►
From YouTube: Planning and Housing Committee — 2023/09/20
Description
Planning and Housing Committee
Meeting #: 15
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023
Time: 9:30 am
Location: Champlain Room, 110 Laurier Avenue West, and by electronic participation
https://pub-ottawa.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=59d6116a-2124-4df7-898d-eeeed939c20a&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English
B
E
F
B
B
This
is
a
public
meeting
to
consider
the
proposed
comprehensive
official
plan
and
Zoning
bylaw
amendments
listed
as
five
one,
six
one,
six,
three,
six
five
and
six
seven
on
today's
agenda
for
the
items
just
mentioned.
Only
those
who
make
oral
submissions
today
or
written
submissions
before
the
amendments
are
adopted,
May
appeal,
the
matter
to
the
Ontario
land
tribunal.
In
addition,
the
applicant
May
appeal
the
matter
to
the
Ontario
land
tribunal.
B
B
There
is
a
response
to
inquiry:
OCC
202308
the
Mandate
and
objectives
of
experimental
Farm
consultation,
I'm,
assuming
that
folks
have
read
that
in
the
context
of
the
first
substantial
item
on
the
agenda,
which
is
the
zoning
bylaw
Amendment
for
1081
Carling
Avenue,
we
are
going
to
receive
a
very
short
presentation
from
our
heritage
staff
before
going
into
nine
delegations.
Public
delegations
on
that
item,.
B
Item
6.1
is
the
zoning
bylaw
Amendment
for
230
and
232
lisner
Street
and
item
6-2
is
the
application
for
Demolition
and
new
construction
at
230
232
lisga
Street,
a
property
designated
under
part
five
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
act.
We
don't
have
any
public
delegations
on
that.
One
staff
are
prepared
to
make
a
presentation
if
anyone
wishes,
but
is
this
item
carried?
Oh
sorry,
the
applicants
are
here
project
one
studio
and
Photon.
Jillian
Simpson
is
here
from
Photon
Ryan
cool
wine
from
Project
one
studio.
B
B
So,
let's
suppose,
six
one
and
six
two
item
six
three
and
item
six:
four:
are
the
zoning
bylaw
Amendment
for
352
Somerset,
Street
West,
as
well
as
the
application
to
alter
Somerset
house
at
352,
Somerset,
Street,
West,
also
designated
under
part.
Five
I
know
the
Heritage
committee.
Those
of
us
are
not
received
a
good
presentation
on
that
this
week
last
week
this
week
last
week
that
same
presentation
can
also
be
made
today.
B
G
B
And
thanks
I
I
know
that
Council
trust
to
really
speak
briefly
to
that
as
well.
We
also
have
a
zoning
bylaw
Amendment
for
555
591,
595
and
603
March
Road
good
morning,
councilor
Johnson,
no,
no
none
required.
We
have
some
motions
on
this.
One
there's
a
presentation:
if
required
there
are
no
delegations
signed
up
to
speak
except
for
the
applicant.
Could
we
get
those
motions
on
the
table
now?
I
think
Council,
Vice,
chair
Gower
has
those?
H
Whereas
report
ACS
2023
preps011
seeks
approval
of
an
amendment
to
zoning
bylaw,
2008
250
for
555,
591,
595
and
603
March
Road
to
permit
high-rise
mixed
use
development
and
whereas
the
official
plan
states
that
high-rise
buildings
should
be
composed
of
a
well-defined
base
middle
and
top
with
Tower
floor
plate,
sized
sizes
generally
limited
to
750
square
meters
for
residential
buildings
and
that
larger
floor
plates
may
be
permitted
with
increased
separation
distances
and
whereas
ACS
2023,
p
r
e
edp0043.
The
Omnibus
official
plan.
H
H
750
square
meters
and
adding
the
following
to
the
holding
Provisions
as
five
XXVI,
where
one
or
more
high-rise
buildings
with
floor
plates,
larger
than
750
meters
squared
are
proposed.
The
applicant
will
provide
a
demonstration
plan
with
supporting
studies
for
the
entire
area
of
the
exception,
illustrating
that
there
are
no
undo
adverse
impacts
of
a
larger
Tower
floor
plate
on
the
public
realm
to
the
satisfaction
of
the
general
manager
of
the
planning,
real
estate
and
economic
development
department,
and
be
it
further
resolved
that,
pursuant
to
subsection
3417
of
the
planning
act,
no
further
notice
be
given.
H
2
of
the
report,
therefore,
be
it
resolved
that,
with
respect
to
report,
ACS
2023
pre
ps0111
document
two
details
of
the
recommended
zoning
be
amended
by
amending
5
III
to
read
in
area
a
of
schedule,
syy
maximum
floor
space
index,
2.6
and
inches,
and
amending
five
III
to
read
in
area
B.
Oh,
it's
not
even
inches.
That
was
a
quote
in
area
B
of
schedule,
syy
maximum
floor
space
index
3.1
and
be
it
further
resolved
that,
pursuant
to
subsection
3417
of
the
planning
act,
no
further
notice
be
given.
B
B
I
K
M
I
just
wanted
to
make
a
quick
comment:
I
read
this
application
with
interest.
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
great
stuff
in
this
limit.
Auto
dependency.
Everything
is
mixed,
use
create
a
new
public
road
that
fits
growth
projection,
so
I
just
I
really
think
this
is
an
amazing
example
of
how
we
want
to
be
building
in
the
suburbs
and
I.
I
commend
counselor
Curry
and
everyone
who
worked
on
it.
I
have
an
interest
in
sort
of
how
this
came
together.
B
H
B
H
B
F
There
is,
whereas
revisions
are
required
to
the
agreement
conditions
listed
in
document
3
of
rep
of
the
report
in
order
to
achieve
the
intent
of
the
said
report,
therefore
be
it
resolved.
The
document
3
of
the
said
report
be
replaced
by
document
one
attached
here,
two
and
it's
a
six
page
document,
so
I
will
not
read
it,
but
it
has
been
circulated
and
is
available
to
committee
members.
B
M
Lots
of
comments
today,
yeah
I,
just
wanted
to
signal
I
mean
a
front-ending
report
for
a
stormwater
management.
Pawn
seems
fairly
innocuous,
but
this
is
going
to
unlock
thousands
of
units
upwards
of
5
000
as
per
the
CDP,
because
it's
allowing
several
subdivisions
to
proceed
to
draft
plan
approvals.
So
you
will
be
hearing
a
lot
from
me
in
the
coming
I'm
just
warning.
You
lots
to
talk
about
transportation
and
all
that
fun
stuff.
So
yeah
thanks.
B
B
B
B
Then
there
is
the
treasurer's
report
on
2022
growth
related
revenues.
There
is
no
report
on
that.
We
don't
have
any
delegations
but
I'm
going
to
hold
the
item.
I
know
Vice,
chair
Gower
has
some
questions.
That
report
covers
the
the
2022
development
charges,
the
various
other
envelopes
of
growth
related
a
good
opportunity,
I'm
going
to
keep
Gary
Baker
on
the
phone
until
later
this
afternoon.
To
answer
some
questions
on
that
one.
So,
with
those
items
carried
I'm
going
to
go
back
to
the
start,
which
is
the
zoning
bylaw
Amendment
for
1081,
Carling,
Avenue
I.
B
Think
as
members
well
recall,
there
was
an
administrative
error
that
led
to
the
notification
for
this
item
not
being
sent
to
everybody
who
made
comments
on
the
application.
The
advice
that
we
received
and
that
I
was
happy
to
accept,
was
to
do
another
hearing
on
this.
So
this
is
the
public
meeting
at
which
this
item
will
be
considered.
I
consider
it
to
be
a
de
novo
meeting.
B
I,
don't
think
I
have
heard
since
a
month
or
so
ago
any
new
information
on
some
of
the
considerations
like,
for
example,
whether
the
transitions
are
appropriate
or
not.
Members
of
the
public
and
the
applicant
may
continue
to
address
those,
but
what
we
do
have
is
an
updated
cultural
heritage
impact
statement,
which
I
think
will
be
the
Crux
of
the
discussion
today.
I've
asked
staff
to
very
briefly
address
with
us.
B
O
P
Morning,
Mr
chair
members
of
the
committee-
excuse
me
for
not
being
there,
but
I
don't
want
to
make
you
all
sick,
so
I'm
happy
to
provide
an
update
on
the
cultural
heritage
side
of
things
for
this
file.
So
since
the
August
16th
planning
and
housing
committee
meeting
the
cultural
heritage
impact
statement
was
revised
and
resubmitted
to
include
analysis
of
the
more
recent
Shadow
studies
prepared
by
the
applicant
team,
the
revised
cultural
heritage
impact
statement
does
meet
the
city's
terms
of
reference
for
the
preparation
of
these
documents.
P
So
the
revised
chis
assesses
the
current
development
proposal
and
the
updated
Shadow
studies,
as
well
as
some
of
the
correspondence
received
from
Agriculture
and
agri-foods
Canada.
In
terms
of
the
conclusions
of
of
that
study,
it
does
conclude
that
basically,
the
there
will
be
some
impacts
as
a
result
of
the
Shadows
on
the
farm.
P
However,
the
application
or
sorry
the
author
of
the
study
does
conclude
that
ultimately,
the
cultural
heritage
impact
of
this
proposed
development
is
minimal
on
the
overall
cultural
heritage,
value
of
the
firm.
So,
from
a
staff
perspective,
we
acknowledge
the
concerns
raised
by
AFC
about
the
future
viability
of
the
impacted
fields
for
research,
and
we,
as
as
is
noted
in
the
staff
report,
we've
relied
on
their
professional
expertise
regarding
their
agricultural
research,
which
is
outside
of
mine
and
the
Heritage
team's
professional
expertise.
P
But
we
have
to
evaluate
the
proposal
based
on
the
policy
framework
in
place.
So
in
the
official
plan,
the
requirement
around
cultural
heritage
is
that
development
adjacent
to
National
historic
sites
has
to
have
regard
for
the
cultural
heritage
value
as
design
as
defined.
Sorry
in
the
federal
designation
documentation
and
the
city
may
require
the
demonstration
that
the
development
does
not
unduly
adversely
impact
these
Heritage
resources.
P
So,
as
has
been
talked
about
many
times
at
this
committee
and
at
Council
impacts
to
Heritage,
resources
cannot
always
be
completely
avoided
and,
as
such,
the
City
generally
takes
the
approach
of
trying
to
work
to
mitigate
impact.
So
in
this
instance,
the
height
and
floor
plates
of
the
proposal
have
been
reduced
in
part
to
mitigate
impacts
on
adjacent
properties.
P
All
of
that
being
said,
Heritage
staff
does
acknowledge
that
future
development,
based
on
the
new
official
plan
policy
context
surrounding
the
periphery
of
the
firm,
may
have
accumulative
and
potentially
adverse
impact
on
the
cultural
heritage.
Value
of
the
National
Historic
Site
and
the
department
has
initiated
a
conversation
with
Agriculture
and
Agri
foods.
Canada
about
how
those
impacts
could
be
potentially
mitigated
in
the
future.
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
the
committee
might
have
on
that.
B
Thanklessly
and
I
imagine
that
after
delegations,
members
probably
will
have
a
number
of
questions
for
you
with
respect
to
the
relationship
between
the
Heritage
value
of
the
farm
and
the
shallow
impact
so
stay
around.
For
that,
please,
the
applicants
are
here
and
I
would
offer
an
opportunity
to
speak
to
the
item
if
they
so
choose.
Otherwise
we
can
move
into
public
delegations.
Q
R
Thank
you
very
much,
I'll
be
very
brief.
I'm
Miguel
Trombley
I'm,
a
partner
I'm
here
with
John
Stewart
from
Commonwealth
and
Brayden
Walker
and
Cal
from
Taggart.
We
are
not
intending
to
revisit
some
of
the
discussions
from
last
week
simply
to
signal
to
the
committee
that
we
are
supportive
of
the
findings
and
recommendations
of
the
report
related
to
Building,
height
density
transition
and
our
obligations
for
those
studies.
With
that
in
mind,
we
did
acknowledge
that
the
cultural
heritage
impact
statement
should
be
revised,
as
you
heard,
from
from
Ms
Collins
and
Jon.
R
G
The
initial
assessment
addressed
the
farm
in
the
surrounding
neighborhood
and
was
submitted
a
while
ago
and
in
the
in
the
process,
there's
a
requirement:
a
request
by
the
city
to
focus
on
the
farm
addressing
the
Shadow
studies.
There
updated
Shadow
studies
and
addressing
the
two
documents
defining
the
Heritage
value
of
the
of
the
farm,
the
commemorative
Integrity
statement
and
the
statement
of
significance.
G
G
G
The
character
of
the
farm
as
defined
by
Fields
utilitarian
buildings
and
circulation
patterns
are
not
compromised
and
the
feature
of
the
farm
within
the
city
remaining
sufficiently
large
to
provide
a
contrast
to
the
scale
of
the
urban
development
is
unaffected
and
not
impacted.
Next
slide.
Please,
in
terms
of
the
statement
of
significance
that
the
SOS,
the
impact
to
Heritage
attributes
listed
in
the
statement
of
significance
focused
specifically
on
the
experimental
Fields.
G
The
plots,
the
roads
and
shelter
belts
include
the
organization
of
fields
based
on
grid
system
of
roadways
and
access
lanes
and
and
distinctive,
inter
internal
fencing
and
we're
preserved
and
not
impacted
the
open
cultivated
Fields
with
their
variable
sizes.
Colors,
textures
and
seasonal
variations
remain
on
untouched.
G
The
relationship
between
the
Open
Fields
and
the
heavily
screened
driveway
with
its
Parkway
characteristics
is
unchanged.
The
shelter
belts
made
up
of
hearty
trees,
which
are
protected,
the
fields
is
not
impacted
and
the
viewscapes
are
from
outside
the
farm.
Looking
across
the
fields
are
not
compromised.
Next
slide.
Please.
G
Basically,
from
that
analysis,
it
was
found
the
impact
of
shadowing
conforms
to
the
criteria
set
out
in
the
city's
terms
of
reference.
The
next
slide,
please,
in
terms
of
the
conclusions
to
the
hia
his
opinion,
that
the
proposed
development
will
not
significantly
impact
on
the
identified
cultural
heritage
values
associated
with
the
farm.
G
The
commemorative
Integrity
statement,
the
Farms
research
role,
the
recognition
of
the
farm
within
the
city
and
the
firm's
Heritage
significance
will
be
preserved.
The
statement
of
significance,
the
SOS
defining
features
referencing,
the
agricultural
lands,
the
plots,
Fields
shelter
belts
will
be
preserved.
The
impact
of
shadowing
is
in
this
specific
project
is
acceptable
per
the
criteria.
The
city's
terms
of
reference,
and
finally
it
is
not
within
the
chis
scope
of
or
the
author's
expertise
to
comment
on,
the
in-depth
analysis
or
dispute
the
role
of
the
farm
as
a
scientific
institution.
Thank
you.
G
S
Thanks
chair
I
just
have
a
few
questions
of
clarification,
because
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
understand
the
position
in
advance
of
the
agriculture
Canada
delegation.
So
it
is
your
belief,
sir,
that
shadowing
on
agricultural
research
lands
where
no
shadowing
exists
now
is
acceptable
that
that
is
your
position.
That's.
S
R
B
F
Sir
yeah
just
following
up
again
for
clarification,
so
the
the
study
found
that
a
sufficiently
large
area
to
carry
out
and
support
the
scientific
research
function
as
safeguarded
and
maintained
and
I
appreciate
the
question
from
my
colleague
to
if
that's
based
on
the
net
new
Shadow.
So
in
this
case,
are
you
considering
just
the
individual
field,
that's
closest
to
this
building
on
Carling
Avenue,
when
you're
saying
a
research
function
is
safeguarded
and
maintained?
R
May
I
add
just
a
small
clarification
and
just
to
remind
in
terms
of
contacts,
the
the
central
experimental
Farm
is
427
hectares
of
land
within
an
urban
context,
Bound
by
roads
that
this
op
has
identified
as
strategic
corridors
for
growth
and
achieving
some
of
our
housing
objectives.
Some
of
the
Shadow
impacts-
and
you
heard
from
the
previous
time
we
were
here
because
Barry,
Hoban
and
Associates
spoke
to
their
Shadow
study
a
little
bit,
but
some
of
the
the
shadowings
are
actually
they're
not
exclusively
on
agricultural
Fields.
R
Some
of
the
shadowing
relates
to
surface
parking
areas,
existing
buildings,
a
helicopter
pad
and
some
some
grass
areas.
So
you
know
in
terms
of
the
scale
of
the
farm
I,
think
it's
important
as
part
of
this
discussion
and
and
the
the
potential
for
it
to
sterilize
these
corridors,
where
the
city
has
now
conducted
environmental
assessments
to
complete
some
of
their
their
brt
corridors
and
stimulate
this
kind
of
development
along
those
corridors,
but
the
shadow
impacts
important
but
at
the
same
time
not
exclusively
on
agricultural
lands.
Thank
you.
G
T
G
R
But
if
I
could
offer
yes
again,
one
one
other
clarification
and
maybe
revisit
some
of
Mrs
Collins
comments,
though
there
is
an
obligation
for
for
the
applicant
to
do
a
shadow
study
and
then
the
the
City
reviews
it.
The
shadow
studies
are
done
in
terms
of
the
terms
of
reference
and
the
the
intent
is
to
identify
policies
that
are
being
offended.
It's
not
that
your
op
doesn't
recognize
the
scientific
nature
of
the
of
the
experimental
Farm
it
defines
it
as
open
space,
Green,
Space
and
I.
R
Think
it's
policy
717,
something
along
those
lines
recognizes
that
the
farm
does
have
an
experimental
and
scientific
role
and
that's
what
makes
it
the
farm.
But
the
the
study
responds
to
the
terms
of
reference
and,
despite
the
fact
that
you
may
hear
delegations
that
there
are
impacts
to
the
farm,
it
doesn't
offend
any
of
your
policies.
So
in
in
terms
of
weighing
that
you,
you
have
to
look
at
your
existing
official
plan
policies
and
determine
what
that
impact
is
as
defined
by
those
policies,
not
other
aspirations.
Thank
you.
Thank.
T
B
Thank
you,
councilor
Divine,
I,
don't
see
any
other
members
of
the
questions.
I
am
wondering.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
I
fully
understand
the
relationship
between
the
impact
of
this
development
and
the
cultural
heritage
value
of
the
farm.
If
this
building
goes
in,
whether
it
is
at
Nine
Stories
or
whether
it's
a
26
or
16
or
whatever
it
is
going
to
Shadow
a
field
that
hitherto
has
been
unshadowed
and
the
variability
of
Shadow
Crossing,
that
field
is
going
to
make
a
particular
type
of
research
impossible.
B
G
It
is
and
I
think
the
experimental
farming
it's
it's
a
big
piece
of
land
and
the
experimental
components
I
mean
the
ornamental,
the
research
that's
done
by
the
Preston
sisters,
the
terms
of
everything
from
lilac
through
to
daylilies.
At
that
level.
I
think
you
know
you
have
the
aspect
of
the
shelter
belts
and
at
one
time
they
were
believed
to
be
extremely
important.
G
Part
of
the
environment
and
so
I
think
that,
throughout
the
history
of
the
of
the
the
farm,
research
has
been
a
primary
element
in
in
our
range,
not
only
the
grain
crops
and
the
cereal
crops,
but
in
a
whole
other
areas
as
well
so
I
think
as
a
as
an
institution.
I
think
research
is,
is
sort
of
a
basic
platform
of
of
the
experimental
firm.
B
G
I
think
this
specific
project,
the
impact
from
my
interpretation,
the
and
I
I-
say
that
just
as
a
Layman
is
is
passing
or
fleeting
I.
Think
if
you
end
up
with
24,
30
or
40
story
buildings
all
around
the
farm,
then
I
think
it
completely
negates
that
that
aspect
of
research
along
those
edges,
whether
it
impacts
it
in
the
entire
site,
I,
don't
believe
so,
but
I
think
in
fact
it
would
impact
quite
severely
the
the
edges
of
the
farm.
As
we
know
it
right
now
and.
B
I
I
know
there's
going
to
be
discussion
around
the
long-term
future
of
the
farm,
its
role
as
a
research
facility
and
the
relationship
between
the
farm
and
the
city's
goals
of
intensification
along
Transit
corridors.
But
we
don't
have
to
do
that
right
now.
So
we'll
have
that
discussion
through
the
rest
of
through
the
rest
of
this
I.
Don't
have
any
further
questions.
Did
members
have
any
other
questions.
B
A
A
A
The
question
was
asked
acceptable.
As
per
the
city's
terms
of
reference
for
open
space
yup,
it
is
the
problem,
is
the
terms
of
reference,
don't
identify
and
deal
with
this
particular
use
and
there's
an
obligation.
The
test
I
think
Mr
chair.
Is
there
an
imperative
for
the
city
to
do
something
or
protect
it?
Yes,
there
is
it's
the
good
planning
imperative
the
good
planning
imperative.
It's
an
amorphous
thing:
I
used
to
be
a
planner
a
long
time
ago,
I
work
with
binars
I've
worked
with
Mr
Stewart.
A
By
the
way
who
indicates
he
doesn't
have
the
expertise
to
Analyze
This.
Neither
does
the
staff
person
who
spoke
an
important
part
of
good
planning
is.
Are
there?
Are
the
adjacent
nearby
uses
compatible
and
will
you
do
any
harm?
My
understanding
is
you're
going
to
hear
from
agriculture.
Canada
you've
already
received
reports
to
that
effect
that
you
will,
and
that
goes
to
the
cultural
heritage.
Aspects
of
the
farm
which
you
have
to
protect
also
goes
to
good
planning,
which
you
have
to
implement
restrictions
on
adjacent
development
that
cause
harm
or
damage
to
the
existing
use.
A
I'm
going
to
recommend
to
you
peer
review
that
you
take
a
moment
take
a
little
time
higher
the
expertise
as
independent
peer
review.
There's
McDonald
college
at
McGill
two
hours
down
the
road.
They
have
expertise,
University
of
Saskatchewan
farther
away.
They
have
expertise,
get
them
to
analyze.
What
is
the
exact
harm
to
these
fields
and
to
the
research
being
taken
on
there,
that
research
being
part
of
the
cultural
heritage
of
the
farm
which
you
are
obligated
to
protect,
give
them
the
expert
Duty
statement
from
the
Ontario
land
Tribunal?
A
They
have
to
perform
their
work
independently
without
bias
fairly
analyze.
The
staff
position
analyze
the
agricultural
Heritage.
Sorry,
the
agricultural,
Agri
foods
and
Canada's
position
come
back
and
say:
is
this
significantly
detrimental
or
even
detrimental
or
it's
a
staff
position
does
not
adversely
impact
they
say,
does
not
create
an
undue
adverse
impact.
Yet
I
heard
the
staff
person
this
morning.
The
first
say:
well,
there
is
an
impact,
but
she
said
she's
not
qualified
to
identify.
Is
it
adverse
or
undue
adverse
impact,
and
neither
is
Mr,
Stewart
I
think
that's
the
core
of
it.
A
I'll
just
end.
There
may
be
some
people
who
say
that
chna
is
being
opportunistic
and
jumping
on
this,
and
it's
true.
This
is
not
Central
to
their
issues
in
the
Civic
Hospital
neighborhood,
but
they're
citizens.
They
care
about
the
experimental
firm,
as
do
many
people
in
this
city
and
its
research
function.
If
you
there's
books
written
about
it,
Layman's
books
about
the
research
function
of
the
farm,
don't
detrimentally
impact
it.
A
B
B
U
U
Good
morning,
I
was
here
the
last
planning
meeting.
My
name
is
Bill
gregg
I'm,
an
architect,
that's
been
in
Ottawa
for
about
40
years
and
I've
got
involved
in
this
because
I'm
concerned
with
the
incremental
approach
to
development.
