►
From YouTube: Planning Committee – October 11, 2016
Description
Planning Committee meeting – October 11, 2016 – Audio Stream
Agenda and background materials can be found at http://www.ottawa.ca/agendas.
A
A
This
is
a
public
meeting
to
consider
the
proposed
comprehensive
official
plan
and
zoning
bylaw
amendments
listed
as
items
1
to
5
on
today's
agenda
for
the
items
listed
above,
only
those
who
make
all
submissions
today
or
written
submissions
before
the
amendments
are
adopted
may
appeal
the
matter
to
the
entero
Municipal
Board.
In
addition,
the
applicant
may
appeal
the
matter
to
the
interior.
A
A
Okay.
Our
first
item
is
the
Official
Plan
zoning
and
related
bylaw
amendments
for
second
dwelling
units
and
accessory
buildings.
Coach
houses
is
what
we're
calling
them
and
we
have
a
presentation-
and
we
have
speakers
on
that
item
this.
The
second
is
permitted
building
heights
for
accessory
buildings
and
staff.
We're
going
to
cover
this
during
the
coach-house,
because
the
two
are
related
I.
A
A
Well,
there
you
are,
do
you
need
to
speak
if
we're
prepared
to
carry
this
okay,
and
just
so,
you
know,
I've
ice
chair
attorneys,
going
to
move
a
motion
to
to
bump
this
to
Council
tomorrow,
it's
very
minor
and
it's
for
the
French
public
school
in
which
will
be
a
JK
to
grade
12
in
bar
Haven.
Anybody
you
want
to
hold
this
item
carry
and
the
motion.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
whereas
it
recommends
zoning
bylaw
amendment
four
thousand
five
strand
her
drive
permit
a
school
where,
as
a
report
is
scheduled,
be
considered
by
Council
on
October
20
26
2016,
where,
as
an
effort
to
expedite
the
construction
of
the
french
public
french
public
school,
the
application
consent
to
serve
the
school
block
from
the
remainder
of
the
subdivision.
Lands,
which
was
approved
at
committee
of
adjustment
on
september,
7,
2016
and
whereas
proposed
institutional
use
is
consistent
with
both
official
plan
and
the
south
Nepean
secondary
plan
and
recommending
this.
B
Only
amendment
is
minor
in
nature
that
the
amendment
is
necessary
to
secure
the
permits
and
approvals
and
prompt
consideration
of
the
report
will
mitigate
the
risk
of
delay
for
the
timeline
of
the
project.
Be
it
resolved
that
the
report
proceed
to
City
Council
on
October,
12
2016
for
consideration
and
further
be
resolved
that
there
would
be
no
further
this
pursuant
to
section
34
17
of
the
Planning
Act.
B
A
Ideas
and
and
and
plans
that,
as
we
went
along
the
way
so
just
an
opportunity
to
show
that
valuing
the
land
is
saving
the
land
and
using
it
more
efficiently.
So
thank
you,
sue,
okay,
so
back
to
the
first
item
and
I
just
like
to
also
say
that
we
do
have.
As
you
know,
last
week
there
was
some
announcements
on
some
changes,
and
one
of
the
changes
that
that
has
happened
is
that
melody
and
I
are
not
the
only
females
up
here
anymore.
A
A
So
before
us
today,
we
have
on
coach
houses,
the
official
plan,
zoning
and
related
bylaw
amendments.
Second,
dwelling
units
and
net
accessory
accessory
buildings.
We
have
mr.
Schmitt,
who
continues
on
in
a
different
role,
but
just
kill
keeps
to
keep
all
the
other
work
you
did
and
it
just
adds
more
to
it
and
and
when
Omega
lists
and
Elana
is
actually
in
the
new
role
to
but-
and
it
won't
be
this
anymore,
no.
A
D
You,
madam
chair,
so
this
report
is
before
you
it's
as
a
result
of
a
direction
that
has
been
established
by
the
province
to
allow
for
secondary
dwelling
units
within
existing
buildings
in
to
also
allow
for
secondary
dwelling
units
within
accessory
buildings
for
residential
properties
and
we've
termed
this
as
Coach
houses.
So
we
have
implemented
the
ability
to
establish
secondary
dwelling
units
within
existing
buildings
a
couple
of
years
ago
and
we're
now
coming
forward
to
respond
to
the
second
component
of
the
provinces
requirement
for
secondary
dwelling
units
in
accessory
buildings.
D
The
important
thing
to
know
is
accessory.
Buildings
are
permitted
on
residential
properties,
lower
density,
residential
properties
throughout
the
entire
city.
We've
been
trying
to
ensure
that
the
provisions
dealing
with
Coach
houses
are
consistent
with
the
provisions
associated
with
secondary
or
with
accessory
buildings.
So,
in
effect,
the
only
real
change
that's
happening
here
is
rather
than
having
an
accessory
building
that
sits
there
for
storage
or
other
types
of
activity
that
will
allow
somebody
to
live
in
that
building
and
then
there's
also.
D
Some
additional
modifications
have
been
made
to
ensure
greater
compatibility,
particularly
with
respect
to
building
height
enough
flows
into
the
secondary
port.
That's
before
you,
which
is
a
reduction
in
building
heights
for
accessory
buildings
generally
within
the
city.
So
with
that,
madam
chair
I'm,
going
to
turn
it
over
to
mr.
Mormon,
who
will
walk
through
sort
of
a
high-level
overview
of
the
details
around
it.
But
before
doing
that,
I
just
like
to
also
point
out
that
this
is
being
permitted
throughout
the
entire
city.
D
D
E
You
Matt
Chuck,
so,
whereas
mr.
Smith,
here's
the
second
one
units
in
okay
good
so
as
Smith
said
this
direction
from
the
province
to
allow
second
unit.
In
addition
with
low
density
housing
forms,
we
already
allow
the
second
are
doing,
and
it's
in
the
main
building.
This
is
now
to
allow
them
in
an
accessory
building
as
well
or
in
different
cases,
the
goal
being
to
promote
opportunities
for
general
intensification
and
affordable
housing
options
in
low
density,
residential
areas
so
citywide.
E
The
proposal
would
permit
coach
houses
and
association
with
low
density,
housing
forms
detached
semi-detached
duplex
or,
in
some
cases,
townhouse
dwelling
units
that
would
be
citywide
except
for
a
market
park.
We
permit
either
a
coach
house
or
dwelling
second
secretary
dwelling
unit
on
a
given
lot,
but
not
both
one
or
the
other
one
on
both
a
very
important
provisions.
The
coach
has
would
not
be
allowed
to
be
severed
from
the
main
property
would
have
to
remain
accessory
to
the
main
dwelling.
E
It
would
have
to
be
located
in
the
rear
yard,
except
in
cases
where
they're
converting
an
existing
accessory
building.
Then
there's
some
limitations
on
what
you
can
do
with
that
accessory
building.
Under
those
circumstances,
the
size
of
the
coach
houses
would
be
limited
to
the
lesser
of
forty
percent
of
the
main
dwellings
footprint
or
forty
percent
of
the
yard
area
in
which
it's
located.
E
E
That
would
not
be
subject
to
sight,
blind
control
and
the
maximum
light
would
be
one
story
in
the
urban
area,
that
is
to
say
the
3.6
meters
overall,
with
the
maximum
height
of
the
outer
walls
being
3.2
meters,
that's
to
allow
peaked
roofs
a
little
bit
extra
height
there,
and
there
are
amendments
to
some
related
by
laws
and
policies,
as
an
official
plan
amendment
that,
basically
it's
a
policy
to
permit
coach
houses.
It
gives
some
very
specific
criteria
for
the
consideration
of
variances
and
there
are
some
changes
to
development
charges
by
law.
E
That
would
establish
that
the
coach
houses
are
subject
to
the
public
transit
component
of
development
charges,
but
not
to
the
other
other
components.
Psyphon
controlled
by
law
would
exempt
the
coach
houses
from
site
flying
control,
except
when
they're
on
private,
well,
and/or
septic,
so
essentially
in
the
rural
area,
whether
not
serviced
and
then
for
parkland
dedication
by
law.
E
The
coach
houses
would
be
exempt
from
parkland
dedication
or
cash
in
lieu,
so
that's
a
basket
of
changes
that
are
before
you
I
hear
just
a
couple
of
illustrations
that
we
use
during
the
consultations
that
so
to
give
an
idea
of
how
these
things
could
work.
The
main
takeaway
from
these
images
here
is
that
you
know
there
are
a
lot
of
fairly
close
to
the
lot
line
if
they
are
closer
than
four
meters
a
lot
line.
E
The
expectation
is
that
there
will
be
windows
and
doors
will
be
facing
away
from
those
long
lines
and
there's
a
limit
to
the
footprint
of
the
of
Coach
as
permitted.
You
sort
of
see
have
a
workout
through
these
illustrations.
There's
an
illustration
of
the
rural
area.
It
was
a
slightly
different,
slightly
different
arrangement,
the
same
general
principles.
D
F
E
There
is
no
requirement
for
parking
for
for
Coach
houses,
as
there
currently
is
not
for
the
secretary
going
yet
so
we're
maintaining
that
principle.
The
idea
is
that
having
a
coach
house
that
doesn't
also
does
not
imply
or
grant
any
further
rights
to
paving
more
of
the
lawn
or
allowing
more
driveway
entrances.
F
F
D
Granny
flats,
yes,
there's
different
terminologies
that
are
used
for
these
things,
but
basically,
in
the
context
of
our
zoning,
bylaw,
there's
essentially
three
types
of
these
additional
dwellings
that
can
be
accommodated
on
low-density
residential
properties.
One
is
I
forgot
what
the
terminology
is
now
it's
the
Garden
Suites
Garden
Suites.
They
are
only
allowed
to
be
established
through
a
temporary
rezoning
process.
That's
actually
spelled
out
in
the
legislation.
That's
for
a
three-year
period.
The
other
one
is
a
secondary
dwelling
units
with
it
makes
it.
F
D
Secondary
dwelling
unit
is
a
dwelling
unit
with
an
existing
principal
residential
dwelling.
A
garden
suite
is
a
temporarily
used
residential
building
that
would
be
located
within
the
rear
yard
of
a
property
which
has
to
go
through
its
own
process
on
a
temporary
rezoning
and
a
coach
house
is
a
dwelling
unit
within
an
accessory
building
on
a
residential
use
property.
D
So
there's
a
three
components
to
the
two
of
them
are
required
by
the
province
to
be
permitted
within
official
plans
for
municipalities
throughout
the
entire
province,
and
then,
as
I
mentioned,
the
garden
suites
are
specifically
identified
on
the
Planning
Act
under
another
piece
of
process
required
to
be
gone
first.
So
the.
F
D
D
Again,
that's
very
much
dependent
on
who
the
tenants
are
and
whether
or
not
they
have
vehicles
if
they
have
vehicles.
Potentially,
that
could
be
the
result,
but
again
we're
talking
one
dwelling
unit
that
would
be
allowed
either
as
a
secondary
dwelling
unit
within
the
building
existing
residential
building
or
within
a
coach
house.
You
can't
have
both
okay.
D
There
may
be
an
additional
demand
about.
The
expectation
is
because
all
of
these
dwelling
units,
for
the
most
part,
also
are
serviced
by
existing
driveways
that
you
could
in
the
fact
could
in
effect,
allow
for
or
have
tandem
parking
occurring,
which
you
see
happening
throughout
the
residential
areas
today.
So
there
will
be
one
additional
dwelling
unit
that
would
be
allowed.
The
anticipation.
D
No
parking
requirement-
and
this
is
basically
saying
you-
can
either
have
it
in
the
existing
house
or
you
can
have
it
in
an
accessory
building.
You
can't
have
both
one
or
the
other
and
in
either
one
of
those
circumstances,
there's
no
parking
required.
So
if
there's
a
tenant
or
a
resident
with
parking,
they
would
have
to
make
arrangements
to
either
accommodate
the
additional
vehicle
in
the
driveway
or
alternative
arrangements,
or
the
unit
could
be
rented
out
to
somebody
or
other
car.
All.
D
B
E
B
E
B
E
An
interesting
question,
as
it
happens,
I
was
I
was
looking
the
building
code
or
the
size
of
apartments
I
believe
you
can
get
a
one-bedroom
apartment
into
a
space
that
is
on
the
order
of
35
square
meters.
There
are,
of
course,
minimum
sizes
of
rooms
that
are
required
for
for
a
master
bedroom
living
area
kitchen.
Does
you
come
to
add
it
up,
but
theoretically.
B
B
H
B
A
How
big
is
an
issue?
How
big
is
the
possibility
here?
Really
I,
don't
know
you
don't
know,
and
we
have,
and
but
I
do
know,
that
we
have
six
speakers
and
that's
aside
from
the
counselors,
so
okay,
but
that
is
really
I
mean
if
you
think
about
in
your
own
communities.
We
were
talking
about
this
Vice
Chair
tyranny
and
night
earlier
I
happen
to
have
two
of
my
daughters
live
in
bar
Haven.
A
Both
of
their
houses
would
allow
because
their
Lots
are
no
size,
but
if
you
don't
have
I
mean,
if
you
think
about
in
some
of
the
older
communities
where
the
lot
is
very,
very
small,
how
would
that
work
out?
Is
it
even
feasible,
so
I
mean
I?
Think
we
have
to
remember
that
we're
doing
this
because
the
province
said
we
must
yep.
Do
it
we're
one
of
the
first
of
Ontario
and.
B
E
They
are
not
explicitly
prevented
from
having
basements
in
an
earlier
version
of
the
of
the
the
proposals
that
we've
consulted
on
earlier
on.
In
the
year
we
considered
having
the
possibility
of
having
a
greater
height
permitted
where
there
is
a
basement
or
since
backed
off
on
that,
so
the
height
that
you
are
limited
to
here,
essentially
3.2
meters
at
the
outer
walls
of
the
building.
It's
it
doesn't
particularly
enable
a
basement.
It
certainly
makes
it
difficult
to
do
a
habitable
basement.
B
E
A
J
You
I'm
Adam
Sharon
good
morning
to
everyone,
just
as
a
preamble,
the
Carlington
Community
Association.
One
of
the
associations
in
my
ward
has
followed
this
issue
closely
and
they
provided
comments
as
part
of
the
public
process.
