►
From YouTube: Planning Committee - Meeting of 27 January 2022
Description
Planning Committee - Meeting of 27 January 2022
A
C
E
A
This
is
a
public
meeting
to
consider
the
proposed
comprehensive
official
plan
and
zoning
bylaw
amendments
listed
as
items
one,
two
three
and
four
on
today's
agenda
for
the
items
mentioned.
Only
those
who
make
oral
submissions
today
or
written
submissions
before
the
amendments
are
adopted
may
appeal
the
matter
to
the
ontario
land
tribunal.
A
In
addition,
the
applicant
may
appeal
the
matter
to
the
ontario
land
tribunal.
If
council
does
not
adopt
an
amendment
within
90
days
of
receipt
of
the
application
for
a
zoning
by-law
amendment
in
120
days
for
an
official
plan
amendment
to
submit
written
comments
on
these
amendments
prior
to
their
consideration
by
city
council
on
february,
9
2022,
please
email
or
call
the
committee
or
council
coordinator.
A
B
A
A
Carried
thank
you.
Okay,
we're
going
to
go
through
each
of
the
items
on
the
agenda.
We
will
hold
any
items
where
there
are
public
delegations
registered
or
where
there
are
questions
from
committee
members.
So
the
first
item
is
a
zoning
bylaw
amendment
for
one
laser
street
in
knoxdale
maryvale
there
are
no
public
delegations
registered.
A
B
A
A
Carry
okay
so
moving
on
to
the
next
item.
This
is
item
number
two
official
plan
and
zoning
bylaw
amendment
for
641,
rita
street.
We
do
have
a
number
of
public
delegations,
so
we
will
hold
item
number
two
item.
Number
three.
Is
a
zoning
bylaw
amendment
for
702,
earl,
armstrong
road?
We
don't
have
any
public
delegations
listed,
I
see
councillor
curry,
has
has
gone
offline
for
this
item.
Councilor
meehan.
Did
you
have
comments
or
questions?
Do
we
need
to
hold
this
or
is
it
a
question
or
quick
comment?.
J
Thank
you
chair.
Actually,
no,
I
do
have
some
comments
if
you
would
indulge
me
for
a
minute
or
two
okay.
First
of
all,
I
have
to
tell
you,
I'm
I'm
so
so
happy
to
see
this.
This
application
come
before
planning.
This
is
for
a
much
needed
high
school
in
riverside
south.
I
had
advertised
it
throughout
the
that
this
meeting
was
going
to
be
held
and
the
community
is
extremely
pleased
to
see
it
come
forward.
But
what
I
would
like
to
do
is
to
raise
some
concerns.
J
J
Anyone
familiar
with
riverside
south
will
know
that
earl
armstrong
is
an
extremely
busy
very
fast
road
through
the
community
and
right
now
the
intersection
where
the
school
will
be
located
on
the
south
side
of
of
earl
armstrong
on
the
eastern
side
of
spratt
road,
which
will
be
the
the
entrance,
is
an
extremely
busy
and
dangerous
intersection.
We've
had
numerous
accidents
crashes
at
these
locations
actually
several
occasions
along
earl
armstrong.
So
my
concern
is
by
locating
a
high
school
on
such
a
busy
road.
We
are
potentially
jeopardizing
safety.
J
We're
also
going
to
be
looking
at
potentially
a
bottleneck
of
traffic
in
the
future.
When
we
put
this
in
this,
the
location
for
the
high
school,
while
it's
back
down
in
the
middle
of
the
community
is
actually
on
the
wrong
side
of
spratt
road,
it
should
have
been
placed
on
the
western
side
of
spratt
road.
So
when
traffic
turns
off
earl
armstrong,
it
automatically
can
can
stay
on
the
same
side
as
on
sprat
and
take
go.
J
Take
the
bus
loop,
but
the
way
it's
located
right
now,
you're
turning
onto
sprat
road,
then
you've
got
a
cross
traffic.
That's
coming
out
on
spratt
to
go
into
the
high
school.
Now
a
lot
of
you
may
say:
well,
what's
the
big
deal
well,
the
big
deal
is
that
it's
going
to
impede
traffic
leaving
the
community
we're
going
to
have
several
buses
we're
going
to
have
a
lot
of
cars.
The
behavior
of
parents
and
and
children
students
going
to
school
right
now
has
changed
dramatically
over
the
pandemic.
J
J
Earl
armstrong
is
one
bad
road
lime
bank
is
another,
and
if
you
think
that
maybe
I'm
I'm
causing
a
lot
of
fear,
I'm
not
saint-effects
high
school,
which
is
located
quite
a
distance
off
lime
bank
is
now
experiencing
these
problems
where
traffic
is
backed
up
onto
line
bank
and
downline
bank
from
the
volume
of
traffic
trying
to
get
into
that
high
school.
So
I'm
anticipating
some
issues
going
forward.
J
Instead
of
having
to
cross
traffic
on
a
road
going
in
and
then
having
to
come
back
out
onto
a
busy
road,
there
will
be
challenges
all
that
said.
I
think
that
I've
made
my
concerns.
You
know
to
the
board
well
aware,
they're
well
aware
of
my
concerns
and
I'm
hoping
the
planning
department
will
in
future,
because
the
last
thing
we
want
is
to
have
somebody
injured
or
killed
on
a
really
busy
road,
and
the
community
agrees
that
this
is
busy.
But
we
just
don't.
J
We
need
the
school
to
go
ahead
and
I
also
appeal
to
the
planning
staff
to
to
do
their
utmost
to
expediate
all
the
approvals
so
that
we
can
get
the
shovels
in
the
ground
as
soon
as
possible.
So
thank
you
for
the
time
and
if
you
have
any
questions
about
what
I'm
actually
talking
about,
I
don't
know
if
I
explained
it
well,
but
we
we've
got
to
locate
our
schools
in
a
much,
maybe
less
busy
areas
so
or
accommodate
the
traffic
in
a
better
manner.
So
I'll
leave
it
at
that.
A
Thank
you
councillor
and
I
think
that
reflects
the
some
of
the
email
correspondence
we've
received
on
this
item
as
well,
and
I
know
that
our
transportation
department
is
looking
into
that
particular
intersection
for
safety
improvements.
So
that's
good.
So
on
the
zoning
bile
amendment
for
702
earl,
armstrong
road
are
the
report
recommendations
carried
carried
period,
very
okay.
A
And
then
item
number
four
which
is
385
sussex
drive.
We
will
hold
that
item
as
well.
There
is
a
public
delegation
registered,
so
if
we
go
back
to
back
to
the
beginning,
the
first
item
that
we
held
was
number
two
official
plan
and
zoning
bylaw
amendment
for
641
reado
street.
We're
going
to
have
a
brief
staff
presentation
and
then
presentation
from
the
applicant
and
then
we
have
a
number
of
delegations
registered.
K
Good
morning,
mr
chair
members
of
the
committee
and
the
public
who've
attended,
my
name
is
simon
diako.
I'm
the
file
lead
for
this
application
next
slide.
Please,
this
morning
we're
considering
amendments
to
the
uptown
rio
secondary
plan
and
zoning
bylaw
amendment
to
permit
the
development
of
a
25-story
mixed-use
tower
on
the
subject
property,
the
opa
is
required
to
recommend
amendments
to
the
required
floor
space
index.
Excuse
me,
the
maximum
for
space
index
and
a
second
public
realm
to
trigger
density
redistribution.
K
The
zoning
would
be
reflective
of
the
the
new
program
and
conclude
site-specific
performance
centers
with
respect
to
height
setbacks
and
a
new
zoning
schedule
what's
important
in
considering
this
file
today.
Members
is
that
this
is
not
a
discussion
about
height.
This
is
rather
a
discussion
on
density
redistribution
triggers
within
the
secondary
plan
and
the
design
and
built
form
criteria
to
assess
such
a
project.
K
Subject:
site
is
on
the
north
side
of
rio
street,
just
east
of
wurttemberg
and
west
of
the
cummings
bridge,
as
we
move
to
the
vanier
community
to
the
immediate
east,
is
the
romanian
embassy
and
to
the
west
of
the
site
is
an
och
property.
This
property
is
is
in
the
middle
of
those
sites.
It
does
not
have
direct
frontage
to
the
waterfront
or
existing
pathway
networks
and
to
the
north
of
the
site.
We
see
an
existing
residential
tower
next
slide.
Please.
K
K
K
The
next
layer
of
policy
here
is
the
uptown
redo
secondary
planet,
and
these
images
are
key.