That's
occurring
in
the
city.
At
this
point,
so
I've
prepared
three
videos
to
try
and
understand
the
the
shadow
studies
that
have
been
produced
both
by
the
proponent
as
well
as
agriculture.
Canada.
U
This
is
just
for
orientation.
So,
where
the
red
triangle
is,
is
the
present
1081
site,
you
can
see
the
Civic
Hospital
to
the
upper
right
and
the
farm
to
the
the
lower
right
it
takes
up.
Most
of
the
slide
next
slide,
please,
this
is
a
video.
So
could
you
please
play
the
video?
This
is
the
existing
Shadows
cast
from
four
o'clock
until
eight
o'clock
in
the
evening?
U
U
U
U
They
cross
Winding
Lane
and
extend
into
other
research
Fields
farther
to
the
south
of
Winding.
Lane
I've
checked
my
model
with
the
proponents
and
for
the
most
part
it
checks
out.
So
I
don't
have
a
problem
with
that.
It's
just
I
couldn't
understand
how
these
Shadows
were
being
cast
from
the
information
that
was
being
provided
either
by
the
proponent
or
by
agriculture
Canada.
So
that's
why
these
I
produce
these
next
slide.
Please.
U
Next
slide:
there
we
go
okay,
so
this
shows,
if,
if
you
know
the
1081
is
accepted
and
built,
and
it's
used
as
a
precedent,
there's
a
property
on
the
corner
of
Carling
and
Holland.
That's
just
a
slight
slightly
bigger
than
the
the
present
1081
site
that
could
accommodate
the
same
sort
of
development
and
that's
what
I've
placed
in
the
model
here.
So
let's
go
to
the
next
slide.
U
U
Secondly,
by
approving
the
1081
in
its
present
massing,
it
sets
a
precedent
for
development
along
the
Main
Street
corridors,
which
ring
the
central
experimental
form,
and
thirdly,
I
feel
the
city
should
pause
its
application
and
work
with
agriculture
Canada
to
amend
our
official
plan
to
protect
this
unique
Ottawa
asset.
So
that's
the
end
of
my
presentation.
Thank
you
very
much.
B
S
Thanks
chair
I
just
wanted
to
pursue
two
lines
of
questions.
Sir
I
didn't
get
your
full
name
legal
representative.
Can
you
just
remind
me
thank
you,
sir
Mr
Moon,
two
points
and
I
believe
you
made
reference
to
this
in
your
presentation,
so
I'd
like
you
to
expand
on
this.
If
you
can,
sir,
my
understanding,
the
official
plan
is
silent
on
agricultural
research,
the
value
of
agricultural
research.
S
S
A
I'm,
a
lawyer
I
can't
comment
on
the
exact
harm.
This
is
a
rezoning
application.
Rezoning
applications
still
have
to
be
good
planning
and
still
should
not
cause
harm.
My
understanding
is
harm
detrimental
impact,
a
whole
range
of
words.
You
would
use
adjacencies
that
don't
work
they're
incompatible.
Those
are
the
different
tests.
My
understanding
is
you're
you've.
Also
well.
You've
already
received
documentation
from
agriculture
Canada.
A
You
will
hear
their
submissions
I'm
sure
they'll
speak
to
the
detrimental
impact
on
the
research
aspects
of
their
work
at
the
central
experimental
farm
that
that
terminal
impact
is
significant.
You
have
that
stark
contrast
between
staff,
saying
no
undue
influence
or
impact,
and
they
saying
significant
major
stark
contrast
between
the
two,
so
I
can't
comment
on
what
the
exact
harm
is
and
I
put
it
to
the
committee.
A
You
can't
make
the
decision
because,
unless
you
well
you
can
you
can
accept
that
agricultural
Canada
maybe
knows
what
they're
doing
and
they're
experts
and
there
should
be
a
pause
and
they
should
look
at
the
height
of
the
building
to
see
if
the
shadow
impacts
can
be
reduced
or,
if
you
say
well,
maybe
Steph
or
Mr.
Stewart
might
have
some
knowledge,
but
maybe
not
enough,
then
go
the
peer
review
route
get
an
independent
third
party
in
to
look
at
it.
Hope
that
answers
your
question,
but
I
can't
tell
you
what
the
harm
is.
A
V
A
A
A
You
put
the
same
tests
on
them
that
the
Ontario
land
tribunal
puts
on
Experts,
unbiased
free
from
undue
influence,
making
a
statements
and
research
in
the
public
interest.
Those
are
the
statements
every
expert
has
to
make
when
they
go
to
the
oot,
get
McDonald
college
or
university
of
Saskatchewan
or
University
of
Guelph.
Whoever's
got
the
bioscience
expertise
to
analyze
the
work
they're
doing
over
decades
and
come
in
and
say:
is
there
an
adverse
impact?
What's
the
level
of
the
adverse
impact?
B
B
A
I
in
my
letter,
submission
I
use
the
concept
of
ships
passing
in
the
night.
They
may
see
their
lights
flash,
they
don't
communicate,
they
keep
on
their
way
and
in
many
respects,
the
circumstances,
the
policy
conflict
and
the
work
done
by
the
city
and
the
province
and
the
work
done
by
the
federal
government.
A
There's
got
to
be
a
way
to
respect
both
and
there's
got
to
be
a
way
to
implement
both
so
the
objective
at
the
provincial
level
and
at
City
level
of
intensification,
more
housing
units
and
then
the
objective
at
the
Federal
level
as
I
understand
it.
This
is
this
work
goes
to
food
security,
our
Canada's
food
supply,
pretty
critical
stuff
that
they're
doing
there
on
the
site,
I
I,
say
in
the
letter.
It's
kind
of
ironic
that
someone
would
suggest
that,
maybe
oh
they
do
this
work.
Someplace
else.
A
It's
work
on
our
food
supply.
You
shouldn't
be
asking
them
to
move
elsewhere.
If
some
I'm
only
respectful
submission
and
ensure
that
experts
might
disagree,
but
I
think
you
could
find
some
experts.
That
would
say
you
should
defer
to
Canada's
food
supply
research
and
reduce
the
height
of
the
building,
but
you
have
to
answer
the
first
question:
is
there
adverse
impact?
What's
the
level
of
adverse
impact
and
you
can
still
have
increased
housing
Supply
at
this
location,
a
number
of
other
locations,
but
with
reduced
adverse
impact,
or
maybe
even
very
little
at
all?
A
A
You
really
shouldn't
ask
them
to
move,
and
you
should
try
to
if
it
was
a
daycare
that
was
being
shadowed
for
eight
hours
a
day.
You
wouldn't
say
the
daycare
you
move,
you
would
ask
the
applicant
to
try
to
give
them
some
sunlight
during
the
day.
Here,
it's
not
a
great
analogy,
but
here
these
long
late
hour,
sunlight
hours,
my
understanding
for
reading
material
are
really
important
to
the
research.
A
A
B
So
I
think
yeah
I
mean
I'm
I'm
already
in
a
place.
Having
taken
a
look
that
I
I
accept
that
there
are
adverse
impacts
on
certain
forms
of
research
at
the
farm
and
we're
going
to
hear
more
I'm
certain
with
the
next
delegation
about
the
impacts
of
of
the
Shadow
here,
but
I'm
ready
to
start
wrestling
today
with
the
fundamental
policy
conflict
we
have
between
the
city's
intensification
goals.
B
Our
official
plan
well
thought
through
versus
the
impacts
from
this
particular
development,
but
if
I
may
I'd
like
to
move
on
to
Mr
Greg,
just
with
respect
to
the
the
shadow
study
and
and
Bill
I've
told
you
before,
I
think
your
Your
Shadow
videos
are
Masterworks
but
I'm
wondering
if
we
can
pull
up
the
third
video
in
the
final
frame
and
bear
with
me
for
a
moment.
While
we
pull
that
up.
U
U
B
U
B
B
X
Y
Y
You've
heard
a
lot
from
everybody
already
and
I
think
what
I'm
going
to
say,
clarifies
and
reinforces
those
messages,
as
well
so
I'm
here
to
raise
our
concerns
about
the
significant
costly
and
enduring
impacts
that
this
development,
if
it
goes
ahead
as
planned,
will
have
on
the
Central
America
Central
experimental
Farm.
We
really
appreciate
your
taking
the
time
to
hear
us
out
and
to
hear
more
about
the
details
of
what
the
impact
will
be
and
I
should
say
at
the
request
of
our
lawyers.
Y
So
by
way
of
background,
the
farm
was
one
of
a
number
of
research
Farms
established
around
the
time
of
Confederation.
It
had
some
very
specific
reasons
for
the
establishment
we
needed
to
do,
research
that
is
adapted
to
our
climates
and
that
would
help
farmers
feed
the
growing
population
of
Canada.
Today,
this
Farm
in
Ottawa
is
the
oldest
and
arguably
most
important,
of
a
network
of
research
and
development
centers
across
the
country.
Y
When
you've
had
your
sandwich
for
lunch
today,
the
wheat
that
is
made
from
the
bread
that
is
made
from
the
wheat
can
be
traced
back
to
a
variety
developed
here
in
Ottawa
by
our
researchers
on
the
farm.
There
is
a
direct
link
between
the
research
that
we
do
every
day
and
the
food
that
we
feed
our
nation
with
there's
also
a
direct
link
to
the
Canadian
economy.
We're
talking
about
a
sector
that
generates
over
140
billion
dollars
of
our
gross
domestic
product.
Agriculture
represents
one
in
nine
jobs
across
the
country
here
in
Ottawa.
Y
That
includes
the
whole
food
value
chain
from
the
farmer
in
kinburn
to
the
server
here
in
the
cafeteria
and
City
Hall.
Our
research
also
delivers
significant
benefits
for
the
environment,
not
not
to
be
underestimated.
In
a
time
of
environmental
change,
we
develop
crops
that
have
built-in
resistance
to
bugs
and
disease,
so
farmers
can
use
fewer
pesticides
on
their
land.
These
Innovations
made
here
in
Ottawa,
have
become
part
of
Canada's
agricultural
success
story.
Y
Trying
to
explain
that
what
we
do
is
much
bigger
than
a
tract
of
land
in
the
middle
of
a
city.
It
is
much
more
important
than
just
a
piece
of
land
and
a
group
of
buildings
and
to
deliver
these
results
for
Canadians
and
frankly
for
the
planet,
because
Canada
is
a
major
food
exporting
country.
Our
researchers
need
to
work
in
a
controlled
environment.
This
requires
predictable
levels
of
sunlight,
moisture,
climate
and
soil.
The
research
projects
on
these
site
cannot
easily
be
moved
elsewhere.
Y
Our
rigorous
scientific
study
has
demonstrated
that
the
proposed
apartment
Towers
will
result
in
significant
shade
cast
on
the
Farm's
research
land
and
greenhouses
and
I
would
just
add
to
clarify,
because
there's
been
a
couple
of
questions
about
that.
Our
research
on
our
study
is
about
the
entire
year-long
process.
These
studies
that
you
have
seen
are
one
day
in
time.
Y
Y
This
is
also
why
the
proposed
development
at
1081
Carling
will
lead
to
permanent
damage
to
the
functioning
of
research
conducted
at
the
farm
and,
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
there
is
an
enormous
Financial
impact
as
well.
We
are
also
deeply
concerned
by
the
criteria
used
by
the
city
to
assess
the
potential
impact
of
the
high-rise
Towers
on
the
farm,
and
this
has
also
been
mentioned
this
morning.
Y
The
city
has
previously
acknowledged
the
incremental
impact
these
developments
are
having
on
Heritage
space,
and
our
concerns
today
should
also
be
understood
to
extend
to
Future
development
plans
around
the
farm.
Innovative
science
is
at
the
core
of
our
work
at
Agriculture
and
agri-food
Canada,
and
our
work
on
the
farm
brings
benefits
far
beyond
ottawa's
borders.
It
contributes
to
food
affordability
and
security,
ensuring
that
safe,
healthy
food
is
accessible
to
all
Canadians.
This
is
even
more
essential
in
the
current
geopolitical
environment
and
I'll
stop
there.
Thank
you.
S
S
You've
been
very
clear.
This
will
cause
significant
damage.
You
said
permanent
damage,
they'll
be
very
costly.
Millions
of
dollars
research
will
be
compromised.
You've.
You
take
issue
with
the
criteria
that
the
city's
own
analysis
has
been
on.
The
site.
You've
been
very,
very
crystal
clear:
how
do
we
go
forward?
S
S
Taggart
deserves
a
decision
by
the
city
of
Ottawa,
I,
respect
that
but
I
respect
even
more
the
agricultural
research
and
the
value
of
what's
going
on
at
agriculture
Canada
for
all
the
reasons
listed
to
date.
So
how
do
we
do
that?
What
what
are
your
recommendations
on
how
the
city
should
move
forward?
Should
there
be
a
a
working
group
that
specifically
talks
about
mitigation
to
protect
your
lands?
Can
Canada's
lands
recognizing
developments
coming,
but
I
want
to
make
sure
we
understand
what
is
a
good
path
forward
for
all
of
us
to
work
towards.
Y
I
am
not
a
city
planner
I.
Agree,
though,
that
it
would
be
essential
going
forward
to
have
direct
conversations
and
explicit
ones
about
what
would
be
necessary
and
excuse
me
to
mitigate.
Obviously,
any
change
to
the
shade
pattern
on
the
land
will
contribute
to
detrimental
effects
and
change.
How
we
can
do
our
research
I,
don't
know
what
the
optimal
height
is
for
a
building,
but
that
is
something
that
we
can
determine
in
consultation
with
the
appropriate
experts.
Happy
to
sit
on
any
working
group
come
to
any
meetings
that
are
necessary.
T
Thank
you
chair,
so,
first
off,
thank
you
for
being
here
when
this
committee
debated
this
file
back
in
August,
it
did
feel
that
a
lot
of
the
arguments,
some
of
the
arguments
and
decisions
were
based
on
the
fact
that
there
was
no
physical
presence,
even
though
your
voice
was
clear
back
in
August,
just
as
it
is
right
now
today
it
sounds
like
what
you
raised
the
question.
It
sounds
like
of
legal
action
and
the
possibility
of
compensation
in
your
in
your
remarks.
Can
you
elaborate
on
that?
Y
T
Thank
you
I'm
sure
that
if
I
I'm
sure
that
our
staff
is
taking
note
of
that
I
I
hope
so
I
met
with
several
of
your
staff
last
week
where
these
kinds
of
Shadow
impacts
were
described.
Pascal
you
described
them
as
punching
a
hole
in
the
wall
of
your
laboratory.
So
we
have
this
development
here
today,
1081
curling,
we
have
a
development
in
my
ward
at
780
Baseline
coming
up.
This
fall
I
suspect
that
you
have
a
concern
about
the
impact
of
that
development
as
well.
Y
Well,
there
certainly
would
be
a
Tipping
Point
where,
after
which
time
it
no
longer
makes
Financial
sense
or
administrative
sense,
to
have
a
significant
number
of
research
on
land
where
we
can't
do
the
research
we
need
to
do
so.
I,
don't
know
exactly
what
that
point
is,
and
we
would
need
to
investigate
that.
But
absolutely
that
would
be
a
problem,
but
maybe
if
I
could
add
above
and
beyond,
it's
not
just
the
value
of
the
land.
To
us,
it's
the
value
of
the
land
to
the
city
and
to
have
a
farm.
Y
Y
I
would
note
that
there
is
some
irony
in
developers
saying
that
they
would
like
to
build
around
the
farm,
because
they'll
have
this
fabulous
view
of
the
farm.
This
bucolic
visitation
possible
every
day.
Well,
that's
not
going
to
be
the
case
if
we
have
enough
development
casting
shade
over
the
farm.
Oh.
T
T
I
was
I,
had
the
opportunity
to
speak
with
your
staff
and
start
discussing
crazy,
creative
ideas.
I
hope
that
those
conversations
continue,
but
just
you've
already
said
so,
but
we
have
we
have
this
file
here
today
we
have
780
Baseline.
We
also
have
coming
up
in
the
future.
The
the
prospect
of
commissioning
a
secondary
plan
for
Baseline,
which
is
one
of
the
arterial
corridors
being
developed
by
the
city,
is
agriculture.
Canada.
Y
F
We
went
through
two
and
a
half
years
of
consultation
on
our
official
plan
in
the
last
term
of
council.
I,
don't
remember,
receiving
correspondence
from
agricultural
Canada
I,
don't
remember
having
any
delegations
come
to
that
I
think
it
was
very
clear
in
that
process.
The
intention
that
Carling
and
Baseline
would
be
corridors
where
we
see
more
development,
more
intensification,
more
density,
more
more
height.
F
In
fact,
it
was
in
the
context
of
we
wanted
to
encourage
intensification
in
the
central
parts
of
our
city,
so
we
would
have
to
have
less
Reliance
on
pushing
out
into
agricultural
land
on
the
outskirts.
So
there's
a
connection
to
agriculture
here,
but
correct
me:
if
I'm
wrong
did
agriculture
Canada
participate
in
the
official
plan
process
when
we
were
discussing
the
future
of
these
corridors
along
Baseline
and
Carling.
F
I'm
not
suggesting
that
that
means
we
never
discuss
this
or
never
look
at
it,
but
I
think
it
really
has
put
us
in
a
as
we're
going
forward.
This
kind
of
feedback
on
the
importance
of
the
farm
on
the
value
of
the
lands
would
have
been
extremely
valuable
for
Council
to
have
through
that
official
plan
process.
N
N
It's
a
matter
of
preserving
a
controlled
environment
by
which
we
have
been
doing
studies
for
years
and
years
and
years
in
the
past,
and
so
you're
right
in
scoping
this
as
a
matter
of
disturbance
in
a
way
that
we
cannot
control
and
represent,
and
whatever
outcome
comes
out
of,
the
data
could
not
then
be
representative
of
a
Canadian
landscape,
for
example.
So
thanks.
F
Y
N
Yes-
and
maybe
my
colleague
Dr
Morrison,
can
actually
add
on
this,
so
we
do
have
a
network
of
research
across
Canada.
Canada
is
Big,
has
many
different
landscape
have
many
different
ways
of
growing
things
and
we
need
a
representation
of
Eastern
Canada
soil,
and
that
is
what
it
is
right
now
in
in
at
the
central
experimental
farm
and
the
other
notion.
N
That
is
not
so
much
explicit
at
this
point
it
takes
and
when
we
say
years
decades
of
a
commutative
data
in
order
to
make
inference
so
then
it
can
grow
a
seed
and
say
hey,
Canada
grow
this
it
works
and
that
at
the
timeline
of
moving
away
is
just
like
it's
throwing
away
Decades
of
potential
work
in
there,
and
so,
as
as,
as
it
was
said,
before,
the
moving
away
is
not
an
options
of.
It
means
to
us
a
direct
throwing
away
some
research
that
we
have.
So
thank
you.
N
Z
AA
I
I
looked
at
our
land
in
terms
of
what
is
the
delay,
what
plants
need
water
nutrients
and
solar
radiation?
We
call
this
net
irradiance,
so
I
calculated
the
amount
of
Neta
Radiance
for
a
soybean
crop.
It
takes
about
20
to
50
megajoules
of
irradiance.
Now,
when
you
take
shade-
and
you
divide
it
by
the
total
number
of
minutes
of
shade,
then
you
can
get
a
factor
which
that
irradiance
is
reduced.
AA
I
calculated
that
at
about
3
000
minutes
of
shade,
this
would
reduce
the
irradiance
buy
about
it.
It
comes
to
it
pushes
the
Harvest
by
four
or
five
days
now
you
might
think
well
maturity,
pushing
it
four
or
five
days
doesn't
make
sound
such
a
big
deal.
But
when
you're
going
from
the
end
of
September
Harvest
until
the
middle
of
October,
Harvest
October
is
notoriously
wet,
pretty
soon
we're
into
November
Harvest,
and
then
our
our
crop
is
essentially
ruined.
AA
AB
Z
Okay,
and
once
we
know
what
that
number
is,
would
that
be
the
same?
Would
you
be
requesting
the
same
height
restrictions
for
all
of
the
lands
governing
the
farm,
or
are
your
Shadow
concerns
specific
to
this
study
in
this
field,
because
again,
I
share
the
concern
that
the
city
went
through
this
two
and
a
half
year
exercise
to
develop
a
new
official
plan
and
intensification
along
Carling
is
part
of
that
plan,
so
kind
of
feels
like
we're
playing
catch
up
here.
Y
And
and
of
course,
the
range
would
have
to
be
different
depending
on
the
angle
of
the
sun,
north
south
east
west
part
of
the
farm.
So
yes,
sorry,
that
does
mean
more
more
changes
and
a
different
approach,
and
maybe
just
to
your
earlier
point
on
how
annoying
it
must
be.
For
all
of
you
to
hear
this
two
and
a
half
years
late.
Y
Z
Yeah
I
just
saw
the
last
thing
I'll
say
is
I,
mean
I'm
acutely
concerned
about
both
food
security
and
a
lack
of
housing.
But
as
cancer
Gower
said,
our
food
security
is
seriously
at
risk.
If
we
continue
to
sprawl
into
farmlands,
we
need
to
intensify
the
course
so
yeah
I
I
think
we
need
stronger
guidelines
and
I
think
we
need
to
know
very
clearly
what
Heights
would
be
considered
acceptable
to
AG,
Canada
and
then
I
think
as
a
city,
we
have
to
decide
whether
that's
acceptable
to
us
in
terms
of
our
growth
needs.
Z
M
M
A
very
good
excuse,
congratulations
and
my
family
farm,
so
I
I
very
much
appreciate
the
work
that
you
do
and
in
that
respect,
I
do
have
some
Farm
related
questions.
So
I
was
caught
up
on
the
discrepancy
between
the
number
of
Shadow
minutes
that
that
you
would
put
forward
and
the
staff
report
so
is.
Are
you
counting
impacts
during
winter?
That
would
not
occur
during
the
growing
season.
AA
We
did
include
the
study
for
365
days
because
the
the
sun
will
go
behind
the
tower
from
about
November
until
or
it
starts
now,
but
October
to
November,
and
it
cast
a
shadow
right
down
Carling
Avenue,
when
we
initially
did
this,
we
weren't
really
thinking
about
the
greenhouse,
but
then
when
we
saw
the
shadow
that
was
cast
onto
the
greenhouse
we
became
concerned.
Obviously
a
greenhouse
is
a
glass
house.
It
relies
on
solar
radiation.
We
can't
put
lights
there
because
it
defeats
the
purpose
of
having
a
greenhouse.
AA
So
that
is
why
we
did
it
for
365
days
a
year
now
the
big
discrepancies
between
the
Hoban
study
and
our
study.
There
are
no
discrepancies.
The
difference
is
the
time
period.
We
did
365
days
and
we
did
from
four
minutes
after
sunrise
or
one
degree
to
one
degree,
Before
Sunset,
I
I
make
this
analogy.
It's
like
the
movie
Titanic.
Our
study
is
the
whole
movie.
The
Hoban
study
is
25
pictures.
Well
sure
you
can
sort
of
get
the
idea
of
what
happened,
but
there's
no
pictures
at
the
end.
AA
Yeah
yeah
so
yeah
anyway,
so
that
is
the
big
difference
they're
both
the
same.
If
you
took
their
study
and
ran
it
for
365
days
from
the
sun
sunrise
to
sunset,
you
would
get
exactly
our
study
if
you
took
the
the
fellow
who's
here
was
here
presenting
his
study.
If
you
show
showed
that
for
365
days
from
sunrise
to
sunset,
you
would
get
the
same
study.
AA
No,
they
they
don't,
because
the
sun
changes
in
position
and
in
January
the
sun
does
not
cast
shade
on
the
greenhouses.
It
is
in
from
mid-october
to
November
and
then
again
from
the
end
of
January
until
March
that
we
get
shade
on
the
greenhouses.