They
do
believe
that
coach
houses
will
be
a
way
of
increasing
the
density
in
the
neighborhood
without
the
downside
of
losing
the
existing
streetscape
and
charm
of
the
neighborhood
to
the
increasing
infill
construction.
What
they
point
out
and
what's
unique
to
Carlington
are
veterans
homes,
which
are
small
homes
that
were
built
at
around
the
Second
World
War.
J
Some
of
the
houses
are
quite
small
that
welcome
the
concept
of
Coach
houses,
but
if
we
cap
the
size,
an
area
that
a
coach
house
can
be
you're,
gonna
have
a
relatively
small
dwelling,
and
this
is
sort
of
piggybacking
on
to
councillor
coochies
question.
I
would
assume,
because
your
recommendation
is
the
way
it
is,
that
you've
considered
that
you're
not
bringing
forth
any
type
of
additional
recommendation,
which
has
identified
particular
communities
where
dwellings
are
the
size
like
Carlington,
where
you
would
make
an
exception.
So
have
you
deliberated
on
this
I?
J
D
Madam
chair,
we
didn't
get
into
the
nuances
of
the
different
neighborhoods.
This
was
really
more
focused
on
what
is
reasonable
in
terms
of
a
coach
house
with
respect
to
its
size,
to
ensure
that
it
remains
secondary
to
the
principal
dwelling.
I
know
the
Carlington
area
and
I
know
that
we
do
have
many
situations
where
we
have
the
smaller
veterans,
housing
I
know,
there's
been
some
redevelopment,
that's
been
happening
in
there
as
well.
D
It
is
a
different
situation
and
clearly
that's
one
of
the
reasons
why
we
do
have
a
committee
of
adjustment
is
to
allow
for
those
different
situations
that
may
arise
within
specific
portions
of
the
city
and
in
the
case
of
a
situation
such
as
you're,
describing
where
you
might
have
a
very
small
veteran's
house
and
the
opportunity
for
a
coach
house.
There
is
the
ability
to
seek
variances
to
allow
something
that
would
be
more
reasonable
in
the
context
of
of
that
particular
property
in
that
different
contacts
or
that
situation.
Elana.
C
It's
further
to
what
mr.
Schmitt
has
indicated.
We
did
take
the
feedback
of
the
Carlington
Community
Association
into
account
when
preparing
the
the
details
of
recommended
zoning,
and
you
will
that
we
have
introduced
a
provision
that
says
that
if
your
house
is
smaller
than
a
certain
threshold,
then
you
would
be
permitted
a
coach
house
of
50
square
meters.
So
we
basically
added
up
the
size
of
houses
at
which
you
would
end
up
with
something
workable
and
in
the
case
of
those
small
houses.
K
C
C
D
Is
no
timeline
that
was
actually
set
out
in
the
legislation.
It
just
was
a
requirement
that
municipalities
allow
for
these
within
their
official
plans
and
so
we're
responding
to
that
direction.
We've
responded
to
the
initial
component
of
the
secondary
dwelling
units
and
now
we're
finishing
up
the
process,
but
there
was
no
set
timeline
unless
mr.
mark
knows
of
something
that
I
might
not
know
of.
B
Madam
chair,
there
is
no
set
deadline,
but
I
would
note
that
bill
7
has
been
introduced
before
the
legislature
and
when
that
bill
is
passed,
the
province
will
have
appeal
rights
against
Coach
House
by
law.
So
if
it
were
not
satisfied
with
what
the
city
did
right
now,
it
can't
appeal,
but
when
bill
7
is
an
act
and
gets
all
of
a
cent.
If
it's
unchanged,
the
province
will
have
a
right
to
appeal.
Okay,.
K
The
committee
of
adjustments,
the
potential
for
variance
at
the
committee
of
adjustment,
is
creating
nests
and
concern
in
the
community,
the
non-separable,
'ti,
the
size
of
them,
etc,
etc.
How
do
we
expect
the
see
of
a
to
treat?
What
kind
of
flexibility
do
they
have
to
vary
from
the
rules
that
we
set
down.
C
Madam
chair
in
the
Official
Plan
amendment
that
accompanies
this
package,
we've
provided
direction
to
the
committee
of
adjustment
who,
as
you
know,
when
considering
requests
for
variances,
have
to
consider
four
tests,
one
being
whether
a
variances
in
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
Official
Plan
and
then
is
it
in
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
zoning
bylaw.
So,
with
respect
to
the
Official
Plan,
we've
provided
very
clear
direction
in
the
policy
on
what
the
actual
meaning
of
the
policy
is,
what
we
mean
by
subsidiary
and
minor,
and
you
know
smaller
than
the
main
house.
C
K
E
Madam
chair,
there
are
a
number
of
provisions
that
we
put
in
that
policy.
One
of
them
was
actually
to
say
that
a
coach
house
is
in
no
case
supposed
to
be
bigger
than
a
than
a
typical
two-bedroom
apartment.
So
there
was
that
there
was
ensuring
that
if
there
were
variances
sought
for
height
that
the
privacy
of
the
neighbors,
for
example,
is
a
paramount
concern.
The
Technic,
mature
trees
is
a
paramount
concern.
E
So
in
thinking
about
this
policy
and
thinking
about
all
the
various
ways
that
someone
might
seek
a
variance
that
may
take
advantage
of
ambiguity
to
get
an
outcome
that
may
not
have
been
intended.
We
put
particular
attention
to
make
sure
that
the
intent
is
crystal
clear
in
these
in
these
respects
in
the
Official
Plan
amendment.
So
there
can
be
no
mistake
before
the
committee
of
adjustment
I.
K
Understand
the
reason
why
we
are
foregoing
certain
DC's,
especially
the
the
DC's
associated
with
road
building,
but
there
are
other
DC's
that
we
are
foregoing
and
there
are
other
than
the
transit
which
we're
going
to
collect
for
going
cash
in
the
parkland
revenues.
We
are
hopeful
that
these
will
be
affordable
housing
units,
and
so
we
don't
want
to
put
that
burden
on
the
the
Builder
to
have
to
pass
those
costs
through.
Can
you
give
me
a
notion
of
typically
how
much
we
might
be
foregoing,
especially
in
cash
in
Lib,
as
these
move
forward.
D
Madam
chair
D
cash,
Lea
parking
by
law
or
parkland
by
law,
rather
ties
the
collection
of
cash
elude
through
a
planning
application.
So
today,
if
there's
no
planning
application
required
for
proposed
development,
and
that
would
apply
basically
to
one
in
two
unit
buildings
on
existing
Lots,
you
wouldn't
be
collecting
cash
in
lieu
of
parkland
for
those
today
as
it
stands,
this
is
really
maintaining
that
same
principle.
There's
no
planning
application
that
kicks
in
and
therefore
there
is
no
means
by
which
we
could
even
look
to
collect
cash.
D
So
at
this
point
in
time,
we
think
it's
still
important
that
they
be
that
the
transit
component
be
picked
up
to
support
the
investment
that's
being
made
in
transit
for
the
other
components
of
the
DC.
We're
suggesting
not
apply
and
should
bill
205
move
forward
as
it's
been
tabled
in
the
legislature,
we'd
have
to
amend
and
there
we
know
DC's
applicable
to
coach
houses.
Okay,
my.
K
Final
question
before
before
get
into
delegations
the
have
you
done
any
research
in
jurisdictions
where
this
type
of
housing
is
allowed
to
see
what
the
take-up
has
been
in
those
jurisdictions
where
you
can
have
a
built
form
like
this?
Are
they
popular
do
a
lot
get
built?
What
has
been
the
market
reaction
to
them?.
C
Madam
chair,
we
did
do
some
research
throughout
Canada.
This
is
mostly
seen
in
British,
Columbia
and
British.
Columbia
has
a
very
different
housing
market
and
very
different
pricing
structure
than
we
do
here.
I
think
there's
also
a
few
limited
experiments
in
the
United
States,
where
again
they're
looking
for
opportunities
in
areas
with
very
strict
zoning
that
prevents
secondary
guang
units.
All
this
to
say
that
I
think
the
take
up
on
something
like
this
is
really
very
market
dependent
in
our
particular
case.
C
The
history
that
we
have
has
to
do
with
basement
apartments,
secondary
dwellings
within
existing
houses,
and
we
get
between
80
and
120
permits
per
year.
Citywide
for
those
those
typically
are
less
expensive
propositions
for
a
property
owner,
because
it's
just
a
matter
of
refitting
an
existing
building.
We're
not
sure
that
we're
gonna
have
quite
as
high
a
take
up,
because
a
coach
house
is
completely
new
construction.
It's
substantially
more
expensive,
it
has
to
be
serviced
through
the
main
house.
C
We've
had
quite
a
bit
of
expression
of
interest
from
people
who
are
considering,
and
then
this
moves
on
to
each
property
owner
determining
what
their
particular
circumstances
are
and
what
they
can
afford
and
what
they
want
to
put
where
you
know
how
you
know
how
basic
or
how
fancy
do
you
want
to
make
it?
Those
things
are
all
variables
that
I
guess
we'll
have
to
follow
us,
as
this
rolls
out.
Okay,
thanks.
A
Have
a
question:
what's
the
report
called
that
we
dealt
with
in
this
term
with
regard
that
caused
a
lot
of
angst
and
AltaVista
with
the
corner,
lots
and
the
size
of
those
currents?
What
was
that
report
that
wasn't
shown
to
you,
madam
chair
and
I,
thought
it
was
infill
so
can
since
then
we
had
committed
that
we
would
update
committee,
and
we
will
next
year,
I
presume
on
what
that
look
has
looked
like.
Have
we
seen
any
significant
uptake
in
the
opportunity
that
was
provided
for
those
corner,
Lots
subject.
C
A
I
think
that
think
that
remember
that,
okay,
as
we
try
to
nickel
down
on
the
cash
in
lieu
of
park,
lands
or
things
like
that
that
how
much
money
we're
going
to
be
setting
aside
the
purpose,
the
provinces
purpose
was
to
find
another
tool
for
affordable
housing
and
I.
Think
that,
given
the
restrictions
on
the
height
and
the
amount
of
the
property,
etc,
that
I
I
don't
think
we
should
be
waving
flags
that
this
is
going
to
generate
a
ton,
especially
when
we
have
a
couple
of
circumstances
recently
that
didn't.
A
A
G
L
Thanks
Aaron,
okay,
now
let
me
say
at
the
outset
that
FCA
does
not
have
a
problem
per
se
with
the
idea
of
coach
houses.
We
are
extremely
interested
in
creating
affordable
housing.
We
know
that
is
a
big
issue.
The
concern
that
we
have
is
that
this
proposed
bylaw
is
not
appropriately
integrated
with
the
other
management
plans,
the
City
of
Ottawa.
It
does
not
consider
community
character,
as
in
in
terms
of
where
the
coach
houses
may
be
located
it.
It's
really
premature
to
do
something
like
this.
L
L
We
asked
that
this
be
put
on
hold
until
full
and
open
consultation
was
undertaken,
and
these
issues
responded
to
between
June
16th
and
22nd
p.m.
PG
MD
published
a
set
of
documents
on
the
web
and
provided
a
detailed
list
of
proposed
by
law
provisions.
There
was
a
cutoff
for
comments,
July
22nd,
we
were,
we
made
significant
number
of
comments
we
sent
in
a
22
page
report.
We
anticipated
that
we
would
be
beginning
discussion
at
that
point
because,
prior
to
this,
we
had
just
been
dealing
with
concepts
and
and
more
more
fuzzy
stuff.
L
This
way
we
had
something
we
could
actually
look
at
and
we
could
comment
on.
We
were
expecting
that
consultation.
It
did
not
take
place.
The
next
thing
we
knew
this
was
scheduled
for
today
and
we
didn't
have
any
information
on
it.
We
finally
got
the
documents
on
the
26th
and
even
then
we
were
missing
two
key
documents.
L
The
bylaw
continues
to
reflect
the
concept
that
urban
lots
are
blank
spaces
to
be
filled,
that
they
are
Islands
unconnected
to
other
properties
and
the
broader
community.
It
does
not
promote
environmentally
sustainable
development
in
the
urban
area.
Mature
trees
tend
to
be
located
in
rear
yards
close
to
the
perimeters
of
properties
requiring
Coach
hoses
to
be
welcome.
One
meter
from
the
property
line
will
threaten
existing
trees
and
plantings
on
a
budding
properties.
L
I
did
bring
a
just
a
google
maps
photograph
or-
and
basically
you
can
look
at
the
aerial
photograph
of
this
community,
and
you
will
see
that
the
large
trees
these
trees,
a
lot
of
them
over
a
hundred
years
old,
are
slow,
kated
at
the
rear
yards
in
right
next
to
the
property
line.
A
coach
house,
unlike
a
fence,
will
take
up
significant
amount
of
room.
If
my
neighbor,
for
instance,
decided
in
the
backyard
decides
to
build
one,
then
they
take
up
significant
amount
of
space
that
is
going
to
destroy
tree
roots.
L
It's
going
to
destroy
permeable
surfaces.
We
will
end
up
with
potentially
losing
a
lot
of
these
big
trees.
Just
to
this
and
I
note
that
Ottawa
published
in
2007
getting
greener
on
the
path
to
sustainability.
There
is
so
much
good
stuff
in
here
that
we're
not
yet
doing,
and
that's
like
nine
years
later
so
we
are.
We
feel
that
bylaws
should
not
be
drafted
such
that
they
can
cause
damage
to
neighboring
properties.
L
We
were
concerned
about
exemptions
from
height
and
setback
provisions
for
accessory
structures
that
existed
on
September,
14th,
2015
I,
don't
quite
understand
why
they
would
not
have
to
come
into
compliance
with
the
new
rules,
as
opposed
to
being
allowed
to
deviate
from
the
new
rules.
The
FCA
contends
that
work
remains
to
create
a
coach
hose
by
law
which
appropriately
meets
the
intended
goal
of
providing
affordable
housing
without
creating
unintended
negative
consequences.
It
must
be
based
on
principles
that
promote
sustainability,
protect
urban
egos,
human
health
and
community
character.
L
A
Your
pastime,
okay
and
I,
just
quite
a
bit
pastime.