The
first
image
that
we
see
is
schedule
b,
which
outlines
the
baseline
heights
for
the
site
and
the
maximum
fsi.
So
for
this
particular
site,
we
see
a
baseline
height
of
nine
stories
and
an
fsi
of
5.0
and
fsi
refers
to
taking
the
the
area
of
the
site
and
square
footage
of
square
meters,
and
that
is
the
permissible
amount
of
development
for
the
site.
K
K
K
The
principles
of
this
transact
designation
are
to
see
a
mix
of
uses
and
densities
along
such
corridors,
and
the
project
is
consistent
with
this
new
op
direction,
which
is
currently
with
the
province
next
slide.
Please,
the
current
zoning
is
reflective
of
the
traditional
main
street
designation
and
it
has
a
maximum
height
of
19
meters
and
fsi
of
3.5
meters.
K
Next
slide,
please,
as
part
of
the
proposed
zoning,
we
would
be
staffer
recommending
a
new
traditional
main
street
exception
zone
with
a
new
implementing
height
schedule
that
would
capture
the
building
program.
As
we
can
see,
it
captures
the
the
maximum
heights
and
building
setbacks
and
step
backs
for
the
for
the
project
next
slide.
Please.
K
With
respect
to
the
policy
review
for
this
project,
the
applicant
is
the
applicant
and
the
application
reviewed
against
the
current
op
uptown
rio
secondary
plan
and
the
new
official
plan.
It's
staff's
opinion.
The
project
is
consistent
with
the
official
plan
with
respect
to
managing
growth
and
intensification.
K
K
It's
staff's
opinion
that
the
project
is
also
consistent
with
sections
2.5
and
411
of
the
op,
with
respect
to
urban
design
and
compatibility
and
consistent
with
the
applicable
design
guidelines
for
the
site.
And
lastly,
the
project,
as
I
said,
is
consistent
with
the
direction
of
the
new
official
plan.
Next
slide.
Please.
K
The
slide
just
demonstrates
some
of
the
evolution
of
the
project
as
the
project
went
through
staff
comments
and
consideration
by
the
urban
design
review
panel.
Some
of
the
large
shifts
in
the
project's
design
include
a
refinement
of
the
podium
which
was
brought
down
to
be
consistent
with
secondary
plant
direction,
refinement
in
the
roof
and
penthouse
features
of
the
building,
along
with
some
of
the
architectural
materials.
So
we
see
the
progression
from
left
to
right
where
the
project
on
the
right
image
would
be
implemented
through
the
zoning
schedule.
I
shared
earlier
next
slide.
K
K
Next
slide,
please,
and
just
to
wrap
up
our
next
step
was
the
applicant
would,
if
approved
the
applicant
would
be
required
to
enter
into
a
section
37
agreement.
We
would
go
through
our
statutory
notice
of
approval
and
appeal
periods
and
then
an
application
for
site
plan
control
which
has
not
been
submitted
today,
would
be
forthcoming
and
then,
as
included
in
the
details
of
zoning,
there
is
a
holding
provision
for
the
site
that
would
have
to
be
addressed
on
a
future
application
next
slide.
Please-
and
thank
you,
committee,
that's
that's
my
presentation.
A
L
L
I've
also
submitted
a
letter
to
the
committee
which
you
may
refer
to,
and
it's
it
very
my
my
comments
today
will
be
very
consistent
with
that
letter.
Eric.
If
you
could
forward
me
to
page
three
I'll
start
there
just
to
revisit
a
little
bit
of
the
the
context
discussion.
I
want
to
remind
the
committee
that
the
site
is
located
number
three.
L
The
romanian
embassy
is
also
a
development
parcel
which
immediately
abuts
the
water,
and
it
is
also
eligible
for
the
density
transfer
so
oftentimes.
The
committee
is
considering
buildings
that
are
a
little
ahead
of
the
rest
of
the
corridor.
Filling
out,
but
in
this
case
here
we
are
in
an
area
that
is
already
characterized
by
highrise
eric.
If
you
can
go
to
slide
five,
please
simon
identified
that
the
site
and
the
current
op
is
part
of
the
is
designated
traditional
main
street.
It's
also
on
a
transit
priority
corridor.
L
Rito
street
is
a
little
bit
more
of
a
fulsome
transit
traditional
main
street
than
some
of
the
other
ones,
and
it
does
not
have
on
street
parking.
It
is
characterized
by
east
west
dedicated
bus
lanes.
It
is
very
much
a
transit
street,
unlike
some
of
the
other,
dashed
main
streets
like
elgin,
so
it
is
a
in
addition
to
being
on
a
traditional
main
street.
It
is
very
much
a
street
that
is
intended
to
accommodate
greater
heights
and
density.
L
Simon
briefly
touched
on
the
new
op
as
well,
and-
and
you
know,
while
we're
not
relying
on
the
new
op
to
rationalize
the
application,
we
did
consider
it.
Given
it's
a
council
approved
document
and
similar
to
mr
diako's
comments,
the
new
op
would
support
the
heights
and
the
densities
proposed
and,
as
a
matter
of
fact,
would
not.
L
Cap
densities
like
the
secondary
plan,
is
doing
if
you
can
go
to
slide
six,
and
I
won't
spend
too
much
time
on
this,
but
the
the
uptown
rito
street
you
heard
from
mr
diaco
does
identify
fsis
that
fsi
was
a
calculation
based
on
the
as
of
right
form,
which
on
this
site
and
this
block
would
be
nine
stories.
That's
how
the
city
came
up
with
the
density,
but
it
is
eligible
for
a
density
transfer
up
to
25
stories.
So
to
echo
mr
diaco's
comments,
this
is
not
a
discussion
of
height.
L
It
is
a
consideration
of
form
and
are
we
doing
a
good
job,
but
it
is
not
a
consideration
necessarily
of
of
whether
the
height
is
appropriate.
What
the
opa
does
is
two
things
one.
It
recognizes
that
this
block
is
a
mid-block
lot
and
that,
on
its
own,
some
adjustments
to
the
criteria
for
density
distribution
is
being
clarified.
L
The
site
does
not
have
two
public
frontages
and
that's
the
amendment,
but
I
can
advise
the
committee
that
it
meets
all
of
the
other
criterias
related
to
lot
area,
provision
of
a
pops
or
obligations
for
building
transition,
so
it
it
does
meet
the
intent
of
the
secondary
plan
and
that
criteria
is
on
page
13
of
the
staff
report.
The
second
thing
that
this
amendment
does
is
it
updates
the
fsi.
There
are
other
properties
on
redo
street
that
have
an
fsi
greater
than
greater
than
five.
L
In
this
case,
it
does
provide
us
a
frame
of
reference
again
based
on
a
nine
story
massing,
but
although
we
exceed
the
fsi,
the
form
of
the
building,
whether
it's
the
25-story
building,
all
of
the
setbacks
to
abutting
high-rise
buildings,
both
future
and
existing
the
podium
height
and
even
in
the
floor
plate
that
is
now
in
the
range
that
is
deemed
acceptable
to
the
city,
the
form
is
appropriate
it.
It
responds
well
to
the
policies
and
the
context.
L
You
know
with
respect
to
that
fsi
and
the
measure
of
impacts.
There
are
no
additional
impacts
to
that
volume,
but
there
are
benefits
to
the
city,
there's
sufficient
transportation
capacity.
We
have
a
traffic
study
that
confirms
so
there
is
sufficient
servicing
capacity.
As
a
matter
of
fact,
the
city
recently
in
the
last
five
six
years,
upgraded
and
and
split
the
sewers
on
rideau
street,
and
it
is
transit
supportive
in
that
it
is
located
on
a
transit
priority
corridor.
L
L
Not
this
one
keep
going.
If
you
don't
mind,
I
we
just
want
to
give
you
a
little
bit
of
appreciation
of
massing
in
context.
You
recall
that
I
identified
that
this
is
part
of
already
a
high-rise
node.
Other
areas
of
rito
street
further
east
are
also
characterized
by
high-rise
buildings,
and
we
populated
some
of
the
new
buildings
that
were
recently
approved,
including
the
two
25-story
towers
for
trinity.
L
L
Okay,
well
I'll
simply
maybe
go
to
the
next
one.
Eric
and
I'll
wrap
up
on
that
one.
In
that,
I
believe
the
lowertown
community
association
is
going
to
make
comments
related
to
potential
impacts
to
mcdonald
park,
which
you
can
see
in
the
foreground.
Here
there
are
existing
other
buildings
and
future
buildings
anticipated,
but
great
care
was
given
to
what
would
be
an
appropriate
transition
to
that
park.