But
then,
of
course,
as
the
sun
moves
forward,
we
get
more
shade
on
the
fields.
This
is
why
we
looked
at
365
days
of
the
year.
Y
AA
N
Well,
we
need
to
adopt
a
new
grains
on
an
ongoing
basis
for
Canada's
changing
climate.
We
need
to
adapt
new
technologies
into
how
we
grow
as
cereals,
in
order
to
have
more
productivity
and
in
order
to
have
more
sustainability.
So
it
is
an
ongoing
and
permanent
Endeavor
to
keep
those
research
as
adapted
as
powerfully
Innovative
for
all
Canadians.
So
it
is
in
that
nature
that
what
we're
doing.
M
N
M
AA
Yeah
I've
asked
them
to
chop
those
trees
down,
but
they
said
no
they've
been
there
for
about
80
years,
they're
to
the
two
new
trees
that
were
planted
were
planted
about
10
years
ago.
We
lost
two
big
ones
in
a
in
a
storm.
Now,
there's
a
big
difference
between
a
hundred
story:
100
meter,
Tower
and
a
20
meter
tree.
Their
trees
are
almost
transparent
at
the
top,
because
those
trees
are
pointed.
Yes,
there
will
be
shade
cast
by
those
trees.
AA
The
land
directly
adjacent
is
forage
land,
and
it's
it's
also
when,
when
we
built
the
greenhouses,
we
had
to
change
the
parking
lot
and
they
put
a
parking
lot
on
that
field.
So
there's
a
big
layer
of
gravel
underneath
the
field.
So
right
now
we're
not
using
that
for
research.
We
do
use
it
for
forage
production,
which
goes
to
the
the
Museum.
N
Representative,
environment
and
controlled
environments,
and,
as
you
know,
as
you
grow
in
the
field
like
you
need
to
represent
this
and
having
trees
in
the
borders
of
fields,
is
a
natural
landscape
that
we
see
across
Canada.
So
again,
the
point
remains
the
comparative.
You
know
long
terms
of
what
the
data
has
and
not
introducing
variables
that
cannot
be
accounted
into.
The
experiment
is
not
is
is
basically
it
remain.
The
point
remains,
as
it
is
with
that.
Some
things.
M
M
M
V
V
All
of
these
choices
are
also
one
of
the
few
ways
that
cities
can
mitigate
for
climate
change,
land
use,
planning
and
transportation,
public
transportation,
mass
transportation,
so
I
can't
help,
but
think
you
know,
when
I
have
a
a
federal
government
delegation
in
front
of
us,
which
is
so
unique.
Would
agriculture
Canada
engage
with
the
city
of
Ottawa
through
these
conversations
about
a
new
Financial
framework
for
municipalities,
because
that's
something
that
we're
all
working
towards?
V
We
want
to
figure
out
how
we
can
have
different
mechanisms
with
our
federal
Partners
to
fund
growth
projects
that
don't
rely
on
development
or
putting
increased
pressure
on
the
tax
base.
We
have
some
some
ideas,
so
you
know
it's
not
actually
just
a
matter
of
limiting
floors
like
we're
talking
about
larger
Financial
consequences
for
the
city
of
Ottawa
when
we
enter
into
that,
and
so
would
you
consider
engaging
other
Federal
partners
with
you
on
that
kind
of
higher
level.
Financial
implication
for
the
city
of
Ottawa.
Y
Actually,
wouldn't
know
where
to
start,
we
would
have
to
talk
in
any
case,
the
lead
would
be
our
colleagues
down
the
street
at
Public
Services
procurement
Canada,
whom
you
may
recall,
took
over
our
land
in
order
to
transfer
it
to
the
hospital.
So
it
would
have
to
be
a
discussion
like
that
with
our
colleagues
down
the
street.
Y
V
To
say
that
there
are,
there
are
Representatives.
You
know
on
this
committee
that
are
prepared
to
have
these
conversations
about
the
financial
ability
for
cities
to
to
negotiate
for
growth,
and
if
we
had
other
mechanisms,
then
the
reduction
of
floors
might
not
have
the
same
consequences
for
us,
but
in
this
case
we
do
have
to
see
you
know
the
larger
equivalencies
in
the
planning
and
housing
committee
has
a
mandate
in
front
of
us
to
grow,
and
so
I
I
think
we
do
need
to
introduce
this
com.
V
AB
Thank
you
very
much
chair
and
thank
you
very
much
for
coming
out.
I
did
comment
that
I
felt
that
it
was
necessary
for
you
to
be
here
in
person
that
a
letter
was
not
sufficient.
We
needed
to
hear
from
you
because
you
needed
to
answer
questions
from
us
and
we
are
in
a
predicament
because,
as
as
my
colleagues
have
pointed
out,
we
need
that
intensification.
AB
AB
There
was
talks
about
a
peer
review,
but,
having
you
know,
Specialists
that
are
brought
in
to
talk
to
our
planners
and
do
it
rather
quickly
and
the
developers
in
this
case
a
specific
site,
but
we
we
have
to
move
fast
and
because
these
these
applications
are
coming
in
and
it's
exactly
what
we
want
and
I
just
want
to
know
the
time
periods
and
how
long
it
would
take.
So
are
you
willing
to
participate
at
a
relatively
I'll,
say,
rapid
pace.
Y
From
a
federal
government
perspective,
emergencies
are,
are
us,
we
can,
of
course,
do
things
quickly
when
necessary,
and
actually
we
have
all
the
numbers.
I
mean
we
know
what
sort
of
range
of
sunlight.
We
need
radiation
we
were
talking
about
earlier.
We
need
to
talk
to
architects
who
know
what
that
translates
into
Heights.
Y
AB
It's
a
huge
loss
for
those
that
have
planned
for
for
much
bigger.
Obviously
you
know
lots
depends
on
it.
It's
difficult
to
switch
horses
I'm
very
concerned
about
that,
especially
when
we
have
the
official
plan
and
I'm
sorry,
you
weren't
at
the
table
for
the
official
plan.
It
was
quite
the
meeting
and
I
think
your
input
would
have
been
fantastic,
so
we're
working
backwards
and
it
it's.
AB
B
X
Hi,
thank
you
very
much
and
I
apologize,
I
I
had
to
leave
briefly
so
I
may
have
missed
somebody
asking
this
question.
I
wanted
to
thank
the
delegates
from
agriculture
coming
out.
I
was
a
long
time
public
servant
and
left
as
an
executive,
I
just
have
a
quick
question
and
and
I'm
sorry.
If
somebody's
asked
this
already
you're
coming
here
in
your
positions
as
directors
General
at
AFS,
see
if
I
understand
that
correctly.
X
Okay,
excellent
and
I'm
just
wondering
if,
if
the
minister
is
supportive
of
your
position,
if
you're
you're
represent,
if
you've
had
The
Minister's
support
for
this
I'm,
just
wondering
in
in
the
case
of
the
housing
crisis
that
we
find
ourselves
in
and
and
the
federal
government's
interest
in
in
housing.
If
there's
been
any
discussion
with
that,
the
deputy
Minister
has
engaged
in
with
the
minister
on
the
federal
government
position
overall
or
if
this
is
simply
a
departmental
position.
I
think
that
would
be
useful
to
know.
Y
X
T
But
of
course
you're.
Not
treasury,
board
and
I.
Appreciate
that
you
can't
answer
those
questions.
But
I
really
do
look
forward
to
having
a
very,
very
specific
conversation
with
you
as
a
means
of
just
carrying
this
ball
forward
and
talking
about
what
could
be
pragmatic,
if
not
crazy
solutions
to
this
problem,
because
we
are
forced
to
rush
towards
some.
T
Well
they're,
not
here,
they
don't
care
and
we
learned
after
the
fact
that
it
was
because
we
didn't
formally
invite
them
to
the
process
to
a
certain
extent.
But
it's
not
as
if
we
sent
them
an
invitation.
They
said
I'm
not
coming
I
got
better
things
to
do
and
with
regards
to
the
process
for
inviting
stakeholders
into
the
discussions
on
the
op
I
understand
from
staff
that
we
did
not
formally
invite
AG
Canada
to
that
consultation,
we
formally
invited
the
NCC
because
based
on
well,
that's
just
what
I
hello
staff
question
for
staff.
B
You
Council,
Divine
and
I
I
will
just
say:
I
mean.
Obviously
the
question
front
and
planning
committee
is
is
always
to
answer
that
central
question:
does
the
application
before
us
adhere
to
the
policies
and
guidelines
that
guide
development
applications
in
Ontario?
That
is
the
task
that
is
handed
to
us
under
the
planning
act,
and
that
is
the
task
to
which
we
will
be
focused
today,
councilor
Brockington.
S
You're
poking
a
sleeping
dragon
in
the
eye
right
now,
because,
as
someone
who's
been
on
Council
for
third
term
now,
and
there
have
been
attempts
to
take
land
in
the
past
and
possible,
is
a
good
example
of
something
that
is
truly
in
the
public
interest
to
build,
but
on
these
lands
and
the
opposition
to
that,
we
haven't
seen
anything
yet
if
we're
talking
about
the
significant
devaluing
of
what
we're
as
Canadians
achieving
at
these
lands
by
Future
developments
around
it.
My
question,
though,
is
to
your
point
about.
S
We
need
to
find
a
middle
ground.
This
committee
is
going
to
make
a
decision
today,
so
my
question
is
trying
to
get
us
to
that
decision
and
I'm
going
to
press
you
for
an
answer
on
optimal
Heights
at
this
location,
because
you
have
done
research,
you
have
done
research
on
what
impacts
there
will
be
by
a
lack
of
sunlight
and
delay
to
the
final
yield
of
what
you're
growing
at
that
site.
S
You
must
know
and
recommend
before
us
today
what
an
optimal
height
could
be
for
Towers
at
this
specific
location
will
the
secondary
discussion
is
Heights
because,
depending
on
where
the
geographic
location
of
future
developments
are
and
and
the
shadowing
at
those
sites,
that's
that's
different,
but
we
have
to
make
a
decision
on
the
application
today
on
1081
curling,
so
in
your
professional
opinion
to
mitigate
as
best
as
possible
shadowing
on
agricultural
research
lands.
What
is
the
optimal
height
for
Towers
at
this
location.
Y
N
I
mean
at
this
point
again.
The
point
remains:
any
Shadows
is
a
disturbance
to
the
no
any
Shadows
is
a
disturbance.
So
it's
a
point
not
only
of
optimal
to
hear
it.
It
could
be
understood
in
different
ways.
I
would
like
to
coin
this
as
as
a
livable
or
minimal
impact
more
as
an
optimal
height
right,
and
in
order
to
do
that,
we
are
ready
to
move
fast
on
assessing
this
with
the
city,
so
it
we
need
to
look
at
those
numbers
together.
N
S
I
appreciate
that
perspective,
my
concern,
sir,
is
this
committee
voted
eight
to
two
last
month
to
proceed.
They
may
be
in
a
position
to
proceed
today
to
approve
this
development
and
I
would
like
this
committee
to
have
a
potential
counter
option
and
I'm
not
going
to
pick
a
number
out
of
the
error.
I'm
asking
you,
you
are
the
deemed
experts
if
you're
not
prepared
to
commit
to
a
optimal
height
today,
then
I
will
respect
that.
If
that
is
your
answer,
but
I'm
I
hope
you
understand
where
I'm
coming
from
the
committee.
S
AA
Yeah,
oh,
this
is
going
a
little
bit
counter
to
what
I'd
be
used
to,
because
I
would
like
to
go
back
and
look
at
the
data
and
pour
over
it,
but
I
have
at
counselor
leapers
instructions
or
questions.
I
did
prepare
three
different
scenarios
and
I
would
say
that
your
range
would
be
between
12
and
14
stories.
Maximum.
S
AA
Sure
I
calculated
it's
about
36
hectares.
Currently
with
the
current
proposal,
that's
about
13
out
of
36
hectares
will
be
impacted.
Now
this
land
goes
from
Parkdale
to
about
the
about
the
need,
be
building
and
then
South
600
meters
to
the
driveway.
So
that's
36
hectares,
so
13
out
of
36
will
be
impacted
if
you
reduce
it
to
Nine
Stories
I
figure.
It's
about
a
nine
out
of
36
hectares
are
significantly
impacted.
M
AA
B
X
It
strikes
me
that,
oh,
that
this
is
the
municipal
political
level
and
I'm
wondering
here
if
you've
had
any
discussions
as
the
chair
for
this
committee
with
the
political
level
at
the
federal
government
on
this
or
we're
simply
because
I'm
hearing
from
colleagues
around
the
table,
Municipal
politicians
who
are
wanting
to
work
with
the
civil
servants
in
the
federal
public
sector,
I'm
wondering
if
you've
had
discussions
political
to
political
level.
I.
B
Have
not
spoken
to
the
minister
I've
spoken
to
our
Member
of
Parliament.
Our
staff
have
had
discussions
with
agriculture,
Canada
staff.
My
assumption
is
that
the
discussion,
if
it
were
to
occur
between
either
politicians
at
the
city
of
Ottawa
or
bureaucrats,
the
city
of
Ottawa
and
the
minister
staff,
would
be
relatively
easy
and
forthcoming
and
and
can
be
pulled
together
fairly
quickly.
But
no
I
have
not
called
the
minister
with
respect
to
this
one.
Okay,.
B
I
could
probably
run
down
my
shadow
analysis
with
precise
number
of
minutes
Ad
nauseam,
but
I'm
not
going
to
I
just
want
to
say.
Thank
you
very
much
for
coming
out
today.
I,
don't
see
any
further
questions,
for
you
are
members
comfortable
if
they
have
the
answers
from
acan
staff,
no
further
hands
up.
Thank
you
for
being
here
today.
I
know
you're
very
busy,
and
thank
you
for
the
work
that
you're
doing.
B
E
E
Four,
any
subsequent
proposal
for
this
site
be
based
upon
an
Inca
impact
assessment
that
provides
for
an
informed
understanding
of
any
potential
impacts
to
the
farm
and
five.
The
terms
of
reference
for
the
creation
of
cultural
heritage
impact
assessments
for
future
similar
cases
be
revived,
be
revised
to
reflect
these
recommendations.
AE
Until
experimental
Farm
is
significant
for
its
historic
and
ongoing
work
in
agricultural
research,
which
contributes
to
Canada's
sustainability
in
a
world
confronted
by
the
threat
of
climate
change.
Furthermore,
the
farm
is
a
unique
cultural
landscape
in
Canada's
national
capital.
For
these
reasons
and
more,
the
farm
was
declared
a
National
Historic
Site
of
Canada,
founded
in
1886.
Its
purpose
was
to
establish
agriculture
as
a
significant
driver
of
the
Canadian
economy,
helping
farmers
who
are
beginning
to
settle
the
country,
adapt
to
our
Northerly
growing
conditions.
AE
The
Farm
has
made
Canada
one
of
the
great
powerhouses
in
World
agriculture
with
science.
There
focused
on
producing
healthy
and
safe
food
for
Canadians.
Scientists
have
studied
the
impact
of
climate
change
on
agriculture
here
for
over
40
years,
and
this
research
has
contributed
to
the
intergovernmental
panel
on
climate
change.
AE
Scientific
research
here
is
now
focused
on
cereal
and
oil,
seed
crops
and
the
environment,
but
in
the
past
it
has
also
included
husbandry,
silviculture
and
even
Horticulture
to
make
lives
more
pleasant
in
a
harsh
climate
in
support
of
its
work,
a
complex
of
structures
include
barns,
Research,
Laboratories
and
greenhouses
houses,
Testing,
Laboratories
and
administration
buildings.
In
later
years,
an
astronomical
Observatory
was
added
to
the
site
as
Canada
grew.
The
farm
came
to
be
treasured
for
its
contributions
nationally
and
to
the
urban
fabric.
AE
Scenic
driveways
and
Pathways
now
accommodate
pedestrians
and
cyclists.
Studies
have
shown
that
the
farm
provides
a
key
healthy
environment
that
will
only
grow
in
importance
as
time
goes
on,
but
the
future
of
the
500
hectare
Farm,
is
not
assured
one
swell
outside
the
city.
It
is
now
threatened
by
encroachment
due
to
Urban
intensification
and
a
lack
of
understanding
of
the
value
of
the
farm.
Most
recently,
a
25
hectare
site
was
carved
off
for
a
new
hospital,
and
once
these
sites
are
taken,
they
cannot
be
replaced.
The
research
is
threatened
and
the
heritage
is
lost.
AE
The
farm
is
adjacent
to
the
Rideau
Canal
world
heritage
site
and
UNESCO
has
expressed
concern
for
inappropriate
development
near
the
canal
going
forward.
We
will
have
to
be
vigilant
if
we
are
to
conserve
this
unique
and
treasured
Place.
Further
development
must
be
kept
off
the
farm
and
both
scientists
and
the
public
need
to
find
a
way
to
work
together
toward
the
common
goal
of
improved
living
conditions
for
Canadians
legislative
protection
for
the
farm
is
long
overdue.
B
B
AF
Thank
you
very
much
for
hearing
me
today
and
just
as
a
little
background
information
I'm,
a
cultural
heritage,
professional
myself
and
based
upon
my
years
of
research
I,
would
like
to
outline
for
you
address
the
question.
Do
the
cultural
heritage
impact
statement
and
the
staff
report
provide
sufficient
information
for
you
to
make
an
informed
decision?
They
do
not
the
impact
statement
analyzes.
The
impacts
based
upon
the
commemorative
Integrity
statement,
as
composed
by
the
federal
government,
which
states
that
the
Heritage
value
for
the
farm
is
both
historic
and
ongoing.
AF
The
impact
statement
contends
that
there
will
be
no
impacts,
whereas
the
staff
report
agrees
that
there
will
be
some
impacts,
and
we
really
don't
know
how
they
arrived
at
those
conclusions,
because
there's
no
discussion
of
the
nature
and
degree
of
impacts
in
either
of
those
documents,
Shadow
study
done
by
AG
Canada
maintains
that
the
impacts
will
be
in
their
words,
astounding
and
devastating
a
candidate
notes.
The
most
devastating
effect
resulting
from
the
shade
from
the
proposed
Apartments
is
the
increased
variability
in
sunlight
and
I.
AF
This
is
the
author
of
the
impact
statement
telling
you
that
you
are
not
receiving
the
information
that
you
need
to
make
an
informed
study
for,
for
whatever
reason-
and
we
I
think
we've
heard
enough
today-
also
about
some
of
the
conflicting
advice
in
the
official
plan.
So
I
won't
repeat.
All
of
that.
I
would
like
to
point
out,
though,
that
and
we've
we've
heard
enough
that
says
classifying
the
farm
is
open.
Space
is
not
accurate
and
does
not
result
in
useful
decisions
about
the
farm,
but
the
open
statement.
AF
Space
of
it
does
note
the
exceptional
qualities
of
the
farm.
It
says
quote:
the
central
experimental
Farm
remains
for
scientific,
educational
and
cultural
purposes.
So,
in
what
way
is
the
guidance
of
the
op
being
respected
if
the
development
is
allowed
to
go
forward
which
compromises
the
scientific
endeavor?
AF
So
that,
in
a
nutshell,
is
my
statement
on
how
use
which
is
half
of
the
value
of
the
farm
is
not
being
addressed.
It's
not
a
museum
piece.
You
can't
pick
it
up
and
put
it
in
a
display
cabinet.
It's
a
working
research,
Institution
Heritage
Ottawa
recognizes
the
need
for
more
housing,
but
we
are
also
in
the
midst
of
a
climate.
Emergency
with
food
security
is
a
major
issue
and,
interestingly
enough,
I
had
a
conversation
with
the
minister
of
the
environment
two
days
after
she
got
back
from
Paris
and
she
said
yeah.
AF
B
B
AE
I
played
a
part
in
developing
the
section
on
cultural
landscapes.
Today,
I
draw
attention
to
the
fact
that
the
chis
notes
that
the
standards
and
guidelines
are
among
the
documents
considered
in
the
preparation
of
the
report.
Curiously,
this
is
the
last
time
that
they
are
mentioned.
It's
not
clear
to
me
as
to
how
it
was
how
they
were
considered
in
the
reports.
Preparation,
for
example.
There
are
several
subsections
that
could
have
or
should
have
applied
here,
except
excerpts
are
included
for
their
relevance
to
the
proposed
development
as
follows.
AE
For
example,
evidence
of
land
use
refers
specifically
to
the
features
that
Express
or
support
a
past
or
continuing
land
use,
that
is,
the
human
use
of
the
environment
such
as
Fields
pastures
and
settlements.
It
is
important
to
carefully
assess
the
viability
of
of
proposed
changes
to
avoid
those
that
might
gradually
erode
the
historic
value
of
the
Heritage
Valley
of
the
historic
place.
AE
There
are
also
guidelines
on
visual
relationships
in
vegetation,
but
perhaps
most
importantly
here
it's
worth
noting
that
the
standards
and
guidelines
also
comment
on
a
matter
of
setting
and
I'll
quote.
The
setting
often
contributes
to
the
significance
of
a
cultural
landscape
and
may
help
explain
its
Origins
and
subsequent
development
and
evolution
in
a
cultural
landscape.
The
setting
off
in
corresponds
to
the
visceral
visible
boundaries,
whether
natural
or
human,
made
that
Encompass
the
site.
AE
Curiously,
it
is
noted
in
the
impact
statement
that
the
quote,
CIS
and
SOS
statement
of
significance
also
recognize.
The
development
outside
the
boundaries
of
the
farm
is
not
necessarily
a
threat
to
the
Heritage
values
or
Integrity
of
the
pharma's
historic
Place.
Unquote.
It
is
not
clear
that
this
was,
or
is
the
purpose
of
the
said
of
said
CIS
or
SOS.
AE
It
is
worth
noting,
however,
that
25
years
ago
the
team
tasked
with
the
challenge
of
developing
the
CIS
was
per
the
policy
confined
to
focus
on
that
which
was
found
within
the
boundaries
of
the
historic
place,
or
that
is
the
boundaries
of
the
farm.
As
someone
who
was
in
the
room,
I
can
attest
that
there
was
in
fact
much
discussion
about
setting
writ
large.
These
guidelines
should
have
been
used
to
better
understand
and
care
for
the
broader
context
of
the
proposed
intervention
intervention
at
1081,
Carling
Avenue,
whether
designated
of
historical
importance
or
not.
AE
The
author
could
have
pursued
these
or
developed
them
further,
but
did
not
in
making
that
choice.
The
strength
and
validity
of
the
c-h-I-s
is
reduced.
Finally,
I'm
not
sure
as
to
why
the
staff
report
does
not
acknowledge
this
Gap
in
the
impact
statement.
This
was
a
lost
opportunity
to
elevate
this
discussion
with
an
elaboration
of
the
cultural
landscape
guidelines
and
especially
the
importance
of
setting.
Thank
you.
B
AB
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
John
for
coming
out
today.
I
feel
like
we're
looking
in
the
rear
view,
mirror
and
we're
looking
at
things
that
could
have
should
have
at
this
point.
What
do
you
see?
The
best
road
forward
is
in
terms
of
of
settling
this
and
and
creating
a
better
situation
and
in
terms
of
the
designation
that
was
was
given
to
the
firm
well.
S
AD
Thank
you
so
I'm
here
today,
representing
the
Green
Space
Alliance
of
Canada's
capital
and
we're
a
member
as
well
of
the
coalition
to
protect
the
farm
next
slide.
Please
we've
heard
a
lot
this
morning
about
the
official
plan
and
where's
the
CE
happening
official
plan.
Well,
it
is
in
the
official
plan
it
hasn't
been
completely
excluded.
There's
a
statement
of
policy
in
the
official
plan
that
says
the
central
experimental,
Firm
West
of
the
new
Civic
Hospital
site
remains
for
scientific,
educational
and
cultural
purposes
only
and
is
not
intended
for
non-central
experimental,
firm
development.
