►
From YouTube: Planning Committee - September 26 2019
Description
Agenda and background materials can be found at http://www.ottawa.ca/agendas.
A
A
The
while
the
traffic
maybe
consider
local,
it
will
still
impact
the
street
I
believe
that
in
a
happy,
vibrant
community,
there
are
strong
social
connections
that
create
a
sense
of
belonging
and
I'm.
Along
with
this
belonging
comes
a
sense
of
responsibility
to
support
your
fellow
community
members.
Communities
provide
a
sole
nurturing
experience
when
you
have
the
opportunity
to
contribute
and
know
the
others
are
there
for
you.
A
The
community
around
this
street
has
already
been
through
ten
years
of
blasting
digging
dirt
and
construction
traffic
and
I'd
like
to
point
out
that
the
approval
of
each
subsequent
building
drives
member
of
the
community
away
a
parcel
of
five
houses
now
among
place.
Two
and
Road
have
been
sold
again
to
a
developer,
because
people
feel
that
there
is
no
other
out.
A
My
husband
would
and
I
would
like
to
see
the
principles
of
the
Westborough
Richmond
Road
plan
respected.
You
have
to
realize
that
at
this
point,
cumulatively,
as
each
building
comes
seeking
to
be
excused
from
the
zoning
and
variance
in
this
place,
the
objectives
of
the
big-picture
planning
are
further
eroded.
And
by
approving
this
application,
you
would
be
endorsing
what
amounts
to
irresponsible
building
practices,
allowing
a
project
that
asking
for
such
an
increase
in
building
height
and
setback
completely
undermines
the
plan
is
drafted
and
both
fundamentally
alters.
A
What's
left
of
the
neighborhood
council,
early
fir
has
already
secured
a
commitment
to
revisit
the
out-of-date
plan
for
West
burrow
that
fails
to
put
reasonable
and
predictable
limits
on
growth
and
results
in
developer,
friendly,
ad
hoc
planning.
We
are
asking
you
today
to
refuse
this
application
until
this
secondary
plan
is
revised.
I
like
to
thank
you
all
for
your
time,.
A
B
Clearly,
it's
good
that
we're
doing
this,
because
you
know
I
am
I'm,
saying
that
you
know
you
I
can
tell,
because
how
involved
you
are
that
you
really
would
have
looked
for
it
and-
and
you
just
were
missed.
So
thank
you
very
much.
Mark
Baker
Parsons
for
questions
is
we
have
any
questions.
Anybody
know.
C
B
B
D
E
Madam
chair,
we
did
an
assessment
checked
in
with
our
IT
services
to
find
out
what
happened
with
the
circulation
the
circulation
was
completed,
but
I
think
there
must
have
been
some
sort
of
a
glitch,
because
there
were
people
that
identify
itself
identified,
that
they
didn't
receive
it.
From
our
offices
perspective.
The
information
was
sent,
but
I
there
must
have
had
something
technically
happened
in
that
translation
of
things
being
delivered.
D
D
G
D
Madam
chair,
it's
my
understanding
and
talking
with
people
in
the
policy
section
that
the
timing
that
is
sort
of
unknown
or
in
determined
right
now,
they're
focusing
on
the
main
official
plan
to
get
that
done,
whereas
in
putting
all
all
hands
forward
on
that.
So
it
would
come
after
that
or
as
part
of
that,
overall
revamp
of
the
official
plan.
So
you're
thinking,
q1
of
2020,
sorry
I'm,
just
trying
to
no.
A
D
F
D
Well,
madam
chair,
whenever
an
application
comes
in
and
it
wouldn't
matter,
there's
a
you
go
under
the
policy
direction.
That's
in
front
of
you
today,
I
know
there
was
a
quest
to
have
it
set
aside
until
that
was
done,
but
we
have
obligations
under
the
Planning
Act
to
goo
process
applications
of
in
certain
amount
of
time,
or
they
could
be
appealed
by
the
owner
as
well.
It
wouldn't
wouldn't
actually
I'll,
be
honest.
D
It
wouldn't
matter
because
they
get
to
go
under
the
policy
regime
that
they
came
in
when
they
had
a
file,
an
application
as
deemed
complete.
So
we
have
to
deal
with
the
with
the
policies
that
are
before
us
today
and
you
will
notice
that
there
is
no
official
plan
a
member
today.
So
what
happens
is
that
this
development
actually
follows
that
secondary
plan
that
is
as
in
place
today?
Okay,
okay,
thank
you.
G
G
Unfortunately,
this
is
one
of
the
last
parcels
on
Scott
Street
that
Westborough
secondary
plan
by
the
time
it
is
finally
adopted
will
do
nothing
to
guide
development
on
Scott
Street
I'm,
still
pressing
staff
to
move
forward
with
that,
because
we
know
that
the
pressure
is
going
to
be
on
Churchill.
We
especially
know
that
the
pressure
is
going
to
be
on
Richmond
and
it's
critical
that
we
guide
that
as
thoughtfully
as
possible.
But
unfortunately,
this
kind
of
ad-hoc
development
is
what
happens
when
you
don't
have
an
up-to-date,
defensible
secondary
plan
for
a
neighborhood.
Did
you
want?
G
Oh
and
I?
Also
just
quickly
want
to
add
my
thanks
to
chair
harder
and
to
mr.
Willis
my
office.
We've
satisfied
ourselves
that
every
effort
was
made
to
notify
residents
we're
satisfied
that
there
was
a
technical,
glitch
and
I
think
it
was
a
Sunday
morning
text
to
Steven
to
a
chair
harder
that
broke
through
a
log
jam
and
ensured
that
this
was
going
to
come
back
for
a
do-over,
so
I
do
appreciate
their
amenability.
To
that
did
you
want
me
to
make
this
motion
I
have
a
motion
on
the
table
as
well.
G
A
holding
symbol
is
placed
on
the
property
and
that
holding
symbol
may
only
be
removed
once
the
section
37
agreement
or
similar
development
agreement
has
been
executed,
which
must
occur
prior
to
site
plan
control
approval.
So
assuming
that
section
37
still
exists
at
the
point
at
which
this
moves
forward,
and
it
is
a
very
significant
section,
37
agreement,
I
share
residents,
concerns
about
the
the
traffic
impacts
in
this
particular
block.
G
I've
earmarked
325
thousand
dollars
of
very
significant
benefits
envelope
to
make
physical
and
physical
changes
to
the
streets
around
the
building
that
will
work
through
its
site
plan.
Assuming
that
those
section
37
still
exists,
this
will
make
sure
that
the
development
does
not
move
forward
without
our
getting
those
benefits.
Thank.
B
H
Thank
you
I
appreciate
the
work
that
councilor
leaper
has
done
on
this
in
terms
of
working
with
the
community
I'm.
Looking
at
the
report
on
it
and
in
terms
of
the
buildings
and
I'm
surprised
at
the
amount
of
parking
that's
being
allowed
for
these
units,
I
thought
the
whole
point
of
transit
oriented
development
was
to
reduce
parking
and
yet
there'll
be
enough
parking
for
well
every
single
unit.
That
is
not
supposed
to
be.
What's
going
forward,
it's
you
know
it
just
kind
of
surprised
me
because
it
seems
to
be
all
over
the
map.
H
What
the
parking
rules
are
because
I'm
getting
developers
coming
to
me
with.
You
know
up
to
50
units
with
no
parking
and
in
other
cases
and
zero
parking,
and
then
this
one
is
supposed
to
be
right
across
the
street.
It
emphasizes
how
it's
only
150
meters
from
the
from
the
transit
station,
and
yet
it's
got
parking
for
everybody.
So
it's
really
not
fitting
in
with
the
the
whole
philosophy
that
we've
been
talking
about
so
I
understand,
councillor
leapers
concerns
about
you,
know
the
official
pen
and
how
this
doesn't
quite
fit.
B
B
B
E
Morning,
madam
chair
members
of
committee,
thank
you
very
much
for
allowing
us
a
few
minutes
on
the
agenda.