So
I'll
leave
it
to
that
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
questions
at
a
later
time.
A
Okay,
thank
you
and
we
will
come
back
to
later
on
for
questions.
We're
gonna
go
to
our
public
delegations.
Now
just
give
our
our
clerks
team
a
chance
to
reset
a
bit.
We
have
six
public
delegations
registered.
The
first
three
are
warren
waters
from
the
lowertown
community
association,
darren
lowey
represented
acorn
and
laura
schantz.
M
M
The
the
delegate
from
foten
has
asked
an
important
question.
He
said
what
harm
of
increasing
density
to
6.9
if
it
already
meets
all
of
the
requirements
of
the
city,
I'm
going
to
try
and
answer
his
question
and
ask
one
of
my
own
at
the
end,
we're
recommending
that
you
refuse
the
official
plan
and
zoning
bylaw
amendments.
M
641
redo
is,
as
they
say,
the
one
of
the
last
lots
on
rideau
street
where
that
street
curves
to
cross
the
river.
The
vision
of
the
uptown
rideau
secondary
plan
describes
the
area,
as
quote
generally
a
street
of
mid-rise
buildings,
occasionally
taller
buildings
rising
above
human-scaled
podiums
transitioning
in
height
toward
the
central
area
and
new
buildings
achieve
sensitivity
to
established
neighborhoods
with
a
high
level
of
architectural
excellence.
That's
the
vision,
the
city
of
ottawa,
endorsed
when
it
approved
the
uptown
rideau
secondary
plan
after
a
two-year
consultation
process.
M
We
explained
all
this
in
our
written
comments.
So
what's
changed
since
that
plan
was
made,
the
ursp
does
not
contemplate
a
proponent,
requesting
an
increased
fsi.
There's
no
test
in
the
plan
to
do
so.
For
density
redistribution
policy,
531c,
clearly
states.
The
proposal
must
not
exceed
the
maximum
fsi
established
for
the
lot.
M
M
The
number
of
apartments
designated
as
large
household
dwelling
units
are
only
two
bedroom
units,
nearly
850
square
feet.
At
a
time
when
there's
an
affordable
housing
crisis,
the
community
needs
dwelling
units
which
can
accommodate
larger
families.
The
current
rental
apartments
are
relatively
affordable
units
that
will
be
lost
by
this
proposal.
M
M
My
question
is:
the
proposal
exceeds
the
maximum
fsi
of
six
that's
designated
in
the
secondary
plan,
and
that
density
is
reserved
only
for
the
two
largest
properties
on
the
north
side
of
redo,
the
loblaws
site
at
nelson
and
the
trinity
site
at
chapel
street.
The
secondary
plan
notes
these
two
large
properties.
Each
have
an
area
over
four
thousand
square
meters.
That'll
have
an
allowable
density
of
only
six
because
they
have
the
shape
size
and
location
to
allow
the
properties
to
absorb
more
density.
M
F
Very
much
chair-
I
just
I
just
wanted
to
ask
about
the
pre-consultation
period
here-
warren
because
this
is
coming
to
us
at
committee
later
in
the
day
than
I'd
like,
and
I
don't
know
if
the
counselor
has
worked
with
you
prior
to
this
time.
If
the
developer
did
their
due
diligence
and
presented
to
the
community
association
and
worked
with
you
to
try
to
find
some
middle
ground
here,
that's
what
I
always
prefer.
M
Yeah
we
had
a
pre-consult,
we
had
a
consultation
after
the
application
was
made
and
I'm
sure
that
that
that
they
they
took
in
all
of
our
comments
at
that
time.
The
next
thing
we
heard
about
it.
It
went
to
the
urban
design
review
panel
with
a
revised
design,
but
the
revisions
were
purely
cosmetic
in
order
to
meet
the
anticipated
urban
design
review
panel
objections.
I
think
they
went
back
to
the
urban
design
review
panel.
M
F
M
F
F
Yeah,
I
know
there's
real
issues
with
it.
I
I
guess
some
developers
are
more
open
in
advance.
They'll
often
meet
with
the
counselor's
office
and
the
community
association
advance
to
talk
through
before
the
application
is
made
and
then
try
to
come
to
some
middle
ground,
which
is
what
I
really
prefer
us
to
go
to.
So
I
appreciate
your
your
comments.
Thanks.
A
B
N
N
I
lived
at
645
rio
street
for
18
years,
so
I'd
like
to
speak
about
my
perspective
on
this
proposal,
I'm
also
speaking
as
member
of
acorn
a
social
and
economic
justice
organization
of
low
income
people
in
all
of
it.
That's
32,
000
members,
strong
and
fights
against
mass
evictions
and
destruction
of
affordable
housing
in
cases
just
like
these
hello.
I
N
They
don't
always
try
to
force
people
out
directly
either.
Instead,
they
do
what
seatbelt
did
where
they
neglect
the
abilities
until
towns
literally,
cannot
live
in
horrible
conditions.
For
18
years
I
was
living
in
sunlight
conditions,
roaches
everywhere
extreme
water
damage
to
my
wall.
In
my
living
room,
my
door
was
hanging
off
its
hinges.
My
stove
had
one
functioning
burner
since
2015.
My
oven
did
not
work
at
all.
You
might
ask.
Why
did
I
want
to
keep
living
there?
The
answer
hello,
hello,.
N
N
My
mother
knew
that
they
could
keep
treating
me
poorly
and
get
away
with
it
worse.
Yet
it's
common
tactic
to
try
to
force
out
long-term
tenants,
so
people
had
hoped
that
I
just
leave,
and
so
they
could
raise
the
rent
for
the
next
tenant.
I
mean
why
would
they
maintain
the
place
if
they're
planning
to
tear
it
down
anyways,
this
kind
of
predatory,
behavior
shouldn't
be
rewarded
with
approval
from
the
city
rezoning
almost
years
ago
to
to
this
day,
I
worked
with
acorn
to
arrange
an
action
in
front
of
my
home,
hello.
N
In
front
of
my
home
fighting
against
the
wrongful
attempted
eviction,
I
would
also
I
would
have
been
homeless,
staying
in
the
street
with
two
cats
and
carriers
with
nowhere
to
go
in
the
middle
of
winter
in
the
middle
of
a
pandemic.
With
the
collective
pressure
we
built
up
through
this
action
and
reached
out
to
the
media,
I
managed
to
get
four
months
time
to
find
a
new
place
to
live.
N
N
This
movie,
I
was
lucky
to
find
a
non-profit
housing,
but
even
with
still
with
my
renter
more
than
what
I
was
paying
before,
if
it
wasn't
for
help
from
my
family,
I
wouldn't
be
able
to
afford
a
rent
at
all.
So
I
really
feel
bad
for
my
neighbors
here.
I
know
that
many
of
them
would
be
in
similar
situations
to
what
I
am
now
or
worse.
One
of
my
neighbors,
who
also
live
as
long
as
p,
would
definitely
be
homeless
on
the
street.
N
If
this
development
application
goes
through,
even
if
people
are
able
to
find
somewhere
to
live,
they
will
have
less
money
for
food
or
clothes
or
children
to
cover
all
living
expenses.
How
they
get
by
when
80
or
90
of
your
income
goes
to
your
rent.
Not
only
does
this
mean
that
voting
approval
of
this
application
is
a
vote
to
increase
homelessness
and
poverty
across
ottawa,
but
the
city
is
even
considering
this
application
contradicts
their
own
positions
on
affordable
housing.
It's
been
two
years
since
the
sea
of
ottawa
declared
a
housing
emergency.
N
In
addition,
in
the
10-year
housing
homeless
plan
and
the
city's
new
official
plan,
all
west
city
council
stated
that
one
of
its
priorities
was
to
preserve
existing,
affordable
housing.
According
to
university
of
ottawa,
professor
carolyn
whitsman,
we
are
losing
15
units
of
affordable
housing
for
every
one
unit
that
is
built
them.
Evictions
are
one
of
the
major
drivers
in
this
loss
of
affordable
housing.
N
If
we
prove
this
redevelopment
will
only
add
to
the
problem,
development
should
come
on.
The
back
should
not
come
on
the
backs
alone
can
work
in
class
tense
and
otherwise
should
be
able
to
trust
their
elected
officials
to
vote
on
the
people's
best
interest.
Working-Class
people
shouldn't
have
to
live
in
fear
of
homelessness.
No.
N
I
Okay,
thank
you,
mr
chair
and
good
morning,
darren
thank
you
for
the
delegation
and
and
thank
you
for
bringing
awareness
to
council
members
and
committee
members
of
the
the
challenges
how
many
units
are
currently
at.