Oh
sorry,
just
a
minute:
okay
I
just
want
it
when
and
we
did
get
a
submission
to
from
Sheila
last
week.
So
a
we
will
I.
Let
you
go
beyond
the
five-minute
site,
which
is
not
you
know
my
normal,
fair
way
of
dealing
with
things
so
and
I
hate
to
interrupt,
but
I
think
that
we
have
some
answers
because
we
heard
earlier
from
staff
about
the
trees
and
this
picture
that
you've
shown
us
there.
Okay
and
then
I
think
councillor
Ali
has
question
two
thank.
C
You,
madam
chair,
the
City
of
Ottawa,
has
a
tree
protection
by
law
that
has
been
I
guess
in
place
for
at
least
a
couple
of
years,
and
through
that
process
we
qualified
distinctive
trees
as
being
the
ones
that
are
the
larger,
older
trees
that
are
simply
the
more
visible
character
defining
elements
of
vegetation
in
a
neighborhood,
and
there
is
a
process
involved
when
dealing
with
those
trees.
Now
the
important
thing
to
remember
is
under
the
Planning
Act,
the
the
package
that
we're
introducing
cannot
cannot
have
an
effect
on
regulating
vegetation.
C
That's
why
we
have
a
separate
tree
by
law
in
cases
where
people
have
a
backyard
with
a
large
tree
and
enough
space.
Obviously
it
stands
to
reason
that,
as
it,
as
is
the
case
with
people
building
sheds
today,
they
would
typically
build
a
shed
where
there
is
no
tree,
because
there's
a
hefty
cost
involved
in
removing
a
tree.
A
So
does
the
protection
then
come
through
applying
for
a
building
permit
because
there
isn't
a
site
plan
in
this
case?
So
how
does
the
protection
for
the
tree
as
we
know,
people
take
trees
down
and
then
it's
too
late
and
we
forced
them
to
plant
something
to
replace
it,
but
it's
never
at
the
size
of
the
tree
that
was
lost.
So
how
do
we
know?
How
do
we
know
that
that
tree,
the
the
trees
are
going
to
be
valued
for
sure
without
in
the
absence
of
a
site
planted?
Will
that
be
triggered
mr.
A
C
Madam
sure,
one
of
the
things
that
we're
doing
and
which
is
not
in
front
of
committee
today
is
this-
is
a
complex
process
to
set
up
a
coach
house
is
a
complex
process.
We
have
a
how-to
guide
that
will
inform
people
and
instruct
people
that,
if
you
have
a
distinctive
tree
on
your
property,
you
need
a
permit
if
you
intend
to
do
something
with
it
other
than
not
touch
it
now.
This
is
not
in
front
of
us,
but
there
are
several
different
things
to
keep
in
mind
with
respect
to
servicing,
with
respect
to
trees.
C
With
respect
to
a
number
of
things,
you
know
fire
alarms
and
that
sort
of
thing
which
are
not
covered
by
zoning
but
are
still
necessary,
and
these
are
part
of
the
instructions
that
we
would
give
to
an
interested
property
owner.
So
it
will
be
their
black-on-white
that
this
is
one
of
the
steps
that
you
need
to
follow
when
you're
planning
your
coach-house
being
that
guide.
By
the
way,
we
will
be
explicit
in
saying
avoid
trees.
F
Thinking
I'm
sure
the
chair
will
remember,
because
she
was
here
too
at
the
time
that
the
tree
protection
bylaw
came
in
under
mayor
bob
le,
and
we
used
to
have
the
slogan
that
if
it's
too
big
to
hug
its
protected,
the
tree
I
mean
not
Bob
and
and
but
it
was
protected
by.
You
can
generate
enforcement
by
a
complaint,
as
well
as
by
a
process
right.
D
Yeah,
the
administration
of
that
component
of
the
tree
protection
bylaw,
was
with
Public
Works
I'm,
not
sure
where
it
resides,
but
it's
not
within
our
department,
but
there
is
a
requirement
under
the
bylaw.
If
you
have
a
distinctive
tree
before
you
can
remove
that
tree,
you
need
to
obtain
a
permit,
and
the
issuance
of
that
permit
will
be
based
on
consideration
of
various
factors
and
you're.
Quite
quite
correct
I
mean
it
is
something
that
is
complaint
driven.
D
If
somebody
sees
something
occurring
on
a
property
that
they
feel
as
a
distinctive
tree,
we
would
go
out
investigate
and
sure
more
than
not
there's
a
problem
and
I
think,
as
mr.
mclees
indicated,
part
of
what
we're
doing
here
with
the
with
the
information
package
that
we
would
make
available
is
highlighting
for
people
that
there
are
these
other
bylaws
that
they
need
to
comply
with,
and
the
distinctive
tree
is
one
of
those
pieces
of
legislation
that
Ottawa
currently
has
okay.
F
L
Actually,
I
have
no
problem
and,
and
the
FCA
has
no
problem-
we
just
feel
that
there
right
now,
it's
very
rigid
about
where
they're
located
and
in
many
of
the
mature
neighbourhoods,
the
trees
on
abutting
properties
will
be
destroyed.
If
the
coach-house
is
put
right
at
the
property
line,
we
already
know
how
poorly
enforced
a
lot
of
these
bylaws
are.
In
my
community
alone,
we've
lost
big
trees
on
abutting
properties
to
developers
who
were
redeveloping
a
property.
We've
we've
had
property
damage
and
we
cannot
get
that
taken
care
of.
L
Legislation
says
that
Coach
hoses
are
supposed
to
be
allowed,
it
doesn't
say
they
should
be
allowed
everywhere.
There
are
places
where
they
are
totally
appropriate
and
there
are
other
places
where
they
are
not.
So
if
you
wish
to
meet
provincial
legislation,
all
you
have
to
do
is
say.
Yes,
we
will
determine
what
conditions,
what
what
communal
it
wouldn't
be.
F
C
C
We've
been
grappling
with
that,
as
we
crafted
our
proposals
today
in
trying
to
make
sure
that
where
we
place
the
building
is
you
know,
according
to
the
Official
Plan
direction
that
we
give
and
according
to
the
guidelines
and
the
the
need
to
comply
with
the
tree,
bylaw
that
obviously
people
avoid
taking
down
distinctive
trees,
but
also
the
placement
of
that
building
has
to
respond
to
provincial
legislation
and
requirements
for
privacy
and
overlook
and
intrusion
on
neighbouring
yards,
and
that's
also
very.
But
it
was
also
very
bad
that
prominent
part
of
the
consultation.
C
So
we
believe
that
the
package
that
we've
provided
does
all
those
things
there's,
obviously
no
set
pattern
by
neighbourhood
on
where
trees
may
or
may
not
be
nature
puts
trees
where
Nature
sees
fit.
But
human
beings
put
buildings
where
they
should
be
put
in
terms
of
all
the
considerations
that
need
to
be
had.
K
So
one
of
the
key
differences
I
see
between
coach
houses,
which
were
proposing
to
allow
today
versus
other
accessory
structures,
is
the
foundation
the
you
know,
putting
a
garage
and
if
I
wanted
to
put
a
music
studio
in
the
backyard
that's
likely
to
be
slab
on
grade.
But
if
I'm
building
a
dwelling
unit,
that's
likely
to
have
a
foundation
and
I
think
it's
the
foundation
that
might
be
causing
the
difficulties
with
respect
to
trees
and
I'm,
just
wondering
Heather.
If
we
could
clarify
it's,
not
the
tree,
that's
on
your
property.
K
That
is
necessarily
the
big
concern.
It's
those
perimeter,
trees
that
get
cutting
to
when
people
aren't
digging
a
foundation
and
among
if
people
just
don't
quickly
bring
us
through
the
experience
of
Champlain
Park
residents
about
protecting
trees
that
are
on
a
neighboring
property
from
the
damage
that
is
done
from
excavation
on
the
subject.
Property
I
received.
L
L
The
neighbor
on
the
other
side
was
forced
to
cut
down
a
70
or
80
year
old,
black
walnut
tree,
which
the
developer's
activities
hebbs
destabilized,
cut
into
and
destabilized,
and
so
they
were
forced
to
take
it
down
so,
and
there
was
just
no
recourse
the
the
tree
bylaw
just
basically,
they
came
in
and
had
two
to
get
the
permit
to
cut
the
tree
down.
That's
what
it
ended
up
being
that's
just
one
example:
we've
had
so
many
throughout
the
neighborhood
and
we've
had
so
many
where
developers
said
on
the
committee
of
adjustment
on
the
plans.
K
A
You
for
that
clarification,
yeah,
thank
you
and
just
jumping
in
here
and
I
was
just
having
conversation
with
Miss
Sneden,
but
I
mean
the
conversation
that
we've
had
so
far.
I
mean
allowing
the
foundation
at
basement
to
be
built
to
me
would
be
limiting
and
not
allowing
it,
but
having
it
at
on
slab
at
grade
would
solve
a
lot
of
the
concerns.
A
K
K
A
D
B
Where
there
is
a
planning
approval
in
place,
the
removal
of
distinctive
trees
can
be
in
accordance
with
that
planning
approval
and
that
will
include
a
subdivision
agreement
or
site
plan
or
minor
variance
or
a
consent
to
sever.
It
is
not
so
clear
where
a
planning
approval
is
not
being
sought,
but
all
that
one
is
obtaining
is
a
building
permit
under
the
building
code
Act
as
I
sit
here,
it
is
not
clear
to
me
how
someone
would
have
the
ability
to
remove
a
distinctive
tree
if
they
do
not
have
a
planning,
approval
or
distinctive
tree
permit.
B
K
My
concern
is
that
if
we
dig
foundations
a
metre
from
the
plot
line,
we
are
going
to
face
a
number
of
trees
being
lost
due
to
damage
to
those
roots
and
I'm
wondering
do
we
have
the
do?
We
have
the
authority
as
a
city
to
force
those
who
are
building
coach
houses
to
build
a
slab
on
grade,
which
would
be
a
much
more
sensitive
approach
than
than
building
foundations.
B
M
You
thank
you
very
much,
madam
chair
I.
Just
before
I
ask
my
question
to
delegation
I'm
going
to
get
clarification
from
staff
I'm.
Looking
at
this
picture
that
the
delegation
circulated,
have
you
seen?
Can
you
do
just
give
me
a
rough
guess
here?
Looking
at
it,
knowing
your
experience,
how
many
of
these
lots
do
you
think
that
a
coach
cho's
under
these
changes
could
ask
like
go
on
I'm
looking
at
it
and
I'm
thinking,
that's
only
a
couple
at
most
a
and
that
would
apply
to
pretty
well
across
the
city
most
of
the
neighborhoods.
M
C
Chair
in
the
picture,
we
see
extensive
tree
cover
and
the
backyards
of
properties,
but
we
don't
have
the
benefit
of
property
lines.
So
without
having
that
indication
all
I
can
say
is
people
would
be
subject
to
the
proposed
zoning
regulations,
which
tie
the
size
of
a
coach
house
to
the
footprint
of
your
main
house
and
a
maximum
percentage
of
the
backyard.
So
if
you
don't
have
enough
space,
you
can't
do
a
coach
house,
so
it
really
depends
on
the
lot
size
and
I
think
there
was
another
question
that
was
alluding
to
this
earlier.
C
M
A
typical,
suburban
lot
of
you
know.
Third,
what
are
they
now
30
35
foot
frontages
at
most
90,
maybe
100
foot
depth
with
a
four-bedroom
house
on
it,
you're,
suggesting
that
we
start
putting
coach
osis
in
those
back
yards.
You
can't
even
get
a
dog
house
in
some
of
those
backyards.
No
that
don't
get
the
sets
correct.
C
A
M
Out
exactly
hey
Rach
councillor,
Blaine
I
buried
a
rock
this.
This
whole
proposal
went
through.
Quite
simply,
there
was
some
questions
to
do
with
the
water
custom,
which
would
apply
more
to
the
rural
area,
but
this
was
not
seen
as
a
the
issue
that
it
seems
to
be
developing
here
today
and
I.
Think
it's
because
we're
assuming
that
these
this
proposal
is
to
put
a
coach
house
in
every
backyard
where
it's
not
yeah.
M
D
Madam
chairs,
mr.
mclees
had
indicated
earlier,
if
you
look
at
our
history
in
terms
of
secondary
dwelling
units
within
an
existing
building,
which
is
a
very
easy
proposition
for
people
to
undertake
a
conversion
of
their
basement
to
have
a
dwelling
unit
establish
a
very
economical
on
a
whole
bunch
of
different
levels
and
over
the
course
of
a
year
we
might
see
eighty
to
a
hundred
of
those
throughout
the
entire
city.
That's
the
entire
city
of
on
what
every
urban
neighborhood
the
villages,
the
rural
areas,
whatever
you
want
to
call
it
there's
a
lot
more.
D
That's
involved
in
actually
developing
a
coach
house
in
the
rear
yard.
We've
got
standards
that
are
being
introduced
into
the
zoning
bylaw,
which
do
establish
various
limitations
and,
as
was
indicated,
if
you
don't
meet
those
requirements,
you
can't
establish
a
coach
house
as
of
right
but
notwithstanding,
even
if
we
were
just
to
look
at
a
comparison
in
terms
of
secondary
dwelling
units,
I
think
you
might
be
lucky
to
see
maybe
40,
possibly
50
of
these
go
in
on
a
given
year
across
the
entire
city
of
Ottawa.
D
And
if
you
look
at
the
number
of
residential
properties
that
we
have
throughout
the
entire
city,
it's
a
very
small
percentage
and
a
very
small
proportion.
I
think
that
this
is
one
of
those
situations
where
clearly
the
province
has
put
out
a
direction.
There's
an
objective
behind
that
direction
is
to
allow
for
gentle
intensification
within
established,
neighborhoods,
low
intensity,
form
of
intensification,
affordable
housing
and
I.
Think
we
will
see
over
time
what
the
take-up
is
on
this
and
again,
it's
all
dependent
on
the
individual
property
owners.
In
most
instances
these
are
owner
occupied
dwellings.
D
Well,
this
will
happen.
This
is
not
necessarily
developer
driven
initiatives.