I
have
with
me
in
Nancy
Winans,
who
is
our
manager
of
accounts
for
our
department.
It's
been
significant
on
this
project.
I'd
also
like
to
acknowledge
Lynn,
Lowe
and
Daniel
Oliver,
two
staff,
members
and
Charmaine
Fergie's
group
business
services
that
have
supported
us
with
this
review.
E
E
Our
applications
have
been
increasing
over
time.
We're
going
to
talk
about
that
today,
currently
as
where
we
are
today
were
24%
above
last
year's
performance,
and
this
has
been
a
recurring
theme
of
increasing
applications
without
a
corresponding
increase
in
staff.
Just
so
that
you're
aware
we've
had
meetings
with
a
development
industry
to
review
our
proposed
fees.
E
I'm
gonna
move
them
now
that
was
my
intro
for
our
fees.
We
are
asking
for
cost
of
living,
there'll
be
a
cost
of
living
increase.
Two
hundred
fifty
thousand
are
seven
additional
resources.
Five
engineers,
one
solicitor
and
one
co-op
student,
we're
looking
at
eight
hundred
thousand.
We
have
also
fees
that
are
required
for
us
to
be
able
to
pay
for
the
land
management
solution.
Momentum
management
solution
is
a
technology
that
we
need
to
replace
our
existing
system.
Existing
system
is
20
years
old.
E
We've
identified
a
payment
process
over
the
next
12
years
to
be
able
to
recover
again.
So
this
is
not
on
the
tax
base.
This
is
phase
one
of
our
review.
We
will
be
undertaking
Phase
two
and
in
our
phase
two
we'll
be
looking
at
our
indirect
costs
phase.
One
is
only
our
direct
costs
and
Phase.
Two
we'll
also
look
at
how
we're
going
to
be
able
to
fund
not
only
our
capital
for
the
new
technology
solution,
but
also
our
operating
costs.
E
So
we
have
undertaken
to
hear
what
the
industry
is
saying
in
terms
of.
We
really
need
to
improve
our
current
process.
We
are
undertaking
to
begin
a
legal
agreement
review
in
terms
of
how
we
process
our
legal
agreements
we'll
be
looking
at
the
post
approval
subdivision
process
in
terms
of
getting
to
registration.
E
We
undertook
an
engineering
review
last
year
and
we've
got
about
ten
recommendations
that
we're
working
on
right
now,
so
we've
seen
a
significant
improvement
in
our
engineering
practices
and
we
also
have
an
external
engineering
firm
that
helps
us
out
with
site
plans
when
we
get
into
a
backlog
situation.
Just
wanted
you
to
be
aware
that
we've
had
a
municipal
best
practice.
We
selected
a
few
municipalities
to
see
how
are
we
doing
with
our
fees
in
comparison
to
others
and
you'll
see
from
this
chart.
E
We
are
significantly
lower
than
some
of
the
major
cities
in
this
province.
Even
with
our
proposed
fees
we're
still
under
our
increase.
We
have
a
cost
of
living
increase
of
2.6
percent
that
that
covers
the
portion
of
the
20
percent
I
mentioned
the
additional
resources
equate
to
nine
point
six
percent
and
that
technology
is
seven.
We're
also
asking
for
minor
increases
in
our
design,
UHN
inspection
fees
by
0.25
and
point
5
for
soft
and
hard
costs.
E
These
fees
have
not
been
increased
in
a
great
number
of
years,
volume
of
applications
has
identified,
has
been
increasing,
so
you'll
see
from
this
chart.
Overall
and
2016,
we
had
about
839
applications
by
2018,
we're
over
a
hundred
more
up
to
939,
again
no
increases
in
staff,
we're
tracking
right
now
to
likely
be
over
a
thousand
applications.
B
I
I
I
have
been
working
in
the
city
for
about
30
years
and
up
until
amalgamation,
we
used
to
pay
fees
to
both
the
the
former
region
and
the
city
for
things,
and
it
was
quite
cumbersome
and
the
fees
that
we
were
paying
in
fact
were
were
significant
to
the
cost
of
our
developments
and
at
amalgamation.
We
were
all
excited
that
we
would
have
one
government
that
would
it
all
be
better
and
we
would
expedite
things
and
things
would
all
get
better.
I
Well
guess
what
they
didn't,
and
within
the
first
year
after
amalgamation,
Larry
Morrison,
who
most
of
you
probably
don't
know
that
name.
Larry
Morrison
sat
down
with
the
with
the
industry
and
we
negotiated
on
subdivisions
a
reduction
in
fee
from
three
and
a
half
percent
of
some
ten
to
twenty
million
dollars
worth
of
works
that
were
being
done
to
a
staggered
fee
structure.
Less
than
six
months
later,
Larry's
boss
came
along
Ned,
Lathrop
and
said
well.
I'm
gonna
make
things
better
for
you,
folks
and
I'm
gonna.
I
Double
your
fees
and
I'm
gonna
wipe
out
the
savings
that
Larry
just
negotiated
with
you
guys,
because
we
want
to
hire
more
staff.
The
reality
is
no
more
staff
were
hired
years,
went
by
fees,
went
up,
Nancy,
scheppers
came
along
and
the
same
thing
happened.
We
were
made
promises
that
we
were
going
to
get
better
service
because
we
were
gonna,
hire
more
staff
and
that's
why
we
were
increasing
fees
so
by
the
time
Leanne
got
along
here
she
got
a
little
bit
of
angst
from
many
of
my
colleagues
saying.
I
Yes,
we've
heard
it
twice
before
we're
a
little
skeptical,
but
we
have
a
great
deal
of
faith
in
Miss
net
and
mr.
Willis,
and
we
are
very
happy
to
support
this.
This
report
going
forward.
We
do,
however,
have
to
I
think
fairly
small
request
that
I
would
hope
that
you
would
think
are
reasonable.
One
of
them
deals
with
the
fees
that
we're
paying
in
the
process.
I
believe
Nancy
identified
that
there
was
some
hundred
thousand
two
hundred
thousand.
I
There
was
a
chunk
of
fees
that
had
not
been
spent
this
year,
yet
that
her
fees
that
we've
paid
for
applications
that
are
moving
forward.
Unfortunately,
in
the
past,
my
understanding
is,
is
when
there
was
a
surplus.
Those
fees
got
thrown
into
general
revenues,
and
we
don't
think
that
that's
actually
fair,
that
that
fees
that
we're
paying
to
the
planning
department
for
processing
work
should
be
thrown
into
general
revenue.
I
So
we
would
like
the
city
to
consider
taking
any
surplus
fees
that
are
given
or
made
through
planning
applications
that
they
would
go
into
a
reserve
account,
and
that
way,
when
we
have
years
like
we
have
this
year,
where
there's
significant
increases
in
applications
that,
if
things
slowed
down
in
a
subsequent
year,
miss
deadens
department
can
retain
the
staff
that
she's
got
and
they
would
have
almost
a
miller,
eight
smoothing
effect
within
her
department.
That
would
be
self
managed.
I
So
we
would
like
to
see
a
reserve
account
set
up
to
take
those
fees
and
they
would
be
traded
basically
like
what
the
building
department
does
right
now,
where
the
building
department
managed
a
maximum
number
of
millions
of
dollars
in
a
reserve
account
that
if
there
is
a
slowdown
in
the
economy,
mr.
bidden
doesn't
have
to
let
his
staff
go.
They
can
continue
to
make
the
same
level
of
service,
so
that
would
be
item
one.
Is
the
creation
of
a
reserve
account
to
both
capture
the
existing
reserve
and
future
reserves
that
may
be
generated?
I
The
second
item
that
I'd
like
to
suggest
is
that
I
know.
Mr.
mark
will
not
like
these
comments.
We
have
been
exacerbated
by
the
dialogues
that
we
have
within
the
legal
department
and
the
difference
between
the
two
departments.
