.
We
did
basically
ask
the
the
legal
to
come
back
to
council
or
the
Planning
Committee
on
a
regular
basis.
After
no
immediate
session
happened,
and
we
did
get
some
reports
but
not
to
where
I
wanted
it
to
be
in
terms
of
getting
all
reports
and
all
of
the
OMB
decisions
beyond
that.
I
I
I
have
to
agree
that
the
OMB
is
overruled,
City
Council's
decision
and
they
haven't
done
it
once
they
haven't
done
it
twice,
but
they've
done
it
over
and
over
again
across
the
city.
So,
based
on
that
I'm
not
only
going
to
be
supporting
that
the
council
earnest
bombs
and
the
councillor
Leafers
motion,
but
overall
I'm
happy
to
see
this
discussion
taking
place
at
this
table
and
overall
I'm
happy
to
see
the
OMB
possible
reforms
coming
out
of
this
discussion.
Thank
you
very
much.
G
D
G
For
that
clarification
and
I
want
to
thank
staff
for
assisting
at
the
at
the
last
minute.
I
think
I
got
an
email
from
mr.
Schmitt
at
4:30
this
morning,
with
new
draft
wording
for
the
motion.
So
I
want
to
thank
you
for
that,
and
but
I
was
originally
going
to
speak
just
about
my
piece
of
the
motion,
but
I
wanted
I
want
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
reasonableness
piece
as
well.
G
Councillor
Nussbaum
for
his
amendment,
which
is
essentially
councilor
leapers
motion,
said
that
we're
going
to
raise
the
standard
by
adding
in
reasonableness,
in
my
opinion,
not
raising
the
standard
you're
confusing
the
standard
when
a
lawyer
and
I
can
speak
as
as
a
lawyer
that
litigated
for
over
20
years.
When
we
see
a
word
like
like
reasonableness,
we
start
to
salivate.
N
H
G
G
You
so
again,
as
a
lawyer,
you
salivated
a
word
like
that.
It
opens
all
kinds
of
possibilities,
all
kinds
of
argument,
preparation
Appeals.
So
so
what
could?
What
could
be?
A
reasonably
short
hearing
now
turns
into
a
much
a
much
longer
hearing
and
I
would
suggest
to
you
that
if
reasonableness
makes
its
way
into
the
OMB
reform
that
the
first
number
of
cases,
whoever
loses,
they
will
absolutely
appeal
that
and
they
will
go
to
the
courts,
try
and
figure
out
what
reasonableness
means.
Is
it
reasonableness
to
the
community?
G
Is
it
reasonableness
to
the
council
to
the
individual
counselor
to
the
developer
and
landowner
to
the
person
who
happens
to
be
hearing
the
hearing,
so
reasonableness
is
not
going
to
assist
it's
going
to
confuse
and
it's
going
to
cloud
the
issues.
What
I
did
hear
when
I
went
to
the
open
house
is
about
the
OMB
reform.
However,
and
in
the
in
the
table,
discussions
is
that
for
a
lot
of
well-intentioned
community
groups
and
individual
residents
that
didn't
have
the
resources,
all
they
knew.
Is
they
didn't
like
the
height
of
the
building?
G
They
didn't
like
the
look
of
the
building.
They
didn't
like
the
placement
of
the
building,
but
they
didn't
really
understand
whether
yet
met
planning
principles
or
didn't
meet
planning
principles
why
it
was
recommended
by
staff
or
or
turned
down
by
staff.
All
they
knew
is
they
didn't
like
it
and
they
didn't
want
it.
G
So,
to
my
mind,
an
approach
that
I've
suggested
in
the
motion
that
council
Harder's
brought
forth
and
I
second,
it
which
would
allow
community
groups
who
may
not
be
as
well-funded
as
as
as
developers
and
big
landowners
to
give
them
access
early
on
to
a
planner
or
a
lawyer
with
planning
expertise
to
explain
to
them.
You
know
yeah,
you
may
not
like
it,
but
it
happened
because
of
this,
and
your
chances
of
success
are
that
and
maybe
more
can
be
facilitated
or
worked
out
through
going
the
mediation
route,
which
is
also
something
else.