I
know
there
are
three
separate
addresses,
but
how
many
units
are
on
the
parcel?
Well,
actually,
there
are
five
separate.
E
I
If,
if,
if
the
the
rent,
the
current
long-standing
rentals
that
are
there
are
are
to
see
a
demo
for
a
new
building,
what
what
is
the?
What
is
the
best
way
forward
for
for
you
and
the
tenants?
Is
it
a
compensation?
Is
it
a
finding
alternative
at
the
same
price?
Is
it
being
able
to
reintegrate
the
new
the
new
project?
What
what
could
you
maybe
share
with
us
if
the
site
is
to
be
redeveloped?
N
Well,
the
best
thing
would
be
to
find
them
housing
that's
comparable
to
what
they
have
for
about
the
same
price.
The
biggest
problem
is
that,
even
if
they
get
several
months
notice,
the
the
house
market
is
so
out
of
control.
Right
now,
I
remember
last
year,
when
I
was
looking
for
places,
I
saw
places
advertised
a
thousand
dollars
just
for
a
room,
an
eight
by
nine
foot
room.
I
mean
studio
apartments.
I
saw
a
studio
apartment
that
was
200
square
feet
in
a
basement
full
of
roaches.
N
It
didn't
have
a
stove,
it
had
a
hot
plate
and
they
wanted
11.50
for
them,
and
it
was
rented
a
few
weeks
later.
I
mean
they
need
it's,
it's
not
if
they
have
to
move
out.
What
happens?
Is
the
person
that's
paying?
They
end
up
paying
three
four
five
hundred
dollars
more
a
month
for
the
place
you're
moving
into?
Well,
that's
going
to
really
impact
on
their
ability
to
live.
How
you
pay
for
your
groceries,
I
mean
if
you're
making.
N
You
know
if,
like
I
said
before,
if
you,
if
you're
going,
if
right
now,
you're
paying
60
percent
of
your
rent
for
income
and
all
of
a
sudden,
you
have
to
pay
90
percent
of
your
income.
How
do
you
survive?
How
do
you
pay
your
bills?
How
do
you
buy
groceries
they
need
if
they
can
find
housing,
that's
comparable
at
the
same
price.
That's
fine!
But
that's
what
needs
to
be
done.
I
Okay
and-
and
I
have
my
concerns
with
the
application-
I
I've
written
it
in
the
report,
but
through
that
there's
a
number
of
information-
that's
come
to
be
in
relation
to
existing
tenants
and
I'll,
be
bringing
forward
a
motion
later
to
the
committee
to
try
to
try
to
alleviate
the
challenges
that
you've
raised.
So
please,
please
continue
listening.
A
O
Perfect,
thank
you
I'll
get
going
so
hi.
My
name
is
laura
shanks
and
I'm
here
because
I'm
concerned
about
the
proposal
at
641
rito
street
and
the
switch
from
affordable
rental
apartments
to
carmeneum
units
or
more
luxury
units
at
this
site.
The
city
of
ottawa's
new
official
plan
indicates
that
increased
density
in
existing
neighborhoods
should
be
encouraged
and
supported.
I
know
the
staff
report
indicated
similar.
O
Well,
I,
like
many
others,
have
absolutely
no
problem
with
the
concept
of
more
neighbors
and
would
indeed
welcome
the
transformation
of
this
section
of
redo
street
into
a
more
pleasant
walking
route
having
shops
along
it,
maybe
even
making
the
cycling
route
in
both
directions
a
little
safer.
My
concern
is
that
what
is
before
you
is
a
demo
eviction
application.
O
O
As
a
member
of
the
people's
official
plan
group,
I
have
raised
concerns
for
our
low-income
friends
and
neighbors
who
need
deeply
affordable
rental
housing.
The
new
official
plan,
which
is
before
the
province
right
now
is
by
the
city,
is
supposed
to
protect
attempts
by
ensuring
that
rental
apartments
will
not
be
converted
into
condominiums
and
to
ensure
that
low
income
rentals
remain
on
the
market.
Section
4.2.3
in
particular,
is
supposed
to
protect
existing
rental
housing
stock.
O
As
such,
the
official
plan,
the
new
official
plan,
the
guiding
policy-
that's
been
adopted
a
few
months
ago
and
is
only
waiting
for
provincial
approval,
will
tell
you
not
to
approve
this
plan
in
ottawa.
We
are
losing
15,
affordable
rental
units
for
every
one
that
is
built.
These
rental
units
will
not
be
replaced
with
anything
comparable
and
the
individuals
and
families
who
live
in
these
units
will
have
to
look
long
and
hard
to
find
accommodations.
O
O
I
have
the
good
fortune
to
have
a
reasonable
living
situation
right
now,
but
in
the
past
I've
paid
up
to
85
of
my
income
for
housing.
It's
a
struggle
and
to
know
that
housing
costs
are
only
going
up
is
incredibly
frightening
for
people
there
need
to
be
alternatives.
There
needs
to
be
accommodations
for
individuals
living
in
these
apartments
to
have
somewhere
to
go
at
comparable
rent
and
to
have
move
in
have
apartments
return
to
them.
O
They
have
somewhere
to
move
back
to
once
the
construction
is
complete
without
those
types
of
measures
this
this
proposal
should
not
be
moved
forward.
This
is
yet
another
example
of
lower
income,
tenants
having
their
housing
sacrificed
for
condos
and
for
higher
income
higher
income
renters.
I
agree
with
increasing
density
absolutely,
but
I
ask
members
of
this
committee
to
stand
with
renters
and
ensure
that
this
doesn't
become
yet
another
demo
eviction
leaving
tenants
without
affordable
housing
that
they
need
and
deserve
housing's
a
human
right.
Thank
you.
F
Thanks
very
much
chair.
I
just
wanted
to
talk
about
the
zoning
here
and
appreciate
your
comments.
I
guess
they're
looking
to
essentially
quadruple
the
height
allowed
by
the
current
zoning,
and
so
if
they
were
putting
in
rental
apartments
here
with
a
baked
in,
as
the
new
official
plan
says,
we
should
be
doing
both
for
market,
affordable
and
deeply
affordable
housing.
O
Not
in
the
slightest,
I
absolutely
believe
that
we
need
more
neighbors.
We
need
more
neighbors
on
transit
routes
like
this.
This
is
a
perfect
place
for
such
a
development.
The
challenge
is
that
this
is
also
an
area
with
a
lot
of
low-income
tenants
where
people
really
need
that
affordability-
and
I
think
we
are
not
seeing
affordable
stock
coming
on
the
market
in
any
in
any
way
comparable
to
what
is
being
lost,
and
it's
it's
a
huge
red
flag.
We
have
a
housing
and
homelessness
emergency.
We
need
to
be
addressing
that.
F
And
this
this
application
would
displace
people
one
of
the
things
the
new
official
plan
talked
about
was
anti-displacement
and
that
we
need
bylaws
to
ensure
that
we
don't
have
people
displaced
in
these
type
of
situations.
Are
you
aware
of
anything
that
would
allow
for
anti-displacement,
in
this
case,
that's
being
offered
up
by
the
developer.
O
I
have
not
personally
heard
about
anything.
To
that
extent,
I'm
really
hoping
there
is
something
I'm
hoping
counselor
flurries
may
be
working
on
something
behind
the
scenes,
because,
honestly,
like
these,
these
are
our
neighbors.
They
don't
have
anywhere
to
go.
There's
not
you
know
I
live
in.
I
live
just
down
the
bridge
in
bangla
and
I
can
tell
you
that
rental
stock
around
here
is
at
such
at
such
a
dire
state,
affordable
rental
stock,
that
you
know
we're
looking
at
doing
housing
labs,
we're
looking
at
trying
to
you
know,
get
volunteer
citizens
to
get.
A
I
I
O
A
Okay,
I'm
seeing
no
more
questions,
so
thank
you
laura
just.
There
was
a
reference
earlier
to
quadrupling
of
the
the
building
height.
The
baseline
is
nine.
The
proposal
here
is
for
25,
so
we're
looking
at
not
quite
three
times
the
baseline,
but
we
have
three
more
speakers,
michael
barnes,
andrea
harrison
and
victor
watson
and
iona
horvath,
michael
barnes,
is
with
us.
I
believe,
on
the
telephone.
B
P
B
A
O
Good
morning,
unfortunately,
my
husband's
in
a
telephone
conference
downstairs,
but
we
own
the
triplex
across
the
street
from
the
proposed
641
rideau
construction.