As
little
as
several
months
ago,
we
were
actually
informed
as
an
industry.
We
can
no
longer
talk
to
the
lawyers
in
the
legal
department
because
we're
not
lawyers
I've
felt
free
to
call
mr.
mark
for
30
years
and
I
find
it
insulting
to
find
out
that,
because
I'm,
not
a
lawyer,
I'm
not
allowed
to
call
him
anymore.
I
Now
I
know
we've
we've
asked
for
this
before
and
in
fact,
at
amalgamation,
we
asked
if
there
couldn't
be
a
creation
of
a
lawyer
and
a
couple
of
law
clerks
in
the
legal
to
in
the
planning
department,
and
we
were
told
no,
no.
No.
This
is
the
best
way,
we're
gonna,
give
them
great
service
and
so
on.
But
again
we
haven't
experienced
that
great
service,
although
I
do,
like
mr.
I
Markin
he's
a
very
great
lawyer,
having
said
that,
if
there
is
a
way
that
this
report
could
identify
somehow
that
there
would
be
a
legal
team
or
a
legal,
a
lawyer
and
a
law
clerk
whatever
in
Miss
Steadman's,
Department
I,
think
that
would
be
helpful.
We
actually
have
three
lawyers
that
work
in-house
at
Taggart
office.
They
report
to
our
CFO,
and
one
of
the
things
that
we
had
heard
was
that
lawyers
can't
work
for
common
folks,
so
we
think
that
that's
incorrect.
Those
are
my
two
points,
madam
chair
and
I'm,
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
B
Really
good
and
really
good
comments,
and
you
know
certainly
miss
net
and
I
have
talked
about
it.
I've
talked
with
mr.
Marc
about
it
and
you
know
I
think
back
to
when
I
was
in
the
peon
counselor.
So
just
you
know,
19
years
ago
or
so
and
I
used
to
jokingly
call
it
jack
slush
fund.
But
the
fact
is:
is
that
the
reason
the
building
permits
you're
talking
about
that
we
keep
that
I
mean
you
know
from
from
the
outside.
B
We
are
other
chairs
around
the
table
would
be
seeing
the
same
thing
in
time
to
time
with
with
your
own
staff
that
other
people
don't
see,
but
we
know
how
tight
it
is,
and
you
know
as
counselors
we're
always
responding
on
behalf
of
our
citizens,
whether
it's
our
business
citizens
or
residents
citizens,
and
when
we
do
that
with
the
work
plan
that
we
always
have
that's
always
aggressive
and
and
and
being
short
staffed.
This
is
going
to
give
us
the
ability
to
actually
tie
the
staffing
to
the
end
to
the
applications
and
deal
with.
B
So
we
do
have
a
direction
and
I
know.
Councillor
Cavanaugh
has
wants
to
speak.
I
can
tell
you
that
on
the
issue
of
who
to
report
so
that
I
say
mister
kantor
lacus
is
down
here.
Probably
it
probably
some
spidey
sense
told
them
that
he
should
come
down
here,
because
I
was
going
to
say
even
without
you
prompting
me
that
on
organizational
chart
issues,
there's
one
person
at
the
city
that
has
control
that
and
guess
what
it's
not
us.
It's
him
it's
mister
kantor
lackeys.
So
we
can't
make
a
decision
today.
B
B
You
know
on
the
downside,
I
mean
if
they
come
back
and
they
say
and
and
that
no
we're
going
to
leave
it
where
it
is
gonna,
be
tied
to
our
seyh
solicitor.
The
fact
is
publicly
highlighting
the
fact
that
we
need
a
change
here
in
the
way
that
it
that
it
flows
is
important,
and
so
that's
part
of
this
direction
and
the
other
part
of
the
direction
speaks
to
the
money.
B
So
for
anybody
and
I
don't
see
very
many
people
from
the
public
as
opposed
to
the
developer
community
here,
but
for
any
of
you
like
I
mean,
would
it
be
right
for
us
to
go
into
the
pockets
of
the
people
of
bar
Haven
and
say:
hey
I'm,
going
to
hire
ten
more
people
and
trust
me?
And
then
you
don't
have
you
don't
hire
the
ten
people
or
maybe
hire
the
ten
people,
but
actually
they're
working
on
things
in
the
councilor
doodad?
B
Since
warden
have
nothing
to
do
with
the
bar
Haven
piece
and
all
of
a
sudden
at
the
end
of
the
year,
hey
we've
got
this
much
money
left
over.
We'll
throws
we'll
toss
that
into
the
general
revenues.
That's
not
right.
This
is
a
specific
service.
Planning
has
the
smallest
budget
of
anyone
with
the
exception
of
the
affordable
housing
capital
piece
of
it,
and
we
are
absolutely
directly
related
to
work
in
work
out
right
and
how
that
all
shapes
up.
So
it's
very
very
important
that
we
have.
B
Further,
whereas
the
report
on
staffing
recommends
creation
of
a
position
and
legal
services
as
well
as
positions
within
planning
services
and
whereas
it
is
key
to
the
successful
processing
of
planning
applications
that
there
be
integration
between
legal
services
and
planning
services
and
whereas
a
review
of
the
planning
agreement
process
is
shortly
to
be
underway.
That's
the
other
piece
that
that's
recently
missed.
Neden
has
has
contracted
someone
to
undertake
this
study.
B
The
director
of
planning
services
in
the
general
manager,
financial
services
city
treasurer
be
directed
to
submit
to
planning
committee
and
council
report
with
respect
to
the
desirability
of
creating
a
reserve
fund
for
planning
fees
and
the
director
planning
services
and
city
solicitor
be
direct,
directed
to
submit
a
report
with
respect
to
improving
the
coordination
of
legal
services
with
planning
services.
Both
of
the
above
reports
be
submitted
no
later
than
the
second
quarter
of
2020.
So
it's
a
relatively
quick
turnaround
missing
addend
has
to
go
and
find
some
information.
B
B
H
You
very
much
I
can
appreciate
the
workload
that
you're
getting
now,
especially
with
stage
2
LRT.
The
workload
is
obviously
increasing
very
much
and
we're
going
to
it's
going
to
continue,
particularly
with
the
official
plan
there's
more
to
sort
out,
and
we
you
know
it
can't
come
fast
enough
to
to
have
some
good
rules
in
place.
E
Chair,
that's
a
great
question
and
we
have
about
16
different
application
types
and
overall
we're
likely
meeting
our
timelines
just
slightly
over
50%
of
the
time.
It's
it's
a
challenge.
There's
there's
no
question.
We
track
all
of
our
timelines
and
all
of
our
applications,
and
we
report
annually
to
this
committee
each
year
on
our
progress,
so
it
I'd
also
like
to
add.
There
will
be
more
pressure
with
the
bill.
E
How
can
we
improve
the
development
review
process
and
I've
got
a
meeting
scheduled
with
the
development
industry
as
well
in
October
and
I'm,
going
to
be
getting
some
feedback
from
counselors
as
well,
and
in
addition
to
that,
so
we
do
need
to
make
some
significant
changes
in
our
processes.
If
we're
going
to
meet
these
timelines.
The
ask
that
I
have
today
is
a
very,
very
small
ask
in
terms
of
a
resource
ask,
but
we
are
going
to
have
to
change
the
way
we
do
business
and
we're
gonna
have
to
find
a
way
to
do
that.
H
Thank
you
very
much
further
to
that.
I
just
want
to
emphasize
that
when
I
say
you
know,
more
efficiencies,
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we
have
that
public
input
and-
and
that
is
a
very
important
part
of
it-
it's
crucial.
So
that
has
to
be
factored
in
and
we
have
to
you
know,
give
enough
time,
for
you
know
the
public
to
response.
We
hear
concerns.