This
is
property
owner,
raising
a
family
that
might
be
looking
to
do
something
in
their
backyard
either
for
an
elderly
parent
or
for
one
of
their
kids
who's
trying
to
make
a
go
of
things
but
I,
don't
personally,
don't
see
significant
take-up
on
this.
There
will
be
some
absolutely
we're
required
to
allow
for
this
to
occur,
but
I
don't
see
this
as
changing
the
fabric
of
of
the
neighborhoods
within
Ottawa
I
want.
M
To
thank
you
for
actually
not
questioned
directly
because
I
think
we're
on
the
same
page
here,
madam
chair.
This
is
not
going
to
be
every
backyard,
and
so
you
know
a
picture
like
this
you're
not
in
visiting
a
new
street
appearing
behind
these
houses
because
everybody
wants
to
put
in
the
coaches.
That's.
A
M
M
I
K
Has
been
a
good
discussion,
Heather
and
I
chatted
at
length
last
night
about
about
Coach
houses,
I.
Think
what
we've
ascertained
today
is
that
if
somebody
wanted
to
build
a
music
studio,
a
gaming
room
again
in
a
rear
yard,
they
could
do
so
under
the
rules
that
exist
today.
I
have
a
really
hard
time
seeing
that
the
people
who
are
developing
in
Champlain
Park
are
going
to
you
know
the
folks
building,
1.2
million
dollar
semi-detached
homes
are
going
to
want
to
build
a
coach
house
in
a
real
yard.
K
L
L
Like
that,
I've
done
a
lot
of
research
online,
and
this
is
the
this
is
the
kind
of
advertising
that
I'm
seeing
I
mean
if
this
is
going
to
be
totally
different
than
what
we
have
in
the
country,
I
mean.
Obviously
in
a
country,
you
need
to
have
that
kind
of
opportunity
and
and
should
have
it
I.
Just
think
that
we
have
to
be
very
careful
in
the
city
where
we
put
these
and
we
should
be
doing
it
with
sensitivity
to
the
existing
neighborhoods
and
and
what
they
are
and
and
the
environment
is
a
key
issue.
J
A
N
Ocean
is
this
home.
Yes,
thank
you
for
the
remote
on
no
I'm,
not
the
president
I'm
the
chair
of
the
Development
Committee.
That's
so
at
the
outset.
I
just
wanted
to
reiterate
that
to
the
shumphlett
Park
Community
Association
is
really
sympathetic
with
with
the
provincial
direction
for
floral
housing.
It
certainly
is
an
issue
and
Canada
and
all
over
as
well.
So
we
did
make
submissions
on
this
issue
as
Heather
pearl
has
has
noted.
N
So
what
I
would
recommend
to
you
is
that
the
commanding
committee
not
support
the
recommendations
at
this
time,
but
refer
the
matter
back
to
staff
form
a
robust,
an
open
consultation
process,
and
that
echoes
some
of
the
comments
the
Federation
of
Community
associations
made
and
that,
as
part
of
that,
reconsideration
be
given
to
the
proposed
anonymous
by
taking
particular
note
of
the
intent
of
infill
to
bylaw
the
need
for
sensitivity
to
the
distinctive
and
different
nature
of
city.
Neighborhoods
I've
heard
some
comments
about
that
around
the
table.
N
Already
the
impacts
on
adjoining
properties
and
the
need
to
protect
mature
trees
and
green
spaces.
So
that's
what
I
would
suggest
you
do
is
send
it
back
to
staff
and
for
them
to
review
and
address
those
those
four
specific
issues,
so,
as
particular
concerns
are
that
the
amendments
do
not
meet
the
intent
of
infill
and
I.
N
Just
will
quote
from
that,
and
one
of
the
major
thrusts
of
it
was
to
ensure
that
individual
buildings
fit
into
a
city
block
in
a
way
that
leaves
a
sufficient
amount
of
open
space
in
the
middle
of
the
block
for
air
and
sunlight
penetration
imperfectly.
Crafted
Kirsch
has
amendments
such
as
those
we
have
in
front
of
us
will
lead
to
a
significant
loss
in
compromising
of
the
gains
that
were
made
through
years
of
work
and
effort
on
the
part
of
a
large
number
of
stakeholders
on
the
infill
process.
N
The
proposal
members
do
not
reflect
the
realities
of
a
wide
variety
of
individual
properties,
neighborhoods
and
communities
in
the
city.
The
amendments
are
basically
one
size
fits
all
show,
no
regard
for
individual
character
or
neighborhood
distinctiveness.
I've
heard
a
couple
of
councillors.
Note
the
uniqueness
of
communities
around
this
city
and
the
same
way
that
different
zoning,
bylaws
and
other
policies,
such
as
those
related
to
traffic,
relate
to
different
community
circumstances.
N
So
too
should
the
bylaw
on
coach
houses,
rather
than
and
as
of
right
across
the
citywide
I,
would
strongly
suggest
that
there
needs
to
be
tailor
made
with
the
realities
of
particular
communities
taken
to
account
of
concerns
here.
Also
about
that
the
size
and
and
and
the
the
impact
of
this,
the
the
maximum,
you
could
build
these
units
to
building
it
up
to
forty
percent
in
the
rear
yards
answered
to
counselor.
Who
please
point
you
know,
we've
got
a
50
by
by
115
by
30
metres
standard
city,
long,
a
relatively
modest
terrace.
N
2.13
meet
a
fence
for
the
purposes
of
setback
and
height
and,
respectively.
Disagree
with
that
analysis,
a
coach
house
of
a
proposed
permitted
size
of
up
to
80
square
meters,
forty
percent,
taking
out
forty
percent
of
the
rear
yard
and
having
a
height
of
a
mid
roof
height
of
three
point.
Six
meters
is
in
no
way
comparable
to
a
two
point.
One
three
meter
fence:
there's
a
hugely
different
suggest
these
two
in
Kabul,
as
if
not
helpful
to
the
discussion
I
would
suggest.
So.
N
In
conclusion,
just
to
reiterate
my
initial
point,
the
conclusion
therefore
should
be
sent
back
to
staff.
A
serious
reconsideration
with
a
view
to
developing
proposed
amendments
are
more
appropriate
than
currently
presented
and
broadly
keeping
with
the
concerns,
so
just
to
reiterate
those.
What's
the
yeah
look
at
the
intent
of
infill
to
beneath
the
sensitivity
to
different
neighborhoods
across
the
city,
there
are
wide
variations
and
in
our
communities
and
neighborhoods,
and
that
bylaw
is
singularly
in
sensitive
to
that.
What
are
the
impacts
and
adjoining
properties
referred
serious
concerns
about
that.
You
have.
A
K
Thanks
Duncan,
the
the
key
struggle
I'm
having
again
today
is,
is
trying
to
reconcile
the
fact
that
the
accessory
structures
are
already
allowed
in
the
backyard
at
a
size
that
is
anticipated
by
the
new
coach
house.
What,
in
your
view,
is
the
difference
between
being
allowed
to
put
a
recording
studio
or
a
pottery
studio
in
the
backyard
at
this
size
as
of
right
today
versus
allowing
that
unit
to
then
become
a
dwelling
unit,
I
think.
N
Part
of
the
answer
is
a
premise
of
it
and
you
raised
the
question
of
foundations,
so
there's
a
significant
issue
here:
I
will
also
suggest.
Frankly,
if
you
build
a
slab
foundation,
you
just
don't
build
it
straight
on
the
ground.
You're,
making
an
excavation
I
know
what
the
reasons
are.
You
got
to
put
some
gravel
down.
You
know
you
may
be
digging
it
down
a
meter
that
could
in
fact
still
have
some
impacts
on
an
adjoining
tree.
So
as
I
guess
it's
for
the
degree
of
established
permanence.
N
A
G
Thank
you
very
much.
I'm
going
to
leap
right
in
I
have
a
tendency
to
go
over
time
and
I
don't
want
to
lose
any
time.
We
I
would
like
to
raise
a
couple
of
issues
that
haven't
been
raised
before
in
these
presentations.
We
were
pleased
that
staff
did
respond
to
our
query
as
to
how
would
grade
be
defined
and
calculated.
G
We
have
seen
examples
where
existing
grade
is
raised
a
meter
and
then
a
coach
house
or
a
garage
as
an
accessory
structure,
is
then
built
on
top
of
it
to
the
maximum
height
and
so
you're
getting
a
much
much
higher
than
3.2.
We
were
told
that
infill
too
has
resulted
in
the
permitted
height
being
based
on
existing
average
grade,
as
it
applies
to
the
main
building.
I
see
a
great
deal
of
potential
for
problem
with
that.
There's
sloping
lots.
G
G
We
also
see
this
is
a
very
large
concern,
because
the
most
of
the
bylaw
wording
is
that
the
set
the
trees
on
the
site
of
the
development
are
not
to
be
impacted
very
little
about
the
neighboring
trees.
We
also
have
a
concern
about
the
required
setbacks.
In
theory,
the
you
could
build
this
on
the
property
line.
We
don't
understand
how
you
can
build
something
on
a
property
line
and
then
maintain
it.
G
The
committee
of
adjustment
in
its
in
several
circumstances,
I've,
given
you
a
couple
of
cases
in
which
they
denied
the
application
or
required
the
application
to
be
reconsidered.
You
can't
build
on
a
property
line
and
maintain
it
from
your
property.
I
know
I've
raised
this
with
Alan
egoless,
and
he
said:
oh,
yes,
you
can
build
it
from
inside
I
fail
to
see
how
you
can
maintain
it.
G
I
would
also
like
to
reference
the
garden
suite
rules
by
the
City
of
Ottawa
require
that
the
setbacks
are
the
same
for
the
garden
suite
as
they
are
for
the
main
building.
So
I
don't
understand
why
this
is
different
and
also
for
the
accessory
buildings.
You
need
to
have
a
permit
that
you
need
to
have
a
setback.
I,
don't
understand
why
this
one
doesn't.
I
would
like
to
reiterate
my
concerns
that
at
2.13
fence
visually
looks
very
different
than
a
3.2
meter
wall.
The
staff
comments.
Were
it's
not
much
different?
I
totally
disagree.
G
I
actually
have
a
a
garage
that
has
been
built
beside
my
property
with
the
full
extent
and
height
possible.
It
is
incredible
in
terms
of
the
shading
that
it
provides
that
I
have
one
last
point
really
and
that's
that
people
have
been
talking
about
coach
houses
as
completely
new
construction.
Don't
forget
that
there
are
grandfathering
provisions
here
which
will
allow
people
to
modify
again,
no
definition,
the
existing
buildings
that
are
in
use
you
Barb's,
into
coach
houses.
Thank
you
for
your
patience.
Don't.
A
That
was
very
well
done
and
you
even
had
time
to
burn
okay.
We
don't
make
one
last
comment,
though:
I
actually
have
a
question:
okay,
so
and
and
I'm
going
to
ask
colleagues
just
questions
of
the
delegations.
We
still
have
other
delegations
to
get
to
we're
good,
then.
Thank
you
very
much
and
thanks
for
raising
some
different
issues.
Okay
appreciate
it
could.
G
I
say
if
I
did
have
just
30
seconds
of
burning
time
and
it
you
had
30
seconds.
Okay,
I
mean
it's
just
to
respond
to.
Were
these
really
be
built
well,
I
think
they
can
be
built.
I
live
in
a
neighborhood
of
35,
wide
lots,
95
deep,
and
if
you
can
build
some
of
the
accessory
buildings
that
are
there,
I
can
see
it.
I
live
in
a
neighborhood
which
is
close
to
the
city,
so
I
wouldn't
write
this
off.
I.
G
A
Thank
you,
but
you
know
I've
heard
some
people
use
the
word
repeatedly
of
developers
we're
not
going
to
have
Mentos
except
row.
Madami
are
not
going
to
go
around
people's
neighborhoods
looking
to
amass
places
where
they
can
build
something
like
a
small
building
where
people
could
live.
Perhaps
the
grandparents
or
whatever
I
know
that
concerns
too
were
raised
about
students
and
that
sort
of
thing
and
remembering
that
the
were
cautious
and
in
an
old,
auto
East
right
now
we're
cautious
about
and
concerned
about,
oh
I'm,
trying
to
think
of
the
street,
where
my
and
just.
G
L
A
G
Madam
chair,
we
were
just
speaking
on
the
notion
of
a
site
plan
and
whether
or
not
a
site
plan
process
will
be
appropriate.
In
this
case
and
just
hearing
some
of
the
discussions
and
understanding
that
the
complexity
of
the
site
plan
process,
we
really
would,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
being
discussing
trees,
and
we
have
a
process
where
we
we
have
permits
in
place
to
address
the
trees.
G
So
we
felt
that
the
site
plan
process
may
be
too
onerous
to
address
these
issues
and
that,
with
the
two-year
review
process
that
we
talked
of
earlier,
really
felt
that
this
would
be
an
opportunity
for
us
to
understand
what
issues
may
come
up
and
do
arise
over
this
period
of
time.
For
us
to
review,
evaluate
and
then
make
changes
right
now.
I
think
we're
talking
about
things
that
might
be
as
opposed.
A
To
will
be
kind
of
like
an
Aesop
fable,
kind
of
a
situation,
I'm
going
to
be
looking
for
a
council
vice-chair
tyranny
to
move
a
motion
that
talks
about
the
two
years,
but
I
would
but
I
wanted
also
to
I
want
you
to
have
the
direction
that
if
you
notice
an
uptake
on
this
that
you're
coming
back
to
us
a
lot
sooner
and
and
and
if
we
need
to
make
some
changes.
We
will
at
that
time,
but
the
guarantee
would
be
the
two
years.
A
A
G
G
My
concern
is
primarily
that
this
is
supposed
to
be
a
technique
to
expand,
affordable
housing
and
I,
can't
see
from
anything
I've
read
or
heard
that
it's
going
to
have
much
of
an
impact.
In
fact,
our
staff
tell
us
and
that
we're
talking
about
maybe
forty
to
sixty
a
year
where
too
many
people
are
talking
about
parents
or
young
adult
children.
G
This
is
not
necessarily
going
to
leave
lead
to
any
uptake
on
affordable
housing
I
also,
although
I
support
many
of
the
comments
that
have
already
been
made
from
the
community
associations
and
I
think
they're
well
thought
out
perhaps
most
attracted
to
what
mr.