AD
So
there's
a
there's
an
aim
here
in
the
official
plan
for
the
CEF
to
persist
in
its
scientific
educational,
Cultural
Mission,
at
least
until
2046.
It's
a
policy
in
the
official
plan.
It
seems
to
be
a
pretty
clear
statement
next
slide,
please
so
this
that,
with
the
staff
report
says,
is
that
notwithstanding
Heritage
planning
acknowledges
that
broader
development
around
the
CEF,
based
on
the
existing
policy
framework,
may
have
cumulative
effects
impacts
on
the
CES
to
find
cultural
heritage
value.
AD
So,
there's
an
acknowledgment
here
that
the
ongoing
function
of
the
farm
may
be
affected
by
cumulative
effects
of
these
applications
for
development
around
the
farm
and
also
acknowledges
that
ongoing
discussions
are
required,
but
the
existing
policy
framework
then
like
it's
in
conflict
with
the
aims
of
the
official
plan,
which
is
to
maintain
the
status
quo
for
the
CEF.
So
approval
of
this
application
under
the
existing
policy
framework
is
not
consistent
with
the
op.
It
will
not
remain
going
forward
untouched.
If
this
is
at
this,
this
application
is
approved
next
slide,
please.
AD
So
what
is
the
policy
framework
here
like
what
is
existing
policy
framework?
That's
causing
this
issue?
Really,
it
comes
down
to
the
terms
of
reference
for
shadow
analysis.
It's
just
underlined
here,
and
the
other
piece
is
the
classification
of
the
of
the
farm
in
in
the
official
plan,
because
both
of
these
are
used
in
the
application
of
the
terms
of
reference
for
shadow
analysis.
Next
slide,
please.
AD
So,
first
up
the
open
space
question
see
Open
Spaces
provide
many
of
the
benefits
associated
with
the
green
space,
but
are
not
intended
primarily
for
recreational
National,
Heritage
protection
purposes
and
are
not
suitable
for
dedication
as
Parks.
So
this
is
language.
That's
taken
over
again
in
describing
the
the
farm.
I
just
want
to
point
out
that
policy
a
here,
so
the
city
shall
seek
to
Secure
Public
Access
to
an
enjoyment
of
open
space
lands.
AD
So
this
this
makes
clear
that
there
are
open
spaces
that
are
not
public,
that
don't
have
Public,
Access
and
and
the
city
might
try
to
gain
access,
but
there's
there's
so
there's
publicly
accessible,
Open
Spaces,
but
there's
other
Open
Spaces
that
are
not
public
lands,
and
we
see
here
at
the
bottom.
That's
where
the
the
home
of
the
policy
that
I
referred
to
in
the
official
plan
about
the
central
experimental
firm
next
slide,
please!
AD
AD
So
like,
what's
in
what
are
these
terms
of
reference
for
shadow
studies,
we
could
see
here
that
there's
various
classifications,
there's
public
spaces,
there's
communal
amenities,
areas,
there's
Main
Street
corridors
and
minor
corridors,
there's
a
ground
level,
residential
private
outdoor
amenity
space.
Each
of
those
is
described
and
there's
criteria
that
vary
that
are
that
are
created
that
are
relevant
for
each
of
the
public
uses
made
of
all
of
these,
because
what
they
all
have
in
common
is
that
they're
all
places
where
people
congregate.
These
are
these
are
all
public
spaces
move
to
the
next
slide.
AD
AD
That
leads
us
to
the
conclusion
that
there
are
no
adverse
effects
and
that,
therefore
we
can
just
proceed
with
this
application,
as
is
next
slide.
Please
yeah!
This
is
it
so
as
it's
just
really
just
reiterating.
The
existing
positive
framework
is
in
conflict
with
the
aims
of
the
op,
which
is
to
maintain
the
status
quo
for
the
CEF
approval
of
this
application
of
the
under
the
existing
policy
framework
is
not
consistent
with
the
op
and
the
decision
on
this
application
should
be
held
until
a
new
policy
framework.
AD
B
AD
B
AG
AG
However,
I
still
see
no
consideration
of
the
fact
that
Municipal
Norms
must
not
overtaken
the
real
programs
legislated
at
the
federal
level,
even
though
there
are
even
Supreme
Court
cases
confirming
that
I
will
talk.
I
will
focus
now
on
three
things
about
this
application
that
also
apply
to
other
items
that
come
up.
I'll
start
with
the
process.
I
would
be
fired
from
my
job
if
I
were
to
send
recommendations
to
the
minister
or
Deputy
Minister,
without,
for
example,
showing
sign
off
by
the
finance
and
legal
branches
and
explaining
any
potential
legal
concerns
and
other
impacts.
AG
AG
At
the
previous
meeting,
we
heard
staff
telling
you
they
were
not
qualified
to
comment
on
the
shadowing
impacts
on
our
nationally
important
federally
mandated
food
security
research,
and
yet
it
was
approved.
We
hear
often
that
the
promise
is
to
blame
because
of
new
requirements
for
reduced
approval
timelines.
We
have
not
seen
any
legal
effort
by
the
city
to
push
back
on
this,
even
though
they
are
overarch,
arching,
foundational
legal
principles
of
due
diligence
and
duty
of
care.
AG
When
we
talk
about
developments
expected
to
permanently
impact
food
security,
research
communities
and
people's
lives,
there
is
an
obligation
by
all
levels
of
government
to
allow
for
duty
of
care
and
due
diligence
again.
I
have
seen
no
effort
ever
from
the
city,
knowing
Junction
or
any
other
legalization
to
ensure
it
takes
the
time
needed
for
its
legally
required
legally
required
duty
of
care
and
due
diligence
by
the
way
on
councilman
goer's
earlier
remarks.
AG
It
was
actually
the
city's
due
diligence
obligation
to
approach
Federal
stakeholders,
agricultural
Canada,
to
notify
a
new
official
plan
is
being
developed
and
how
it
could
impact.
Then
one
should
not
imply
agriculture
candidates
to
blame
for
the
city's
failure
to
look
carefully
into
how
its
internal
process
may
impact
Federal
programs.
AG
Another
provincial
bogeyman,
often
invoke
to
approve
bad
things,
is
the
notion
that
provincial
levels
would
overturn
the
decision
if
the
city
were
to
do
the
right
thing,
so
bad
things
have
to
be
approved
anyway.
I
even
heard
that
hands
are
tied
by
the
official
plan
provisions
and
the
possibility
of
land
tribunal
decisions
in
ministerial
orders.
First,
the
official
plan
gets
amended
all
the
time
by
this
Committee
in
the
city.
So
it's
not
a
movable
Dogma
written
in
stone.
AG
Second,
the
notion
that
another
level
of
government
might
overturn
a
good
decision
is
no
excuse
for
you
to
make
bad
decisions
it's
on
them
if
they
favor
a
bad
proposal.
Again,
you
have
a
duty
of
care,
a
legal
obligation
and
also,
let
me
be
clear-
you
have
the
legal
authority
to
reject
negatively
impacting
applications.
The
city
is
the
land
use
Authority.
This
is
established
by
the
very
foundational
laws
that
created
the
province
and
the
municipality
that
Authority
proceeds
and
has
legal
Supremacy
over
ministerial
orders
and
Kangaroo
Court
decisions.
AG
The
problem
is
that
the
city
has
made
no
effort
whatsoever
to
assert
that
Authority
legally
challenge
it
and
take
it
to
the
Supreme
Court,
if
needed
in
my
25
plus
years
of
involvement
with
the
city.
I
have
not
seen
such
an
effort,
not
even
once
another
chair
reference
before
the
cost
of
lawyers.
Frankly,
the
city
needs
to
fight
only
one
case.
Well,
all
the
way
up,
and
it
should
also
be
claiming
costs
from
developers
who
challenge
its
due
diligence,
duty
of
care
and
legally
mandated
Authority
yeah.
Now
the
developer
bought
Parcels
with
a
given
Sony.
AG
There
is
no
obligation
from
the
city
to
change
zonings
just
to
suit
the
buyer's
desire
to
increase
profit
margins.
If
I'm
not
mistaken.
This
is
the
same
developer
that
covertly
destroyed
70
hectares
of
two
in
Forest.
You
should
not
be
rewarding
such
a
developer,
By,
ignoring
impacts
on
federal,
limited
food
security.
Research
dagger
deserves
a
decision.
It
does
not
deserve
a
multi-million
profit
increase
reward
by
the
way.
How
is
that
farm
operation
in
touring
going
anyway?
AG
Last
point,
and
please
let
me
be
crystal
clear
on
this
saying
that
these
particular
Towers
need
to
be
approved
because
of
a
housing
crisis
is
a
false
argument.
There
are
literally
thousands
of
sites
across
the
city
that
could
have
high
rises
without
such
detrimental
impact
on
National
important
research.
AG
Also
I
see
new
subdivisions
going
up
in
Orleans
and
elsewhere,
with
not
even
one
mid-rise
building
in
them.
So
please
don't
tell
us
that
applications
are
approved
with
maximum
intensification
as
a
top
priority.
It's
simply
not
true,
so
please
stop
repeating
housing
crisis
whenever
it's
convenient
to
justify
something.
That
is
wrong.
So
please
do
the
right
thing
and
reject
these
developers
this
zoning
application.
Thank
you.
AG
B
Q
AH
Thank
you
very
much
by
the
way
for
your
time
and
your
generosity
in
freeing
up
the
opportunity
for
me
to
speak
this
morning
by
way
of
background,
I
haven't
done
one
of
these
presentations
in
a
while,
but
by
terms
of
standing
I
have
50
years
experience
as
an
environmental
planner
I've
worked
around
the
world
44
different
projects
of
note
and
my
purpose
of
being
here
this
morning.
If
you
can,
please
go
ahead,
Kelly
and
I'll
wave
didn't
move.
Him
is
to
speak
to
some
substantive
environmental
concerns.
AH
Okay,
can
you
go
to
the
next
one
Kelly
I'll
just
wave
the
next
one
is
the
absence
of
determinants
for
for
providing
you
with
informed
decision
for
how
those
decisions
related
to
Optimal
density
and
optimal
placement
of
those
specific
buildings
that
exist
at
the
site.
In
reality,
the
situation
is,
there
is
no
scientific
criteria
provided
either
by
the
proponent
or
the
city
to
be
able
to
tell
you
how
the
decision
was
arrived
at
against
which
these
decisions
were
made
for
citing
density
and
height.
AH
You
need
to
know
that,
because
I
can
tell
you
right
now,
there's
at
least
nine
algorithm
against
which
you
can
use.
If
you
want
it,
I
could
send
them
to
you,
which
you
could
use
as
a
basis
of
determining
height
and
density,
which
apparently
they
don't
exist
so
in
somebody's
envelope
off
the
corner
of
somebody's
desk.
These
decisions
would
want
him
were
arrived
at.
I'd
want
to
know
that
Helen
long-standing
Guru
of
mine,
Lord
Calvin,
said,
and
this
should
be
foremost
in
your
mind.
AH
If
you
don't
know
what
measuring
you
can't
manage
it,
if
you
cannot
measure
what
you're
managing
you
cannot
improve
it
and,
overall,
if
you
cannot
measure,
you
cannot
optimize,
keep
going
guys.
Okay,
concerns
associated
with
the
site.
An
awful
lot
of
organic
waste
material
is
going
to
be
generated,
much
of
which
I
assume
is
going
to
the
Trail
Road
Landfill,
and
they
get
over
a
thousand
tons
a
day.
So
it
would
be
nice
to
know
what
Spike
additional
Spike
the
generation
of
waste
in
the
facility
will
apply
to
the
site.
AH
It
gets
more
where
it
gets
worse.
Now,
when
you
look
at
construction
waste,
because
you
don't
know
what
percentage
is
going
to
be
recycled
where
it's
going
and
how
it's
being
disposed
of,
or
whether
it's
being
incinerated
back
at
the
site,
equal
account,
this
is
my
main
cons.
I'll
go
back
one.
The
main
concern
is
that
these
facilities
notorious
in
terms
of
how
poor
of
a
job
they
do
either
recycling
or
managing
the
waste
they
generate
from
the
site.
AH
We
know
right
now
that
the
Lincoln
Fields
facility
is
overextended.
So
how
will
this
additional
pulse,
if
you
will
of
biosols
in
this
site,
be
accommodated
by
the
linking
field
facility
and
to
what
extent
are
there
in
step
with
each
other
in
terms
of
building
or
expanding
operations
and
leaking
fields
to
accommodate
this
type
of
waste?
AH
I
see
no
evidence.
The
study
refers
to
bird
friendly
design
guidelines
and
what
extent
this
building
will
be
structured
so
as
to
minimize
any
impacts
on
the
Our
Feathered
Friends
keep
going.
The
same
goes
the
city,
auto
Wildlife
construction
protocols,
how
to
acknowledge
that
they're
being
incorporated
into
the
text.
AH
This
is
a
very
important
consideration.
We've
looked
at
Shadow,
but
you
haven't
looked
at
microclomic
microclimate
effects
from
1080
Carlin
on
the
farm
in
general
and
the
overall
environment
in
particular,
and
they're
suggesting
right
now.
Three
areas
need
to
be
evaluated.
I
can't
read
my
own
text,
but
buildings
over
12
feet
should
buy
wrote,
be
subject
to
this
type
of
analysis.
Really
interesting.
I
talked
to
Dr
Anderson.
Afterwards.
AH
AH
AH
A
couple
of
things
with
the
greatest
respect
and
50
years
of
experience,
I
see
a
number
of
environmental
science
data
gaps
that
exist
in
the
supposed
s
is
currently
structured,
which
I
feel
the
need
for
you've
talked
about
peer
reviews.
I
think
you
need
to
look
at
these
peer
reviews
in
the
context
of
what
additional
science
do.
You
need
to
make
more
informed
decisions
on
this
project
because
I
submit
to
you
it's
not
there
right
now
for
a
more
fullsome
decision.
Thank
you
for
the
time.
B
B
For
your
presentation,
so
members
that
does
bring
us
to
the
end
of
the
public
delegations
today
the
opportunity
is
now
to
speak
to
and
ask
questions
of
Staff
I
know.
Councilor
Brockington,
with
the
committee's
Indulgence
just
has
a
direction
that
he
would
like
to
ask
staff
to
take
that
I
think
would
be
good
to
have
on
the
table
now.
S
S
S
So
the
wording
of
the
direction
is
that
staff
be
directed
to
work
in
consultation
with
Agriculture
and
agri-foods
Canada
and
the
national
capital
commission
to
develop
the
terms
of
reference
for
a
plan
to
assess
and
mitigate
potential
impacts
of
future
development,
as
permitted
by
the
official
plan
policy
framework
surrounding
the
central
experimental
Farm
on
the
scientific
and
Heritage
values
associated
with
the
firm
as
a
National,
Historic
Site
of
Canada
and
research
institution
and
report
back
on
timing,
financial
and
resource
requirements
and
impact
on
the
overall
Department
work
plan.
No
later
than
Q2
2024.
B
Thank
you
very
much
just
knowing
that
this
file
is
likely
to
go
one
way
or
the
other
to
the
Ontario
land
tribunal
and
in
the
interest
of
procedural
fairness.
I
would
like
to
ensure
that
the
applicants
have
an
opportunity
to
address
once
they've.
Given
some
consideration
to
your
motion,
so
I
am
I
would
be
pleased
to
entertain
questions
of
the
applicants,
which
I
would
suggest
that
members
may
want
to
pose
as
a
good
idea.
B
B
AI
Great,
thank
you
very
much
Mr
chair,
I,
guess.
My
question
is
to
Tim
Mark.
It
will
be
a
very
similar
question
to
last
time
as
you
look
at
this.
If
this
committee
did
reject
it
today,
last
time
I
believe
you
had
mentioned
they
can
go
to
the
tribunal.
Can
you
confirm
they
still
can
go
to
the
tribunal
and
what's
the
six
possible
success
rate
I
know,
there's
not
always
certainty,
but
certainly
I
believe
last
time,
you're
pretty
sure
that
that
it
would
be
successful
at
the
Tribunal.
AJ
Yes,
Mr
chair,
they,
the
palant
or
indeed
the
African,
of
course-
will
have
appeal
rights
to
the
to
the
tribunal,
the
impellent,
if
a
bylaw
or
not
the
appellant
I
shouldn't
put
it
that
way.
Agriculture
Canada
would
have
the
possibility
of
appealing
it
to
the
tribunal
if
they
do
not
support
council's
decision
as
with
the
applicant
if
they
do
not
support
council's
decision.
As
I
believe
I
said
at
the
last
committee
meeting
this
the
position
Advanced
by
agriculture
Canada
is
a
novel
position.
AJ
I
did
not
find
anything
in
the
case
law
that
would
support
it.
I
note.
On
the
other
hand,
there
their
position
relies
on
sunlight
and
the
prescriptive
right
to
sunlight
was
abolished
in
the
province
of
Ontario
on
March,
the
5th
1880,
and
that
was
six
years
before
the
central
experimental
Farm
was
established
by
legislation.
So
a
case
based
on
the
right
to
sunlight
is,
in
my
opinion,
a
very
difficult
case
to
make
in
front
of
the
Ontario
land
Tribunal.
AI
Great
and
thank
you
very
much
for
reiterating
that
so
I'm
glad
to
hear
not
much
is
really
really
changed
in
that
period
of
time.
I
also
I'm.
Looking
at
how
we've
come
up
with
this,
this
motion,
that's
in
front
of
us
about
picking
story,
Heights,
I,
I,
don't
I
won't
be
supporting
that,
because
I
didn't
even
hear
a
real,
definitive
answer
from
the
speakers.
AI
That
being
said,
I
think
the
base
motion.
Nothing
has
really
changed.
We
still
have
a
homeless
crisis,
it's
still
very
important,
and
if,
if
the
people
that
came
out
today,
that
are
director
generals
and
fulfilling
all
these
spots,
we
asked
them
several
times
is
to
minister
supportive
of
this.
It
runs
contrary
to
what
the
federal
government's
position
is
on
housing.
It's
going
to
create
a
log
Jam
if,
if
between
now
and
Council,
they
feel
that
strongly
that
the
minister
is
is
wants
to
do
something
more
to
protect
it.
AI
They
have
that
Opera
opportunity
of
two
weeks.
Nothing
has
changed,
I
I'm
glad
they
did
come
out
today,
though,
but
Mr
chair.
Thank
you
for
sharing
a
great
meeting
I'll,
be
supporting
the
original
motion
voting
against
us.
You
know
willy-nilly
picking
Heights
of
buildings
and
and
that's
my
position
today.
Thank
you
very
much.
F
Chair
Gower,
thank
you.
Chair
I
also
have
a
question
for
Mr
Mark,
and
it
is
about
the
discussion
earlier
today
about
potential
compensation,
I'm,
not
totally
sure
who
the
applicant
was
directing
that
towards
who
would
be
liable
for
compensation.
But
do
you
have
any
comments
on
if
there
would
be
any
compensation
owing
or
any
precedent
for
that.
AJ
I
do
Mr
chair.
First
of
all,
I
would
know
to
gain
the
comment
that
I
gave
in
response
to
counselor
Tierney's
question,
which
is
there
has
been
no
prescriptive
right
to
sunlight
since
in
Ontario,
since
March
5th,
19
1880.
and
then
the
other
General
principle.
That
I
would
cite
is
that
in
Ontario
compensation
does
not
follow
the
standard.
Is
compensation
does
not
follow
zoning
decisions
up
or
down?
F
If
I
understand
it
correctly,
the
idea
was
if
we
approve
this
application,
we're
potentially
impacting
13
hectares
of
land
that
cannot
be
used
for
research
purposes,
which
would
have
a
direct
Financial
impact
on
the
government
of
Canada.
So
you're
saying
that
we
would
not
owe
them
any
compensation
if,
if
we
make
that
decision
today,.
AJ
Z
Thank
you,
I
think
councilor
yeah
or
asked
the
majority
of
my
question,
but
I
I
guess
my
concern
is
that
no
matter
what
we
do
we're
going
to
end
up
in
some
sort
of
legal
challenge,
right
I
mean
the
Community
Association
I
assume
would
be
interested
in
taking
the
stillland
tribunal.
If
we
pass
it,
agriculture
Canada
has
said
they
could
sue
for
compensation.
Z
AJ
Mr,
chair,
I'll,
start
off
and
then
Mr,
Moody
or
others
may
have
something
to
ask
I.
My
my
general
advice
to
the
municipality
is
that
liability
concerns
should
not
be
a
major
factor
in
your
decisions
on
planning
matters.
Planning
matters
are
to
be
cited
on
the
provincial
policy
and
the
official
plan,
taking
into
account
matters
of
provincial
interest
under
section
two,
taking
into
account
the
principles
of
good
planning.
AK
Yeah
to
that
Mr
chair
the
recommendation.
That's
before
you
is
based
on
staff's
opinion,
professional
opinion.
You
know
on
the
proposal
that
was
put
forward
to
us
by
the
applicant
and
how
it
fits
within
the
the
policy
framework
that
exists
today
within
our
official
plan,
the
provincial
policy
statement,
the
planning
act
and
and
as
a
whole,
and
so
you
know,
staff
from
a
recommendation
perspective.
If
you're
asking
us
what
our
recommendation
is,
our
recommendation
is
the
is
is
still
that
that
was
is
in
the
report.
Z
T
Thank
you,
chair,
I'm,
just
going
to
follow
up
on
the
same
line
of
questioning
from
councilor
Gower
and
Council
troster
in
the
report
in
the
staff
recommendation.
It
says
there
are
no
legal
I'll
read
it.
There
are
no
legal
implications
associated
with
implementing
the
report,
so
no
legal
implications
and
I'm
hearing
from
Tim
Mark
that
it
would
be
a
difficult
case.
T
So
I
guess.
My
question
is:
is
it
that
there
are
no
legal
implications
or
that
there's
an
acceptable
level
of
risk,
because
it
sounds
clearly
like
both
sides
are
looking
at
it
from
interpreting
interpreting
the
factory
for
us
from
from
different
lenses?
So
was
the
so
when,
when
the
staff
report
had
there
are
no
legal
implications,
was
that
outside
the
anticipation
of
how
AG
Canada
might
see
this
differently
than
than
us?
That's
my.
AJ
Mr
chair,
as
I
mentioned
in
response
to
the
first
question
by
counselor
Tierney,
the
position
being
Advanced
by
agriculture.
Canada
in
this
case
is,
in
my
view,
a
novel
position,
something
that,
with
respect
is
going
to
be
a
very
difficult
case
for
them
or
others
to
make
before
the
Ontario
land
Tribunal.
AJ
There
is
always
the
possibility
of
appeals
to
the
Ontario
land
tribunal
by
either
an
applicant
or
by
somebody
opposed
to
the
development.
It
is
the
realm
of
what
your
legal
services
staff,
together
with
planning
or
in
some
cases,
retained
outside
Partners,
have
to
do
all
the
time.
It
is
not,
in
my
opinion,
an
exceptional
legal
risk.
E
I
You
very
much
chair
and
I
want
to
thank
all
the
delegations
today,
particularly
agriculture,
Canada,
for
coming
and
clarifying
some
of
the
the
points
that
were
made
in
their
absence
during
last
meeting
and
I.
Think
their
presence
today
reinforce
my
you
know,
or
certainly
made
me
more,
at
least
as
confident
in
my
position
today
as
I
was
last
time.
We
discussed
this
issue
and
I
realized
that
the
you
know
the
terms
of
reference
that
that
are
being
used
here.
I
Guess
what
we're
we're
seeing
here
and
I'm
hearing
over
and
over
again
in
interventions
from
my
colleagues,
is
that
we
have
themes.
We
seem
to
have
identified
a
gap
in
policy
and
the
terms
of
reference,
so
I
I.
Don't
think
that
this
isn't
either
or
conversation
I
think
which
has
been
suggested
in
in
the
course
of
this
discussion.