H
E
Madame,
chair
that
the
consultation
will
always
be
in
key
an
important
component
of
development
moving
forward
and
I,
don't
believe
the
province
is
intending
to
change
that
I
think
with
the
new
technology
that
we're
also
purchasing
I'm
hopeful
that
that's
also
going
to
help
and
aid
us
in
our
ability
to
be
able
to
track
comments
a
little
bit
more
efficiently
to
be
able
to
dry
some
of
that
technology.
That's
available
that
we're
hoping
to
purchase
very
very
soon
that
will
help
us
manage
and
project
manage
our
files
a
little
bit
more
efficiently,
so
absolutely
public.
B
B
The
outreach
that
we
do
on
the
applications
has
a
has
a
total
amount
of
money
right
for
the
for
the
cost
of
doing
an
application,
I
mean
to
cost
them
for
the
outrage
for
the
communications,
for
you
know
all
of
the
things
that
you
do,
but
it's
not
I,
don't
know.
I,
don't
know
that
you've
got
the
answer
that
you
were
thinking.
You
were
for.
H
My
brief
experience
doing
this
job
the
we're
using
planners
to
answer
questions
we're
using
the
planners
to
deal
with
the
public,
and
that
is
part
of
you
know
the
process.
So
it
takes
a
time
to
do
that
yeah
and
we
need
it
to
be
done
well,
and
you
know
we.
The
last
thing
I
want
to
thought
that
to
be
thought
of
as
bogging
them
down
it's
it's
part
of
the
process.
So
we
have
to
allow
that
and-
and
that
to
me
is
communication
with
the
public.
You
know.
B
If
you
will
and
seeing
where
there
are
so
I'm
confident
that
your
concerns
are
going
to
be
just
like
your
concerns
that
you
just
had
about
how
we're
going
to
be
able
to
react
with
the
stage
to
that's
just
starting
and
it's
gonna
need
to
be
on
time
and
connected,
and
all
that
stuff,
yeah
I
get
what
you're
saying
I
just
want
to
clarify
that.
Okay,
anybody
have
any
questions
for
mr.
Phillips,
though
thanks
Ted,
mr.
mr.
Gower,
counselor
doc,
our
then
counselor
brockington
thank.
J
You,
madam
chair
I,
was
going
to
ask
about
Bill
108
in
the
compressed
time
lines,
but
you've
answered
counselor
Cavanaugh's
question
the
land
management
system
you've
touched
on
a
little
bit
just
now.
What
does
this
system
allow
you
to
do
that?
You
can't
do
now.
That
would
be
one
question,
so
you
know
where
are
there
gaps
or
where
their
deficiencies
in
the
current
system,
and
then,
if
you
could
elaborate
a
little
more
at
it
seems
to
be
primarily
an
internal
tool
for
the
development
process.
J
E
Chair
I'll
answer
that
question
as
best
as
I
can
given
the
fact
that
we're
in
an
active
procurement
process,
so
I
won't
be
able
to
go
into
details
yet
because
we
don't
have
a
signed
contract.
But
ideally,
what
we
are
procuring
is
a
solution
that
will
better
be
able
to
manage
our
workflows
internally
it'll,
be
it
better,
be
able
to
manage
the
client
files,
so
the
developers
files
payment
schedules,
their
applications.
E
Things
will
be
able
to
be
submitted
online
and
electronically,
and
so
everything
will
be
captured
in
one
system
and
then
there
will
be
a
public
portal
as
well,
so
that
comments
will
be
able
to
be
fed
through
the
system
and
access
from
a
public
portal.
We
will
have
the
ability
to
better.
You
know,
you
know,
gather
those
comments
that
do
come
in
that
councillor.
Kavanagh
has
identified
that
takes
staff
time
to
manage
and
sift
through
the
system
we'll
be
able
to
better
project
manage
our
timeline.
E
So
it's
almost
like
a
you
know,
a
UPS
parcel
that
you
get
we're
going
to
be
a
little
bit
more
accountable
and
transparent
about
where
the
application
is
in
the
process.
So,
at
any
point
in
time,
anybody
can
go
and
find
out.
Where
is
my
application
and
how
is
it
tracking,
as
opposed
to
picking
up
the
phone
and
calling
staff
and
taking
more
time
away
from
people
from
processing
their
applications
trying
to
find
out?
Where
is
my
application
in
this
process?
So
those
are
high-level.
J
D
Intan,
just
a
quick
question
for
Miss
Ned
and
thank
you
for
the
overview.
You
said
you
have
to
look
with
your
team
ways
of
doing
things
differently,
I
guess,
modernize
or
you
know
just
to
streamline
the
department.
How
will
you
keep
this
committee
updated
on
the
changes
that
you're
going
to
be
making
and
whether
or
not
those
changes
have
been
successful.
E
Madam
chair
I'd
be
happy
to
bring
back
an
information
report
to
the
committee
to
advise
the
committee
in
terms
of
where
we're
at
I
should
have
something
already
at
the
end
of
the
year,
beginning
of
January.
In
terms
of
when
we
started
the
new
year,
how
we
going
to
be
able
to
find
some
of
these
efficiencies
yep.
B
B
K
Were
there,
though,
building
heights
permitted
both
of
the
uses
in
the
case
of
the
GM
zone,
inadvertently
the
provision
to
permit
a
high-rise
building
in
the
GM
zone,
where
a
building
height
would
permit
it
was
permitted,
would
permit.
It
was
inadvertently
omitted
from
the
provisions.
So
this
amendment
would
add
that
provision
in
there.
K
So
a
floor
space
index
is
the
ratio
of
the
amount
of
floor
area.
That's
permitted
in
a
building
relative
to
the
area
of
the
lot.
So
if
your
a
lot
was
100
square
meters
and
you
had
a
floor
space
index
of
8,
the
gross
floor
area
of
the
building
could
be
800
square
meters.
And
that
means
that
if
you
built
the
building
to
the
lot
line,
all
and
zero
lot
line
as
the
mixed
use
downtown
zone
permits,
you
would
have
a
hundred
percent
coverage
of
the
lot
to
8
storeys.
K
So
this
meant
that,
where
the
maximum
building
height
is
regulated
by
a
high
plane
and
that
maximum
building
height
permitted
27
stories,
you
are
now
permitted
to
build
lot
line
to
lot
line
to
27
stories.
Whereas
previously
the
bulk
of
the
building
would
been
approximately
1/3
to
2/3
less
than
that.
K
So
staff
have
reviewed
the
outcome
of
the
removal
of
the
FSI
provisions
in
the
mixed-use
downtown
zone
in
the
11
years,
since
the
provisions
were
removed.
Removal
of
the
FSI
provisions
resulted
in
the
building
envelope
of
high-rise
buildings
being
unregulated
from
his
owning
perspective,
except
for
building
height,
and
this
has
resulted
in
what,
in
some
situations,
has
resulted
in
very
narrow
or
very
little
separation
distance
between
buildings,
and
this
has
an
impact
on
the
public
realm.
K
K
So,
just
to
go
over
the
three
sets
of
zoning
provisions
for
the
different
areas
in
the
city
in
the
mixed-use
downtown
zone
staff
are
proposing
a
7.5
meters,
setback
from
side
and
rear
lot
lines
from
that
portion
of
the
building
that
that
is
the
tower.
So
the
tower
is
that
you've
got
the
podium
that
the
tower
sits
on
in
the
mixed-use
downtown
zone.
The
maximum
height
of
the
tower
would
be
six
stories
or
the
width
of
the
street
abutting
the
lot,
whichever
is
less
and
then
beyond
the
height
of
that
pole,
doing
podium.
K
B
K
You
looked
at
these
provisions
in
2008
or
2018
may
in
May,
when
they
were
received
we've
that
the
provisions
have
been
revised
to
delete
an
area
of
the
downtown
bounded
by
as
shown
on
this
schedule,
and
that
is
in
recognition
of
the
fact.
Well,
it's
in
response
to
requests
from
property
owners
and
recognition.
The
fact
that
these
lands
are
already
developed
extensively
with
high-rise
buildings
and
the
established
character
is
already
there
certain
areas
the
city
will
be
excluded
and
these
are
the
secondary
sorry.