Brewery
was
saying
about,
referring
back
and
coming
up
with
something
that
is
more
flexible
in
terms
of
what
it
looks
at
flexible
in
the
sense
of
recognizing
different
neighborhoods
and
different
structures
and
I
think
this
would
alleviate
some
concerns
and
but
also
allow
for
more
uptake
because,
to
some
extent,
I
feel.
G
The
restrictions
that
already
exist
in
the
bylaw
are
too
restrictive.
In
terms
of
expanding
opportunities
for
affordable
housing,
what
I
was
concerned
about
in
the
previous
statements
about
the
neighboring
trees
and
just
like
the
bylaw,
requires
quite
a
large
setback
from
the
side?
Lots
if
there's
windows
I
think
it's
four
meters
on
each
side.
Why
couldn't
you
I
mean?
Could
you
also
include
in
that?
If
there
are
that
kind
of
setback,
if
there
are
trees
in
neighboring
yards
I
mean
that
would
be
something.
G
I
also
wondered,
even
if
it
doesn't
require
a
site
plan
or
any
kind
of
rezoning.
Is
there
some
way
that
there
could
be
a
requirement
for
people
to
post
a
notice
in
advance
if
they
are
doing
this
kind
of
work,
so
people
have
knowledge
before
the
excavation
begins.
For
example,
that's
all
I
wish
to
say.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
O
Yes,
thank
you
very
much.
Madam
chair
I
do
appear
on
behalf
of
goba
and
the
urban
infill
Council.
We
want
to
start
by
thanking
staff
for
reaching
out
to
us
on
this
project
and
spending
a
great
deal
of
time
talking
to
a
small
working
group
to
to
go
over
some
of
the
details
of
this
proposal.
I
didn't
have
the
time
to
commit
to
that
subcommittee,
but
I'm
appearing
today,
because
none
of
those
members
were
available
to
attend
this
morning.
We
certainly
support
the
recommendation.
That's
before
you
from
staff
today.
O
Certainly
none
of
my
clients,
small
infill
builders,
have
indicated
to
me
that
there
just
waiting
with
bated
breath
for
this
to
get
work
its
way
through
Council,
so
they
can
rush
in
and
start
filing
building
permits
for
Coach
houses.
There
are
in
their
minds
a
lot
of
technical
issues
that
need
to
be
resolved
before
you're
ever
going
to
see
your
first
coach
house,
like
the
services,
have
to
be
connected
to
the
existing
building.
There
are
building
code
issues
that
relate
to
access
for
these
units,
all
of
which
need
to
be
resolved
and
addressed.
O
So
certainly,
my
clients
are
telling
me
that
there
are
very
limited
opportunities
for
this
type
of
house.
There
are
a
lot
of
wrinkles
to
be
worked
out
and
so
I
think
that
the
the
notion
of
coming
back
in
two
years
and
actually
seeing
what,
if
anything,
has
happened
in
terms
of
take
up
on
this
opportunity,
is
worthwhile
I'm,
beginning
to
think
that
there
should
be
one
mega
report.
O
The
reports
back
to
you
on
infill
one
infill,
two
coach
houses-
conversions,
maybe
all
at
the
same
time,
so
that
instead
of
dealing
with
all
of
these
issues
kind
of
piecemeal.
Maybe
we
come
back
in
two
years
and
take
a
look
at
the
effect
of
all
of
those
amendments
that
you've
made
over
the
last
few
years
to
the
zoning
Bala
to
deal
with
the
issues
of
infill
and
intensification
and
the
mature
neighborhoods.
Certainly
we
welcome
that
opportunity.
O
I
very
much
appreciate
the
line
of
questioning
from
counsel
leaper,
with
respect
to
the
difference
between
these
structures
and
other
structures
that
are
already
permitted
in
your
zoning.
Bylaw.
There's
nothing
preventing
you
from
having
a
foundation
under
the
walls
of
your
garage,
and
there
would
be
nothing
preventing
you
from
having
foundations
under
the
walls
to
support
the
coach.
O
K
K
A
G
Have
five
minutes?
Thank
you.
I
spoke
to
this
topic
also
at
the
Agriculture
and
Rural
Affairs
Committee,
and
so
I
did
get
some
clarifications
on
some
of
the
information
that
was
in
the
report
and
I'd
like
to
thank
the
Eric,
counselors
and
staff
for
those
clarifications.
I
have
two
issues
that
I
would
like
to
raise
today
and
just
off
the
top
I
would
say
that
I
would
agree
with
some
of
the
other
delegates.
G
That
I
would
make
the
recommendation
that
the
report
goes
back
to
staff
my
objective
there
would
be
to
ensure
that
some
of
the
clarifications
that
came
out
of
the
Iraq
meeting
would
be
included
in
the
report.
The
first
one
is
in
report
on
page
ten.
It
says,
if
adopted
the
efficient,
the
proposed
official
plan
amendment
and
zoning
bylaw
amendment
would
not
be
subject
to
appeal.
I
think
that
that
is
a
caveat
in
this,
but
I
don't
think.
That's
necessarily
the
whole
story.
I
believe
that
it
is
can
be
appealed,
but
there
under
circumstances.
G
G
G
It
would
be
something
Trude,
hydrology,
light
and
I
do
appreciate
that
on
further
discussion
about
what
the
concerns
were
in
the
rural
areas,
my
understanding
was
that
it
was
about
capacity.
Can
you
can
me
private
services
accommodate
one
or
two
more
people
and
also
nitrates?
So
now
we
understand
that
public
health
does
offer
the
service
of
having
your
water
tested
and
I
believe
that
many
people
do
that.
So
it's
pretty
easy
to
test
for
e.coli.
In
chloroform's.
We
don't
we
don't
tour
the
model.
G
G
So
what
I'm
suggesting
is
that
staff
didn't
mention
their
booklet
and
perhaps
there
could
be
no
thought
given
to.
How
can
we
make
this
equitable
in
the
rural
areas
without
going
into
additional
costs
for
rural
residents?
These
coach
houses
are
very
important
in
the
word
where
I
live
in
West
Carrollton.
We
have
aging
seniors
there.
We
would
very
much
like
to
stay
in
your
own
area
and
a
coach
house
is
a
wonderful
solution
for
that.
G
So
is
it?
Is
there
not
a
way
that
we
could
be
more
specific?
What
are
what
problem
are
we
trying
to
solve
with
the
site
plan
control
and
the
hydrology?
If
it's
capacity,
we
know
that
when
a
well
is
installed,
the
capacity
is
recorded.
We
know
when
a
septic
system
is
installed.
The
capacity
is
is
recorded
if
its
nitrate,
so
we
know
that
there's
a
test
for
that.
G
A
Pasture
time,
thank
you,
but
thank
you
for
coming
out
and
thank
you
for
going
to
the
Iraq
committee
as
well
good
comments,
and
it
is
very
different,
certainly
in
the
in
the
rural
area
than
it
is
in,
but
we
do
have
people
in
council
a
glazed
area
that
are
unwell
in
septic
and
they
are
the
bar
Haven.
So
thank
you
for
coming
out.
Thank
you.
Next
person
is
rod.
Mclean.
M
Thank
you.
Madam
chair,
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
address
the
committee.
We
are
relieved
to
see
that
there
will
be
the
opportunities
to
appeal
to
the
committee
of
adjustment.
If
there
are
issues
that
arise
related
to
coach
houses,
the
one
point
I
wanted
to
reiterate
is
the
matter
of
compatibility
with
existing
neighborhoods.
It's
not
exactly
perhaps
an
huge
issue
given
the
expected
sheer
number
of
developments,
but
it
should
be
a
factor
in
the
way
the
buildings
are
constructed
in
what
they
look
like.
That's
really
what
the
one
company
I
wanted
to
add
now
well.
A
J
Yes,
madam
chair,
thank
you
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
to
you.
I've
been
very
interested
in
coach
houses
for
sometimes
some
time
and
my
main
concern
with.
What's
before
you
is
the
proposed
height
limitations,
in
particular,
I
think
as
they
are
currently
written,
they
will
not
have
the
intended
effect
if
the
intended
effect
is
not
only
to
comply
with
the
provinces
request,
but
also
to
create,
as
was
stated,
gentle
intensification
I
fear
that
this
will
not
have
that
intended
effect.
J
Personally,
I
am
interested
in
a
coach-house
something
similar
to
this,
and
in
my
looking
at
what's
available,
they
seem
to
sacrifice
physical
footprint
for
making
more
creative
use
of
vertical
space,
and,
as
such,
you
can
do
more
creative
things.
You
can
come
up
with
more
bespoke
designs
that
still
afford
people
a
good
quality
of
life
with
a
reduced
footprint,
and
that
appeals
to
me
personally
so
looking
at
this
from
two
perspectives,
the
first
one
is:
if
we
look
at
the
Ontario
Highway
Traffic,
Act
I
could
have
the
vehicle
of
a
height
of
four
point.
J
J
Secondly,
I
had
provided
charts,
I
think,
hopefully,
you've
all
received
them.
This
is
a
scatter
plot.
I
did
a
survey
of
two
websites
I
found
six
others
that
I
could
do
if
required,
but
two
websites
and
examined
all
house
plans
that
were
under
the
95
square
meters
for
the
rural
areas,
but
also
below
the
eating
meters
for
urban
areas.
J
What
I
think
this
shows
is
that
the
market,
the
size
that
is
the
height
that
is
being
proposed,
does
not
make
sense
according
to
the
market,
that
any
buildings
that
are
have
been
designed
and
and
are
being
marketed
are
either
extremely
extremely
small,
in
other
words
under
twenty
square
meters,
if
they
have
a
gable
roof
or
they
are
essentially
a
flat-topped
sort
of
the
ones.
I
looked
at
all
that
word,
Adobe
style
buildings
that
might
be,
you
might
expect
to
see
more
in
New,
Mexico
or
Arizona.
J
A
Let
me
ask
you
a
question,
because
this
is
this
came
up
to
me.
I
guess
within
about
a
year
ago,
and
I
got
information,
so
to
speak,
to
your
concern
about
not
restricting
Heights
I've
got
to
ask
staff
the
rule,
the
interior
rule
that
allows
that
forbids
us
from
controlling
anything
that
has
a
green
roof.
How
does
this
play
into
this?
So,
for
example,
as
I
sent
you
this
horrific
thing,
that's
been
built
in
the
backyard
and
Stonebridge
okay
and
not
finished.
A
We
can't
even
force
them
to
finish
it
for
two
years,
I
mean
it's
bigger
than
most
people's
homes,
but
if
it
has
solar
panels
on
the
roof,
there's
no
restrictions,
as
as
to
that
we
can
make.
Can
we
still
apply
the
restrictions
that
we're
talking
about
today
on
the
reduction
of
the
height
to
two
people
that
they
want
to
get
away
with
greater
size,
because
they
have
put
some
solar
panels
on
roofs.
E
A
Session
is
we
and
I
have
another
example
in
a
mature
neighborhood,
a
neighborhoods
about
20
years
old
pie-shaped
lot.
They
have
a
nice
pool.
Person
on
beside
them
has
built
a
structure
with
I
for
whatever
cool
accessories
whatever,
but
it
is
as
high
as
the
second-story
bedroom
windows,
but
I
was
told
Frank.
You
know
this
one
I'm
talking
about
when
Burnley
that
we
can't
do
anything
about
it
because
it
has
solar
panels
on
it.
D
A
D
I
believe
that
the
ones
that
you
have
identified,
madam
chair,
in
fact
our
accessory
abilities
that
fit
within
the
current
height
limitations
for
accessory
buildings
in
the
zoning
bylaw.
So
we're
changing
this
so
we're
changing
that
we're
reducing
the
height
so
that
when
you
do
have
a
situation
where
somebody
wants
to
use
an
accessory
building
for
solar
panels,
that
accessory
building
will
not
be
able
to
be,
as
reflected
in
the
in
the
images
that
you
search
there
with
us.
So.
J
A
So
in
in
trying
to
help
out
the
people
that
contacted
me,
it
was
important
to
have
some
way
and
certainly
not
to
stop
people
from
having
solar
panels.
I
mean
I
know
that
carols
are
in
a
jankle.
You
have
solar
panels,
I
heard
you
on
the
radio
the
other
day
talking
about
it
and
and
a
lot
of
people
do
and
a
lot
of
people
should
and
and
will
continue
to,
but
allowing
the
height
to
be
at
any
amount
in
order
to
because
they're
going
to
add
that
purpose,
it
just
is
a
real
problem.
A
K
K
One
quick
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
I
do
understand
the
the
assertion
that
you're
making,
which
is
that
you
have
looked
at
plans
that
are
available
for
small
homes
and
like
determine
that
in
the
majority
of
what
you're
seeing
I
presume
its
online
research
that
you
could
not
build
these.
Your
assertion,
though,
is
not
necessary.
These
are
homes
intended
to
be
built
in
in
people's
backyards.
These
are
plans
are
available
for
small
homes
and
I.
Imagine
people
build
these
in
a
variety
of
property
circumstances.
J
Yes,
I
believe
that
to
be
true
that
they
could
be
built
in
in
any
number
of
circumstances,
what
I
was
trying
to
do
is
I
was
trying
to
look
at
what
was
available
in
the
market
the
market
has
so
there
already
is
somewhat
about
a
tiny
house
movement
that
is
occurring.
So
what
is
out
there?
That
would
give
us
some
insight
into
what
is
a
reasonable
amount
of
space
for
people
to
live
in,
and
how
would
that
translate
or
how
would
that
work
within
what
has
been
proposed,
but.
K
I
Just
a
quick
one
for
him,
but
let
it
be
noted
that
no
trees
were
killed
in
the
erecting
of
my
solar
panels
just
needed
to
get
that
on
the
record.
I'm
just
I'm.
Just
wondering
do
you
have
I,
did
I
miss
it
in
your
presentation?
Are
you
proposing
a
higher
height
limit
or
no
height
limit?
You
have
a
proposal
that
you
think
would
be
more
appropriate
than
this
one.
So.