I'd
I'd
love
to
to
find
a
resolution
that
would
allow
us
to
develop
and
build
homes
through
this
Corridor,
which
is
you
know,
I,
think
very
important
for
housing
in
the
city.
I
We've
heard
that
I
think
we
all
agree
with
that,
but
that
there
are
real
concerns
here
for
the
impact
of
the
experimental
firm.
So
I'm
really
happy
that
councilor
Brockington
brought
that
direction
forward,
as
well
as
the
motion,
because
you
know
if
we
are
able
to
agree
on
that.
That
does
allow
us
to
move
forward
while
also
agreeing
that
we
need
to
have
a
further
discussion
about
the
impacts
on
the
experimental
Forum
firm.
I
L
You
chair
just
with
respect
to
the
complexity
of
the
situation.
We
all
we
always
have
to
recognize.
The
central
experimental
Farm
is
a
very
significant
area.
It
is
bounded
to
the
South
by
the
Baseline
major
Transit
Corridor,
major
Corridor
designation
in
the
policy
area
to
the
north
by
calling
Avenue
with
the
same
designation
to
the
west
by
by
Fisher
the
minor
Corridor
designation.
Of
course,
we
also
have
Hub
designations
that
are
also
in
proximity
to
that.
So
in
terms
of
it
being
a
quick
fix,
I
do
not
see
it
as
being
a
quick
fix.
L
The
direction
that
a
committee
has
provided
to
us
asks
us
to
look
at
and
consider
how
we
might
be
able
to
evaluate
the
potential
impacts
on
the
central
experimental
farm
from
a
more
holistic
sense
and
looking
at
all
the
potential
development
that
may
occur
not
just
simply
on
one
Corridor,
but
in
that
entire
surrounding
area.
So
the
the
variety
of
outcomes
that
may
come
from
that
direction
and
any
work
and
collaboration
that
we
do
with
aafc
could
come
in
a
number
of
different
ways.
B
AJ
Mr,
chair
I,
will
take
that
question.
Mr
chair
I
want
to
make
it
clear
because
some
of
the
people
I
deal
with
in
the
development
industry
may
take
my
answer
and
so
I
want
to
I
want
to
make
my
answer
very
precise.
It
is
my
view,
that's
a
principle
that
some
members
of
the
committee
may
have
heard
too.
As
a
clergy
principle.
AJ
It
is
my
view
and
it
has
been
consistently
Advanced
by
legal
staff
for
the
city
of
Ottawa,
that,
with
respect
to
the
adoption
of
the
new
official
plan
on
November,
the
4th
2022
that
any
application
subsequent
to
that
date
has
to
comply
with
the
official
plan.
Any
application
that
can
process
has
to
comply
with
the
new
official
plan
and
I
won't
I'd,
be
pleased
to
discuss
the
basis
for
that
opinion.
AJ
But
I
won't
go
into
that
now.
However,
with
respect
to
standard
applications
post
the
adoption
of
the
new
official
plan,
it
is
my
opinion
that
the
clergy
principle
does
apply
and
therefore
the
application
by
Taggart
in
this
case
would
be
subject
to
the
policies
in
place
by
taking
into
account
the
new
official
plan,
but
not
the
policies
of
any
subsequent
official
fund
Amendment.
So
an
official
amendment,
in
my
opinion,
due
to
the
clergy
principle,
which
is
just
again
for
the
benefit
of
those,
the
clergy
principle,
is
the
name
of
clergy
properties.
AJ
I
Based
on
what
I
heard
and
my
limited
legal
knowledge
I
understand
that
an
Opa,
if,
if
we
did
do
that,
would
not
have
an
impact
on
this
very
specific
application.
But
what
about
other
applications
that
have
already
been
submitted
to
the
city
of
Ottawa
or
in
the
pipeline
that
are
around
the
experimental
firm
like
I'm,
just
wondering
if
there's
a
way
to
adjust
our
policies
that
would
allow
development
there
in
a
way
that
doesn't
hurt
the
experimental
firm,
whether
that's
an
Opa
or
not.
AJ
B
Thank
you.
It's
it's
a
legitimate
question,
counselor
Kelly
and
one
with
which
we're
going
to
have
to
Grapple,
because
we
know
that
this
application,
the
Baseline
application
or
not
the
last
applications
that
will
come
and
we
anticipate
significant
intensification
on
Baseline
on
Fisher,
on
Prince
of
Wales
on
Carling
Avenue.
So
that's
something
that
we
need
to
take
a
look
at
sorry,
Council
Kelly.
Did
you
have
any
further
questions?
No.
X
B
AB
Thank
you,
chair,
I,
appreciate
the
responses
to
the
questions
from
counselors
from
our
our
legal
department.
Mr
Mark.
My
question
is:
when
agriculture
Canada
stated
legal
action
is
being.
Is
there
a
federal
government?
It
seems
weird
that
they
have
to
go
down
to
the
province
to
make
their
case.
Don't
they
have
some
higher
Powers?
AJ
Mr
chair
in
respect
of
what
happens
on
their
own
property.
Yes,
there
are
certain
things
that
the
federal
government
can
do.
The
federal
government
is
not
bound
by
the
planning
act
so
with
respect
to
what
happens
on
the
central
experimental
Farm
itself,
it
does
have
that
I'll
call
an
enhanced
position
if
you
will
with
respect
to
what
happens
in
other
properties.
No,
the
federal
government
is
not
in
a
special
position.
In
my
opinion,.
AB
AJ
You
know
they're
taught
what
is
the
subject
matter
here
is
what
will
happen
at
1081
Carlene
and
the
city
has
planning
jurisdiction
over
1081
calling
to
make
a
decision
in
accordance
with
the
four
principles
that
I
mentioned
in
response
to
an
earlier
question,
Mr
chair,
so
with
respect
to
1081
Carlene,
the
federal
government
is
not,
in
my
opinion,
in
any
sort
of
enhanced
position.
Okay,.
AB
AL
Thank
you,
chair,
I,
I,
don't
know
if
this
is
the
appropriate
time
or,
if
you're
hoping
to
hold
on
to
them
for
after,
but
there
is
emotion
on
the
floor
regarding
changing
the
height
levels
and
I'd
really
love
to
hear
from
the
applicant.
This
would
be
a
significant
change
to
what
is
actually
before
us
today
and
I'd
like
to
know
their
thoughts
and
response
to
that
motion.
B
W
Well,
is
that
the
question?
Thank
you
very
much
for
the
question,
so
I
think
the
question
in
front
of
us
is:
you
know
whether
the
applicant
would
be
willing
to
consider.
You
know
this
revised
Motion
in
terms
of
building
Heights
I'd
like
to
suggest
that
you
know
this
is
a
significant
reduction
of
almost
40
percent
in
terms
of
the
total
density
and,
at
this
point
in
time,
we're
not
prepared
to
entertain
such
a
drastic
reduction
in
these
Power
Heights,
as
proposed
by
The
Counselor.
AL
W
The
application
was
commenced
in
2021,
so
we're
now
into
our
almost
third
calendar
year
in
terms
of
working
through
the
application
turns
by
a
very
initial
pre-console.
So
at
the
present
time
to
answer
the
question:
we're
approximately
24
months
through
the
process
with
all
of
the
consultation,
stuff
and
four
rounds
of
technical
submissions
that
have
gone
back
to
planning
stuff.
AL
W
Well,
I
think
if
a
path
I
think
you
know,
I
think
the
appropriate
response
for
me
at
this
juncture
that
will
take
it
under
advisement
and
we'll
review
the
decision,
but
I
think
my
initial
position
quite
clear
in
that
you
know
we're
not
prepared
to
accept
it.
This
time
you
know
and
almost
40
reduction,
all
levels
of
government
are
currently
requesting
more
housing
Supply
to
be
built,
so
we
have
complied
with.
All
of
the
policy
procedure
study
four
rounds
of
technical
comments
to
go
back
and
forth
with
planning
staff.
W
We've
made
a
number
of
changes
modification
to
the
project,
and
so
at
this
present
time
you
know
I
think
we
take
it
under
advisement,
but
you
know
we
do
feel
that
we've
complied
with
all
of
the
policy
procedures.
You
know
with
respect
to
what
we're
asked
to
of
us
initially
for
this
application.
Thank
you.
B
S
Chair
I
I
do
want
to
ask
the
proponents,
since
the
a
Canada
expert
spoke
after
them,
I
just
want
to
get
your
reaction.
Agriculture,
Canada
experts
said
that
the
shadowing
from
your
proposed
development
will
cause
quote
significant,
costly
and
permanent
damage
in
their
words
to
the
agriculture
research.
That's
conducted
on
the
site,
I'm
trying
to
search
for
a
middle
ground.
Here,
that's
my
intent.
S
W
I
think
that
the
I
think
what
I
would
like
to
say
is
that,
as
a
member
of
the
development
Community
I'm
not
qualified
to
properly
comment
on
the
scientific
impact
of
their
research
and
I,
think
that
that's
something
that
we've
tried
to
convey
to
stop
with
respect
to
the
policies
and
the
procedure
and
I
am
not
in
a
position
to
comment
on
the
specific
research,
the
impact
of
research,
the
levels
of
joules
in
terms
of
energy,
with
respect
to
the
site
so
on
and
so
forth.
So
I
think
respectfully.
W
I
would
like
to
sort
of
limit
my
comments
to
the
framework
of
which
we've
been
asked
to
consider
and
put
forward
this
application.
I
would
just
re-emphasize.
We
have
spent
time
reading
the
comments
and
we've
made
a
decision
that
it
is
not
within
our
purview
to
comment
on
the
scientific
impact.
With
respect
to
this
development
and
I'll
turn
it
over
to
my
colleague,
Big
Al,
to
build
on
that.
Well,.
R
I
just
want
to
add
an
additional
clarification
and
that
while
we
recognize
that
we
didn't
meet
directly
with
with
that
Canada,
we
we
had
the
benefit
of
the
written
comments
and
we,
you
know
we
had
the
benefit
of
exchanges
between
them
and
and
staff
and
and
the
summary
memo
that
it's
not
to
say
that
the
project
hasn't
changed
and
improved.
As
as
Derek
mentioned,
there
was
four
rounds
of
technical
comments.
Each
of
those
rounds
yielded
changes
to
the
building
design.
R
Some
of
those
changes
were
related
to
a
better
transition
to
the
residential
Community
to
the
north
and
involved
shifting
Towers
lowering
podiums
the
park
space,
all
sorts
of
other
modifications.
Some
of
those
modifications
also
included
already
reducing
the
tower
Heights
from
the
original
proposal
and
equally
important,
reducing
the
tower
floor
plates
to
in
the
range
of
750
square
meters.
Both
of
those
intentions
were
there
to
mitigate
Shadow
impacts
both
to
the
community,
to
the
north
and
to
the
experimental
farm
so
I.
R
B
V
Thank
you.
So
these
questions
are
our
first
staff.
I
was
curious.
If
we
could,
if
we,
we
could
get
a
comment
on
the
one
delegation
speaking
about
setting
guidelines
when
it
comes
to
the
chis
I
thought
that
was
kind
of
an
interesting
consideration
in
that
the
surrounding
area
of
a
potentially
culturally
and
Heritage
significant
site
would
have
an
impact
on
on
that
and
how
much
and
I
understand
from
the
impact
statement
that
we
did
only
consider
you
know
within
the
boundaries
of
the
farm.
P
Thank
you,
Mr
chair
in
the
city's
terms
of
reference
for
cultural
heritage
impact
statements.
They
it
isn't
as
specific
as
to
say
exactly
what
must
be
reviewed,
so
it
is
up
to
the
professional
who
prepares
the
document
to
sort
of
assess
what
are
those
cultural
heritage
values
using
the
statement
of
significance.
That
is
a
sign
for
this
place.
P
P
That
being
said,
I
do
think,
as
as
my
colleagues
have
said,
staff
do
support
the
direction
that
has
been
provided
related
to
having
a
further
consideration
of
what
those
cumulative
impacts
could
be
on
the
overall
values
of
the
farm,
which
I
think
do
include
its
setting.
As
part
of
you
know,
in
the
city,
I
hope
that
helps.
V
No
that's
helpful.
Thank
you
and
then
my
other
question
is
with
respect
to
some
of
the
documentation
referring
to
the
future
of
the
Baseline
secondary
plan
as
being
a
potential
factor
in
how
we
are
going
to
intensify
around
the
farm,
but
I
believe
that,
as
it's
currently
proposed
and
in
the
work
plan,
the
boundaries
of
that
secondary
plan
do
not
extend
to
the
farm
anymore
and
so
I.
Just
wanted
a
comment
that
that
decision
was
made
as
we're.
Looking
for
future
intensification
around
the
farm.
L
And
Mr
chair,
the
Baseline
secondary
plan
did
form
part
of
the
work
plan
that
was
proved
by
Council
earlier
this
year.
We
will
be
going
forward
with
terms
of
reference
and
directions
for
how
we
are
going
to
undertake
that
study.
The
boundaries
of
that
currently
right
now
are
from
Green
Bank
to
Fisher,
so
they
do
not
necessarily
include
the
experimental
farm
lands,
but
they
do,
of
course,
include
the
lands
and
development
that
would
be
bordering
the
experimental
Farm
of
note,
though,
the
Baseline
secondary
plan
is,
of
course
along
Baseline.
L
It
does
not
look
at
revisiting
policies
along
Fisher
or
Carling,
or
providing
additional
substance
or
Nuance
to
those
policies.
That
would
be
something
that
would
be
outside
of
that,
and
that
is
where
the
direction
would
look
at
us
expanding
or
or
providing
a
new
work
plan
item
that
might
provide
again
that
more
holistic
look,
that
might
in
turn
inform
the
Baseline
secondary
plan
and
any
other
policy
directions
that
flow
from
there.
M
Thank
you
chair,
just
a
comment:
I
don't
have
any
additional
questions.
I
did
I
did
make
this
comment
when
we
discussed
this
the
first
time,
but
I'll
make
it
again.
We
had
a
number
of
delegates.
Speaking
on
behalf
of
farmers
and
and
now
we've
had
additional
time
to
consider
this
application,
but
I
haven't
heard
from
farmers
in
my
community
that
are
concerned
about
this
development
and
I.
Invite
you
also
to
speak
to
our
colleague,
Farmer
Brown,
about
his
thoughts
on
this
application.
M
I
sent
some
photos
to
committee
members
about
what
my
what
Ward
19
looked
like
when
I
was
in
high
school
and
what
it
looks
like
today
and
going
further
back
when
my
parents
bought
in
the
70s
in
Orleans
in
the
70s
there
was
Farmland
all
around
them,
so
you
know
our
city
is
growing.
We
need
housing,
that's
something
that
we
grapple
with
at
this
committee.
Every
time
we
meet
and
with
much
respect
and
appreciation
for
AG,
Canada
and
and
the
experimental
Farm.
M
X
Thanks
very
much,
and
thanks
for
letting
me
participate
in
your
your
meeting
today.
I
I
find
this
topic
very
interesting
and
fascinating,
and
knowing
that
I'm
going
to
have
to
make
a
decision
at
Council
in
two
weeks,
I
just
wanted
to
ask
something.
I
mean
certainly
it's
it's
compelling
to
have
the
most
senior
bureaucrat
at
agriculture.
Canada
come
today
and
present
in
front
of
a
group
of
Municipal
officials
and
indicate
that
the
minister
is
aware
that
they
are.
X
To
me,
it's
extremely
significant,
particularly
here
in
Ottawa,
where
we
have
such
a
relationship
with
the
federal
government,
so
I'm
wondering,
if
there's
any
opportunity
to
get
a
clarifying
statement
from
the
minister
of
Agriculture
or
at
the
political
level.
I
heard
very
clearly
today
from
the
delegates
that
the
ministers
are
aware
that
we
are
there
and
that
they're,
not
speaking
for
the
political
level.
G
B
Personally
speaking,
as
as
a
member
of
the
planning
and
housing
committee,
I
am
less
interested
in
what
the
minister
of
Agriculture
thinks
about.
The
planning
merits
than
I
am
in
hearing
from
our
legal
staff
in
hearing
from
staff
in
hearing
from
the
applicant
in
hearing
from
the
the
legal,
the
lawyers
who
are
representing
the
community
who
are
addressing
the
planning
merits,
there
is
a
fundamental
tension
at
play
in
this
file
between
the
two
levels
of
government
that
actually
exist
in
our
constitution.
In
Canada.
B
The
federal
Minister
may
speak
to
us
if
they
had
the
opportunity
about
the
impact
that
our
planning
decision
might
have
on
their
Farm,
but
it
doesn't
affect
the
decision
that
we
nonetheless
need
to
make,
which
is
on
the
planning
merits
of
the
file.
We
go
into
this
decision
aware
that
there
is
going
to
be
an
impact
on
a
certain
kind
of
research
in
a
certain
geography
on
this
Farm.
B
The
Ontario
land
tribunal,
to
which
this
file
will
almost
certainly
go
I'm
sure
is
going
to
be
considering
this
within
their
mandate,
which
is.
Does
this
meet
the
criteria
of
the
planning
Act,
so
councilor
Carr?
There
is
the
potential
to
try
to
get
the
federal
minister
of
Agriculture
to
weigh
in,
but
I,
don't
believe
that
that's
necessarily
the
most
relevant
comment
with
respect
to
the
decision
that
is
in
front
of
us
today.
X
No
absolutely
and
I
support
what
you
said
chair.
It's
just
I
feel
that
you
know,
as
a
member
of
council
I've,
been
put
in
an
incredibly
uncomfortable
position,
having
senior
level
bureaucrats
Advocate
to
the
political
level
for
to
make
decisions
on
which
we
really
have
no
Authority.
So
I
I
really
appreciate
what
you
said
and
thank
you
for
letting
me
join
the
meeting
today.
B
Q
B
S
Very
briefly
sure
thank
you
so
Middle
Ground,
that's
the
term
I'd
like
us
to
consider
at
this
time,
I'm
trying
to
find
middle
ground
for
a
development
that
I
do
want
to
see
happen
on
a
corridor
that
I
do
need
to
see
development.
We
all
need
to
see
development,
but
experts
have
testified
both
in
writing
and
here
today.
That,
as
is
this
development,
will
cause
significant
detrimental
impacts
to
agriculture
research.
So
do
we
have
a
role
to
consider
the
impacts
on
agricultural
research
located
on
Federal
Land?
S
S
So
how
do
we
consider
this
in
our
decision
making
that
we
have
to
decide
upon
now
and
the
motion
before
us
today,
chair
and
colleagues
is
trying
in
the
absence
of
the
working
group
and
an
absence
of
a
mitigation
plan?
The
proponent
deserves
a
response
today,
the
middle
ground,
that
we
can
find
that
the
experts
have
said
of
the
upper
range
of
14
stories
is
the
motion
that
I'm
trying
to
strike
here
today.
Thank
you.
B
J
F
F
B
AA
Z
K
B
That
carries
so
we'll
have
that
in
front
of
us
at
city,
council,
27th,
September
27th.
Thank
you
very
much
collect.
Thank
you
very
much
Andrew
for
your
work
on
that.
Thank
you
very
much
to
all
the
delegations.
This
was
actually
an
interesting
out
of
the
box.
Discussion
and
I
appreciate
everyone's
participation.
B
So
we
have
Richard
Spiel
here.
I
believe
is
the
architect
for
Somerset
I.
Think
I
got
that
right,
Mr
schmill!
If
the
deal,
if
the
committee
is
prepared
to
carry
the
right
staff
recommendations,
did
you
need
to
speak
to
the
committee
so
committee
members
on
the
alteration
at
Somerset
house
and
the
rezone
somerset
has
do
those
carry
Carrie?
Thank
you
very
much.
Let
us
take
20
20
minutes.
Q
A
B
B
AM
All
right
good
afternoon,
Mr,
chair
and
members
of
committee,
this
is
the
presentation
for
official
plan
Amendment
and
Zoning
bylaw
Amendment
for
2475
Regina
Street
next
slide.
Please
the
site
is
one
hectare
and
is
located
on
the
north
side
of
Richmond
Road
West
of
the
kitchissippi
mikin.
The
site
is
currently
home
to
Parkway
House,
a
residential
care
home
for
adults
with
physical
abilities.
Disabilities
surrounding
land
uses
include
to
the
north,
are
the
Byron
linear
path
and
the
Byron
linear,
Tramway
Park.
AM
A
city
park
that
connects
to
the
ncc's
Ottawa
River
Pathway
to
the
east
is
the
kitchen,
an
Associated
pedestrian
walkways
which
are
owned
and
operated
by
the
national
capital
commission
and
which
provide
direct
connectivity
to
the
Lincoln
Fields
LRT
station
to
the
South.
The
area
directly
across
the
kitchen
sippy
McCann
to
the
east
is
also
characterized
by
high-rise
buildings
near
the
future.
New
Orchard
LRT
station
to
the
South
is
high-rise
residential
development
facing
Richmond
Road,
with
Heights
up
to
21
stories
to
the
West,
our
low-rise
single,
detached
dwellings
facing
Lincoln
height
Road.
AM
AM
The
subject
lands
are
designated
as
neighborhood
in
the
inner
urban
transect
within
neighborhoods
development
is
to
be
characterized
as
low
to
mid
density,
low
rise
development
to
create
conditions
for
15-minute
neighborhoods
next
slide.
Please
the
subject
properties
within
the
boundaries
of
the
ongoing
Lincoln
field
station's
secondary
plan
planning
study.
The
purpose
of
this
study
is
to
prepare
a
secondary
plan
to
guide
future
development
in
the
Lincoln
Fields
station
area
that
complements
the
city's
newly
adopted
official
plan.
AM
The
main
objective
of
the
study
in
the
secondary
plan
are
to
facilitate
a
more
urbanized
place
that
helps
meet
the
city's
intensification
targets
and
strategically
locate
density
and
proximity
to
the
futurality
station.
Next
slide.
Please
Parkway
House,
in
conjunction
with
windmill
Development
Group,
is
proposing
to
demolish
the
existing
one-story
building
that
houses
Parkway,
House
and
construct
a
new
residential
care
facility
and
residential
development
consisting
of
three
buildings.
AM
The
proposed
structures
consist
of
one
seven-story
building
incorporating
Parkway
House
on
the
ground
floor,
one
16-story,
building
providing
residential
units
and
128
story
building
consisting
of
market
value
residential
units
with
a
total
of
510
residential
units.
The
buildings
are
planned
to
include
a
range
of
units
from
Studios
one
bedrooms,
two
bedrooms
and
family
friendly
three-bedroom
units.
AM
AM
AM
The
official
plan
Amendment
seeks
to
establish
an
area-specific
policy
to
address
an
amendment
associated
with
the
neighborhood
designation
policies
to
permit
building
Heights
up
to
28
stories.
Presently
these
policies
generally
limit
building
Heights
to
those
of
a
low-rise
building
typology
up
to
four
stories.
AM
The
proposed
zoning
introduces
regulations
to
permit
the
continuation
of
the
Parkway
House
on
site
permits,
A
reduced
landscape
strip
around
parking
permits,
a
minimum
setback
to
an
accessory
accessory
structure
of
1.2
meters,
reduces
parking
requirements
and
implements
a
holding
provision
to
require
the
following
to
be
provided
before
development
can
occur.
On
the
site
upgrades
the
Lincoln
field,
sanitary
pumping
station
looping
of
water
main
and
active
Transportation
connections
to
Rapid
Transit
be
provided
next
slide.
Please.
AM
The
development
supports
the
official
plan
goals
by
allowing
higher
densities
in
areas
close
to
transit,
station
corridors
and
major
neighborhood
amenities
and
in
an
area
Contin
contributing
to
15-minute
neighborhoods.
The
site
has
unique
lot
size,
location
and
zoning
and
historical
land
use
compared
to
the
residential
lot
Fabric
along
nearby
streets
within
surrounding
neighborhood
designation.
AM
B
Thank
you
very
much.
Mr
Stern.
We
have
a
number
of
public
delegations
to
speak
to
this
item
before
we
come
back
to
address.