K
The
next
set
of
provisions
are
for
the
interior
or
inside
the
green
Mount
and
then
outside
the
green
bow
inside.
The
green
bow
is
a
darker
area
on
this
schedule.
The
provisions
that
apply
to
outside
of
the
green
belt
are
shown
apply
to
the
areas
that
are
in
the
lighter
areas
in
this
schedule.
The
provisions
for
inside
the
green
bed-
it's
at
10
meters,
sat
back
from
side
and
rear
lot
lines
for
that
portion,
the
building
over
nine
stories
or
the
width
of
the
abutting
street.
K
Given
the
lot
fabric
in
these
areas,
1,350
square
meters
and
a
corner
lot
1,800
square
meters
for
an
interior
lot,
areas
that
have
secondary
planning
policies
that
provide
detailed
area
specific
guidance
through-
and
these
were
arrived
at
through
lengthy
public
consultation
processes
for
minimum
lot
area
or
separation
distances
for
high-rise
buildings
won't
be
subject
to
these
provisions.
In
those
cases,
the
policies
and
those
documents
will
prevail,
and
these
are
the
areas
of
the
city
that
would
not
be
subject
to
the
zoning
provisions.
B
B
K
And
there
are
transitions
provisions
proposed
to
look
after
previous
applications
for
high-rise
buildings
that
have
been
approved.
Those
would
be
able
to
continue
through
their
building
permit
and
site
plan
control
processes.
If,
if
they've
got
complete
applications
in
for
zoning,
they
can
come
in
under
that
zoning
at
that
time
and
get
their
site
plan
control
under
the
provisions
that
they
got
for
their
zoning
and
if
they're
they
have
a
complete
application
for
site
plan
control
in
before
October
9th.
K
K
B
B
C
Morning
madam
chair
members
of
committee,
brian
casa
grande
with
faux
ten,
I
was
I'm
here
on
behalf
of
three
property
owners,
madam
chair
and
well.
I
hope
I
can
keep
this
to
five
minutes.
Any
grace
you
could
offer
me
so
I
had
to
sign
up
three
times
to
get
more
time.
You
know:
okay,
I'll
move
as
quickly
as
I
can:
okay,
I'm.
B
C
Thank
you,
I'm
speaking
on
behalf
of
three
clients,
as
I
mentioned,
and
first
off
I,
do
want
to
thank
staff
for
their
efforts.
Broadly
speaking,
I've
been
involved
with
meetings
with
them
and
they,
as
you've
seen
they've,
certainly
made
concessions
and
tried
to
work
with
the
industry,
and
that
is
broadly
appreciated.
C
But
there
are
some
concerns
that
remain
for
three
of
my
clients
in
particular
one
you'll
hear
from
Julie,
and
that
really
relates
to
what
is
effectively
the
removal
of
development
rights
and
in,
in
certain
cases,
there's
a
there's,
a
it's
adding
a
standard
that
logically,
is
not
needed
and
other
situations
is
simply
not
warranted.
So
the
first
client
that
I'm
here
to
speak
about
is
rich
craft.
C
Now
its
proposed
to
be
ten
so
effectively
you'll
be
taking
away
all
of
that
development
right
from
rich
craft
through
this
initiative
and
I
think
that's
principally
wrong
and
unfair
and
rich
craft
generally
share
this
concern,
broadly
speaking,
and
you'll
hear
this
on
some
of
these
other
clients
files,
where
your
budding
land
uses
that
in
in
many
cases
and
I,
would
suggest
most
cases
do
not
warrant
this
type
of
setback
and
I.
Think
that's
really.
C
Thank
you.
So
this
piece
of
property-
it's
which
is
in
Westborough
at
twenty
forty
six
and
twenty
fifty
Scott
Street,
there's
two
properties
there
that
you'll
see
immediately
west
of
the.
What
is
the
curling,
rink
and
they're
owned
by
surface
developments.
It's
basically
under
a
numbered
company
and
surface
is
anticipating
applications
very
shortly.
That
would
contemplate
a
high-rise
building
on
this
property
is
across
the
street
from
the
transit
station
and
high-rise
would
certainly
be
supported
by
the
Westborough
secondary
plan
right
now
or
the
Richmond
Road
secondary
plan.
C
What
you
have
immediately
to
the
west
of
this
property
is
a
newly
built
mid-rise
building
it's
a
condo
building
and
if
you
can
move
down
next
image
realistically,
this
building,
which
you
see
in
the
background,
will
never
in
any
maybe
never
period
be
redeveloped,
because
it
is
a
condo
building,
but
certainly
because
of
how
new
it
is.
So
it
doesn't
warrant
the
type
of
10
meters
setback
from
a
tower
that's
being
proposed
in
this
case.
C
More
importantly,
on
this
property
and
all
of
the
others,
it's
50
square
meters,
short
of
the
minimum
area,
requirements
and
I've,
said
to
staff
in
our
discussions.
Why
are
you
putting
a
minimum
lot
size
requirement
on
any
of
these
properties
for
high-rise,
when
the
setbacks
themselves
are
already
dictating
the
built
form
that
you
want?
C
In
other
words,
if
somebody
were
to
do
something
creative,
like
single
load,
a
hallway
inside
a
corridor
or
inside
a
building
design
to
make
it
narrower,
why
would
you
preclude
them
from
trying
to
do
that
by
simply
stipulating
a
minimum
lot
size?
It's
a
belt-and-suspenders
approach
that,
in
my
view,
is
not
necessary
and
it's
inhibiting
some
development
sites
like
this
one,
which
may
be
able
to
accommodate
high-rise,
built
form
and
still
achieve
the
objectives.
C
The
last
client
that
I'm
here
to
speak
on
I,
can't
give
you
their
property,
because
they're
involved
with
negotiations
on
the
land
and
have
been
for
a
long
time
it's
about
400
metres
from
a
rapid
transit
station.
The
property
is,
is
being
purchased
by
a
company
called,
do
V
capital
they're
out
of
Toronto
and
in
their
case
the
property
backs
on
to
passive
open
space
similar
to
the
rich
craft
file.
C
That
I
showed
you,
but
in
this
case
when
I
say
passive,
it's
not
designed
with
a
playing
field
or
any
situation
where
somebody
would
be
sitting
and
trying
to
enjoy
sunlight
or
privacy
or
anything
of
that
matter.
It's
basically
green
space
with
a
bike
path
that
passes
through
it
and
so
in
their
case,
you're,
actually
taking
away
development
rights
to
stipulating
a
real
yard
setback
that
will
never
be
warranted.
C
I
know
if
we
have
discussions
with
staff
and
we
will
they'll
see,
merit
and
reducing
that
yard,
but
as
it
stands
today,
they
can
develop
a
high-rise
building
on
this
property
without
tripping
over
this
performance
standard
and
now
effectively
they're
going
to
have
to
amend
it.
So
those
are
my
submissions.
Thank
you
happy
to
answer
questions.
G
Madam
chair
I'll
have
questions
for
staff
I'd
like
to
get
a
response
to
our
delegations
comments
today.
It
sounds
like
there's
I,
don't
want
to
call
it
a
catch-22,
but
it
seems
like
there's
seems
a
little
more
unique
than
what
we're
dealing
with
on
a
regular
basis
and
I
want
to
know
what
the
mitigations
are.
B
L
G
L
Better
I'm,
sorry
about
that,
madam
chair
again,
these
provisions
are
intended
to
complement
the
high-rise
design
guidelines
that
were
passed
by
this
committee
last
year
in
May,
23rd
2018,
and
what
they
represent
is
really
what
the
city
would
consider
to
be
the
most
acceptable
outcome
for
occurring
on
a
site.
Now
there
is
no
doubt
that
there
are
going
to
be
site,
specific
issues
that
will
arise.
There
is
no
doubt
that
there
will
be
issues
with
respect
to
a
particular
use
of
property
that
is
directly
alongside
one
of
these
sites.