Our
home
was
built
during
by
town
so
prior
to
ottawa
becoming
ottawa.
So
it's
over
150
years
old
now,
and
none
of
the
pictures
that
were
shown
in
any
of
the
powerpoint
presentations
did
they
display
what
the
south
side
of
redo
street
looked
like.
O
We
are
a
rental
income
property,
but
we're
also
a
homeowner
that
lives
in
our
own
home,
and
we
have
a
few
major
concerns
regarding
the
construction
of
a
high-rise
that
goes
up
directly
across
the
street
from
us.
One
of
them
is
that,
of
course,
it
will
shut
down
the
last
piece
of
northern
skyline
in
the
area,
so
our
home
will
be
facing
a
very
tall
high-rise,
which
is
not
a
beautiful
appearance
for
us.
O
Currently,
a
lot
of
people
also
will
be
displaced
because
they
can't
afford
living
in
the
area.
We
observed
a
protest
just
last
week
by
those
residents,
and
I
I
I
feel
very
terrible
for
when
I
listened
to
darren's
story
the
tenants
there
have
never
been
an
issue
for
us
for
the
past
20
years
of
living
here
at
rita
street,
and
we
understand
how
difficult
it
is
to
find
affordable
housing
in
the
community.
O
I
A
O
O
Also,
the
potential
loss
of
tenants
in
the
area
for
the
other
rental
income
properties
on
the
south
side,
the
quality
of
living
during
a
major
construction
project
like
that,
if
there
are
jackhammers,
if
they're
you
know
if
there
is
blasting-
affects
our
quality
of
living
on
a
day-to-day
basis
and
since
all
of
these
properties
have
rental
income,
the
owners
can
also
suffer
loss
of
this
income.
Due
to
the
construction
increase
of
traffic
on
the
road
work,
increase
dust
and
effects
to
our
homes,.
A
C
C
C
This
proposal
is
in
direct
conflict
with
the
city's
own
policies.
I
quote
section
5,
land
use
and
build
forms
section
of
the
secondary
plan,
which
says
the
build
form.
Approach
of
this
plan
is
to
a
place
to
establish
consistent,
mid-rise
building
heights
and
density,
while
allowing
for
the
exploration
of
alternative,
build
form,
and
I
stress
under
specific
conditions,
without
increasing
density.
C
C
C
A
E
First
of
all,
I'd
like
to
say
that
I'm
a
board
member
of
action,
san
diego-
and
I
cannot
begin
to
say
other
than
this
is
a
project
that
affects
both
sides
of
real
street
and
it's
very
important
to
be
able
to
emphasize
that
in
action.
Sandy
hill's
letter
to
the
committee,
we
raised
the
very
same
point
as
the
lowertown
community
association.
E
So
what
I'd
like
to
say
is
the
consultation
period
was
very
limited,
and
that
makes
it
even
more
challenging
to
hear
the
news
over
a
pandemic
and
the
preparation
time
between
the
16th,
the
20th
of
december
and
submissions
to
january
7th.
So
in
brief,
we
again
emphasize
the
height
the
density
and
the
massing
of
this
building
is
disproportionate
in
the
original
rideau
street
community
design
plan
that
pre-existed
the
existing
plan,
we
can
see
that
this
building
would
have
been
in
the
three
to
six
floor.
E
Height
range
now
we're
seeing
a
height
of
about
nine
floors.
The
developer
would
seat
25
floors.
Nothing
really
has
changed
on
reader
street
other
than
the
requests
for
unreasonable
intensification.
So
that's
a
that's
an
important
point.
The
building
does
not
sit
on
at
least
two
public
rooms.
The
building's
podium
exceeds
the
maximum
that
is
allowed
to
this
site.
E
E
There
is
no
sensitive
transition.
It's
a
massive
building.
Even
the
revised
shadow
plan,
does
not
meet
the
requirements
of
the
city,
because
the
entire
length
of
the
shadows
for
this
development
are
not
shown.
Are
you
members
of
the
committee?
When
you
look
at
it?
You
cannot
see
that
in
some
cases,
public
parks
will
be
shadowed.
There's
no
written
summary
of
what
these
impacts
are.
The
shadows
will
reach
across
the
rito
river.
E
Yet
they
propose
a
four-floor
underground
garage,
the
deepest
garage
that
I
know
of
built
in
this
part
of
the
city.
So
when
you
look
at
it,
there's
really
not
much.
That's
going
to
be
exciting.
The
volumes
of
traffic
on
rital
street
are
immense.
They
will
only
go
up.
It's
the
most
difficult
entry
and
exit
point.
E
E
E
A
F
It
seems
to
me
this
would
be
an
amendment
for
both
the
old
official
plan
and
the
new
official
plan
if
it
were
in
force.
So
I
just
if
you
can
just
comment
on
that
and
where
we're
at.
In
terms
of
that,
I
don't
I'm
not
as
concerned
about
the
height
in
this
instance,
I'm
concerned
about
the
displacement,
which
is
also
something
the
new
official
plan
was
seeking
to
address
the
the
density
and
the
thickness
of
this
building,
as
it
relates
to
the
surrounding
community,
is,
is
a
concern.
F
E
There's
no
sensitive
transition
here
to
have
two
two
and
a
half
floor
buildings,
homes
all
heretics,
the
only
heritage
block
on
all
of
rideau
street
facing
this
match
of
power
it.
It
just
defies
description
and,
as
you
heard
on
a
previous
speaker
by
the
time
that
foundations
for
a
four
floor
underground
garage
are,
you
know
well
and
truly
done
on
that
sandy
sand
and
clay.
The
adjoining
ambassador
of
wurttemberg
area
will
will
be
affected.
E
F
Okay,
I
suppose
I
just
wanted
to
jump
in
I'm
trying
to
get
at.
I
wasn't
as
specific
at
first
I'm
sorry,
the
the
current
secondary
plan,
which
I
understand
was
updated
as
a
result
of
the
new
official
plan
process
and
maybe
I'm
wrong,
but
I
just
I
want
to
key
in
on
this,
so
the
secondary
plan.
I
understand
it
is
somewhat
more
permissive
here
and
would
allow
for
somewhat
more,
but
the
application
requires
amendments
to
that
new
secondary
plan
as
well.
F
E
F
A
Okay,
thanks
counselor,
and
thank
you
very
much
michael
for
joining
us
glad.
We
were
able
to
get
our
technology
working,
so
we
could
hear
you
today
that
wraps
up
the
public
delegations
before
we
go
to
the
applicant
and
staff
counselor
flurry
mentioned
the
motion
that
he's
been
working
on.
We're
gonna
have
councilor
moffat,
move
it
on
its
behalf,
but
counselor
fleury
we'll
get
it
up
on
screen.
Can
you
just
introduce
it
for
us
once
it's
up.
I
I
Acs
2022,
pi
ps0002
recommends
amendments
to
the
uptown
rito
secondary
plan
and
secondary
zoning
bylaw
2008
250
for
the
property
at
641
rideau
street
to
permit
a
25-storey
building
and
whereas
the
building
on
the
property,
where
were
constructed
in
1950
and
are
at
the
end
of
the
their
life
cycle,
and
whereas
concerns
have
been
raised
by
myself
and
community
with
respect
to
the
provisions
of
affordable
housing
for
the
existing
tenants
within
the
building,
therefore
be
resolved.
That
planning
committee
recommend
accounts
that
council
amend
the
staff
report
to
add
a
new
recommendation.
I
One
e
to
include
the
following.
I
wonder
if
you
could
scroll
down
eric
apologize.
Thank
you
that
the
that
the
implementing
official
plan
amendment
and
zoning
bylaws
do
not
proceed
to
counsel
until
the
memorandum
of
understanding
is
executed
by
the
applicant
and
that
the
memorandum
of
understanding
contains
the
following.
I
The
applicant
shall
offer
current
tenants
the
opportunity
first
right
of
refusal
to
return
to
the
new
building
in
the
unit
of
similar
size
as
the
one
vacated
and
see
subs
wonder
if
you
could
scroll
down
subsidize
the
rent
differential
of
an
alternative
rental
accommodation
in
another
building
in
a
unit
of
comparable
sizes
and
point
price
for
a
period
of
one
year.
Be
it
further
resolve
that
the
mou
applies
to
current
tenants
as
of
january
27
2022
and
be
it
further
resolve
that,
pursuant
to
section
subsection,
34
of
the
planning
act,
no
further
notice
be
given.
A
I
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
Just
a
quick
one
to
the
applicant.