J
In
advance
of
coming
coming
here
today,
I
did
spend
some
time
speaking
with
Tim
Mormon,
who
graciously
gave
me
a
significant
portion
of
his
time,
and
we
discussed
through
a
number
of
the
issues
and
I.
Don't
I
don't
have
a
specific
solution
at
one
point,
when
I
first
spoke
with
him,
I
was
proposing
something
along
the
lines
of
40%,
the
height
of
the
houses
on
the
adjacent
properties
or
something
of
that
nature,
and
he
pointed
out
that
there
are
some
problems
doing
it
that
way.
I
don't
have
a
specific
answer.
J
I
Right
well
I.
Thank
you
for
bring
that
to
our
attention,
because
there's
no
point
going
through
this
exercise.
If
what
we
have
created
is
simply
not
viable,
as
though
I'm
sure
you'll
be
aware,
height
is
a
major
issue
in
the
types
of
neighborhoods
were
likely
to
see
this
so
trying
to
find
it.
A
workable
compromise
seems
to
be
the
challenge
before
us.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
You
very
much
coming
out
today:
Thank
You,
councillor,
okay,
so
we're
back
we're
close
the
public
delegations,
the
back
in
committee
on
the
Official
Plan
zoning
and
related
bylaw
amendments.
Councillor
leaper,
you
have
a
motion,
I
believe
on
anybody
with
motions
we'll
get
those
on
the
floor,
and
then
we
can
debate
them
and
wrap
up.
Should
you
wish.
K
J
A
And
so
I've
already
given
some
direction
on
that,
but
I'd
also
like
to
make
sure
that,
within
this
term
of
counsel,
so
this
planning
committee
does.
This
planning
committee
has
has
the
hands-on
knowledge
of
the
infill,
for
example,
in
that
report
coming
forward
and
I.
Think
that
there's
a
lot
of
good
in
having
it
come
before
the
at
the
end
of
the
term,
which
falls
just
within
the
two
year.
So
staff
take
note
of
that.
K
Now
I'm
sure
I
was
I
was
going
to
and
I'm
curious
to
hear
in
the
course
of
comments
potentially
propose
a
pilot
of
just
a
couple
of
communities
rather
than
implement
the
rules
citywide.
A
number
of
the
concerns
that
I
had
related
to
different
communities
or
have
been
addressed
by
staff
this
morning
and
I'm
curious
to
hear
in
my
colleagues
wrap-ups
whether
that
is
something
they
would
support
or
not.
My
tendency
at
the
moment
is
not
to
bring
that
motion
forward,
but.
A
I
Is
the
main
motion-
or
this
is
the
for
everything
or
everything
yeah,
okay,
I
did
have
a
couple
of
other
questions
that
that
came
up
here.
One
might
seem
and
this
one
didn't
come
up,
but
it
came
to
me.
What
is
there
any
mention
in
this
report
that
notice
about
the
use
of
such
closed
houses
for
commercial
purposes
and
I
know
that's
tricky
because
in
theory,
I
suppose
renting
you're,
renting
your
Coach
house
to
someone,
that's
not
in
your
family
could
be
considered
commercial.
I
D
Item
I
concede
us
us
sort
of
looking
at
what
we
might
want
to
consider
with
respect
to
the
prevalence
of
these
types
of
operations,
but
again
you're
moving
into
a
different
area.
We're
now
now
you're
talking
about
ten-year
nature
of
10-year
nature,
of
operation,
licensing
issues
which
was
clearly
not
part
and
parcel
of
this
exercise.
Okay,.
I
Let's,
let's
just
consider
it
a
heads
up
with
something
as
we
are
starting
to
get
the
hey,
my
neighbor
is
using
their
property
purely
for
you
know
rotating
Airbnb
type,
use
or
condos
as
well.
It
is
something
we
should
be
aware
could
happen,
and,
finally,
the
issue
of
maintaining
a
coach
houses
that
are
built
right
on
the
lot
line,
I
gathered
there
was
some
discussion.
Is
that
a
problem
isn't
that
I
certainly
and
my
immediate
neighborhood
within
couple
of
houses
of
my
own
I
know
there
has
been
conflict
over.
I
You
know.
I
can't
repair
my
garage
this,
because
the
next-door
neighbor
said
I
couldn't
put
in
a
ladder
or
the
the
company
that
was
coming
in
to
redo
my
roofing.
They
did
not
grant
me
the
privilege
to
that
and
the
nuisance
that
that
brings
with
it
when
you
can't
actually
get
access
to
to
do
maintenance.
C
On
that
one,
madam
chair
were
aware
of
other
examples
of
century-old
buildings
that
are
on
property
lines
and
have
the
ability
to
get
maintained,
I
think
it's.
It's
really
a
site-specific
issue
and
it's
it's
an
issue
that
has
to
do
with
the
property
owner
and
the
neighbors
and
whatever
agreement
they
may
want
to
come
to
there's
nothing
that
compels
anyone
to
place
a
building
on
the
property
line.
C
There
is
a
maximum
setback
that
is
there
in
order
to
prevent
windows
from
being
installed
under
the
Building
Code,
but
there
is
still
provision
for
space
that
would
allow
for
maintenance
if
United
able
to
arrive
at
an
agreement
or
an
arrangement.
However,
you
want
it
might
want
to
set
that
up
between
two
neighboring
property
owners
to
allow
for
building
on
the
property
line
to
be
maintained.
But
this
being
said,
as
we
know,
in
the
older
parts
of
town,
there
are
several
buildings
that
are
on
property
lines
and
that
are
being
maintained.
Madam.
A
B
A
J
A
madam
chair
a
clarification
because
the
last,
whereas
Clause
talks
about
before
applying
the
proposed
code
shells,
rules
citywide,
but
in
fact
the
motion
is
to
review
this
after
a
two-year
period.
We're
not
doing
it
neighborhood
specific
as
a
pilot.
This
is
going
to
be
rolled
out
and
citywide
and
I
just
want
to
confirm.
That's
the
case.
F
A
A
Yes,
please,
and
only
on
the
idea
or
the
concept
of
two
pilots.
I
would
remind
you
all
of
the
recent
pilot
in
I
guess,
the
last
year
and
a
half
in
counselor
in
a
chanc
OHS
area,
where
we
had
a
member
of
his
of
the
Glebe
community
association,
who
was
sitting
inside
the
from
the
very
earliest
stages
of
even
any
car
sation.
A
You
know
what
I'm
talking
about
and
we
weren't
able
to
get
a
result
because
there
weren't
enough
applications,
so
I
think
that
trying
to
identify
two
areas
that
may
or
may
not
have
any
take-up
and
then
having
that
conversation,
but
which
two
they
should
be,
and
presumably
one
of
them
might
be,
or
two
of
them
might
be
computing
associations
that
we're
here
today,
I
think.
That's
limiting
and
won't
give
us
the
information
that
we
need
that.
Your
motion,
that's
on
the
floor,
would
okay,
so
counselor,
hubely
and
sorry
counselor,
Nussbaum
and
then
counselor
cutely,
Thank.
J
You
chair
just
a
very
quick
question
and
then
two
brief
comments.
The
question
which,
if
it's
a
to
technical
answer
now,
you
can
stop
and
concerning
the
answer
it
later.
But
the
whole
issue
of
the
basements
had
me
thinking
a
little
bit.
If
someone
were
to
build
an
exterior
staircase
down
to
an
entrance.
A
basement
entrance
to
a
coach
us
would
that
exterior
staircase
count
towards
the
40%
land
that
a
coach
has
could
take
up
in
the
backyard
madam
chair?
No,
it
would
not
okay,
yeah
I,
guess
that
that
leads
to
counselor
leapers
motion
I.
J
Think
some
of
the
issues
that
residents
raised
about
the
relationship
between
the
coach
house
and
the
basement
and
the
tree
root
issue
I
think
we're
important
and
interesting
and
I
think
what
councillor
Leber's
motion
did
or
cuts
returnees
motion
about
a
two-year
review.
I
think
that's
a
very
good
idea,
because
a
lot
of
this
is
conjecture
at
this
point,
but
I
think
in
two
years
we'll
get
a
good
sense
and
I
think
we
should
be
ready
to
address
problems
as
they
come
up.
So
I
very
much
support.
J
D
A
M
The
committee
agrees:
I
would
like
this
report
to
also
look
at
establishing
a
minimum
lot
size
to
avoid
what
appears
to
be
the
undue
stress
on
the
majority
of
homeowners
in
our
city
that
this
report
is
now
generating
because
I
don't
believe
that
we
are
looking
at
putting
this
in
every
street
in
bar
Haven
or
Kannada
or
West,
burrow
or
anywhere
else,
I.
Think
it's
very
limited
application
and
I
think
the.
M
A
You
looking
for
in
the
well,
we
were
expecting
that
at
11
everybody,
so
the
closest
stairs
are
out
this
door
and
down
and
out
to
the
side
yard
way
up
but
hang
on
because
they
may
say
it's
yeah,
but
you
might
as
well
move
because
they're
gonna
make
you
out
call
the
question.
Okay,
can
we
descended
on
this
item
on
the
motion
from
counselor
leaper?
Is
that
Carrie
and
on
the
that's
fine,
we'll
talk
about
the
hip
openers
term?
A
M
N
P
M
A
B
D
A
M
Are
you
did
you
have
more?
Yes,
thank
you
all.
That's
my
question
real
fast,
so
the
the
part
two
of
my
question
was
there's
a
suggestion
to
pilot
this
in
certain
areas
and
I
asked
top
that
they
had
considered
that
option
of
having
a
pilot
like
the
limited
role
of
madam.
D
Chair,
so
no,
we
did
not
consider
putting
in
place
a
pilot.
The
consideration
was
always
secreted
across
the
entire
city.
Initially,
when
we're
starting
out
in
the
process,
we
were
looking
at
not
allowing
it
in
the
rural
areas,
because
the
challenges
were
represented
in
terms
of
private
servicing,
predominantly
about
given
the
interest
in
the
world.
We've
now
basically
opened
up
to
allow
it
across
the
entire
city.
The
only
area
that
is
not
I'm
gonna
have
coach
houses
as
permitted
as
rock
lift,
and
the
reason
for
rock
cliff
is
rock
cliff.
D
M
If
what
we
see
with
this,
if
we
adopt
this,
if
in
say
the
suburban
areas,
we
see
people
coming
in
wanting
to
build
what
they're
calling
coach
houses
but
they're
going
to
be
as
counselor
leaper
said,
sound
studios
or
you
know,
yeah
all
these
different
things,
but
built
to
the
lot
line.
That
would
be
the
difference
from
what's
available
now
correct.
D
In
that
condition,
I
would
suggest,
is
pretty
pretty
slim
if,
at
all,
in
other
situations,
the
size
lower
than
the
size
of
the
existing
dwelling,
the
area
that's
available
in
the
rear
yard
might
present
a
situation
where
the
amount
of
square
footage
that
you
can
actually
achieve
doesn't
make
any
practical
sense
to
actually
go
ahead
and
do
it.
So,
from
our
perspective,
the
way
that
the
regulations
have
been
structured
will
naturally
fee
filter
out
those
conditions.
D
M
D
D
So
this
is
a
much
more
involved,
our
proposition
for
somebody
to
move
down
this
path,
much
more
involved
in
terms
of
the
process
that
you
have
to
go
through
just
from
the
mechanics
of
it
extension
of
services
from
the
house
to
the
coach-house
accessibility
issues
that
you're
gonna
have
to
have
to
take
account
for
the
requirement
to
obtain
a
building
permit
for
the
work
that
you'd
be
undertaken
and
then,
whether
or
not
you're
comfortable
as
a
property
owner
and
having
somebody
living
in
your
backyard,
either
being
a
family
member
or
non
family.
Member.
A
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Just
a
quick,
quick
question
in
pieces:
y'all,
sometimes
the
front
yard
setback
for
a
house
is
not
on
the
address
Street
of
the
house.
It's
actually
at
the
side
of
the
house.
How
does
this
does
not
have
to
be
built
in
the
rear
yard?
It
can
be
on
the
side,
yard
or
or
the
rear
yard.
No,
that's
not
correct.
It's.
D
Only
in
the
rear
yard
that
they're
allowed
so
depending
on
what
your
lock
condition
is,
if
you're
a
corner
lot,
there
is
a
rear.
That's
still
defined
it's
much
smaller
than
a
more
traditional
rear
yard.
Yes,
so
that
might
in
fact
put
in
place
the
limitations
of
doesn't
make
any
sense
to
do
it,
but
it
is
a
rear
yard.
So.
D
B
D
I'd
have
to
defer
to
mr.
bidden
on
that
one
in
terms
of
the
requirements
for
dwelling
units,
but
the
way
that
we've
structured
it
right
now
is
that
the
servicing
to
the
coach-house
has
to
come
from
the
primary
dwelling.
You
can't
have
independent
servicing,
leading
up
to
the
coach-house,
and
the
reason
for
that
is
to
ensure
that
there's
no
ability
to
allow
for
future
services
so.
B
D
I'm
sure
you'd
have
to
meet
the
requirements
that
are
set
out
in
the
zoning
bylaw
to
allow
for
the
conversion
and
the
existing
accessory
building.
If
you
can't
meet
those
standards
that
are
set
out,
the
option
is
available
to
go
to
go
to
a
committee
of
adjustment
to
seek
relief,
which
then
also
is
a
full
appealable
process.
So
I'll
put
you
into
a
different
situation,
but
you
do
have
to
meet
the
standards
that
are
in
the
bylaw.
If
you
don't
meet
those
standards,
then
then
you
can't
move
forward
on
that
basis.
Okay,.
B
And
my
last
question,
madam
chair:
the
original
proposal
had
coach
coach
houses
up
just
do
two
storeys,
but
that
provision
was
removed,
but
it
is
in
an
answer
to
community
associations.
Questions
indicated
that
a
to
storey
coach
house,
if
it's
approved
by
the
committee
of
adjustment,
would
be
they
would
approve
it
and
it
would
be
built
you.
You
clarified
a
little
bit
earlier
about
the
you
know
the
four
tests,
but
why
not?
D
Again,
a
canoe
adjustment
process
and
a
rezoning
application
process
are
both
processes
that
are
appealable.
One
is
dealt
with
by
the
committee
of
adjustment.