L
Staff
would
certainly
take
that
into
effect
and
consider
whether
or
not
we
would
support
that.
But
that
needs
to
happen
on
the
basis
of
that
design.
Discussion
when
that
building
comes
to
the
table
and
we
can
have
a
look
at
what
is
actually
being
proposed
and
how
the
design
of
this
is
actually
moving
forward.
So.
G
And
Mister
Casa
Grande
still
here,
please
stay
there,
because
I
may
go
back
and
forth
a
little
bit
here.
I
think.
Obviously
your
concern
is
if
we
pass
this
today.
The
window
is
closed
on
this
and
your
clients
obviously
have
a
concern
about
that.
Would
you
like
to
comment
on
that?
It
would
that
be
the
case.
L
What
we
are
found
in
general
is
a
number
of
these
high-rise
sites,
do
tend
to
come
through
zoning
I
can't
comment
on
the
specifics
of
the
particular
Lots
that
that
Mister
Casa
Grande
has
brought
to
the
fore.
I
can't
comment
on
what
their
current
zoning
might
be,
or
what
the
process
would
be.
Generally
again,
if
a
site
is
either
zone,
4,
mid
density
or
mid
rise
right
now
and
is
looking
for
high-rise
permission.
They
would
need
to
go
through
a
zoning
permission
anyway
and
there's
an
opportunity
to
have
that
discussion
on
the
site-specific
basis.
L
Whether
the
site
backs
would
apply
in
the
case
of
a
development
that
is
occurring
in
a
in
an
area
that
has
already
zoned
for
high-rise.
There
is
a
variance
process
through
the
community
of
adjustment
that
again
can
be
used
for
those
types
of
site,
specific
issues,
and
indeed
that
is
exactly
what
that
process
is.
For
again,
it
is
difficult
to
to
talk
about
sites
on
a
specific
basis,
with
respect
to
what
is
before
you
today.
L
What
is
before
you
today
is
intended
to
provide
overall
guidance
for
how
neighbors
and
high-rise
buildings
should
relate
to
one
another.
Again,
site-specific
situations
will
always
arise.
There
will
always
be
opportunities
to
vary
those,
but
what
we
are
looking
at
doing
right
now
is
providing
that
minimum
set
of
standards
that
we
will
that
we
will
look
for
developers
to
live
by
and.
G
Just
as
a
follow-up
to
that,
the
one
that
kind
of
sticks
it
in
my
mind,
a
little
bit
is
the
one
closest
to
the
in
the
Tod
region
and
obviously
I
have
a
lot
of
transitoria
development
in
my
area
we're
intensifying,
very
heavily,
which
I
support.
We
got
122
storey
tower
and
has
four
more
going
on
that
parcel.
Would
these
rules
that
we're
looking
at
putting
in
play
now
or
guidelines?
I,
guess
you
can
call
them?
Would
they
affect
that
kind
of
development?
Today,.
L
I
just
touch
on
just
one
more
thing
as
well
too,
with
respect
to
that
as
well.
To
is
a
number
of
the
Tod
areas
and
also
I
believe
one
of
the
sites
that
mr.
Casa
Grande
referred
to
as
well.2
has
zoning
that
already
has
site-specific
exceptions
attached
to
those
and
where
those
site-specific
exceptions
have
provided
for
a
design
or
an
envelope
that
is
different
than
those
site-specific.
Zoning
provisions
would
still
be
in
effect.
So,
in
effect,
if
there
is
a
site-specific
exception
that
varies
a
setback,
those
would
still
remain
in
force.
So.
G
C
So
that
that
last
comment
is
helpful,
specifically
2:19
Centrepointe,
which
has
the
schedule
that
I
showed
you
so
that
will
give
rich
Kraft
some
relief
relative
to
that
site.
But
they
asked
me
to
speak
more
broadly
today
about
concerns,
as
the
other
clients
I
have
all
of
the
client
sites.
That
I
mentioned
are
within
areas
that
I
think
counsel
you're
referring
to
as
Tod,
because
they're
near
Rapid
Transit,
whether
they're
a
Tod
area.
C
That's
in
the
zoning
bylaw
that
went
through
the
city's
initiative
or
not
is
not
not
necessarily
the
case,
but
they
all
have
antiquated
secondary
plans
or
lack
thereof,
so
they
are
going
to
be
impacted
negatively
by
what's
being
proposed
and
I.
Think
generally.
What
my
biggest
concern
here
is
is-
and
this
is
I
know,
ideally
for
me-
we'd
have
some
more
time
to
have
more
discussions
with
staff.
C
I
wish
these
clients
engaged
me
to
have
those
discussions
earlier,
otherwise,
I
would
have,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day,
what
what
we're
not
objecting
to
the
what's?
What's?
What
I
think
is
the
objective
here,
which
is
the
20
meter
separation
from
towers?
What
we're
asking
the
city
to
contemplate
is
instead
of
simply
saying
we're.
C
Gonna
put
this
zoning
down
carte-blanche
all
over
the
place,
and
then
you
come
in
one
at
a
time
and
make
an
argument
that
it's
not
applicable
to
look
at
specific
conditions
in
advance
and
determine
whether
those
situations
might
warrant
a
different
performance
standard
so
that
you're
not
automatically
forcing
somebody
through
this
process.
I'm
not
saying
go
site
specifically
through
the
city.
G
C
Certainly
that,
like
councillor
but
I,
think
and
I've
said
to
this
committee
many
times
that
I'm
an
advocate
for
what
you're
trying
to
achieve
in
unless
borough
that
plan,
for
many
reasons
needs
to
be
redone.
So
you
know
it
doesn't
provide
clarity
for
the
communities,
it
creates
tension.
So
certain
there's
many
examples.
This
19th
Centrepointe
site
is
in
a
secondary
plan
area
that
if
you
read
it,
you
would
shake
your
head.
So
I
know
that
that
needs
to
be
done
and
you
won't
hear
me
object
to
it.
C
But
this
is
a
different
initiative,
because
that's
policy
which
we
can
we
can
work
within
of
our
zoning,
allows
something
that
we
make
best
efforts
to
comply
with
policy
as
we're
going
through
a
site
plan
process.
But
when
you
put
zoning
down,
then
you're
forcing
an
application
process
and
you
may
be
removing
development
rights.
One
of
the
other
things
I
didn't
I
should
have
mentioned
in
response
to
mr.
C
I
know
why
they're
concerned
and
a
why
I
know
why
they're
trying
to
move
this
initiative
forward,
because
those
don't
have
the
same
teeth
as
zoning,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day,
I'm
worried
that
you're
trying
to
kill
a
fly
with
a
mallet,
or
you
know
that
you
get
what
I'm
trying
to
say
like
the
overkill
here
can
be
extreme
and
I.
Think
there's
a
moment
where
we
can
pause
and
look
at
this
more
precisely,
and
maybe
the
Planning
Act
doesn't
allow
the
type
of
controls
in
all
the
cases
that
I'm
objecting
here.
C
But
we
haven't
really
had
that
type
of
discussion.
I've
been
encouraging
Gober
to
come
to
the
table
to
have
that
discussion,
but
they've
been
hesitant
because
there's
been
a
lot
of
background
negotiations
to
roll
PA
150
that
they've
been
working
with
the
city
on,
and
so
they
don't
want
to
be
perceived
as
obstreperous
and
difficult.
So
they
haven't
come
to
the
table
on
this
matter
and
they're.
Basically
asking
each
of
these
landowners
to
take
up
the
fight
on
their
own
and,
to
be
honest,
most
of
them
are
asleep
at
the
switch
relative
to
this.
C
So
you
know
they're
going
to
be
upset
later
and
and
we're
going
to
be
moving
through
these
applications
and,
as
you
talked
about
funding
relative
to
the
department
which,
by
the
way,
I
fully
support
because
lands
team
is
is
overwhelmed.
They're
going
to
get
more
overwhelmed
with
this
initiative
is,
is
also
my
fear.