I
believe
that
it's
joey
or
miguel,
just
so
okay
they're
on
the
screen
good,
so
miguel
I
want
to
clarify
the
applicant-
was
the
property
owner
at
the
time
when
the
city
was
consulting
on
the
uptown
rito's
cdp,
and
it
is
my
understanding
that
the
applicant
did
not
appeal
the
the
report
at
the
time.
So
can
we
understand
a
bit
of
the
the
reflection?
I
L
I
can
offer
some
early
comments
and
and
joey
feel
free
to
supplement
joey
and
I
both
participated
in
attack,
as
did
the
lower
town,
community
association
and
ash
and
other
property
owners.
The
to
be
clear.
The
25
story
height
and
the
fsi
was
driven
by
staff
staff,
did
an
analysis
of
the
entire
reach
of
the
corridor
and
assign
those
densities
when
joey
and
I
were
participating
in
that,
we
didn't
have
a
concept
to
validate
whether
the
fsi
was
correct
or
not.
It
was.
L
It
was
a
staff
driven
initiative
because
they
masked
out
some,
but
not
all
of
the
properties
at
nine
stories
and
said.
Here's
the
fsi
and
then
you're
allowed
to
redistribute
that
fsi.
There
was
no
analysis
on
staff's
part
and
joey,
and
I
at
the
time
weren't
in
a
position
he
didn't
have
an
architect.
He
didn't
have
a
proposal
to
validate
whether
the
fsi
was
actually
reasonable
for
a
25-story
building
that
meets
the
podium
heights,
the
the
tower
separation
and
all
of
those
things.
So
I
don't
want
to.
L
I
don't
want
to
say
the
secondary
plan
is
wrong,
but
the
secondary
plan
does
not
fully
recognize
the
volume
of
that
building
at
25
stories
in
the
form
that
meets
all
of
the
design
policies
further-
and
I
don't
want
to
get
into
this
too
much
and
I'm
going
to
speak
on
behalf
of
joey,
but
the
original
drafts
and
make
sure
joey's
muted.
The
original
drafts
of
that
plan
included
policies
that
would
have
recognized
mid-block
conditions
for
density
transfer.
Those
policies
never
found
their
way
into
it.
L
I
F
Thanks
very
much
chair
just
a
few
quick
questions.
So
I
understand
this
is
located
within
the
uptown
rideau
secondary
plan
area
that
that
previously
just
recently,
staff
had
done
that
exercise
for
the
fsi
first
place
for
floor
space
index
and
talked
about
having
maximum
building
height
based
on
density
redistribution.
F
L
I'm
generally
in
agreement,
just
your
timeline
that
you
referenced
with
mr
barnes
was
not
fully
accurate
in
that
the
there
was
an
old
cdp,
not
secondary
plan
in
the
90s,
maybe
carrying
over
to
the
2000s
in
2016,
the
city
initiated
the
review
of
the
cdp
and
then
in
2018,
I
think,
approved
the
secondary
plan.
That
document
has
remained
unchanged
since
2018.
L
The
new
op
does
not
affect
to
en,
to
my
knowledge,
any
substantial
policies
in
that
secondary
plan
and
yes,
part
of
the
intent
today,
is
to
amend
the
fsi
to
resp,
to
reflect
the
true
volume
of
a
25-story
building
and
to
properly
address
that
criteria.
We
meet
all
of
the
other
criterias
in
terms
of
lot
area
transition,
pops,
podium,
height,
etc.
F
L
E
P
I
think
they're
they're
close
to
market
rent
they've
been
a
lot
of
them,
have
been
like.
I
said,
the
life
cycle
of
buildings
have
come
to
its
course
now,
but
they've
been
updated
in
the
last
four
or
five
years
just
to
keep
them.
You
know
in
a
clean
condition
for
now,
but
they're
all
in
around
that
1500
mark.
F
L
I
I
would
be
happy
to
so
that
the
readers
3
documents
actually
quite
sophisticated
and
it
doesn't
treat
the
whole
street
as
one
street
here,
your
policies.
It
actually
breaks
it
up
into
four
sectors.
So
then
the
lands
on
the
south
side
of
rito
street
that
two
of
the
delegations
spoke
to
are
a
completely
different
sector.
They're
they're
projected
to
go
to
four
stories.
L
There
are
very
specific
policies
for
this
sector,
recognizing
that
it
is
already
characterized
by
high-rise
bar
buildings,
and
the
policy
direction
is
actually
for
a
six-story
podium
with
a
step
back
tower
up
to
25
stories.
Our
original
application
also
asked
to
amend
that,
and
we
asked
the
city
to
consider
a
nine-story
podium
given
that
that
was
the
as
of
right
height
for
that
segment.
L
So
the
policy
direction
is
actually
for
a
six-story
building
and
I
believe
for
exactly
that
reason
to
transition
to
the
south
side
of
rito
street,
which
is
anticipated
to
be
four
stories.
You
know
there's
like
that:
little
plaza
with
the
parking
in
the
front,
if,
like
those
those
are
anticipated
to
go
to
four
stories.
F
So
you
know,
we've
got
to
get
rid
of
our
our
minimum
parking
requirements
here,
of
course,
so
there's
some
city
work
to
do,
but
perhaps
you
can
go
into
that.
I
mean
I'll
talk
about
the
displacement
in
a
second,
but
you
know
if
you
can
go
into
the
car
parking
anticipated
right
in
the
core
here,
it's
on
a
transit
priority
corridor.
Next,
to
a
bus,
stop
about
a
20-minute
walk,
15
minutes
to
an
lrt
station.
L
I
can
so
the
you're
you're
right.
There
are
by-law
obligations,
they
there's
313
units.
The
total
amount
of
parking
that
you're
referring
to
to
233
is
for
both
visitor
and
residents.
First
of
all,
first
of
all,
which
I
will
say
that
this
committee
and
and
the
city
in
general
seems
very
unwilling
to
entertain
reductions
in
visitor
parking,
and
I
do
a
lot
of
applications
with
this
committee.
L
I
seldom
don't
get
a
warm
and
fuzzy
for
reducing
visitor
parking
as
opposed
to
resident
parking,
so
the
the
amount
of
parking
and
we're
only
46
spaces
over
the
required
bylaw
of
0.5
spaces
per
unit
and
then
0.2
spaces
for
visitor.
So
I
would
say
by
no
means
is
this
an
over
parking
of
the
site,
it's
46
spaces
above
the
bylaw,
and
you
know
I.
I
don't
think
the
discussion
on
the
public
participation
was
fulsome
enough
and
didn't
properly
inventory,
all
the
consultation
that
we
have
done.
L
But
at
that
meeting
it
was
also
very
clear
that
the
community
was
uncomfortable
with
potential
on-street
parking.
You
know
developers,
I
always
say,
have
the
impossible
task
of
making
everyone
happy.
They
have
to
make
staff
happy.
They
have
to
make
the
community
happy
and
they
have
to
make
themselves
happy.
So
we
think
this
is
the
right
balance
for
this
site
and
I
wouldn't
say
that
it's
an
over
over
parking,
the
site
considering
we
are-
are
meeting
the
bylaw,
but
not
by
an
excess.
L
F
The
whole
thing
is:
is
the
extra
profit
that
developers
can
usurp
from
these
types
of
amendments
should
be
shared
with
the
community,
the
surrounding
community
and
ensure
that
we're
not
having
displacement,
and
so
that's
my
my
primary
concern
here,
where
we're
heading
with
this.
With
this
development
there's
a
lot
of
things
I
don't
like
about
it
parking
is
one
the
location
and
thickness
of
the
building
in
that
area.
The
displacement
is
another
and
I
think
we
should
be
likely
sending
this
one
back
to
to
get
it
right.
F
I
think
there's
no
more
negotiation
needed
in
these
cases
where
the
community
comes
out
heavy
against
it.
You've
got
tenant
groups
coming
out
heavy
against
it.
You
shouldn't
have
these
come
forward
in
this
way.
There
should
be
more
negotiation
before
it
gets
to
this
stage
so
appreciate
this
I'll.
Have
other
questions
for
staff
thanks
chair.
P
P
Some
of
these
associations
say
they're
worried
about
street
parking,
so
make
sure
it's
at
least
one
to
one
some
say
it's
public
transit.
So
it's
really
a
split
between
both
associations,
but
we
did
indulge
them.
We
did
bring
them
into
the
picture
and
talk
about
the
reiterations
at
meetings
after
meeting
with
city,
I
personally
met
with
these
individuals
as
well
and
discussing
I
wanted
to
make
the
note
discussing
with
andrea
and
victor
had
a
comment
about
insurance.