G
G
Why
the
decisions
were
made.
I
think
that
will
lead
to
a
better
functioning
OMB
I'm,
not
suggesting
you
know,
MB
works
the
way
it
should
it
doesn't.
It
needs
tweaks.
The
open
house
value
is
out
was
heavily
attended.
It
was
excellent
discussion
at
all
the
tables
good
feedback,
but
to
the
point
raised
by
by
councillor
le
a
reasonableness,
I
think
is
going
to
cloud
the
issue
confuse
the
issue.
G
counselor
Leifer
is
concerned
about,
and
the
residents
that
he's
concerned
about
to
have
more
and
better
input
into
the
OMB
process
and
feel
that
they're
being
listened
to
and
feel
that
they
have
an
educated
voice
in
the
decision-making.
So
that's
why
I'll
be
supporting
the
motion
that
I've?
Second
it
with
that
with
counts
for
harder
thanks.
H
A
Thanks
very
much
mr.
deputy
mayor,
so
we've
heard
today
that
when
we
lose
at
the
OMB,
it's
because
a
council
plays
politics
when
they
vote
against
recommendations
of
professional
staff,
and
it
goes
to
the
OMB.
We
lose
those
recommendations
from
staff
or
based
on
policies
and
best
practices
that
are
almost
always
endorsed
by
council.
A
Let's
fight
against
every
application
for
suburban
development,
let's
hold
up
the
densities
of
places
like
Westboro
and
the
Glebe
as
the
gold
standard
and
then
vote
against
communities
in
Orleans
and
bar
Haven
that
have
higher
densities
than
those
two
other
communities
being
call
it
sprawl.
The
hypocrisy
that
is
displayed
at
the
moment
would
make
clive
you
sent
Alex
Colin,
proud,
I,
think
and
the
procedural
voodoo
attempted
today
will
go
down
in
history
as
a
blatant.
A
blatant
demonstration
of
politics
when
really
if
people
want
to
make
change,
propose
the
change,
get
your
hands
dirty.
A
H
B
Is
it
elected
officials
who
are
accountable
to
voters,
or
is
it
an
unaccountable
and
unelected
OMB
a
standard
of
reasonableness
would
restrict
the
OMB
to
overturning
counsel
decisions
only
when
those
decisions
are
demonstrably
unreasonable.
That
is
I
think
it
goes
without
saying
that
they
are
out
of
step
with
the
policies
and
rules
that
are
supposed
to
govern
our
decisions.
I'll
quote
from
the
provincial
consultation
paper.
There
has
been
some
discomfort
about
what
reasonableness
means.
B
The
province
has
said
that
that
means
OMB
hearings
would
examine
whether
the
original
decision
was
within
a
range
of
defensible
outcomes
within
the
authority
of
the
municipality
or
approval
Authority.
If
the
decision
is
found
to
have
been
made
within
that
range
of
outcomes,
the
OMB
would
not
be
able
to
overturn
it.
I
think
that's
a
very
clear
definition
from
the
province
itself
about
what
the
standard
of
reasonableness
means
and
I
think
it's
important
to
remember
as
well
that
reasonableness,
the
reasonable
person
is
ultimately
at
the
basis
of
most
of
our
Canadian
law.
B
What
is
what
is
at
issue
here
is
whether
there
should
be
limits
on
the
grounds
upon
which
the
OMB
should
be
able
to
overturn
council
decisions.
It
has
suggested
that
they
might
be
limited
to
ruling
on
the
validity
of
the
decision
under
appeal
in
a
subject
in
a
field
that
is
as
subjective
as
planning.
It
would
require
the
OMB
to
demonstrate
that
I
mean
Council
decision
is
unreasonable
to
overturn
it.
I
still
don't
understand
the
opposition
to
a
standard
of
reasonableness.
B
In
a
memo
distributed
yesterday,
staff
asserted
with
respect
to
the
reasonable
test
proposed
by
the
province
that
adopting
this
approach
would
have
the
OMB
moving
away
from
making
decisions
grounded
on
principles
of
good
planning.
I
have
not
heard
any
further
analysis
of
that
at
no
time.