G
B
G
G
C
If
I
can
just
respond
to
that,
precisely
my
my
concern,
I
can
get
what
your
point
is,
but
my
concern
is
so
now
we're
setting
setbacks
and
the
community
is
going
to
say
on
these
types
of
applications.
We
just
we
just
rezone
this.
We
just
put
this
zoning
bylaw
in
place.
Why
are
they
already
reducing
it
and
why
are
they
going
from
ten
to
zero
or
one,
and
so
the
answer
is
well,
it
shouldn't
have
been
put
down
in
the
first
place
on
this
site
or
that
site
I.
C
Understand
miss
miss
Rudy's,
mentioning
that
were
subject
to
transition
provisions
if
we
just
rezone
it
but
I'm
concerned
about
the
next
sites
that
I'm
going
forward,
for
example
the
surface
site.
So
next
to
a
five-story
newly
built
condo
building,
I,
don't
think
staff
are
gonna.
Ask
me
to
maintain
a
10
metre
setback
from
that,
but
the
community
is
gonna.
Look
at
that
new
zoning
and
say
why?
Wouldn't
you
and
we'd
have
to
explain-
and
the
same
is
true
on
the
other
edge,
and
so
this
is
my
concern.
C
B
L
Wise
madam
chair
I,
just
wanted
to
just
note
for
the
for
the
committee's
just
knowledge
and
again
the
the
tower
separation
applies
to
the
tower
portion.
It
would
not
necessarily
apply
from
the
ground
level
up.
In
fact,
actually
the
podium
section
of
the
tower
would
not
be
subject
to
the
tower
portion
and
that
can
go
up
considerable
distance
before
the
tower
separation
would
in
fact
apply
so
there
there
is
that
distinction
that
I
think
that
needs
to
be
made.
B
It's
not
a
small
distinction,
it's
a
very
largest
sanction,
because
where
do
you
put
that
that,
where
do
you
put
the
tower
on
top
of
the
podium
has
a
dramatic
impact?
Mr.
James
and
his
team
is
working
on
one
right
now
that
we've
had
many
conversations
about
I,
think
it's
also
in
councilor
leapers
area
and
there's
huge
potential
with
that
piece
of
it
too,
but
anyway,
thank
you.
Anyone
have
any
more
questions
for
mr.
Casa
Grande.
B
F
F
My
name
is
Julie
Carrera
I'm,
a
Senior
Planner
at
photon
consultants
and
I'm,
here
with
Mike
Casey
from
Gil
ed
properties.
We
reviewed
the
proposed
high-rise
provisions
on
behalf
of
Gilad
and
we
have
concerns
with
one
property
which
is
up
on
the
screen.
Municipal
address
is
180,
190
Besser,
which
is
on
the
south
side
of
besser
between
Waller
and
Cumberland.
It's
a
very
wide,
but
quite
shallow
property.
F
So
I
can
only
assume
that
the
block
to
the
immediate
east
is
representative
of
what
the
original
block
depth
was
on
that
adjacent
block.
There
are
two
12-story
what
you
would
call
bar
buildings
as
opposed
to
a
podium
tower
building
and
to
the
north
of
the
site.
We
have
several
20
up
to
25
story,
high-rise
developments,
so
the
lot
area
is
almost
twice
what
is
been
proposed
as
a
minimum
required
lot
area
for
a
high-rise
development
on
a
corner
lot
so
well.
Well,
we
meet
that
requirement,
no
problem.
F
The
problem
is
when
you
apply
the
proposed
tower
setbacks,
which
would
be
10
meters
along
the
south
lot
line,
which
is
the
interior
side
10
meters
along
the
west,
which
is
the
rear
lot
line.
So
you're
only
left
with
about
16
point
5
meters
in
from
Bessemer
for
a
tower
footprint,
which
is
quite
shallow
and
would
be
very
challenging
to
achieve
so.
The
current
policy
framework.
It's
the
central
area,
secondary
plan
from
pre
amalgamation.
It
does
speak
to
mid
rise
and
the
existing
zoning
has
a
schedule
that
does
cap
it
below
a
high-rise
development.
F
But
the
current
context
of
this
era
of
the
site,
including
being
within
400
of
the
LRT
station,
having
these
high-rises
to
the
north
and
the
low-rise
to
the
south,
which
makes
it
a
good
transition
property
between
the
higher
and
the
lower
supports,
potentially
potentially
a
high-rise
development
on
this
site
in
the
future.
And
so
if
there
were
to
be
a
future
zoning
bylaw
amendment
application.
If
a
high-rise
was
permitted,
given
the
characteristics
of
the
lot,
a
bar
building
would
probably
be
your
best
bets
because
you
don't
have
much
room
to
do
a
tower.
F
Within
those
setbacks
and
the
council
approved
design
guidelines
for
high-rise
buildings
do
speak
to
allowing
a
bar
building
up
to
12
stories.
However,
the
proposed
zoning
provisions
don't
seem
to
address
spar
buildings
at
all.
It's
probably
because
generally
we're
looking
for
the
podium
tower
development,
but
are
there
are
circumstances
where
it
could
be
the
best
built
forum
to
do
a
bar
building.
F
So,
through
our
letter
to
planning
committee,
we've
requested
that
the
existing
zoning
exception,
which
is
exception,
960,
be
revised
to
contain
a
statement
that
the
proposed
Tower
setbacks,
which
will
be
incorporated
in
a
particular
section
of
the
zoning
bylaw
that
those
setbacks
would
only
apply
above
12
stories.
So
in
the
future,
if
there
was
a
high-rise,
you'd
only
have
to
do
the
podium
tower
concept
above
12
stories.
M
We've
been
the
owners
of
this
piece
of
land
for
a
number
of
years,
and
we
have
tried
working
with
the
University
of
Ottawa
to
create
student
housing,
and
these
latest
proposed
changes
effectively
eliminate
the
development
potential
of
the
site.
It's
it's
tantamount
to
having
a
second
expropriation
and
so
the
the
desire
to
establish.
M
Setbacks
for
towers,
I
acknowledge
is
needed,
but
I
also
acknowledge
that
there
are
unique
areas
that
have
to
be
dealt
with
separately
and
we're
here
today,
because
we
don't
want
to
have
to
come
back
a
second
time,
and
so
we,
why
create
double
the
workload
I've
heard
staff
say
you
know,
show
us
a
design.
So
there's
a
couple
hundred
thousand
dollars
spent
to
achieve
something
that
is
in
a
format
that
they
can
be
happy
with,
with
the
appropriate
studies
and
everything
and
I.
M
B
Thank
you,
I'm,
just
gonna
ask
for
anybody
have
any
questions
for
either
mr.
Casey
or
miss
Carrera.
Did
you
raise
some
really
good
points,
so
I'm
just
going
to
ask
for
a
couple
of
minutes
of
a
little
bit
of
a
break?
Okay,
don't
go
anywhere!
Thank
you.
You
can
go
back
and
take
your
seats.
Thank
you.
Just
hang
on
everybody.
This
stands
on
a
little
bit
of
a
mission.
B
B
B
Okay,
so
I
have
that
bit
of
information
I
just
you
know.
We
were
good
examples
that
we've
had
from
the
from
the
delegations,
and
you
know,
miss
neden
being
the
director
of
a
different
part
of
planning
compared
to
mr.
her
wire
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
her
team
was
on.
You
know
had
listened
to
the
delegations
as
well
and
were
comfortable
and
miss.
Nothing
did
you
want
to
say
anything.
B
B
L
L
B
L
Think
the
I
think
the
thing
that
we
have
to
recall
about
this
particular
site
is
that
it
is
currently
zoned
for
8
storeys
in
height
and
8
storeys
in
height
24-point.
Thank
you.
Twenty
four
point.
One
meters
in
height,
is
what
its
current
zoning
allows.