Questions
to
staff.
Peter
Caskey
I
understand
is
under
a
particular
time
constraint
and
so,
with
the
committee's
permission,
I'm
going
to
bump
him
to
the
top
of
the
list
and
invite
Mr
Caskey
to
the
front
to
address
the
committee.
B
S
Chair
I
has
come
to
my
attention.
I
may
be
in
a
perceived
conflict
of
interest
on
this
matter.
I
have
not
sought
a
legal
opinion
on
this
matter,
I
think
in
the
abundance
of
caution
I'm
going
to
recuse
myself
from
the
meeting
at
this
point,
get
that
matter
and
then
declare
it
at
Council
if
I
need
be,
but
any
abundance
of
caution
I'm
going
to
recuse
myself
at
this
point.
Thank.
B
B
O
O
The
development
aims
to
maximize
connectivity
and
we
propose
to
provide
a
connection
through
our
site
direct
to
the
NCC
pathway
leading
to
the
new
Lincoln
Fields
LRT
station.
We've
already
initiated
discussions
with
the
NCC
on
the
connection
to
their
pathway
and
they're
generally
in
support
such
that
we
provide
a
design
that
works
for
all
parties.
O
Additionally,
we
are
providing
a
minimum
one-to-one
ratio
for
bike
parking,
as
well
as
exploring
micro,
Mobility
options
and
other
TDM
measures,
as
listed
in
our
transportation
impact
assessment
through
the
site
plan
process,
as
has
been
true
for
other
windmill
developments
in
the
past.
This
new
development
aims
to
raise
the
bar
for
sustainable
development,
providing
a
lasting
beneficial
impact
for
the
community.
O
Off-Site
to
merely
be
connected
when
they're
delivered
on
site,
we
would
like
to
thank
you
Mr,
chair
and
the
rest
of
the
planning
and
housing
committee
for
your
time
today,
and
we
look
forward
to
continuing
to
work
with
staff
and
with
councilor
Kavanaugh
as
we
bring
this
development
to
fruition.
Thank
you.
Thank.
B
AB
Thank
you
very
much
chair
and
thank
you
Ross
for
coming
out
today.
I
appreciate
it
we're
anyway.
The
one
of
the
big
factors
in
in
this
project
that
is
a
concern,
is
the
emphasis
on
the
connectivity
to
Lincoln
field
station
and
it's
one
of
the
holds
that
is
being
put
on
the
project
you
you've
mentioned
it
and
that
you
have
relations
in
terms
of
discussions
with
the
NCC
in
terms
of
your
own
property.
AB
But
my
concern
is
the
rest,
which
is
400
meters
and
who's,
going
to
take
responsibility
to
to
clear
that
path
and
a
question
I'll
be
asking
for
the
city
in
terms
of
development
charges,
but
I'm,
hoping
that
that
is
a
deal,
because
we
need
that.
That
is
actually
very,
very
important,
especially
when
your
parking
ratio
is
at
50
percent
and
I.
Just
want
your
comments
on
that,
and
and
hopefully
development
charges
can
be
used
to
to
accommodate
clearing
that
that
pathway
for
snow
and
making
at
a
year-round
pathway.
O
AB
Guess
the
real
question
is
who's.
Paying
is
because
it's
going
to
be
an
expense
forever,
and
we
we
need
to
know
that.
So
hopefully,
this
will
be
done
through
development
charges,
because
this
building
will
certainly
benefit
to
fit
from
from
this
pathway
as
well-
and
this
is
what
I'll
be
asking
Steph
is
Regina
Street
itself,
which
only
has
one
sidewalk.
AB
It's
meant
to
be
a
residential
street
and
now
it's
being
turned
into
more
of
a
a
corridor,
a
major
Corridor,
and
that
that's
concerning
and
it
needs
better
infrastructure
to
be
for
active
transportation
and-
and
we
need
to
see
that
and
I
want
to
know
what
what
the
developers
role
is
in
in
in
making
that
happen.
The
development
charges
sure.
O
B
AN
V
V
O
On
so
yeah
I
think
we
are
at
just
shy
of
a
0.5
ratio.
I
think
we
have
246
proposed
spaces
plus
12
surface
parking
spaces
that
are
adjacent
to
where
the
new
Parkway
House
facility
will
be
located
and
as
I
understand
it,
the
the
ratio
for
visitor
is
0.1
for
the
number
of
units
that
we
have.
So
that's
roughly
50
visitor
spots.
O
V
B
K
Thank
you,
chair,
Lieber
I
would
also
like
to
take
note
that
our
Bay
board
counselor
Teresa,
is
a
member
of
the
committee
and
pleased
that
there
are
other
members
of
the
committee
here
and
perhaps
also
electronically
tuned
in
my
name
is
Peter.
Caskey
I
have
been
a
resident
at
291
Lincoln,
Heights
Road,
since
1971.
K
K
K
A
separate
School
Board
reached
a
point
where
they
decided
that
the
location
of
this
property
did
not
fit
well
with
their
catchment
area
for
students,
and
so
it
they
concluded,
it
would
be
Surplus
to
their
needs
and
when
it
was
Surplus
to
their
needs,
they
would
like
to
sell
it
and
for
the
highest
return
on
this.
Surplus
asset
means
the
highest
density
possible.
K
AB
K
1974
that
request
was
rejected
by
the
Council
of
the
day
because
of
the
physical
limitations
of
this
property.
It
has
only
a
one
entrance
exit
and
into
a
residential
air
Street.
The
staff
recommendation
had
been
to
reject
the
proposal
because
the
physical
limitations
of
the
property
made
it
suitable
only
for
what
they
called
low
intensity
development
fast
forward
to
last
year.
The
staff
studied
all
the
properties
in
the
area
for
consultation
on
the
Lincoln
Fields
station
secondary
plant,
don't
be
misled
by
the
wording
from
the
applicant.
K
I
would
just
end
up
by
pointing
out
that
the
city
will
be
accountable
when
as
to
whether
their
decision
on
2475
Regina
delivers
the
standards
that
are
required
for
a
healthy
administration
of
the
zoning
system,
consistency,
transparency,
impartiality
and,
if
I
may
respectfully,
add
a
warning
to
counselors
ad
hoc
decisions
of
special
exemptions,
or
exceptions
are
toxic.
They
are
rarely
impartial.
They
usually
are
very
damaging
to
the
Integrity
of
the
system
and
if
I
made,
what
made
one
final
Point
Mr
chair,
I.
K
AB
Yes,
okay,
thank
you
thank
you,
chair
and
thank
you,
Mr
Caskey
for
taking
the
time
out
and
spending
all
this
time
today
at
the
meeting
waiting
to
to
appear
appreciate,
it
I'll
be
asking
questions
on
on
behalf
of
the
community
to
to
staff,
because
delegations
are
basically
making
statements
in
what
you've
done
and
I
will
ask
about
the
previous
zoning
and
how
that
evolved,
because
that
is
something
that
is
extremely
unusual,
though,
keep
in
mind.
Of
course,
this
is
a
private
property.
AB
K
Well,
this
proposal:
clearly
it
is
not
follow
a
pattern
of
consistency,
so
I
mean
it
to
me.
It's
self-evident.
The
transparency
part.
This
proposal
has
been
shielded
in
private
understandings
and
lack
of
clarity
between
the
relationship
of
the
developer
and
the
vendor
of
the
prother,
the
property
now
I.
In
our
submissions
last
year
we
pointed
out,
transparency
is
really
a
coin
of
the
realm
for
public
Trust.
G
AO
W
AO
AO
AO
I
submitted
a
petition
of
40
other
41
other
people
who
agreed
this
was
from
a
meeting
of
only
45
people
in
a
park
to
discuss
this
last
September.
We
have
a
vested
interest.
My
wife
and
I
are
not
wanting
to
see
this
development
go
through.
This
was
to
be
our
forever
home
now,
I'll
be
faced
with
the
loss
of
privacy,
alafa
Vista,
a
major
disruption
to
our
way
of
life
and
to
the
nature
of
the
character
of
the
community
and
neighborhood.
AO
But
those
are
our
personal
concerns
and
not
why
I'm
here
to
address
this
committee
I'm
more
worried
about
the
following:
the
lack
of
certain
city
services
to
support
this
development.
In
this
report,
the
city
admits
that
a
critical
component
of
the
local
infrastructure
is
currently
unable
to
support
this
and
other
developments
apparently
upgrades
to
the
Lincoln
Heights
sanitary
pumping
station
are
required.
Therefore,
I
contend
to
this
application
should
not
be
considered
until
the
necessary
upgrades
have
been
approved,
funded
and
performed
the
dubious
claim
of
easy
access
to
a
Transit
hub.
AO
The
claim
is
that
this
development
is
an
easy
walk
to
the
transit.
Hub
only
applies
in
summer
months,
the
NCC
monthly
use
pathway
that
allows
an
applicant
to
claim
that
development
is
only
400
meters.
Transit
Hub
is
for
summer
months
only
the
mup
is
not
plowed
by
the
NCC,
nor
is
sand
and
salt
put
down
in
winter
months
and
when
it
runs
the
only
access
way
into
the
to
the
Lincoln
Heights
field.
Lincoln
Fields
transit
station
is
via
Regina
and
Ashley
roads.
A
distance
of
seven
to
eight
hundred
meters,
not
400
meters,
is
climbed.
AO
AO
AO
A
number
of
serious
traffic
and
safety
concerns.
My
counselor
reported
to
me
that
the
city
Fire
official
told
her
that
they
had
no
concerns
about
safety
connected
to
this
proposed
development.
This
is
disconcerting
because
this
development
is
on
a
dead
end
street,
with
only
a
single
comparatively
narrow
access
and
egress
Road.
In
addition,
because
of
snow
removal
issues,
the
single
access
roads,
Regina
and
Ashley
reached
down
to
virtually
one
lane
for
over
a
month.
AO
Last
winter,
in
January
and
February,
and
he
added
official
conceit,
no
problem
with
large
fire
and
emergency
vehicles
getting
in
and
out
of
the
dense
complex
that
features
40
90
degree
at
four
90
degree
bends
to
Transit
our
building,
1275
Richmond
Road
has
had
two
fires
and
several
alarms
in
the
last
five
years
that
required
residents
to
evacuate
during
those
emergencies.
Fire
and
emergency
vehicles
had
access
in
two
directions:
on
Richmond,
Road
plus
Regina
in
the
rear.
AO
This
facility
will
have
one
axis
in
addition
to
the
fire
trucks,
the
city
bus
was
brought
into
a
comedy
people
who
were
forced
out
into
the
cold.
Adding
this
congestion
emergency
vehicles,
the
Parkway
House
residents
would
require
large
special
paratransport
buses,
buses
to
evacuate
and
yet
official
can
see
no
problem
in
similar
emergency
situation
in
this
dense
complex
with
a
single
Road
access.
I'll
leave
it
to
you
to
consider.
If
you
would
be
concerned.
I
certainly
am
the
negative
impact
on
the
Mud
Lake
Conservation,
Area
and
Flyway.
AO
The
two
proposed
towers
are
only
about
100
meters
from
a
mudly
Conservation
Area.
It
is
hard
to
believe
that
these
towers
in
this
development
will
not
have
a
serious
detrimental
impact
on
Mud
Lake
and
the
migratory
patterns
of
the
birds
using
the
area
compound
the
problem,
the
other
other
new
towers,
are
also
planned
for
their,
so
the
Mud
Lake
at
the
corner,
Ashley
in
Richmond
Plus
in
the
Lincoln
Fields
complex,
a
loss
of
trees
and
green
space
in
as
shown
in
the
photos
I
submitted
to
the
city.
AO
It
is
such
a
green
space
that
a
flock
of
wild
turkeys
took
up
residence.
There
last
fall
as
such.
This
area
is
different
from
all
the
other
developments
proposed
for
this
Ward,
since
this
will
be
built
on
what
is
largely
a
green
field,
a
non-existing
pavement
and
concrete
our
local
politicians
all
claim
that
green
space
and
trees
are
important
to
them.
Our
federal
MP
claims
that
fighting
climate
change
protecting
our
environment
priorities
is
a
priority.
AO
Mayor
sutka
claims
a
million
trees
planted
by
the
end
of
my
term,
and
we
want
a
cleaner
and
Greener
City
councilor
Kavanaugh's
priorities.
One
of
them
is
achieving
ottawa's
climate
change
targets.
It
is
difficult
to
see
how
removing
these
trees
and
this
large
green
space
will
achieve
the
goal
of
Greener
City
with
more
trees
to
meet
climate
change
targets.
Don't.
AO
Point
just
another
paragraph
at
present,
when
looking
south
from
the
NCC
mup,
just
to
the
north
of
the
pros
development,
you
will
see
only
green
trees
and
shrubs.
This
development
takes
place
as
no
longer
be
the
case.
All
you're
going
to
see
is
buildings
and
I'll.
Leave
you
with
the
words
of
Joni
Mitchell
song.
Don't
it
always
seem
to
go
that
you
don't
know
what
you've
lost
Till
It's
Gone
you
paid
Paradise
and
put
up
a
parking
lot.
This
is
your
chance
to
stop
them
Paving
Paradise.
Thank
you.
AB
Thank
you
very
much
chair.
Thank
you
very
much
for
coming
out.
I
appreciate
it.
It's
it's
a
commitment
to
to
take
the
time
I'm
going
to
be
asking
staff.
The
questions
you've
raised
in
terms
of
the
emergency
services
and
I
have
answered
you
in
emails
before,
but
I'm
I'm
going
to
get
them
to
elaborate
on
those
concerns,
and
obviously
you
have
some
experience
in
that
area.
AB
B
AP
Good
afternoon
my
name
is
John
O'connell
I'm,
representing
the
Lincoln
Heights
Parkway,
Community,
Association
and
you'll
have
heard
all
kinds
of
things
about
parking
and
block
views
and
lots
of
green
space
and
shading
and
and
all
sorts
of
stuff
like
that.
I
won't
be
getting
into
that.
Of
course,
this
is
near
and
dear
to
the
hearts
the
people
who
live
there
because
they
live
there,
and
we
have
that.
AP
We've
covered
a
lot
of
these
areas
in
our
written
submission,
but
I
have
to
ask:
why
do
we
have
an
official
plan,
and
should
we
be
following
it?
What
about
the
secondary
plans?
Should
they
guide
us
in
this
review
as
to
whether
this
application
is
compliant
and
appropriate
for
the
location
through
boundaries
and
distances
matter?
Well,
of
course,
yes
to
all
these
things.
AP
Otherwise,
why
are
we
here,
I'd
like
to
first
state
that
this
proposal
is
not
compliant
with
the
secondary
plan
for
this
area,
and
at
this
point
alone,
The
Proposal
could
be
denied.
The
reason
for
that
is,
there
simply
is
no
secondary
plan.
The
city
is
not
issued
a
secondary
plan
for
this
area,
which
is
which
brings
up
the
question.
Why
are
we
reviewing
and
approving
potentially
all
of
these
applications
for
construction
when
there
is
no
guiding
plan?
AP
Nothing
to
indicate
that
there
will
be
our
observation
of
all
of
these
different
proposals
and
taking
them
into
context
with
each
other.
So
one
one
organization
proposes
to
build
something
that
will
affect
the
traffic
in
a
certain
way.
They'll
say:
it'll
increase
the
traffic
by
10,
for
example,
and
then
you
say:
okay!
Well,
that's
fine!
Past
next
one
ten
percent,
ten
percent,
ten
percent-
well,
that's
fifty
percent,
but
they're
not
taking
into
consideration
with
each
other.
AP
So
it's
not
it's
not
consistent
with
the
secondary
plan
and
we'll
have
to
state
that
this
proposal
does
not
meet
the
requirement
or
direction
of
the
official
plan
either,
and
our
submissions
have
clearly
demonstrated
that
it's
a
completely
inappropriate
proposal
for
this
area,
because
the
proposal
does
not
apply
the
proposal
for
construction.
In
a
a
breathtaking
array
of
reasons,
height
parking,
landscape
strip
setback
upgrade
to
sanitary
stations,
water
main
accessory
structures,
Etc
you're,
being
asked
to
approve
an
amendment
to
the
official
plan.
AP
The
official
plan
also
contains
other
requirements
regarding
high-rises,
including
that
they
should
be
built
on
Main
corridors,
which
this
is
not.
It
is
a
lower
low
rise
residential
area
with
a
four
Hearts
four-story
height
restriction.
At
this
point
and
within
the
transit
Hub,
that's
the
other
area,
where
it's
appropriate
to
build
high-rise
Towers.
This
is
not
within
the
Hub.
It's
been
purposely
left
out
of
the
Hub,
because
this
bill
doesn't
comply
with
the
official
plan.
AP
There's
no
secondary
plan,
the
mechanism
by
which
you're
being
asked
to
approve
amendments
to
the
official
plans
by
the
only
means
possible,
an
area,
specific
policy
proposal
and
this
proposal
from
the
staff
or
the
description
from
the
staff
and
the
recommendation
to
your
clear
to
your
committee
clearly
not
only
indicates
the
various
areas
of
non-compliance
with
the
official
plan,
the
height
the
parking,
the
setback
Etc,
but
also
indicates
all
of
the
requirements
that
must
be
met
in
order
to
comply
with
the
appropriate
area.
Specific
policy
12.31
regarding
high
rise,
specific
specific
high-rise
proposal.
AP
Sorry
I
emphasize
that
they
must
be
comply,
because
if
these
requirements
are
the
official
plan
are
not
met,
you
cannot
approve
an
area
specific
plan
unless
you
violate
the
official
official
plan.
I
take
issue
with
a
number
of
the
assertions
regarding
compliance
and
the
proposal,
including
the
whole
kitchen,
sippy
zitan
context,
there's
some
on
that
side
of
the
parkway.
So
therefore
we
must
build
some
on
this
side,
but
I
have
a
little
time
so
I'll
just
address
the
most
obvious
non-compliance:
official
plan
policy,
112,
sorry,
12.3,
States,
subsection,
one.
AP
The
request
for
an
amendment
that
is
planned
to
create
an
area.
Specific
policy
shall
be
supported
by
a
planning
rationale
which
includes
all
of
the
following
I
haven't
got
time:
I'm
going
to
skip
right
to
Jay
demonstration
that
we're
a
high-rise
building
is
proposed
that
the
site
is
within
300,
meter,
radius
or
400
meter
walking
distance.
Whichever
is
greatest
of
an
existing
refunded
rapid
transit
station.
AP
The
proposal
to
your
committee
states
that
the
site
is
within
a
400
meter,
walk
of
the
Lincoln
Fields
LRT
station,
that
is
demolished
troubling
false
and
it
isn't
even
close
the
actual
walking
distance
if
I
can
get
the
first
image
up.
It's
clearly
demonstrated
in
our
proposal
and
it
is
at
currently
at
least
1.2
kilometers,
that's
three
times
the
allowable
distance.
That's
the
distance.
The
L
train
station
entrance
on
Carling
Avenue.
AP
Illustrated
there
I
say
currently
because
that's
the
route
that
must
be
taken
in
the
winter
if
the
NCC
pathway
is
not
maintained
and
the
NCC
has
indicated
they
won't
maintain
it
at
this
point.
Even
if
the
city
takes
on
responsibility
in
a
cost
of
year-round
lighting
and
winter
maintenance,
the
distance
is
still
over
800
meters,
more
than
twice
the
allowable
distance,
and
the
recommendation
of
your
committee
regarding
the
hold
only
recommends
that
this
access
must
be
explored.
So
it
may
well
remain
1.2
kilometers,
which
it
cannot.
According
to
the
official
plan
policy,
I
have
demonstrated.
AP
The
distance
is
not
within
a
400
meter.
Walking
distance
I
welcome
anyone
to
demonstrate,
as
required
by
the
official
policy,
that
it
is
within
this
distance
I
submit
at
this
time.
The
proposal
is
not
in
compliance
with
subsection
jail
policy,
12.3.1
of
the
official
plan,
and
this
committee
must
therefore
deny
this
application.
I
would
point
out
that
subsection
l
of
12.3.1
of
the
official
plan
states
that
a
mid-rise
building
proposal
allows
a
distance
of
900
meters
trying.
B
AB
AB
So
we'll
we'll
we'll
talk
about
that
and
the
connectivity
appreciate
you
pointing
out
that
the
current
route,
if
we
do
not
have
the
plowing
and
for
winter,
maintenance
and
and
lighting,
will
be
a
longer
route.
So
I
I
appreciate
you
pointing
that
out
and
and
showing
that
illustration
that'll,
be
that's
very
helpful
for
people
to
understand
that
that
that
is
extremely
important.
I,
don't
know
if
you
have
any
further
comments
on.
B
B
AQ
Thank
you,
Mr
chair,
I
I,
just
wanted
to
say
a
few
words
about
how
the
city
staff
report
greatly
understates
the
level
and
intensity
of
neighborhood
opposition
to
the
project
as
currently
planned
in
its
short
treatment
of
public
consultation.
The
report
gives
the
false
impression
that
there
is
relatively
little
opposition
to
it
among
the
residents
of
the
neighborhood.
Nothing
could
be
further
from
the
truth.
As
noted
in
various
submissions
to
the
staff.
AQ
Last
year,
a
group
of
a
half
dozen
volunteers
spent
several
weeks
in
August
2022,
conducting
a
comprehensive
and
systematic
canvassing
of
neighborhood
opinion
on
the
rezoning
proposal.
As
of
the
26th
of
August
2022,
the
petition
we
circulated
had
gathered
a
total
of
218
signatures,
stating
their
quote:
firm
opposition
to
the
parkway
house
development
project
proceeding
as
currently
planned.
AQ
Unquote
this
represented
no
less
than
87
percent
of
all
of
the
households
contacted
the
petition,
together
with
an
analysis
of
it,
was
appended
to
the
Lincoln
Heights
volunteers,
brief
submitted
to
the
city
on
the
30th
of
August
2022.
Subsequently,
an
additional
23
residents
added
their
signatures
for
a
total
of
241..
AQ
The
city
staff
report
of
8th
September
mentions
only
that
a
petition
with
41
signatures
in
opposition
was
received.
Why
would
the
city
staff
cite
this
comparatively
minor
petition,
while
completely
ignoring
the
volunteers,
more
comprehensive
and
systematic
one
reflecting
a
much
broader
segment
of
the
population?
AQ
The
staff
report
also
fails
to
mention
that
speakers
at
a
public
meeting
called
by
the
Community
Association
in
September
2022,
attended
by
at
least
70
residents
almost
unanimously
condemned
the
project.
Further,
the
detailed
31-page
formal
report
to
the
city
by
the
Community
Association
on
the
30th
of
September
2022
recommended
that
the
rezoning
application
be
rejected.
AQ
I
should
add
that
the
majority
of
residents
we
talked
to,
while
canvassing
for
the
petition
were
not
opposed
to
any
development
of
the
site
at
all
most
recognize
that
some
kind
of
development
was
inevitable,
but
all
felt
that
the
sheer
scale
of
this
particular
proposal
was
completely
inappropriate
for
a
neighborhood
of
our
size
and
character.
We
accept
the
need
for
reasonable
intensification,
but
to
authorize
a
jump
from
a
single
story
at
present
to
no
fewer
than
28
stories
in
one
foul
swoop
and
in
a
neighborhood
comprised
primarily
of
single-family
dwellings
is
going
too
far.
AQ
B
We
know,
like
you've,
asked
a
number
of
questions
about
details
that
were
not
in
the
staff
report,
and
you
know
we
deal
with
these
applications
every
two
weeks.
We
know
that
dozens,
if
not
hundreds
of
residents
in
the
immediate
vicinity,
are
opposed
to
the
traffic
impacts,
the
shadow
impacts,
the
noise
impacts,
have
concerns
about
the
construction,
noise
and
the
construction
impacts.