P
P
D
Counselor,
thank
you
very
much
chair.
We
are,
you
know,
we're
being
asked
this
morning
to
address
the
the
zoning
question.
Is
this
an
appropriate
place
to
zone
for
a
25-story
tower
of
x-density
and
mixed-use
building,
and
I,
I
suspect
that
you
know
most
of
the
people
around
this
table
this
morning,
probably
feel
that,
yes,
this
is
an
appropriate
place
in
which
to
locate
it.
But
what
we
heard
from
this
morning
from
the
tenants
was
the
elephant
in
the
room,
which
is
the
displacement
that's
going
to
occur.
D
I
am
encouraged
to
see
the
motion
that
counselor
flurry
is
putting
forward.
Mr
tavares,
you
said
that
many
of
these
units
are
already
very
close
to
market
rent.
One
year
of
subsidy
does
not
seem
to
be
adequate
to
address
the
disruption
and
the
stress
and
the
financial
strain
that
displacement
is
going
to
have
on
the
residents
here.
If
the
current
apartments
are
already
at
or
are
kind
of
in
the
vicinity
of
market
rent,
surely
it
wouldn't
be
a
big
deal
to
provide.
You
know
five
years
of
help
to
those
residents.
D
P
It's
up
for
discussion.
I
do
feel
there's
a
few
residents
that
have
been
there
long
term.
I
said
this:
isn't
I'm
not
a
developer
that
buys
to
quick
flip
I've
owned
this
property
for
almost
20
years
now,
councillor
fleury
will
know
I've
been
in
his
ear
for
about
10
years
working
on
this
site.
Most
of
the
building
are
students,
so
they're
there
for
a
year
and
they
leave.
P
If
the
worry
is,
if
I
start
over,
offering
they're
just
gonna
stay
just
to
try
to
get
a
cash
windfall.
If
there's
some
long-standing
tents,
I'd
definitely
be
more
open
to
something
when
you're
discussing
a
longer
term.
Subsidy,
I
didn't
want
to
say
exactly-
is
that
market
rent
there's
very
different
gauges
of
affordability
in
the
city,
I
personally
building
a
building
right
now
that
goes
below
market
rent
through
cmhc's
financing.
P
P
I
think
it's
a
good
discussion
to
be
had,
but
I
think
there
should
be
some
limitations
on
who
would
qualify
a
student
that
comes
in
there
for
one
year
and
all
of
a
sudden.
There's
a
demo
and
they
decide
to
stay
an
extra
few
months
just
to
get
some
cash
windfall.
I
don't
think
that's
what
the
city
is
looking
for.
It's
the
dis,
it's
for
the
displacement
of
tenants
that
have
called
this
home
for
maybe
a
two-year
period.
At
least
three.
I
don't
know.
I
think
something,
that's
something
we
should
discuss.
D
Okay,
I
appreciate
the
blunt
assessment
of
that.
Unfortunately,
in
a
in
a
zoning
discussion,
we
don't
have
a
lot
of
latitude
with
respect
to
you,
know
creating
rental
replacement,
etc.
We're
all,
I
think,
frustrated
by
the
loss
of
affordable
housing
in
our
in
in
the
core
areas.
But
today
what
we're
being
asked
to
vote
on
is
whether
or
not
this
is
an
appropriate
zoning
for
this
location.
B
I
just
had
a
similar
question
to
counselor
leaper.
I
was
really
just
wanting
to
ask
the
applicant
owner
what
they
thought
of
this
motion
that
miss
that
counselor
moff
is
putting
on
the
floor
for
counselor
flurry
is.
Is
it
problematic
in
any
of
its
wording
or
you
could
actually
do
it?
You're?
Okay,
with
it.
P
We've
just
this
was
circling
it.
I
I
actually
support
it.
I
think
it's
well
written,
I
I
I
know
talking
with
miguel,
we've
gone
over
it.
I
think
it
is
a
concern.
There's
this
bridge
period,
where
people
don't
know
they
don't
want
to
be
rushed
out
of
their
home,
so
offering
a
subsidy
program
for
them.
For
one
two
years,
like
cancer
leaper
brought
up
is
fair,
offering
the
relocation
is
fair,
offer
them
back
in
the
building.
If
it's
a
rental.
P
Four
years
later,
I
definitely
are
open
to
giving
the
writer
first
refusal
coming
into
the
building.
I
don't
think
it's
fair
to
ask
someone
make
a
decision
today
on
four
years
down
the
road.
Do
you
want
to
come
back
in,
don't
take
a
subsidy
but
then
come
back
in
four
years
later?
That's
why
I
think
it's
one
complete
package,
so
I
would
support
that
memorandum
that
councilor,
fleury
and
counselor
moffat
brought
forward
today.
B
Okay,
that's
good
to
know,
I'm
wondering
so
in
terms
of
my
understanding
how
this
works.
So
we
are
a
planning
committee.
Is
this
motion
that's
being
put
forward
okay
to
have
that
planning
committee?
You
can
add
stuff
to
a
motion
like
this,
or
is
this
going
to
go
to
another
committee?
I
wasn't
quite
sure
how
this
is
working.
A
B
Okay,
because
I
I
have
a
lot
a
number
of
questions
on
that
in
terms
of
why
is
this
not
done
on
every
application
and
what
is
what
is
counselor
fleury
talking
about
with
counselor
egli,
bringing
forward
a
motion?
How
does
this
all
fit
together,
because
this,
this
seems
to
me,
should
be
standard
with
any
kind
of
what
we
would
look
at
as
a
eviction
or
whatever
we
call
it.
A
I
I
have
one
question
and
it's
more
general
for
for
the
applicants,
which
is
around
we
heard
from
at
least
one
of
the
delegations.
They
were
concerned
about
the
size
of
the
units
and
we
often
see
an
applications
for
apartments
they're,
typically
one
or
two
bedroom
apartments.
We
don't
often
see
three
bedroom
apartments.
We
almost
never
see
four
bedroom
apartments,
and
yet
we
keep
hearing
from
the
community
that
there
is
a
need
for
larger
apartments
for
larger
families.
A
P
We
are,
we
are
looking
to
bring
in
some
three-bedroom
units
we
have
committed
to
having
10
of
the
building
be
of
a
larger
household
dwelling
unit
for
this
project.
Rather
than
being
you
know,
your
typical
downtown
core
units
where
they're
in
that
five
600
square
feet
range,
we
are
committed
to
having
10
a
larger
scale.
P
It
really
goes.
You
know
when
we
do
our
market
studies,
it's
it's
a
lot
harder
to
rent
out
the
larger
scale
units
than
it
is
a
smaller
one,
but
I
think
there
is
a
need
and
that's
why
I
think
our
you
know
the
corners
of
the
building.
Some
of
the
prime
spots
in
this
building
will
be
of
a
larger
household
size.
A
L
Joey,
isn't
it
kind
of
a
the
larger
the
unit,
the
more
the
cost,
and
then
the
cost
of
the
unit
becomes
comparable
to
other
housing
typologies
that
may
be
more
ground-oriented
like
it
doesn't
get
cheaper
as
as
the
size
goes
up
right.
It's
it's
a
function
of
square
footage,
cost
for
construction
and
then
rent,
so
those
units
start
to
compete
against
other
products
because
of
their
costs,
and
then
people
make
decisions
based
on
that.
P
I've
I've
had
this
comment
at
the
municipal
and
provincial
level
too.
To
get
larger
units
developers
looked
for
some
would
be.
Some
sort
of
a
subsidy
would
be
to
help
this,
because
the
cost
to
rent
out
a
1500
square,
foot,
rental
and
you're
going
to
be
looking
a
developer
that
just
at
a
whatever
their
basic
margin,
would
be
would
be.
You
know,
3
500
a
month.
That's
a
tough
thing
for
someone
at
the
affordable
level
to
to
afford.
P
A
B
B
Why
does
this
take
a
council,
a
counselor,
to
put
a
motion
forward
like
this,
and
is
this
the
committee
that
it
comes
to
because
it
seems
to
me
to
be
so
standard
and
such
a
smart
thing
to
do,
and
the
other
part
of
that
is
the
landlord-tenant
act
has
a
lot
to
say
about
what
a
landlord
can
do
in
this
situation,
and
I
wonder
as
well
if
staff
would
know
right
now
that,
if
there's
anything
in
this
motion
that
makes
it
problematic
for
the
landlord-tenant
act.
Legislation
as
well.