Also,
the
secondary
plan
is
well
to
unforce
for
this
area
as
well
to
also
contemplates
mid
rise
as
well
to
so
from
staffs
perspective,
the
applicant
would
need
to
come
in
for
both
applications,
zoning
and
official
plan.
Part
of
the
challenge
with
that
is
again.
We
understand
the
site
is
narrow.
L
It
does
have
constraints
on
it
and
again,
that
is
part
of
the
nature
when
you
have
a
site.
That
is
a
more
challenging
like
that.
We
really
do
need
to
have
that
discussion
as
to
what
is
appropriate
on
that
site
again,
because
the
secondary
plan
also
contemplates
mid
rice
on
this.
The
discussion
about
whether
a
high-rise
is
appropriate
on
it
is
something
that
needs
to
be
had,
and
then
that's
the
discussion
about
what
setbacks
might
be
appropriate.
That's
a
more
from
staffs
perspective.
Opportune
discussion
to
have
those
dealings.
B
N
I
think
David
has
speak
to
to
what
the
key
point
is
and
the
fact
that
there
is
an
applicant
if
a
proposal
for
high-rise
development
tube
is
proposed
on
the
site
that
there
will
be
applique
to
occur
and
it
will
set
it
to
the
urban
design
review
and
the
supplying
control
and
the
zoning
and
all
sorts
of
things.
So
the
process
will
occur
anyways.
N
B
About
the
comment
that
we've
heard
too
about
I
think
mr.
mr.
Fulton
mr.
Casa
Grande
brought
up
about
you
know
where
we
know
that
there's
heritage
buildings
that
aren't
garland-
that
are
it's
inflexible
to
change
in
that,
as
is
or
does
this
cause
some
kind
of
sterilization
of
the
property
at
a
time
when
we're
you
know
we're
revisiting
mr.
Foote,
mr.
B
foo
is
revisiting
our
population
future
growth,
where
it
can
go
what
we
have
available
this
one
would
be
I,
think
proximity
to
to
Rideau
station
proximity
to
Ottawa
you
right,
I
mean
it's
in
the
heart
of
everything.
Really
in
fact,
right
in
you
know
two
stations.
Actually,
so
what
about
those
kind
of
challenges
they're
talking
about
and
is
it?
Is
it
going
to
mean
that
they're
going
to
like?
Oh
here's,
another
question
too?
B
If
they
can
go
eight
stories,
could
they
legitimately
call
the
eight
stories
a
podium
and
come
back
and
ask
for
a
tower
of
some
kind
on
top
of
it?
That
would
better
meet
because
an
eight
stories
is
not
high
building
and
it's
what
it's
allowed
now
so,
presumably,
even
if
he
was
to
build
now,
he
would
be
he
could
mass
out
on
the
problem
on
that
narrow
property.
Who
wants
to
answer
that
Carol
I.
K
Mean
if
you
just
if
he
wanted
to
do
that,
he
could
write
tomorrow.
He
could
apply
for
site
plan
control
for
that,
but
I
think
practice.
Speaking
from
a
construction
perspective,
maybe
it
might
be
a
little
more
complicated,
I,
don't
know.
I
would
like
to
say
that
in
context
like
heritage
and
adjacent
to
an
o1
zone
such
as
a
park,
they're
still
allowed
to
go
straight
out
nine
stories.
K
According
to
the
setbacks
for
that
zone
and
in
the
case
of
mixed-use
downtown,
they
can
go
straight
up.
Nine
stories,
zero
lot
line
and
then
take
the
set
back
in
and
in
other
zones,
they're
just
subject
to
the
setbacks
for
side
lot
line
and
rear
lot
line
for
their
podium,
and
they
can
go
straight
up
nine
stories
that
ten
metre
setback
only
applies
to
the
tower
portion.
So
the
provisions
are
very
flexible
and
do
allow
quite
a
hight
podium.
H
L
Madame,
chair
that
the
preservation
of
views
is
always
a
difficult
conversation
with
people.
Who've
enjoyed
a
write,
what
they
feel
to
be
a
right.
They
perceived
right
for
quite
a
long
time,
and
that
is
something
that
we
wrestle
with.
With
respect
to
low
lies,
infill
mid
rise
high-rise
all
of
those
things,
and
that
is
something
that
really
is
best
left
to
that
site-specific
design
discussion.
There
are
mister
Casagrande
made
the
point
that,
from
his
perspective,
the
zoning
was
very
much
a
hammer
coming
down
and
with
that
I
would
agree.
H
To
pass
that
on,
because
I'm
getting
asked
that
question
a
lot
already,
so
I
thought
this
was
a
best
opportunity
to
do
that,
so
that
it
can
be,
you
know,
put
into
consideration.
My
other
question
is
about
climate
change.
Lens
was
that
taken
into
consideration
with
these
updates?
I
hope
that
that,
that's
still,
you
know
that's
a
factor
when
we
do
anything
in
terms
of
planning.
N
So
it's
not
a
director,
but
there
is
indirect
implications
on
it
and
that
the
other
part
of
this
as
a
Carroll
and
at
the
davida
pointed
out
that
the
the
idea
of
having
a
sort
of
minimal
separations
is
to
make
the
public
aromas
more
enjoyable,
for
people
to
walk
and
to
for
business
to
thrive.
And
by
doing
so
again
we
support
our
general
objectives,
an
official
plan
and-
and-
and
certainly
this
will
help
you
the
concerns
about
climate
change
as
well.
But
it's
not
a
direct,
but
it's
indirect
contribution
towards
addressing
climate
change.
Ya.
H
N
Madam
chair
councillor,
exactly
so,
for
example,
if
we
were
to
grow
Street
trees
in
an
inner
street
and
the
certainly
you
would
have
wanted
to
have
light
in
the
streets
and
without
the
light
the
trees
cancer
can
can
be
very
difficult
to
survive.
So
in
high-rise,
the
environment
when
there
is
a
cluster
of
a
high-rise
building,
so
you
wanted
the
streets
to
receive
a
minimum
light
and
so
that
the
street
sees
cancer
can
thrive.
So
this
is
multifaceted
kind
of
benefits
for
offering
minimum
separation
between
the
towers,
and
so
yes,
it's
a
physical.
N
It's
a
microclimate,
it's
the
experience
of
the
pedestrians,
and
it
is
also
the
fact
that
people
we
want
to
encourage
people
to
to
live
there
and
in
the
long
term,
rather
than
being
short
term
tenants
of
the
high-rise
building.
I
think
all
of
these
kind
of
things
has
been
taken
into
consideration
and
being
to
make
the
high-rise
a
little
more
attractive
and
to
to
people
and
to
support
our
objectives
of
addressing
climate
change
official
plans.
You
know
with
respect
to
intensification
and
the
transit,
oriented
development
and
so
on.
Thank.
B
N
Is
in
the
design
guideline,
but
it
is
not
in
a
zoning
bylaw
zoning
bylaw
speaks
to
minimal
standards,
and
the
design
guideline
has
a
lot
of
more
meat
in
it.
And
yes,
there's
a
through
the
application
process.
We
do
negotiate
we're
always
asking
questions
such
as
sustainable
features
being
included
and
those
kind
of
things,
and
so
that's
what
the
process
is
for
is
to
say
you
know.
Under
the
circumstances,
we
want
to
encourage
the
sustainable
features
to
be
included.
Okay,.
B
You
councillor
Kavanagh,
anybody
else
have
any
questions,
no
we're
good.
Okay.
So
thank
you
for
the
to
the
delegations
that
came
out
today
and
on
the
item
of
zoning
provisions
for
high-rise
buildings,
an
amendment
to
correct
an
anomaly
in
the
GM
general
mixed
use
zone
concerning
high-rise
buildings
is
that
carried,
carry
and
I
want
to
thank
staff
very
much
for
all
the
work.
You've
done.
I
think
this
story
isn't
totally
written
yet
and
I
think
that
we'll
learn
from
it,
but
I
think
that
there's
you
know
their
directions,
my
their
directions.