B
B
B
Here
I
am
wondering
if
you
have
sought
legal
advice,
expert
planning,
legal
advice
to
help
you
narrow
down
those
issues
that
would
give
this
Council
Grounds
under
the
planning
act
to
refuse
an
application
for
the
official
plan
Amendment
and
the
rezoning,
because,
as
I
look
at
this
application
understanding
the
official
plan
that
we
have
and
where
it
directs
intensification
and
and
how
it
directs
intensification
I,
am
at
a
loss
to
see
any
refusal
grounds.
That
would
give
us
cause
to
turn
this
down.
And
so
I'm
wondering.
B
You
have
a
lot
of
residents
who
are
very
much
in
opposition
to
this
and
I
I
would
suggest
that
having
a
discussion
with
somebody,
because
you
won't
trust
me
right,
my
residents,
don't
trust
me
when
I
tell
them
I,
don't
see
the
grounds
here,
but
they
do
trust
their
own
lawyer
and,
and
it
might
be
worth
an
initial
conversation
with
somebody
to
say.
Do
you
see
anything
here
that
is
clearly
going
to
be
able
to
help
us
argue
for
a
refusal?
J
Yes,
I'd
like
to
First,
say
the
eloquently
presented
arguments
earlier.
One
of
them
do
actually
addresses
the
question
that
you
asked
was
the
distance
of
the
400
meters
as
opposed
to
800
meters,
because
on
the
requirements
of
the
getting
my
thoughts
together
here,
the
requirements
for
the
height
and
the
parking
was
based
on
400
meters
of
walking
distance
to
the
LRT
station.
So
that
is
very
specific
to
that,
and
also
about
The
Walking
meters.
J
J
Now
they
could
explore
it
and
meet
that
requirement,
but
NCC
turns
it
down,
but
they
still
managed
to
satisfy
the
the
Amendments
of
that.
So
my
suggestion
would
be.
Is
that
everything
to
be
put
on
Zone
provision
holding
until
it
is
met
that
the
NCC
does
agree
to
do
winter?
Maintenance
and
take
liability
with
lighting
and
everything
like
that,
then,
but
the
other
gentleman
there
was
very
eloquent
about
the
distances
and
everything
so
I'm
not
going
to
go
over
that
again.
J
J
It
would
deeply
impact
the
residents
of
2075
Richmond,
Road
and
1190
Richmond
Road,
and
on
December
21st
it'll,
severely
impact
residents
of
1195
Richmond
Road
and
96
McEwen
Road
odd,
that
that
was
not
included,
whether
as
other
developers
have
included
those
studies.
So
I
think
that
is
something
that
should
be
looked
into.
J
They
have
it
that
they're
going
to
do
a
phase
one
and
a
phase,
two
construction
phase,
one
is
the
seven
story
and
the
16th
story,
and
once
they
are
completed,
then
phase
two
would
be
Tower
two,
which
is
the
28
stories
on
one
of
their
drawings
from
the
corner
of
the
building
of
tower
one
to
the
southern
end
of
the
property
line.
Is
11
meters?
J
That's
40
feet
approximately
now,
when
they're
doing
construction
on
phase
one,
this
area
they're
going
to
have
to
have
and
the
parking
level
one
and
two
also
go
out
a
little
bit
further,
so
there's
going
to
be
even
less
space
there,
so
I
estimate
I
might
be
corrected
on
this.
Is
that
there's
going
to
be
about
20
feet
of
access
from
the
Parkway
House
to
Regina
street
during
the
construction
phase.
J
J
I
have
difficulty
understanding,
phase
one
and
phase
two
construction
when
they
complete
one
half
and
then
they
have
to
dig
out
the
next
half
to
be
put
together
as
a
Lego
set
I'm,
not
in
construction,
I,
don't
know,
but
that
was
certainly
a
question
that
I
would
like
to
look
into
whether
it's
feasible
other
than
that
I'd
like
you
to
thank
you
for
this
opportunity
to
address
the
council.
It's
my
first
time
in
Civic
operation,
so
I
quite
enjoyed
this
experience.
Thank
you
very
much.
B
AB
Thank
you.
Thank
you
very
much
chair
and
thank
you
very
much
for
coming
out
today
appreciate
it.
Your
in
terms
of
the
construction
safety
I
will
raise
that
with
staff.
I
think
you
deserve
answers
on
on
the
process,
particularly
since
it
it's
primarily
on
Regina
street,
it's
all
on
Regina,
Street
and
and
the
shadow
study,
which,
of
course
it
was
a
huge
issue
in
the
previous
file,
so
I
think
it's
I
think
you
deserve
answers
on
that.
G
B
B
AN
AN
In
fact
the
majority
of
our
community
is
not
opposed
to
these
two
things.
Even
though
we
do
oppose
the
proposed
development
in
question,
it
may
seem
from
the
opposition
that
many
people
here
are
showing
to
the
proposed
project.
The
members
of
this
neighborhood
are
opposed
to
intensification
or
any
type
of
build
on
the
proposed
lot.
Indeed,
this
may
be
the
case
for
a
small
number
of
community
members.
AN
However,
the
reality
is
that
our
Community
Association
and
the
majority
of
community
members
understand
and
believe
in
the
city's
goals
of
intensification
and
infill,
as
well
as
welcome
the
development
of
a
smaller,
more
appropriately
skilled
project.
On
the
subject
lot,
the
Lincoln
Heights
neighborhood
is
adjacent
to
the
Lincoln
Fields
area
and
future
LRT
station,
and
as
a
result,
we
understand
that
many
of
the
current
low-rise
commercial
Lots
along
Carling,
Avenue
and
Richmond
Road,
will
be
developed
into
high-rise,
residential
or
mixed-use
buildings.
AN
There
are
a
number,
a
large
number
of
high-rise
buildings
in
the
areas
adjacent
to
Lincoln,
Heights
and
development
along
Richmond
Road.
As
a
transition
transitions
into
an
old
Main
Street
is
inevitable
and
acceptable
to
the
community
and
its
Association.
What
makes
the
proposed
project
different
from
these
other
areas
is
that
it
fails
to
meet
the
city's
policies
on
development,
as
has
been
outlined
in
several
written
and
oral
submissions
by
the
community
today
and
over
the
last
12
months.
AN
The
scale
of
the
proposed
project
is
currently
that
of
cumulative
51-story
complex
with
over
500
residential
units.
The
Lincoln
Heights
neighborhood
currently
holds
only
a
fraction
of
that
number
of
houses
and
yet
already
struggles
with
parking
and
traffic
concerns
for
comparison.
Tuls
building
in
Ottawa,
the
Claridge
icon,
building
at
Carling
Preston,
is
45
stories
and
has
only
321
units.
AN
Even
these
contexts
and
the
fact
that
the
project
is
located
at
the
end
of
a
small
dead-end
local
road
we
fill
out
the
scale
of
the
project
for
this
location
is
in
excess.
Indeed,
the
official
plan
agrees
and
would
typically
only
allow
for
four
story.
Building
at
this
location,
as
mentioned
most
of
our
community
members,
are
not
opposed
to
a
new
development
on
this
lot,
although
would
still
require
rezoning,
a
four-story
development
would
align
with
the
official
plan.
AN
What
is
my
understanding
that
residents
will
be
accepting
of
a
large
development
as
well,
and
the
secondary
plan
was
developed
for
the
neighborhood?
We
would
anticipate
the
city
would
would
determine
what
might
be
an
acceptable
skill
for
this
location,
but
at
a
secondary
plan
has
not
yet
been
developed
instead
of
secondary
plan.
We
can
again
refer
to
the
official
plan
in
subsection
L
of
12.3.1
of
the
official
plan
it
states,
the
mid-rise
building
proposal
would
be
acceptable
within
a
900
meter
walking
distance
of
the
LRT
station.
AN
So
if
the
NCC
pathway
is
cleared
in
Winter,
thus
reducing
the
walking
distance
to
the
LRT
station
to
approximately
850
meters,
an
area
specific
site
proposal
for
a
mid-rise
building
might
be
appropriate
for
the
site
it
would
developer
would
propose
a
mid-rise
development,
particularly
with
the
caveat
that
the
NCC
pathway
was
lit
and
cleared
in
the
winter.
This
project
would
align
with
the
city
policies
and
would
not
be
opposed
by
the
majority
of
the
community
residents
insulation.
AN
AN
AB
AB
That's
the
key
question
that
we're
hearing-
and
one
thing
I
should
point
out-
is
that
that
we're
only
dealing
with
this
site,
even
though
it's
been
raised
that
yes,
there's
other
developments
going
on
the
way
it
works
at
planning
committee
is
that
we
can
only
deal
with
the
one
site
and
it
doesn't.
You
know
I
can
understand
the
concern
that
other
things
are
going
on,
but
that
is
what's
in
front
of
us,
so
we
will
be
dealing
with
that
one
on
Regina,
Street
and
taking
into
consideration.
AB
B
AR
AR
AR
Okay,
so
I
did
want
to
talk
more
about
this
slide
because
it
hasn't
been
covered.
Yet,
but
myself
and
and
others
disagree
with
the
lumping
of
the
proposed
development
with
the
kitchen
McCann
high-rise
development
neighborhood,
because
the
existing
buildings
across
from
this
site,
it's
across
two
strips
of
NCC
property,
there's
four
lanes
of
traffic
and
an
intervening
traffic
Island.
AR
Those
buildings
in
the
McEwen
Ambleside
areas
are
composed
entirely
of
high-rise
buildings
in
a
tower
in
the
park
configuration
with
no
low
density
dwellings
and
the
Lincoln
Heights
side
of
the
kitchen,
sippy
McCann
is
designated
as
neighborhood
with
low-rise
residences
driveways
yards
in
a
school
lining.
The
only
access
road
for
this
proposed
construction
next
slide.
AR
This
is
these
are
my
pictures
again
taken
from
the
NCC
pathway
and
you'll.
See
on
the
left
is
the
amplicide
development,
where
you
see
they're
all
high
rises
and
then
I
turn
around.
Excuse
me,
I
turn
around
and
I
take
a
picture
of
the
back
of
the
property.
That
is
where
the
proposed
development
is
and
you'll
see
that
there
is
a
lot
of
Green
Space
there
that's
going
to
be
taken
down
next
slide
and
I.
AR
B
B
What
is
that
route
that
you've
painted
out
something
24,
75
you're,
walking
along
a
road
and
then
along
the
road
and
then
along
a
pathway
and
then
from
the
pathway?
You
have
to
turn
right,
presumably
to
get
to
a
traffic
light
on
Carling,
and
then
you
come
all
the
way
back
and
then
down
into
Lincoln
Fields
right
right.
AR
B
AR
Would
actually
pay?
This
was
an
early
drawing
that
actually
I
got
from
one
of
my
my
colleagues
there.
The
slide
that
I
would
pay
more
attention
to
is
the
one
that
John
O'connell
had,
which
is
that
second
slide,
because
that's
probably
more
what
you're
talking
about,
which
is
you
know,
assuming
that
the
snow
removal
is
going
to
happen,
what
the
distance
would
be,
so
this
distance
is
probably
less
important
to
pay
attention
to
than
John
O'connell's.
Second,
one,
okay.
D
AB
AR
B
D
D
D
Some
no
parking
zones,
so
the
city
is
already
dealing
I
assume
with
the
congestion
that
they
feel
by
making
in
a
residential
area
in
the
suburbs,
no
stopping
zones
or
more
than
50
percent
of
the
street.
This
is
a
concern.
It's
also
a
concern.
When
we
look
at
the
number
of
people
who
are
going
to
be
introduced
to
this
facility,
not
counting
the
park,
Warehouse
people
there
will
be
778
bedrooms
in
this
new
pair
of
buildings,
which
is
going
to
lead
to
850
people.
Perhaps
the
space
for
tenants
to
park
is
224.
D
D
And
there
is
no
way
that
that's
going
to
work.
This
is
in
an
area,
that's
already
intense
Scott
film
out
of
density.
It's
always
been
new.
The
Lincoln
Heights
bus
transit
way
it's
underserved
for
parking
today,
a
number
of
people
squat
in
the
former
Lincoln
Heights
mall
for
their
cars.
Yesterday
morning,
at
four
o'clock
there
were
132
cars
there
that
had
no
home
by
nine
o'clock.
D
This
is
unbelievable
in
terms
of
the
unsuitability
to
plunk
in
850
or
900
people
on
a
street.
That's
already
been
deemed
too
congested
to
have
parking
on
both
sides
of
the
street
or
even
parking
on
either
side
of
the
street
within
the
two
block
area.
Before
this
I
ask
you
a
consideration
to
look
at
this
and
realize
that
this
scale
of
project
is
absolutely
unsuitable
for
this
location.
B
V
D
That's
it
presumably
a
necessary
thing
to
do
to
make
it
more
reasonable.
When
I
wrote
in
last
July
to
the
planning
folks
July,
the
18th
I
tried
to
point
out
the
fact
that
in
their
traffic
survey
they
didn't
account
for
the
orphan
people
that
are
going
to
come.
They
didn't
account
for
the
fact
that
if
900
people
in
this
place
are
going
to
use
Amazon,
doordash,
ubu
Etc
and
there's
no
allocation
for
that
in
the
transit
study
during
the
transportation
study-
and
there
was
no
response
to
that-
I
also
asked
in
terms
of
the
pipeline.
D
That's
immediately
adjacent
to
this.
If
we
could
just
play
a
sign,
but
the
only
sign
that
was
displayed
was
only
visible
to
the
people
who
go
to
the
Parkway
House.
So
you
didn't
get
responses
from
those
people
and
we
didn't
get
responses
on
the
suitability
of
the
traffic
management.
There
was
nothing
it
wasn't
mentioned
in
what
you
got
and
a
factolite
is
ubu
Amazon,
Droid,
Ash
they're
out
there
and
they're
coming
to
places
you
point
down:
900
people
on
rental
accommodation,
they're,
coming.
V
D
Was
different,
it
can't
work.
You
need
to
change
the
parking
ratio
to
get
the
first
base.
Would
you
go
to
second
base
by
looking
at
who's
coming
and
going
out
of
the
place?
Anyhow?
Okay,
so
the
parking
is
a
consideration
for
sure
that
should
have
been
dealt
with,
but
the
traffic
level
is
going
to
be
way
more
than
this
area
can
can
handle
sure.
D
J
B
AS
Good
afternoon
Mr,
chair,
counselors
I
am
the
President
of
the
board
of
Parkway
House.
We
are
a
charitable
organization
that
operates
Parkway
house,
we're
funded
through
well.
All
of
our
residents
are
on
disability
support,
so
we
get
930
whatever
it
is
dollars,
rent
from
them.
It
comes
nowhere
near
close
to
the
cost
of
operating
the
facility.
We
have
12
residents.
We
have
two
staff
24
7..
AS
We
provide
all
the
meals
to
our
residents,
so
obviously
that
doesn't
cover
it.
Most
of
our
funding
comes
from
the
Ministry
of
Health.
Every
year
we
submit
a
budget
to
the
Ministry
of
Health
and
they
look
at
it
and
they
say
that's
good
you're
doing
a
good
job.
Here's
the
same
money
we
gave
you
last
year.
AS
AS
That
deficit
is
now
into
the
six
figures
how
we
funded
that
I
was
just
thinking.
I've
been
on
the
board
of
Parkway
house
for
over
20-ish
odd
30
years
somewhere
around
there.
Ever
since
I
came
on
the
board,
we've
been
trying
to
come
up
with
a
plan
to
develop
the
land
to
ease
our
funding
deficit.
This
is
I,
think
the
sixth
proposal
we've
entertained.
It's
the
third
one,
that's
gotten
to
the
stage
of
public
consultation.
AS
I
won't
go
into
the
details
in
three
minutes
and
14
seconds
to
all
the
reasons
why
the
other
ones
have
not
succeeded.
What's
happened
over
the
intervening
time,
the
last
20
years.
Well,
so
Parkway
House,
proper,
the
physical
land
and
building
are
owned
by
a
separate
Foundation,
which
is
also
a
charitable
organization.
AS
All
of
the
funds
in
that
organization
that
were
initially
earmarked
for
expansion
of
Parkway
house
it
was
originally
intended
to
be
larger.
I
won't
go
into
why
that
didn't,
have
just
changing
priorities
from
the
province
and
for
you
know,
building
renewal
and
maintenance,
and
all
of
that
is
all
gone
now.
We've
used
it
to
subsidize
our
operating
loss,
so
you
know
I'll
be
honest
and
Frank
we're
up
against
it.
If
this
doesn't
succeed,
we
will
be
closing
what
will
happen
to
the
land
if
we
close,
will
it
be
Parkland?
AS
No,
we'll
fight
to
the
last
breath
I
I'm
on
that
board.
My
job
is
to
as
I
see
it
is
to
provide
a
home
for
those
12
residents
and
I
keep
doing
that
as
long
as
I
can,
and
that
means
we'll
sell
the
land
for
whatever
we
can
get
for
it
and
we'll
keep
going
for
as
long
as
we
can.
So
you
know
for
the
residents
in
the
area
will
that
land
beside
our
building
remain
as
open,
Park
land?
No
it
won't
it
can't.
AS
AS
AS
The
infrastructure
is
inside
as
such,
it
doesn't
work
that
great
for
our
residence
anymore.
Their
needs
are
changing,
equipment's
changed
over
time
and
wheelchairs
are
bigger
and
so
on.
We
need
a
new
building.
We
don't
have
money
to
buy
it.
We
need
operating
funding,
so
the
density
on
that
site
is
driven
by
that
need.
AS
F
Thanks
shark
and
thank
you
James
for
your
presentation
today,
you
actually
answered
what
I
was
going
to
ask
I
mean
I
was
anticipating
the
green
space
is
probably
an
important
feature
for
for
your
residents,
and
your
staff
and
I
was
trying
to
understand
the
trade-offs
there
and
how
you
came
to
that
decision,
but
I
think
you've
already
covered
that
just
in
terms
of
the
future
sustainability
of
of
what
you
do.
Does
this
mean
Decades
of
sustainability?
Does
this
mean
in
perpetuity
like
looking
into
the
future?
What
does
this
mean
for
you?
Well.
AS
AS
It
may
not
do
that.
Our
deficit
has
increased
since
then,
in
the
last
three
years
significantly,
we
are
hoping
once
this
goes
through
to
go
to
the
province
and
say:
look
we're
you
know.
All
we
need
is
another
twenty
thirty
thousand
a
year
and
we're
we
can
provide
this
home
to
the
end
of
time
so
and
we're
you
know
we're
going
way
more,
we're
maximizing
our
ability
to
use
the
resources
we
have
to
accomplish
our
goal
of
providing
that
housing.
AS
F
AB
Thank
you
chair.
Thank
you,
James,
for
coming
out
today.
I
know
this
has
been
a
long-standing
issue
and,
as
has
been
pointed
out
by
residents,
it
goes
back
way
back
and
I.
Think
the
strange
thing
is
is
the
is
the
zoning
that
is
currently
there,
which
is
very
odd
being
so
there's
a
building
on
it.
It
is
considered
to
be
a
one
I,
don't
know
what
the
history
of
why
that
happened,
but
it
it
just
doesn't
seem
it
it's
something
that
makes
it
seem
like.
This
is
just
wrong
to
develop.
AS
It
was
at
the
time
that
she
passed
away
actually
that
she
said
that
the
zoning
was
done
in
such
a
way,
so
the
land
was
owned
by
the
separate
School
Board
I'm,
not
a
hundred
percent
clear
exactly
why.
But
it
was
sort
of
flipped
through
the
city
and
then
to
Parkway
House
and
the
zoning
it
was
put
in
as
a
non-conforming
use,
and
there
was
a
covenant
placed
on
the
land
that
covenants
expired.
AB
AS
We
have,
how
did
we
get
to
this
development?
We
engaged
a
private
consultant
to
develop
a
set
of
criteria
for
proposals.
We
entertain
three
proposals
from
three
different
development
groups:
windmill
offered
us
the
most
generous
terms.
We
accepted
that
proposal.
All
of
our
contracts
with
windmill
between
us
and
the
development
proponent
have
gone
through
our
private
consultant
who
works
for
us
and
also
through
our
lawyer.
There
are
a
separate
entity.
There
they've
been
incredibly
beneficial
to
us
I.
AB
B
Thank
you
very
much.
Councilor
Kavanaugh
I
mean
I
I
can
post
this
as
a
question,
but
I'm
not
sure,
there's
a
good
answer
for
it.
This
is
a
rhizonia
and
opa
for
forgive
me,
7
16
and
28
story
residential
somebody
said
there's
how
many
units
in
total
assembly
was
talking
about
728
bedrooms,
but
it's
fewer
units.
B
U
B
Is
a
you
know
if
someone
were
to
buy
it
to
put
a
planned
unit
development,
they
pay
four
million
dollars.
I,
don't
know
what
the
number
is,
but
you
know
if
somebody
were
constrained
in
the
size
of
development
that
they
could
put
here.
It's
it's
a
multi-million
dollar
property.
Can
you
not
survive
selling
it
to
somebody
who's
going
to
put
in
a
mid-rise
density.
AS
B
And
it's
a
I
have
to
acknowledge.
It
is
none
of
our
business.
The
the
grounds
upon
to
make
this
decision
are
not
whether
or
not
you
have
the
density
required,
or
your
development
partner
has
the
density
required
in
order.
The
the
question
is:
is
a
business
as
a
is
a
development
of
this
size
and
and
this
use
appropriates
for
this
geography,
but
it's
just
it's
Miss.
Q
AS
Chair
if
I
may
add
that
this
is
the
developer
that
came
to
us
with
a
proposal
that
would
provide
the
funding
that
we
need
and
that's
where
we
are
on
it
and
we
don't
really
like
I
said
we
don't
really
have
the
time
to
question
that
we've
been
around
this
mulberry
bush
so
many
times
now
and
and
we're
we're
up
against
it.
We
don't
have
any
choices
anymore,
okay,.
B
B
AB
Cabinet,
thank
you.
Chair
I
have
a
number
of
questions
and
they're,
basically,
the
ones
that
have
been
raised
by
residents
and
in
in
terms
of
of
all
the
the
concerns
starting
off
with
the
the
history.
We've
got
a
little
bit
from
from
Mr
McLaren
and
that
this
was
not
supposed
to
be
developed
in
in
the
we're
asking
for
a
major
zoning
change.
AB
AM
Thank
you,
counselor.
A
development
application
was
in
advance
of
the
secondary
plan
and
was
reviewed
on
its
own
merits.
Under
the
the
new
official
plan
that
was
approved
in
2022,
there
is
an
ongoing
secondary
plan,
but
again
the
applicants
needs
indicate
that
they
they
needed
to
finalize
their
plans.
Prior
to
the
the
secondary
plan.
The
secondary
plan
is
still
in
its
early
stages.
AM
AB
Thank
you
in
terms
of
the
location,
I
think
that
that's
obviously
the
heart
of
the
concern
is
that
we
have
developments
that
are
on
arterial
roads
and
this
is
is
in
a
residential
area
on
a
dead
end
street.
So
a
lot
of
the
concerns
stem
from
that,
because
there's
only
one
way
in
and
out,
I
I
can't
see,
I
don't
know
of
any
other
examples
of
new
developments
of
the
scale
that
would
would
fit
that
and
how
do
we?
How
do
we
justify
that.
AM
I
think
this
really
is
quite
a
unique
site.
It's
not
often
that
you
get
a
one
hectare
site
at
the
edge
of
the
neighborhood,
surrounded
by
open
space
where
surrounded
by
20
story,
buildings
in
relatively
close
proximity
to
Transit.
That
is
undeveloped,
so
I
think
the
context
is
a
very
unique
in
this
situation.
It
is
acknowledged
that
by
public
roads
it
is
about
a
kilometer
walk
to
the
transit
station.
AB
AM
A
traffic
impact
assessment
was
submitted
by
the
applicant
and
was
reviewed
by
our
transportation
department,
and
they
did
not
indicate
concerns
or
any
upgrades
that
are
required
to
the
local
Road
system
to
accommodate
this.