Other
isn't
one
is
dealt
with
by
committee
and
council,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day
on
the
final
decision
under
the
rules,
as
we
have
them
today
would
be.
Anybody
can
appeal
that
would
then
go
to
a
neutral,
miscible
Board.
So
there's
no
advantage
to
saying
that
you
have
to
go
through
rezoning
when
you
have
to
go
through
a
committee
of
adjustment
process.
D
As
far
our
site
plan
is
concerned
today,
as
it
stands,
our
site
plan
by
law
does
not
apply
to
residential
developments
of
three
units
and
less
to
have
site
plan
apply
for
basically
an
accessory
building.
I
think
is
really,
in
my
view,
a
bit
of
a
stretch.
The
reason
we're
requiring
site
plan
approval
in
the
rural
area
is
because
of
a
need
for
a
planning
application
trigger
to
require
a
hydrogeological
study
to
be
done,
which
cannot
be
required
under
it's
under
just
a
building
permit
application
process.
D
So
that's
why
we've
introduced
the
site
plan
light
in
the
rule,
which
then
kicks
in
the
requirement
for
for
a
review
of
that
technical
study,
which
is
the
same
principle.
That
applies
for
the
severance
in
the
rural
area,
where
you
want
to
sever
off
and
do
a
single
family.
Lawn
you'll
also
need
to
go
through
rezoning,
which
then
triggers
in
the
planning
approval,
which
triggers
the
ability
for
us
to
require
that
technical,
supporting
study.
K
Thank
You,
chair
I
came
in
today's
meeting
wanting
to
vote
for
the
the
Coach
houses.
It
strikes
me
that
neighborhoods,
like
kitchen
Sippy,
are
becoming
increasingly
unaffordable
and
one
of
the
intuitive
ways
to
to
deal
with
pricing
pressure
is
to
increase
supply
and
I
think
this
is
an
interesting
way
to
do.
It
I've
also
gained
considerable
comfort
over
the
course
of
today's
meeting
that
it
seems
unlikely
that
we
will
see
a
proliferation
of
this
type
of
housing
in
there.
K
In
some
of
my
conversations
with
the
community,
the
concern
has
been
expressed
that
these
accessory
buildings
would
go
in
and
and
that
they
would
be
filled
with
gaming
caves
and
things
like
that.
That's
something
that
can
already
take
place
today
so
I
have
that
comfort.
What
how
much
I'm
just
curious?
How
much
would
it
cost
to
build
one
of
these
Coach
houses
in
a
in
a
backyard
I?
Don't.
A
N
K
D
Now
I'm
sure
I
mean
based
on
square
foot,
construction
cost
and
if
I'm
way
off
line
mr.
Hogan
I'm
sure
we'll
be
standing
up
waving
his
hands.
But
even
if
you're,
looking
at
$100
a
square
foot
and
you're
looking
at
80,000
square
metre,
Coach
house
you're,
looking
at
probably
$80,000
I,
would
anticipate
that
as
a
base
by
the
time.
You've
gotten
all
your
permits
and
you've
done.
E
O
N
O
F
D
K
Think
my
only
I'm
not
going
to
proceed
with
a
two
community
pilot
I've
heard
from
staff
both
of
the
break
and
inner
public
comments
that
it
would
just
be
too
unwieldy,
I'll
reserve
the
right
to
maybe
bring
that
back
at
a
council
when
this
comes
forward.
My
one
caution
is
the
urban
forest
management
plan
that
is
currently
ongoing.
I
think
this
does
lend
pressure
to
making
sure
that
we
get
our
bylaws
with
respect
to
urban
tree
conservation
right
and
that
we
put
the
resources
necessary
and
to
enforce
those
with
respect
to
perimeter
trees.
A
I'm
glad
you
raised
that
because
I
think
that
we're
missing
we're
not
we're
not
where
we
need
to
be
visa,
the
the
bylaw
Department
building
department
and
what
we're
doing
here,
because
I
find
that
we
are
weak
when
we
cannot,
when
we
don't
know
when
our
bylaw
gang
doesn't
have
the
teeth,
if
you
will
to
do
what
we
need
them
to
do.
In
some
cases,
I
gave
a
couple
of
examples
today
that
you
know
with
heritage
designation.
A
We
know,
have
beef
that
up
and
that's
under
the
mayor's
leadership
for
sure
and
councillor
Nussbaum
is
the
chair
of
the
built
heritage.
But
let's
face
it,
you
know
that
took
a
while
to
do,
but
we're
working
very
hard,
so
the
bylaw
can
actually
maintain
them.
Should
we
not
have
by
law,
be
able
to
say
you
don't
get
to
keep
the
the
rap
on
the
house
and
never
finish
it
on
this
accessory
building?
We
don't
have
that,
so
they
could
build
something.
A
That's
just
a
structure
with
no
overlay
on
the
that
no
finishing
product
at
all
and
that's
a
gap
that
I
I'm
pursuing
and
it
needs
to
be
done
because
from
a
property
standard
I
don't
want
to
be
living
beside
that
I!
Don't
want
to
be
living
beside
that!
You
got
to
give
people
a
reasonable
amount
of
time,
but
beyond
two
years
bye-bye
we're
going
to
come
in
and
we
are
they're
going
to
do
it
or
we're
going
to
finish
it
for
you
and
charge
you
we
do
that
in
so
many
ways.
We're
not.
A
We
don't
have
a
right
that
we
I
would
like
that
as
a
takeaway
for
staff,
to
figure
out
how
we're
going
to
do
that
and
then
come
back
and
tell
us
and
and
we'll
we'll
take
it
on
as
a
challenge.
I
think!
That's
it
for
speakers
on
this
I
want
to
thank
staff
and
all
the
community
associations
and
the
and
the
builders
that
have
been
involved
in
this
process
over
a
year.
I
think
that
you
took
on
it
and
I
think
it's
it's
good
and
I
like
that.
I,
like
our
cautious
approach
too.
A
So
we
have
the
motion
that
we've
already
carried
with
the
direction
to
staff
that,
if,
if
need
be
or
if
they
see
it,
trending
to
be
some
kind
of
a
huge
volume
of
uptake
or
even
even
a
significantly
more
volume
than
what
we
anticipate.
You
were
saying
40
a
year,
you
see
40
in
the
first
month
you
got
to
come
back
to
us,
we'll
have
to
have
a
look
at
that
and
make
some
changes
so
on
the
main
motion,
as
amended
Carrie
thanks
everybody,
a
good
discussion
today.
A
Thank
you
and
thank
you
all
for
hanging
in
after
the
fire
drill-
and
you
know,
can
I
just
say:
well
we're
well
they're
moving
and
we're
going
to
go
now
to
the
permitted
building
heights
for
accessory
building.
We
don't
have
a
speaker
there
anymore.
So
can
we
carry
that?
Okay
and
now
we're
going
to
go
on
to
number
four
and.
A
So
Andrews
you're
doing
the
and
he's
up
here
with
James
and
on
her
wire.
We
do
have
speakers
on
this
item
that
we're
gonna
have
a
presentation
first
and
while
they're
getting
ready
with
regard
to
the
fire
drill
you
know
like
in
most
cases
you
learn
that
they
go
out
as
soon
as
something
starts
flowing
ding-ding
or
the
alarm
goes
off
I,
don't
know
why
we
don't
do
it
that
way,
but
we
don't-
and
you
know,
goes
against
everything
that
you
learned
in
school
and
I
think
the
school.
Q
Good
morning,
members
of
committee,
madam
chair,
my
name's
Andrew
McCrea
time
the
file
lead
on
the
official
plan
and
zoning
bylaw
amendments
for
113
and
115
echo
Drive,
so
the
subject
property
is
located
in
the
northern
north
part
of
Main
Street.
This
is
north
of
the
Queensway
and
across
from
the
Rideau
Canal,
you
can
see
that
it's
on
the
southeast
corner
of
Main
Street
and
Echo
Drive
in
the
old
Auto
East
neighborhood.
So
the
proposal
is
for
a
six-story
37
unit,
building
with
three
ground
oriented
units
along
Main
Street.
Q
With
respect
to
the
Official
Plan
amendments.
The
amendments
are
being
requested
as
it
relates
to
the
old
Ottawa
East
secondary
plan.
Generally
speaking,
it's
to
redesign
eight
113
echo
Drive
as
traditional
Main
Street.
It's
currently
in
the
residential
low-rise
designation.
It's
to
require
the
building
to
set
back
after
the
fifth
story,
whereas
the
current
plan
calls
for
set
back
after
the
fourth
story
and
to
have
a
site-specific
policy
that
permits
a
residential
use,
building
and
limited
commercial
uses
where
the
current
secondary
plan
requires
limited
commercial
uses
at
grade
going
to
the
zoning
amendment.
Q
The
zoning
is,
the
site
is
currently
zoned
institutional
and
it
is
being
rezone
proposed
to
be
rezone
to
traditional
Main
Street,
along
with
some
site-specific
exemptions
and
us
height
schedule.
So
let's
go
over
those
briefly
it's
to
reduce
the
front
yard
and
side
yards
and
also
increase
the
corner
side
yard
setback.
That
would
be
a
long
echo
Drive
is
to
permit
both
residential
units
mixed
units,
and/or
commercial
units,
there's
also
a
recommended
holding
provision
which
I
can
go
into
more
detail
later
if
we
need
to
that
requires
130
square
metres
of
yard
along
Main
Street.
Q
So
this
would
be
the
program
space
between
the
building
and
the
front
lot
line
along
Main,
Street
and
there's
a
holding
provision
that
requires
us
to
see
those
details
at
site
plant
stage,
there's
also
a
recommended
schedule
to
control
the
maximum
building
heights
and
setbacks.
With
respect
to
the
fifth
floor
and
sixth
floor,
just
going
to
be
more
limited,
commercial
use
is
permitted
at
grade
consistent
with
what
you
see
in
the
secondary
plan.
Add
some
additional
commercial
uses
that
would
function
as
a
live-work
unit
within
those
ground
oriented
units
along
Main
Street.
Q
There's
provisions
about
minimum
and
maximum
driveway
isle
wits
between
six
and
six
point
seven
meters
and
to
allow
certain
permitted
projections
such
as
canopies
and
balconies,
to
project
to
a
lot
line.
A
lot
of
that
is
because
of
the
unique
design
and
orientation
of
the
building
with
different
corner
parts,
touching
the
lot
line
which
I'll
show
in
some
images
and,
lastly,
to
add
a
washroom
and
indoor
rooftop
amenity
area
above
the
height
limit,
so
at
the
mechanical
penthouse
level.
Q
So
just
quickly,
you
can
see
on
the
image
here
that
the
the
subject-
property,
113
and
115
echo
Drive-
is
currently
split
in
terms
of
the
Official
Plan
designation
in
the
secondary
plan.
So
the
intent
is
to
bring
the
property
in
its
entirety
into
the
main
street
designation.
So
the
main
street
designation
allows
for
a
maximum
of
six
storeys
up
to
20.
Meters
requires
various
setbacks
from
the
front
and
rear
yard
and
above
the
four-story,
as
I
mentioned.
There's
a
in
the
plan
today.
It
talks
about
limiting
commercial
uses
required
at
grade.
Q
There's
only
four
uses
permitted
personal
service
business,
retail
for
a
serve
restaurant
and
retail
full
food
store.
And
lastly,
looking
at
providing
a
good
animation
and
a
pedestrian
friendly
environment
along
the
Main
Street,
so
just
want
to
take
a
second
to
go
over
the
key
changes
that
happened
in
this
proposal
as
a
result
of
consultation.
Q
After
the
initial
round
of
consultation
and
public
comments
and
staff
comments,
the
African
completely
changed
the
proposal
with
a
very
new
design
and
a
new
building
altogether,
so
the
units
reduced
to
37
units,
you
can
see
the
significant
design
change
and
the
ground
orient
in
units
you'll
see
on
the
next
slide
are
now
intended
to
function
as
a
live-work
units
with
more
sort
of
animation
and
and
interaction
with
Main
Street.
Just
want
to
highlight
quickly
here
on
these
two
slides
the
difference
in
the
building
footprint,
especially
as
it
relates
to
this
setback
along
Main
Street.
Q
You
can
see
a
very
generous
setback
along
echo
Drive
here,
which
is
consistent
with
the
rest
of
echo
Drive
versus
the
original,
where
that
corner
feature
came
right
up
to
the
property
lines,
so
quite
a
few
changes
and
results
in
response
to
comments.
This
is
just
a
quick
image
showing
you
the
difference
in
the
ground
floor
unit
animation
and
the
different
interaction
that
we
have
along
Main
Street.
Q
We
have
a
five
storey
building
with
a
setback
of
the
fifth
story,
and
here
on
the
proposal,
we've
got
the
transition
of
a
setback
at
the
fifth
story.
You
can
see
it
better
in
the
image
that
was
back
here
should
have
mentioned
it
here.
So
here
you
can
see
how
this
the
setbacks
work
in
relation
to
a
Main
Street,
which
is
adjacent
between
those
two
buildings,
so
I'll
leave
the
rest
open
for
other
comments,
but
as
in
the
staff
reports,
we
are
recommending
approval
of
both
the
Official
Plan
amendments
and
zoning
bylaw
amendments.
Thank
you.
Q
K
K
Q
My
understanding
is
that
they
have
always
been
under
the
same
ownership.
They
are
different
parcels
if
you
look
at
the
back
of
the
site
currently
today,
it's
it's
all
asphalt
it
in
paved
and
it's
it's
not
clear
if
it's
ever
operated
as
two
different
entities,
at
least
in
recent
years,
but
definitely
under
one
ownership
and
the
current
zoning
reflects
that
it's
all
part
of
the
institutional
zoning
as
well
so.
Q
K
Q
Q
A
O
Thank
you,
madam
job,
just
for
little
context
here
over
the
last
six
years,
the
city's
done
a
very
fine
job
in
supporting
us,
the
CDP,
the
secondary
plan.
You
know,
we've
worked
together
and
it's
been
good
now
rebuilding
Main
Street
as
a
complete
Street.
Well,
that's
really
excellent,
and
the
city
deserves
to
be
congratulated.
In
terms
of
this
proposal.