Under
a
standard
of
reasonableness,
would
the
council
ever
be
absolved
of
making
a
decision
on
the
basis
of
sound
planning
principles,
but
the
change
would
recognize
that
in
planning
there
are,
as
the
province
says,
a
range
of
reasonable
outcomes
from
any
given
process.
P
Quite
frankly,
I
don't
even
know
where
to
start
but
I'll
say
that
I
have
I
serve
on
a
Mohs
task
force
on
this
very
file
and
of
interest
to
me
and
if
you
were
to
hear
other
smaller
municipalities
in
particular,
who
talk
about
what
their
needs
are.
Their
needs
are
what
I've
drafted
and
councillor
egg
ly
has
support.
P
With
regard
to
the
community
support.
They
tell
me
in
some
cases
on
some
of
these
smaller
councillors
we're
just
a
bunch
of
farmers
and
yet
we're
expected
to
defend
the
provincial
policy
standards.
How
can
we
do
that?
We
don't
have
a
professional
planning
staff,
we
don't
have
a
lawyer
and
yet
we're
expected
to
spend
a
million
dollars
to
defend
this.
So
I
want
to
make
sure
that
you
understand
how
broad
this
review
is.
The
review
is
necessary
and
it's
important
I
think
we
all
agree
on
that.
But
around
this
table
we're
not
the
experts.
P
We
are
the
farmers
of
those
smaller
communities
and
we
won't
agree
on
what
would
be
reasonable.
Even
amongst
us,
and
so
the
very
few
times
the
council
has
lost
at
the
OMB
on
something
that
is,
you
know,
had
a
lot
of
a
lot
at
stake:
the
Minto
mahogany
and
manitech
for
sure
we
were
warned
that
we
would
lose
on
that
by
our
city.
Clerk
solicitor,
who
said
you've
got
no
basis
for
this.
It's
a
plan.
P
You
support
it
now,
because
a
bunch
of
people
got
together
and
said,
let's
support
glen
brooks
in
that
case,
that's
how
we
went
down
that
path,
unreasonable
who
would
have
agreed
to
unreasonable,
I'll,
even
say
the
mizrahi
recently,
because
it's
been
throwing
up
a
lot.
I
think.
The
reason
for
that
to
cite
mizrahi
is
the
fact
that
we
came
up
with
a
direction
from
the
the
OMB
that
said,
hey,
if
you
give
the
wow
factor,
you're
going
to
get
extra
height
now
was
that
reasonable?
P
But
having
said
that,
I
can
tell
you
that
in
this
this
term
of
council,
the
number
of
OMB
appeals
has
dropped
to
a
quarter
of
what
they
were.
Why
is
that?
Because
we
have
our
staff
and
this
council
have
worked
really
really
hard
to
collaborate
communicate
to
cooperate.
I'll.
Give
you
an
example
on
the
infill
to
infill.
One
was
how
many
weeks
was
that
ant
that
LM
Inglis
had
to
go
to
Toronto
six
weeks
or
something
okay
infill
to
comes
along
and
guess
what
we
have
old
Ottawa
East
is
one
of
the
appellant.
They
said.
P
No,
we
can't
stand
for
that.
What
happened?
Is
our
staff
collaborated
and
worked
with
that
community
to
come
up
with
a
solution
outside
of
the
OMB?
You
see
here's
the
difference
between
us
in
Toronto.
We
got
a
good
thing
going
here
because
of
those
words,
collaborate
cooperate,
communicate,
that's
what
we
do.
That's
why
we're
having
success?
We've
never
been
in
a
position
where
we've
been
more
inclusive
in
bringing
in
the
industry
bringing
in
the
communities,
and
sometimes
we
won't
like
it.
P
Schmitt
at
4:30
in
the
morning,
just
like
yesterday
morning
when
we
were
working
on
the
official
plan,
amendment
stuff,
these
guys
work
really
hard
for
us
and
I'm,
hoping
that
you'll
support
the
pulling
out
what
they've
put
into
the
document
on
the
community
support
to
continue
in
the
vein
that
we
are
going
in
in
that
direction,
because
with
that
we
are
strong
and
we
do
represent
our
city.
Thank
you
very
much.
H
Thank
you
very
much,
counselor,
harder
and,
and
certainly
I,
think.