There
also,
it
also
was
circulated
to
fire
services
and
they
did
not
indicate
any
concerns
with
the
number
of
units
on
the
access,
of
course,
at
building
permits.
The
development
will
have
to
meet
building
code
in
terms
of
fire
as
well,
but
no
upgrades
to
the
transportation
system
for
vehicles
were
required
or
identified
through
the
rezoning.
AB
AM
Ncc
was
circulated
on
applications,
both
the
official
plan
Amendment
and
rezoning,
and
they
provided
comments
on
both
their
comments
solely
related
to
access
to
the
path
and
the
mechanism
to
connect
to
the
the
pathway
system.
They
did
not
provide
comments
related
to
Mud,
Lake
Mud
Lake
is
also
regulated
by
the
Rideau
Valley
conservation
Authority,
and
they
were
circulated
on
the
application
and
provided
comments,
and
they
had
no
concerns
with
the
application
as
well.
Okay,.
AB
AM
AM
AM
Through
site,
Planet
will
be
a
city
requirement
that
we
look
at
pre-planting
and
our
official
plan
has
pretty
strong
policies
related
to
tree
canopy
cover
and
reaching
the
city's
goal
for
40
canopy,
so
certainly
through
the
site
plan.
It
is
something
that
we
will
do
is
look
for
opportunities
for
tree
plantings.
AB
AM
Shadow
study
was
submitted
and
it
looked
at
The
Equinox
states
which
June
tends
to
be
the
best
date.
The
least
Shadow
is
the
sun
is
highest
overhead
December,
the
Shadows
are
quite
long,
so
we
tend
to
look
at
the
September
and
March
date
for
how
we
evaluate
Shadows,
there's
minimal
shadow
on
the
backyards
of
surrounding
residents
and
the
shadow
moves
quickly
over
the
Byron
linear
park.
It
the
Shadows,
meet
our
shadow
terms
of
reference
evaluation
criteria
for
shadow
on
surrounding
homes.
So
we
were
satisfied
with
that.
AB
One
of
the
concerns
raised
was
construction
safety.
We
know
it's
going
to
be
in
two
stages,
so
that
and
and
the
first
one
will
be
replacing
the
parkway
house
and
the
smaller
buildings-
and
that
was
mentioned.
It
was
a
lot
of
prefab,
but
there's
still
construction,
traffic
and-
and
currently
the
road
is,
is
not
set
up
for
for
major
for
major
traffic.
How
is
that
being
handled.
AM
Those
are
site
plan
related
matters
and
it
will
be
looked
at
further
at
site
plan.
We
can
look
at
parking
restrictions
and
crane
swing
agreements,
but
we
recognize
that
construction
is
a
nuisance
and
through
things
like
site
alteration,
bylaw
and
noise
bylaw,
we
would
look
to
ensure
that
their
meetings
be
standards.
AB
Okay,
thank
you.
The
biggest
concern
that
has
been
raised
is
is
the
pathway
is
the
NCC
pathway
and
it's
something
I
raised
right
from
day
one.
When
the
proposal
came
when
the
developer
came
to
the
office
is
the
immediately
they
were
relying
on
the
NCC
path
to
be
the
connectivity
and
there's
been
our
well.
Let's
say
discussions
on
what
the
length
is.
It
said:
400
meters
I've
heard
800
meters,
but
the
the
issue
is
that
it
is
a
good
length
and
it
belongs
to
the
NCC.
AB
Yet
we
absolutely
need
that
to
be
an
all
year
round.
Path
to
make
this
to
make
people
who
live
in
this
unit
at
these
units
have
a
way
to
get
to
a
station
when
they
don't
have
a
car
half
the
people
will
not
have
a
car,
and
yet
we're
we're
just
saying
maybe
on
on
making
an
agreement
with
the
ncci
I
have
a
real
concern
about
that.
AM
It
is
staff's
expectation
that
there
will
be
improved
connections
to
the
to
the
station.
Well,
it's
staffs
and
councils
preferred
route
that
it
would
take
the
NCC
paths
that
are
the
most
direct
and
the
NCC
has
indicated
to
staff
that
they
are
supportive
of
this.
However,
a
mechanism
for
winter
funding
needs
to
be
determined,
so
a
hold
is
on
the
property
to
work
that
out,
but
there
may
be
other
options
as
well,
which
the
applicant
could
explore.
AM
There's
the
large
towers
on
Richmond
on
the
North
side
and
the
south
side,
and
there
may
be
opportunities
for
private
access
to
easements
through
those
sites
as
well
to
get
direct
access
to
the
to
the
station
as
well.
So
there
may
be
a
couple
of
options
to
get
very
quick
direct
access
to
the
station.
But
again
the
NCC
is
the
preferred
option
and
a
hold
is
on
the
site
to
explore
this
prior
to
development.
AB
AM
So
a
lifting
of
the
hold
application
will
be
required
prior
to
any
development
or
the
approval
of
a
site
plan
control
application
on
on
the
site.
Typically,
a
lifting
of
a
hold
is
a
delegated
authority
approval,
meaning
staff
has
have
the
authority
to
approve
it.
However,
It
ultimately
does
need
to
be
approved
by
Council,
and
you
counselor
have
the
authority
to
with
withdraw
delegated
authority
and
bring
the
matter
to
planning
committee
for
discussion
and,
ultimately
to
council
as
well.
Okay,.
AB
AB
I
think
that's
the
that's,
probably
the
biggest
concern
in
terms
of,
but
the
scale
is
very
large,
and
one
of
the
comments
was
the
fact
that,
even
if
people
don't
have
cars,
they
will
be
service
Vehicles,
you
know
doordash
or
whatever,
but
and
the
traffic
one
of
my
concerns
is:
is
that,
as
was
shown
on
the
slides,
that
Kathy
was
showing
the
there's
only
one
sidewalk
and
Can
development
charges
be
used
to
improve
that
area,
because
currently
one
sidewalk
doesn't
cut
it.
It's
it's
Gotta.
AB
AM
AB
Time
there
is
one
sidewalk,
but
I
believe
that
if
there's
going
to
be
that
much
traffic
when
you're
going
to
have
that
much
development,
you
need
a
second
sidewalk
I.
Think
that
that
is
very
important
and
I
think
that
it
should
be
taken
into
consideration
and
it
should
be
looked
at
as
soon
as
possible,
along
with
the
NCC
Pathways,
because
they're
both
connectivity
issues
we're
talking
about
the
NCC
Pathways
or
the
station,
but
in
terms
of
Regina,
that's
an
exit
for
going
to
Lincoln
Fields,
which
is
where
you
get
your
groceries
or
or
whatever.
AB
Since
we
know
commercial
development
will
continue,
so
I
think
that's
really
important
as
well.
Obviously,
there's
major
concerns
in
the
community
and
I
want
an
answer
on
in
terms
of
the
official
plan.
This
is
asking
for
an
exemption
to
this
official
plan.
So
how
do
we
justify
that?
When
we've
put
that
work
in
the
official
plan
and
it
and
it's
it's
asking
for
an
amendment.
AM
The
planning
act
provides
a
process
for
amendments
to
the
official
plan
and
we
review
it
on
the
basis
of
provincial
policy
statement,
matters
of
provincial
interest
and
The
Wider
policies
and
direction
of
the
official
plan.
While
there
is
an
increase
in
height
proposed
to
the
neighborhood
policies.
Again,
as
per
my
report,
it's
appropriate
as
transition
can
be
provided
to
the
residents,
there's
no
undue
impacts
in
terms
of
Transit
Shadow
and
it's
within
close
proximity
of
Transit
as
well.
AB
We
we
hope
that
people
will
be
using
the
transit
I
mean
we
expect
everyone
to
be
using
it,
but
we've
only
got
parking
for
half
of
them
and
that
that's
that's
a
major
concern.
We
have
to
make
it
easier
to
get
to
Transit
it
just
it's.
It's
got
to
be
done,
that's
probably
the
biggest
concern,
because
otherwise
we're
putting
a
lot
of
burden
on
the
on
the
community
and
the
people
that
are
there.
AM
That's
something
that
certainly
can
look.
If
you
looked
into
at
the
site
plan
stage
through
the
site
plan
stage,
an
additional
level
of
Transportation
impact
is
required
where
they
will
look
at
Transportation
demand
management
measures.
Certainly,
there
are
options
that
the
developer
can
look
at,
such
as
providing
car
share.
Transit
free
Transit
passes
for
residents
unbundled
parking
things
like
that
to
reduce
the
burden
on
cars.
Thank.
AB
F
Thanks
chair
so
in
terms
of
the
holding
symbol,
I
think
what
we
heard
a
clear
expectation
from
from
delegations,
the
walkway
connectivity
they
asked
for
lighting.
They
asked
for
snow
clearing,
I'm,
assuming
salt
or
sand
to
prevent
Falls.
Is
that
the
the
level
that
staff
are
going
to
insist
on
to
address
the
conditions
of
that
folding
symbol?.
AK
Chair,
if,
if
I
may,
staff
are
looking
to
ensure
that
discussions
continue
with
respect
to
improving
The,
Pedestrian
and
active
connectivity,
you
know
the
clear
path
that
everyone
sees.
Is
the
NCC
pathway?
That's
right.
Next
to
it,
there
are
jurisdictional
issues,
sometimes
that
we
run
into
with
the
national
capital
commission
that
are
outside
of
the
developers,
control
and
outside
of
the
city's
control
that
may
require
the
city
to
participate
in
those
discussions.
AK
For
this,
and
and
sometimes
those
discussions
lead
to
an
end
that
the
city
is
not
prepared
to
accept
and
and
so
I
I
certainly
hear
where
the
counselor
is
going,
I
hear
the
the
desires
of
the
community
and
the
expectations
I.
Think
part
of
the
reason
why
that
language
in
the
hold
is
worded
the
way
it
is
is
because
you
know
there
is
some
uncertainty
with
respect
to
achieving
a
solution
with
the
NCC.
There
may
be
other
solutions
that
are
possible
with
other
private
property
owners.
AK
AK
So
so,
with
respect
to
you
know
winter
maintenance
of
those
pathways.
It
is
not.
The
NCC
is
not
in
the
business
of
maintaining
winter
pathways
or
doing
winter
maintenance
on
their
Pathways.
It
would
in
order
for
that
to
happen,
it
would
require
the
city
to
take
that
on.
We
have
had
discussions
with
Public
Works.
They
have
identified
concerns
with
taking
that
on
and
they've
identified.
AK
F
Well,
I
hope
those
conversations
are
productive
because
there's
been
a
lot
of
talk
about
having
one
entrance
if
we
can
have
a
winter
cleared
winter
solution
for
Pathways
to
Lincoln
Fields.
All
of
a
sudden.
This
building
has
two
entrances
just
wanted
to
check
when
you're
measuring
distance
from
a
property.
There's
a
lot
of
questions
about
distance
I,
assume
you're,
going
from
like
the
corner
of
the
property
to
the
edge
of
the
transitway
station
to
come
up
with
that
400
meters.
AM
Correct
active
Pathways
to
Lincoln
field
station
have
not
been
finalized.
There's
still
some
work
to
be
done
through
the
secondary
Plan
and
there's
upgrades
to
the
curling
Avenue
Bridge,
which
will
again
open
up
more
opportunities
for
additional
Pathways
and
connections.
So
at
this
point
in
time,
yes,
I
I,
measured
from
the
edge
of
the
site
to
the
to
the
edge
of
the
platform.
Okay,.
F
Thanks
yeah,
the
proximity
to
Transit
is
what's
most
important
here
on
the
site
and
and
not
just
Lincoln
Fields,
but
it's
close
to
Route,
11
and
I
looked
it
up.
If
we
were
to
leave
about
now,
it
says
we
can
get
to
tunnies
in
nine
minutes
or
to
Bayshore
in
10
minutes
two
other
LRT
stations
on
a
bus
route,
and
this
is
exactly
one
of
the
keys
to
building
OC
Transfer
ridership
is
to
get
more
people
living
as
close
as
possible
to
Major
Transit
stations
and
transits.
So
this
is
well
aligned
to
that
goal.
F
V
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
chair
I,
just
wonder,
given
the
the
pathway
considerations,
is
it
not
an
option
to
strengthen
the
language
so
that
the
options
will
be
explored
until
they
are
met?
Can
we
not
have
it
both
ways,
even
though
we
don't
know
what's
going
to
happen,
I
think
the
the
discomfort
is
that
it
could
be
optional
at
the
end
of
the
day,
while
the
holding
provision
would
imply
that
it
was
not
so
can
we
close
the
loop
on
that.
AK
Exists
for
Council
through
motion
to
amend
the
recommendation.
That's
before
you
to
to
change
the
language
I
wish
to
Mark
was
in
the
room,
so
he
could
speak
to
what
your
you
know.
Your
mechanics
mechanical
abilities
are
to
do
that,
but
the
option
does
exist,
the
concern
from
from
staff
and
why
it
was
worded.
The
way
it
is
is
largely
the
uncertainty
because
we
have
you
know
it's
not
just
a
a
discussion
between
the
city
and
the
developer.
AK
It's
a
discussion
between
the
city
and
the
developer
and
another
entity
that
could
be
more
complicated
and
complex
than
just
this
pathway,
and
so
ultimately,
staff
recognize
that
that
may
be
a
very
difficult
discussion
and
you
know
the
the
timelines
or
certainty
that
we
would
like
to
have.
You
know,
may
not
be
may
not
be
feasible,
but
to
your
direct
question
of
whether
that
language
could
be
strengthened
it.
Yes,
it
could.
AB
AJ
Mr,
chair
I'm,
not
in
the
room,
because
my
voice
is
off
today
and
I
I
figured
people
would
prefer
that
I
not
be
in
the
room.
But
if
the
counselor
has
some
thoughts
and
she
wishes
to
send
them
to
me
by
email,
I'm,
just
down
the
hall
in
the
key
for
him
and
I'd,
be
pleased
to
try
to
work
out
something.
B
AK
B
V
B
Before
Council
perfect
yeah,
so
you
can
have
some
further
discussions
as
well
with
staff
around
that
one.
Okay,
was
there
anything
else
to
say
counselor
Kavanaugh
I
did
have
a
question
before
you
wrap
up
so
I'm,
going
to
ask
staff
residents
have
appointed
to
certain
policies
and
I'm.
Sorry,
I
didn't
write
them
down
very
specifically,
but
I
think
it
was
12.3.1.
B
AM
I
again,
I
think
that
the
the
conditions
of
this
site
are
very
unique
within
the
city
and
you
can't
really
compare
apples
to
app
worlds
ever
in
planning
and
there
is
you're
not
wending
your
way
through
Regina
and
through
Lincoln
Heights
neighborhood.
It's
a
direct
shot
to
Regina
and
Ashley
a
lot.
The
houses
on
the
south
side
of
of
Regina
have
a
big
hedge
kind
of
back
on
to
the
street
there
and
again
the
the
22-story
building.
That's
already
there
that
presents
us
back
to
the
residents
it.
AM
It
really
is
quite
a
new,
unique
site
with
the
potential
for
that
direct
connection
to
Transit
within
very
close
proximity
again
that
it's
so
large
that
you're
able
to
apply
an
angular
plane
and
meet
those
transition
conditions
to
the
neighborhood.
So
there's
not
a
ton
of
Overlook,
the
site's,
very
large
opportunities
for
landscaping.
B
AB
Yeah,
this
is
a
very
difficult
file,
I
agree
being
on
on
a
street
that
is
considered
mostly
residential,
and
yet
we
do.
We
do
need
more
housing.
We
do
need
more
development,
there's
a
strong
case
for
Parkway
House
I.
It's
unfortunate
that
the
provincial
government
has
left
us
in
this
situation.
I
think
that
has
to
be
noted
that
that
that
is
where
they
have
been
left
high
and
dry
for
a
charity
that
looks
after
12
disabled
people,
but
it
is
a
private
property.
AB
AB
B
B
F
Want
to
make
sure
Gary
is
Gary.
Is
here,
I
see
him
on
the
screen,
hi
Gary
hi.
Thank
you
for
your
patience.
After
the
long
day,
it
almost
seems
inconsequential,
but
I.
Just
it
came
up
when
we
had
our
Transit
briefing
the
other
day
that
the
amount
we've
been
collecting
in
DC's
doesn't
match
what
we
need
to
realize
our
Capital
planning
and
if
I'm
reading
the
document.
One
correctly,
the
revenues
and
adjustments
in
2022
from
development
charges
was
about
230.5
million
dollars.
F
AT
I
I
believe
we
were
we
since
2019,
we've
I
think
we've
exceeded
expectations
as
what
we
were,
what
we're
reflecting
in
development
charges
for
Transit
for
various
reasons.
One
of
the
reasons
why
why
I
say
that
is
that,
while
we
transition
the
rates
for
all
of
the
other
services,
we
don't
transition
the
rates
for
Transit.
So
since
day,
one
of
May
23rd
2019,
we've
been
collecting
the
the
the
amount
that
was
in
the
DC
study.
So
there
was
no
translation
transition
Provisions
apply
to
the
transit
component.
AT
The
transition
Provisions
that
lasted
until
March
31st
2020
apply
to
all
the
other
services,
except
for
Transit.
So
we've
been
maximizing
the
amount
of
that
we
can
collect
in
development,
charts
for
public
transit
since
day,
one
and
I
I
believe
in
2020
2021
we've
exceeded
our
expectations
of
what
we
were
going
to
collect
in
development
charges.
Now.
Maybe
this
year
is
a
different
situation
in
2020
to
2023,
but
I
believe
we're
we're
on
track
or
or,
if
not
exceeded,
our
our
Revenue
goals.
F
AT
It
because
of
again
because
of
various
things
like
transition,
we
we
transitioned
the
rates
for
other
services.
So
in
some
cases
you
were
still
paying
the
free
Viola
update
or
the
2020
2014
race
in
up
until
March
31st
2020..
So
in
some
cases
we
we
couldn't
or
couldn't
meet
those
targets
because
we
had
transitioned
the
rates
and
provided
for
a
period
of
time
where
they
could
pay
the
quote:
unquote
old
rate
versus
the
new
rates.
AT
So
once
that
transition
period
ended,
then
we
we
started
collecting
the
full
amount
so
but
I'm
I'm,
not
as
confident
as
I
am
with
the
other
services
that
we
compared
to
public
transit.
That
we've
been
collecting
the
amount
that
we
projected
and,
of
course,
there's
there's
ups
and
downs,
but
I
I
find
the
last
especially
2019-2021,
We've
I
think
we've
exceeded
what
we
had
anticipated,
but
but
that
sometimes
we
were
below
what
we
anticipate
as
well
right.
AT
So
that's
kind
of
a
it's
a
it's
a
it's
a
trade-off
over
time
and
a
lot
of
the
services
are
we're
collecting
until
2031
or
you
know,
the
time
frame,
maybe
12
or
17,
or
20
or
22
years,
that
we're
collecting
development
charges
right
so
to
pay
for
infrastructure
or
projects.
So
the
the
length
of
time
also
has
implications
as
to
what
we,
whether
we
meet
whether
we've
met
our
Revenue
targets.
F
AT
Again,
the
only
thing
is
that
the
word
values
have
changed
yeah,
so
you'll.
If
you
looked
at
the
word
boundaries
there's
so
this
so
I,
don't
think.
As
far
as
I
know,
they
haven't
up
I'd
have
to
check
in
math
whether
they've
updated
the
word
boundaries.
So
there
could
be
some
anomalies
right.
So
there's
there's
definitely
new
ward
in
this
soap
bar
Haven
area,
right,
Ward,
24.,
so
and
I
think
some
of
the
other
boundaries
may
have
changed.
AT
F
Election.
Okay,
that's
fair!
Do
you
know
if
Statesville
is
still
in
the
top
three?
You
don't
have
to
answer
that
I
just
will
mention.
We've
been
contributing
a
heck
of
a
lot
to
development
charge
Revenue
over
the
past
decade
and
we're
still
waiting
for
our
brt
or
LRT
in
the
west
end,
but
I'll
leave
that
there.
AT
No
I
I,
don't
believe
so.
I
think
it's
it's
just
it
just
gives
you
I
I,
think
to
be
having
looked
at
other
municipalities,
I
think
we're
in
a
a
pretty
good
situations,
because
we
unlike
say
some
of
the
major
municipalities
in
the
GTA
they've,
issued
all
of
their
use
debt
to
fund
all
the
growth-related
infrastructure.
So
that
worked
reasonably
well
when
you
had
low
interest
rates,
but
now
that
you
have
potentially
higher
interest
rates
or
in
2008
there
was
the
housing
crisis,
and
so
there
was
a
shift
in
the
GTA.
AT
So
there,
the
summer
Municipal
at
least
have
had
to
increase
their
DC
rates
because
to
pay
for
that
the
debt
they
had
issued
to
pay
for
growth.
So
we
we
haven't
been
using
debt
to
that
same
extent
as
other
municipalities
that
pay
for
growth,
related
infrastructure
and
our
policies
that
were
implemented
a
number
of
years
ago
are
relatively
conservative
in
the
Outlook
as
to
what
can
be
funded
from
DC's.
So
Water
and
Sewer,
of
course,
can
be
in
a
committed
and
cash
deficit.
AT
Q
AT
Be
fragile
to
say,
public
transit
is
a
city-wide
charge,
but
roads
and
related
Services.
It's
actually
displayed
into
four
different
categories
inside
Greenbelt
outside
Greenbelt,
Rural
and
Citywide,
so
some
of
those
accounts
may
be
in
a
deficit.
Some
may
be
in
the
Surplus,
but
they've
been
all
rolled
up
into
one
amount,
because
then
I'd
have
to
have
pages
of
of
information
for
you
right,
so
so
that
that's
something
else
to
keep
in
mind.
AT
Q
AT
Certain
certain
accounts
are
rolled
up
into
one
big,
large
number
or
whatever
same
with
water,
they're,
city-wide
infrastructure
and
Britannia
water
treatment,
facilities
versus
say,
area
specific.
But
it's
all
rolled
up
into
one
number
but
I
think
relatively
speaking,
maybe
as
counselor
gallery
has
pointed
out.
Transit
is
one
concern
because
we
are
funding
a
lot
of
infrastructure
with
those
development
charges.
M
AT
I
think
that's
in
the
context
of
Bill
23
so
built
with
Bill
23.
So,
unlike
other
municipalities
that
passed
bylaw
and
background
study
updates,
as
of
January
1st
2022,
we
as
a
municipality
haven't
been
subject
to
a
lot
of
those
Provisions
right.
So
we
will
be
subject
those
Provisions
once
we
updated
in
in
2024..
For
example,
all
growth
related
studies
are
no
longer
DC
eligible,
affordable
housing
was
one
of
those
items
that
was
retroactively
was
effective,
as
of
November.
29Th
was
no
longer
eligible.
AT
AT
So,
but
yes
in
the
future,
there
are,
there
are
concerns
and
there's
that
mandatory
phase
in
now
right,
so
the
mandatory
phasing
is
over
five
years
so
that
in
itself
maybe
we
it
precludes
the
fact
that
we
used
to
transition
the
rates
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
councilor
Gower.
Maybe
we
wouldn't
have
to
be
required
to
do
that
anymore,
since
the
province
has
basically
prescribed
to
all
municipalities
that
you
have
to
phase
in
the
rates
over
five
years.
B
AT
B
Thank
you,
Gary
members
of
the
committee
is
this:
is
this
report
received
received?
Thank
you.
We
have
no
in-camera
items.
There
was
an
information
previously
distributed
the
residential
dwelling
approval
pipeline.
That's
the
second
version
of
that
that
we've
received
do
take
a
look
at
it.
If
you
haven't
good
content
for
your
socials,
with
respect
to
how
many
units
the
city
is
approving,
as
we
seek
to
meet
our
targets,
are
there
any
notices
of
motion?