We
were
we're
in
supportive
of
a
well-designed,
six-story,
primarily
residential
structure,
as
it
now
is,
and
much
better
than
the
initial
iteration.
O
In
terms
the
request
to
tm7
we're
of
the
belief
that
it
should
have
the
same
restrictions
as
pertain
to
the
other
tm7
on
Main
Street,
specifically,
the
ground-level
uses
should
be
the
same
as
the
rest
of
mains
tm7.
The.
What
that
means
is
the
residential.
Even
the
work
live.
That's
being
proposed
should
not
be
permitted
at
ground
level.
It
should
be.
It
should
be
as
as
described
elsewhere
for
the
tm7
on
Main
Street,
we're
just
afraid.
It
won't
be
animated
and
we
won't
have
it.
O
O
The
next
point
is
that,
even
if
you
do
approve
it,
as
as
the
work
live
units,
the
these
units
should
be
at
ground,
so
they,
rather
than
as
the
planning
report,
says
ground
oriented.
If
they're
not
at
ground,
you
will
not
have
the
accessibility,
you
will
not
have
the
possibility
of
them
really
becoming
a
commercial.
So
we
do
advise
that
these
units
be
made
at
ground,
not
ground,
oriented
I.
Believe
the
current
proposal
has
some
a
couple
steps
above
the
sidewalk
level.
O
It's
a
small
thing,
but
it's
a
really
important
thing
for
accessibility,
something
that
the
council
has
been
really
keen
and
the
promise
is
really
keen
on
ensuring.
The
next
point
is
that
if
a
new
development
must
fully
allow
the
extension
main
as
a
complete
Street,
SOS
has
been
so
well
done.
I
mean
the
city's
just
done
extraordinarily
well
in
making
a
complete
Street.
We
don't
want
it
screwed
up
here
by
not
having
on
both
sides
of
Main
Street
at
this
critical
corner,
the
the
cycle
track
and
the
wide
sidewalk.
O
So,
in
conclusion,
you
know
it's
generally
a
good
proposal,
but
to
allow
the
developer
to
sort
of
shape
the
provisions
of
the
TM
7
that
the
developer
wants
to
have
is
I'm,
not
a
service
to
the
community.
Finally,
let's
just
make
sure
Main
Street
really
is
continued
as
a
complete
Street
for
us
full
duration
of
the
city.
First,
full
length
of
the
city
has
done
for
this
for
the
southern
part.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Thank.
K
J
Just
a
question
to
staff
arising
from
the
public
delegation
just
because
I
I
too
was
a
bit
puzzled
about,
on
the
one
hand,
seeking
a
rezoning
to
GM,
which,
for
most
of
us
a
traditional
Main
Street
involves
having
retail
at
grade.
So,
on
the
one
hand,
the
message
is
we
want
this
to
be
mixed
juice,
which
makes
a
lot
of
sense,
but
then
not
or
then
allowing
the
work
lives
seems
to
undermine
a
little
bit
the
policy
objective
of
moving
to
a
traditional
Main,
Street
sonic.
J
Q
Very
good
question
counselor,
madam
chair
staff,
is
of
the
opinion
that
this
is
a
very
unique
corner,
with
with
two
very
prominent
views,
one
being
from
the
canal,
a
UNESCO,
World
Heritage
Site,
which
that
character.
If
you
walk
down
this
section
of
the
canal,
is
very
residential
and
very
consistent
with
a
low
rise
in
mid
rise
built
form
when
you
flip
over
to
the
Main
Street
side,
the
existing
context
is
not
quite
there
with
the
plant
function
being
that
it
is
intended
to
be.
Q
You
know
a
lively
mixed-use
corridor
and
we're
of
the
opinion
that
the
live-work
unit
approach
at
at
grade
provides
that
animation
and
that
interaction
with
Street,
but
as
a
balance
between
those
two
characters
and
the
zoning
allows
for
commercial
uses.
You
know
Sid
those
units
evolve
over
time
into
something
that
is
more
of
a
commercial
entity
beyond
a
live
work
unit,
I'm.
J
A
second
question
just
relates
them
to
the
issue.
The
speaker
brought
up
about
transportation
I'm,
just
imagining
if
you're,
walking
or
cycling
whatever
the
direction
is
north
west
of
that
stage
on
on
Main
Street
from
the
complete
street.
That's
a
pretty
good
access
point
to
the
canal
and
to
the
bike
lanes
in
the
canal,
because
it
wasn't
mentioned
in
the
report.
What
is
the
expectation
for
that?
Northwestern
continuation
from
the
bike
track
to
the
canal?
Let's
talk
about
cycling.
First
I'm
not.
Q
I'm
sure
what
what
the
department
has
discussed
that
date
or
to
date
and
the
Community
Association
has
been
very
involved
with
those
discussions
and
I
think
we've
had
a
healthy
discussion
is
at
this
point.
We've
confirmed
that
in
front
of
this
site,
right
up
to
echo,
Drive,
there's
enough
room
to
have
a
dedicated
cycle
track
and
why
pedestrians
sidewalk
without
having
the
need
for
a
road
widening
here
I
can
get
into
those
details,
but
it's
very
detailed,
but
the
longest
short
of
it
is
because
of
the
geometry
of
the
intersection
at
main
and
greed.
Q
Q
When
we
talk
to
transportation,
while
under
designed
current
conditions,
there's
been
I,
think
it
was
three
accidents
in
the
last
three
years,
very
minor,
none
of
which
involved
pedestrians
and
cyclists
and
they'll
report
back
to
us
is
that,
although
not
to
current
standards,
it
doesn't
warrant
a
redesign
at
this
point,
but
it's
something
we
can
continue
to
look
at
as
a
site
plan.
Application
is
submitted
which
has
not
been
submitted
to
date.
A
Anyone
have
any
questions,
mr.
dance.
Thank
you
very
much
for
coming
out.
Thank
you.
Okay.
Next
up
we
have
mr.
Hoban
Catherine.
Are
you
coming
up
with
mr.
Horton
I
thought
you
might
is
it?
Is
it
I
think
I've
asked
you
this,
but
is
it
great
choocha
row
hooter
I
never
would
have
guessed
that
row
hooter
remind
me
next
time.
Elodie.
P
As
with
the
committee,
my
name
is
Catherine
Currier
I'm,
a
planner
of
proton
consultants
with
me,
is
very
hoping
from
there
I
hope
and
architects.
We
have
prepared
a
presentation,
but
I
I
think
we
we
wanted
to
cover
up
some
of
the
main
points
that
are
raised
by
mr.
mr.
dance.
We
do
want
to
thank
staff
and
the
Community
Association
for
their
continued
involvement
on
this
project.
We
do
support
the
staff
report.
There's
not
much
else.
P
I
can
add
in
terms
of
the
policy
framework,
but
we
want
to
address
the
issue
of
the
commercial
because
it
has
been
something
that
we've
discussed
with
staff
over
an
extensive
period
of
time.
We've
been
use
a
process
for
approximately
a
year
at
this
point,
so
it's
something
that
we
have
talked
to
through
thoroughly.
P
The
site
is
actually
looking
at
the
very
north
end
of
the
of
the
main
street
and
one
thing
that
we
did
on
the
point
out,
as
we
were
going
through
that
process,
a
lot
of
the
properties
that
were
located
south
here,
we're
identified
as
not
being
appropriate
for
the
continuous
traditional
Main
Street
environment,
because
they're
all
residential
properties.
So,
as
a
result,
they
were
taken
out
of
the
Main
Street
designation
and
put
into
the
general
urban
area.
I.
P
Think
the
important
component
here
is
that
the
desire
for
continuous
and
commercial
ground-floor
is
very
admirable
one,
but
it
has
to
be
recognized
in
the
context
in
which
it
is
located.
So
similarly,
here
we
are
located
north
of
the
highway
and
I
did
do
a
couple
of
street
views
to
give
you
a
sense
of
what
we're
looking
at
here.
This
isn't
a
stretch
of
Main
Street.
That's
that's
been
traditionally
a
commercial
one.
P
It's
was
a
predominately
residential
in
nature
and
to
ask
uniform
who
actually
has
a
commercial
arm
of
its
business
to
require
commercial
use
which
they
did
not
think
was
sustainable,
was
a
fairly
difficult
proposition,
so
what
we
decided
to
do,
and
here's
just
another
shot
of
the
intersection.
This
is
looking
at
Greenfield
and
that
Main
Street
and
we
can
see
the
site
is
located
over
here.
This
is
an
existing
residential
building
which
actually
has
no
no
Street
interaction.
P
That's
something
that
we
wanted
to
avoid
on
the
proposal,
but
in
order
to
allow
for
a
multitude
of
things
to
happen
on
this
site,
we
actually
asked
for
a
zoning
that
would
allow
us
to
do
for
the
residential,
fully
commercial
and
a
combination
of
live
work
units
in
the
fullness
of
time.
All
of
those
uses
could
take
place
on
the
ground
floor.
The
site
itself
is
isolated
from
Main
Street.
P
The
focus
for
the
redevelopment
right
now
has
been
the
all
blade
site
and
the
sister
which
are
going
to
add
commercial
uses
and
there's,
in
my
opinion,
no
benefit
to
putting
a
commercial
requirement,
and
that
would
never
be
fulfilled
so
by
having
a
commercial
use.
That
means
it
stays
vacant
on
the
site,
because
there's
no
uptake
for
that
kind
of
use
to
occur
at
this
location
would
not
actually
be
a
benefit
to
the
community.
It
would
just
create
an
empty
spot
that
wouldn't
get
used
and
I
guess.
One.
P
Other
final
point
is
that
through
this
process
we
have
it
balancing
a
variety
of
positions
and
needs
understanding
that
the
old
Ottawa
East
Community
Association
does
one
a
mainstream
and
a
complete
mainstream.
We
have
heard
the
opposite
view
from
the
residents
of
canal
111,
which
is
that
they
don't
want
any
commercial
uses
on
the
site.
So
we
think
that
a
live
web
solution
that's
been
really
well
designed
and
has
been
through
the
UD
RP,
which
recognized
the
benefit
that
it
would
bring
to
the
street
is,
is
one
that
needs
are
everyone's
demands
at
this
time.
P
P
Guess
just
one
other
point
about
the
the
Main
Street,
the
complete
Main
Street.
We
have
been
looking
at
the
redesign
and
staff
have
asked
us
to
incorporate
the
project
into
the
latest
design
for
Main
Street
and
we
are
able
to
achieve
all
of
the
Main
Street
components,
including
a
sidewalk
and
a
cycle
track
on
this
part
of
the
street
without
having
the
road
widening.
H
Madame
Curie
I
won't
I
won't
bore
you
with
the
full
presentation.
The
pretty
pictures
has
been
a
long
day,
but
let
me
just
reinforce
a
couple
of
very
key
things
about
this
building.
First
of
all,
it's
a
fabric,
building
six
storeys
high.
It's
intended
to
feed
with
its
neighbor
to
the
north
and
to
turn
the
corner
as
you
go
down,
Main
Street,
it's
also
in
a
fabric
building
very
low
to
the
ground
and,
from
an
exterior
perspective,
he's
very
focused
on
livable
units.
So
if
you
notice
the
history
that
mr.
H
McCrae
went
through,
which
is
a
pretty
good
presentation
gradually,
as
a
project
proceeded,
we
decided
to
make
the
unit's
bigger
and
to
focus
on
livability.
So
what
you'll
see
is
an
architecture
that
is
very
much
geared
towards
balconies
and
livable
views
towards
the
canal,
stepping
along
Main
Street,
and
these
Street
then,
is
a
secondary
exposure.
However,
the
three
units
that
we're
talking
about
the
three
commercial
live
work
units
are
right
here
at
grade
and
I
just
want
to
speak,
and
here
you
see
from
from
overheads.
H
H
One
of
the
things
that
I
think
I'll
just
go
back
to
the
first
very
clearly
mr.
dance
raised
a
number
of
very
well
irrelevant
issues,
and
that
is
the
animation
that
occurs
in
grade.
So
all
of
three,
these
liberal
units
have
extremely
high
ceilings,
plate-glass
big
exposure
in
terms
of
glass,
so
they
are
desirable
for
my
boutique
retail
perspective.
H
They
are
raised
by
two
steps,
as
as
it
currently
sits.
However,
it's
possible
in
every
case
to
make
them
barrier
free,
so
very
a
free
issue
is
really
off
the
table.
Then
the
whole
thrust
of
this
is
to
make
this
ground
floor
animated
and
even
if
it's
live
work
in
the
initial
stages
or
it
becomes
retail
in
long
stages.
These
are
desirable
units
for
that
purpose
and
I
think
mr.
dance
reference
we've
had
numerous
consultations
on
this.
H
A
K
A
K
I
I
Imagine
there
being
multiple
meetings
with
the
Community
Association
and
city
staff
and
various
combinations
and
permutations
of
all
of
those
over.
What's
got
to
be
a
couple
of
years
now,
as
his
projects
evolved
and
we
are
left
with
fine-tuning,
you
know
important
to
some
people
but
relatively
small
pieces,
so
I
just
want
to
thank
and
compliment
everyone
in
those
various
groups
and
titles
that
I
just
named
for
having
essentially
been
a
part
of
a
process
where
presentations
were
made.
I
Concerns
were
heard
almost
back
to
the
drawing
board
in
some
ways
and
continued
to
try
to
refine
an
explorer
right
down
to
our
we'll
get
to
it
with
site
plan
later,
but
right
down
to
our
traffic
engineers.
Examining
you
know
every
centimeter
in
terms
of
how
we
can
get
as
much
of
the
sidewalk
and
the
cycle
track
involved
as
possible,
and
there
may
still
be
some.
Some
relatively
minor
changes
possible
there,
but
in
fact
the
problem
is
on
the
other
side
of
the
street.
I
The
problem
is
that
that
buildings
were
allowed
to
be
built
on
the
other
side
that
take
as
much
of
the
right-of-way
as
possible
that
do
not
engage
in
any
way
with
the
street
and
where
we
didn't
leave
room
for
a
future
of
a
cycle
track
and
landscaping,
and
it's
going
to
be
a
trade-off
of
you
know
one
or
the
other
there.
So
that
is
something
for
the
future
to
deal
with,
but
really
Justin's
in
summing
up
here.