A
lot
of
good
points
were
made
today
by
the
entire
table
about
about
this
issue.
I
support,
councilor
Harder's
position,
not
because
I
disagree
with
the
concept
of
what
councilor
leaper
councillor
Nussbaum
are
looking
to
do,
but
I
agree
with
councilor
bleh
that
if
the
policy
should
be
improved,
then
we
should
be
improving
the
planning
principles
not
trying
to
install
some
kind
of
guard
against
improperly
conceived
planning
principles.
H
I
think
our
planning
principles
are
good
if
they
need
to
be
tweaked
or
improved,
they
should
be
I
also
agree
with
councillor
eagle-eye
I.
Think
oftentimes,
the
legal
community
see
a
word
as
he
said,
reasonably
reasonableness
and
see
that
there's
a
great
opportunity
to
have
play
with
that.
I.
Don't
think
that's.
If
we're
trying
to
inject
certainty
in
the
planning
process.
I,
don't
think
that,
does
it
I
think
it
moves
us
into
unsure
territory.
H
K
A
A
O
H
We
can
we
agree
the
same
vote
as
recorded
for
the
dissents.
No,
we
can't
add
additional
dissent
by
councillor
Brockton,
no
he's
not
dissenting
okay.
Have
you
got
that
or
do
you
want
all
right?
Let's
do
yeas
and
nays,
let's
try
and
do
it
quickly,
yeas
and
nays
on
the
original
report
or
on
the
amended
report
I'm.
Sorry,
we
tried
that
we
have
too
many
dissents
to
to
councillor.
A
I
H
Thank
you
very
much.
The
clerk
has
requested
going
back
to
the
direction
that
counselor
flurry
has
given
to
staff
on
the
municipal
alcohol
policy,
server
clarity.
He
would
like
it
read
into
the
record.
So
this
is
the
direction
to
staff
that
staff
meet
with
the
Federation
of
community
associations
to
review
the
policy
and
its
implementation
that
staff
report
back
on
the
policy
to
the
community
Protective
Services
Committee
at
the
end
of
2017
grade
mr.
Clerk.
E
The
report
entitled
satis
update
council
inquires
and
motions
for
the
period
ending
18
November
2016,
the
report
from
Ottawa
Board
of
Health
entitled
regulating
personal
services,
settings
community
and
Protective
Services
Committee
report.
Nineteen
planning
committee
reports
at
35
a
and
36
and
the
Transit
Commission
report
eleven
be
received
and
adopted
as
amended.
H
O
Thank
You
mr.
deputy
mayor.
Yes,
this
is
just
a
final
extension
on
a
temporary
lane
closure.
The
residents
in
question
have
had
to
deal
with
some
illness
among
the
group
who
are
planning
on
coming
forward
next
year
with
a
potential
proposal
to
purchase
the
link,
the
actual
City
lanes
behind
their
their
properties.
They've
asked
for
an
extension
until
the
end
of
next
year.
I've
said
fine,
but
this
is
it
so
this
will
be
the
last
time
I'll
be
coming
to
Council,
with
this
and
I
want
to
thank
mr.
O
H
Final
okay,
thank
you
very
much,
counselor
on
councilor
news
moment.
Flurries
motion
carried.
Thank
you
very
much
councillor
Moffat
seconded
by
Councillor
de
Roos.
This
one
requires
a
3/4
vote
or
carried
please
because
it
is
amending
essentially
or
correcting
an
earlier
an
earlier
report.
So
councillor
Moffat,
please.
F
Thank
you.
As
I
mentioned
last
council
meeting,
I
had
made
a
mistake
on
the
motion
from
a
month
ago,
so
moved
by
myself
seconded
by
my
vice-chair
George
dole
Comey
Mike
Pence
to
ruse,
therefore,
be
it
resolved
that
the
review
to
be
conducted
by
staff
and
respective
coach
houses
in
a
rural
area
also
include
a
review
of
the
appropriate
minimum
lot
size
for
such
development.
So
previously
we
had
said
to
review
certain
things,
but
we
omitted
the
the
lot
size
requirement
in
on
private
services.
So
this
just
corrects
that.
Thank
you
on.