Q
There
is
at
this
time
and
planning
can
speak
there,
isn't
this
time,
no
general
authority
for
staff
to
move
forward
with
such
conditions,
but
with
a
cooperative
landowner
as
as
we've
had
in
a
prior
case,
and
and
in
this
case
we
can
put
together
a
memorandum
of
understanding,
have
it
executed
and
then
have
the
opa
and
zoning
bylaw
enacted
and
as
it
is
tied
into
a
planning
application,
this
is
a
proper
committee
for
it
to
be
considered
here.
Thank
you.
Q
A
R
Matt
before
you
go
just
for
counselor
curry,
the
the
evolution
of
that
really
stems
from
the
conversation
that
we
had
regarding
hearing
gate
and
cancer
cliche
worked
on.
Remember.
We
understand
understanding
for
that
area.
That
conversation
ended
up
feeding
into
other
development
applications
that
we
saw
and
that
planning
committee
even
went
on
the
fly.
I
Yeah,
thank
you.
Thank
you,
chair
and
I'd
go
even
further,
which
was
when
the
the
city
looked
at
some
of
the
lands
for
the
lrt
and
the
impacts
on
residential
corridors
in
in
councillor
eglise
award.
We
we're
looking
at
a
series
of
tools,
so
there
are
tools
under
the
planning
act,
but
there
are.
There
are
bylaws
that
we
could
enact
so
staff
will
come
back
with
a
toolkit
of
options
that
we
have
that
exist
in
ontario.
I
B
I
I
I
guess
at
the
end
of
december
or
mid-december,
to
do
a
follow-up
meeting,
and
at
that
point
there
there
was
a
a
committee
date
already
in
place.
So
maybe
just
to
respond
to
some
of
the
community
concerns
and
my
concerns
relating
to
a
follow-up
consultation.
Could
we
have
clarity
from
a
staff
perspective
on
why
why
the
report
was
was
advanced
in
in
the
time
it
was.
K
Thank
you
generally.
This
project,
like
many
other
applications
and
awards
within
the
city,
followed
our
procedures
for
pre-consultation
review
with
the
udrp
and
a
meeting
in
excess
of
our
statutory
requirements
for
public
consultation.
There's
one
statutory
requirement
for
public
consultation.
That's
today's
meeting
at
planning
committee.
The
meeting
organized
and
hosted
by
yourself
is
all
over
and
above
any
statutory
requirement
and
a
policy
that
the
city
encourages
for
for
consultation.
So
those
those
additional
meetings
outside
of
our
requirements
are
are
eligible.
K
Like
I
said,
we've
also
expanded
our
urban
design
review
panel
meetings
for
members
of
the
public
to
attend,
and
I
sent
out
that
invitation
for
them
to
sit
and
observe
the
followings
of
those
meetings.
We
do
have
general
guidelines
and
timelines
that
we
try
to
meet
to
process
an
application.
This
project
certainly
did
not
meet
those
timelines
and
that's
not
a
bad
thing,
because
work
needed
to
be
done
to
refine
the
project
as
we
see
it.
So
I
don't
know
how
to
best
answer
the
question.
K
I
K
Oh
absolutely
counselor
correct,
there's
as
part
of
the
implementing
holding
provisions,
the
applicant
will
need
to
go
through
site
plan
control,
so
the
site
line,
control
application
will
again
follow
our
public
notice
and
consultation
procedures,
as
as
it
will,
along
with
a
second
application
for
the
lifting
of
the
holding
provisions.
So
there
will
be
there'll,
be
two
applications
coming
on
this
site
and
and
absolutely
the
site
plan
will
be
subject
to
further
consultation
with
the
udrp
and
and
the
public
at
large.
I
I
Is
there
something
that
we
could
put
in
restrictions
and
provisions
to
to
protect,
there's
an
embassy
site,
there's
an
och
site,
there's
a
large
rental
building
the
watergate,
there's
some
heritage
properties
across
the
street
so
and
we
know
we're
in
sandy
hill,
lower
town
area.
So
we
know
the
soil
is
challenging
so
based
on
what
we
know
and
the
proximity
to
to
a
number
of
important
locations,
could
we
add
some
criterias.
G
Yes,
mr
chair,
actually,
that's
a
good
point.
It's
part
of
the
site
plant
control
application,
and
we
do.
We
do
do
that.
There
will
be
conditions
that
would
be
put
in
there.
Typically
with
blasting,
where
you
do
a
pre-blast
survey
of
homes
within
so
many
meters.
You
can't
think
of
the
number
off
the
top.
My
head
might
be
75
or
150,
but
where
you
know
things
are
cracks
or
whatever
are
noted,
so
that
there's
more
afterwards,
you
know
something
you
can
assign
to
the
responsibility
of
the
construction
process.
G
G
I
I
So
I
want
to
understand,
as
we
stand
today
on
the
heels
of
a
recent
op
if
the
uptown
rito's
cdp,
as
a
document
and
policy
and
all
of
its
consultation
does
still
hold,
does
still
hold
authority
with
its
heights
and
provisions
that
give
or
or
don't
don't
permit
for
additional
heights.
I
I
guess
I
I
that's
kind
of
a
primary
question
for
me
in
my
community.
K
Thank
you,
and
I
appreciate
the
comment
and
and
it's
fair
and
I
guess,
as
I
had
mentioned
in
my
my
earlier
statement
in
the
presentation,
the
crux
of
any
official
plan
amendment
is
to
look
at
those
principles
and
policies
that
the
secondary
plan
is
built
upon.
We,
we
do
often
see
amendments
to
secondary
plans
on
site-specific
basis
through
various
secondary
plans
throughout
the
city.
And
yes,
this
is
the
first
amendment
that
what
happened
with
the
uptown
rito
secondary
plan-
and
I
think
what's
key
here-
is
that
yes,
it.
K
It
is
looking
for
exception
to
those
two
performance
standards
to
release
the
density
triggers
or
the
density
redistribution
policies.
There
are
site
specific,
specific
circumstances
that
would
support
this,
but
fundamental
to
that
is
are
the
design
criteria
and
the
other
principles
and
policies
of
the
plan
being
upheld.
K
K
G
And
mr
ministry,
terrifying
just
want
to
add
too
just
to
reiterate
what
was
expressed
before
this
site
does
call
for
25
stories.
You
could
have
a
building
that
has
this
envelope
looks
similar
to
this.
The
fsi
portion
fsi's
floor
space
index.
If
you
had
a
slightly
bigger
lot,
the
fsi
would
come
down.
You
would
still
have
the
same
building
the
key
or
someone
had
said
well,
what's
the
test?
G
A
test
is
through
design
and
through
things
like
step
back
setbacks,
we
look
at
that
are
directing
us
from
the
official
plan
to
look
at
you
know
always
considering
whether
or
not
a
development
is
appropriate.
You
look
at
those
things
through
that
design
and
it
is
our
opinion
and
based
on
the
staff
opinion
that
it
satisfies
those
policies,
so
that
you
would
have
this
building
here
satisfies
those
other
policies
relating
compatibility.
Even
though
the
lot
is
smaller
and
that's
why
the
fsi
is
being
asking
for
decrease
in
fsi.
G
It's
only
for
that
reason,
as
I
mentioned,
was
a
bigger
lot.
You
would
have
those
buildings.
You
would
have
this
building
on
that
larger
lot.
So
it's
the
satisfaction
of
those
policies
within
the
primary
plan
and
within
the
secondary
plan,
and
I
just
want
to
say
as
well
when
I
got
the
opportunity.
This
secondary
plan
is
going
into
the
new
official
plan
and
it's
the
same
one.
It's
this
one,
it's
being
put
in
there.
It
hasn't
been
changed.
I
So
so
I'll
be
short
chair,
but
just
want
to
come
back
to
two
points.
So
could
we
get
a
clarification?
Just
forget
this
application
for
a
second
looking
at
the
uptown
rito
cdp?
Does
it
have?
Are
its
policy
policies
still
applicable
even
with
the
changes
of
the
opa?
I
I
need
that
clarification,
because
my
community
is
quite
concerned
that
they're
they're
the
provisions
that
added
height
and
the
community.
Q
I
K
Yes,
yes,
it
is
counselor,
it's
been
renamed
in
in
volume,
2a
of
the
new
op,
it's
kind
of
been
an
amalgamation
of
some
of
the
older
secondary
plans.
So
this
the
uptown
rito
secondary
plan,
is
absorbed
into
the
central
and
east
downtown
core
secondary
plan.
So
it
has
a
big
new
name,
but
it's
literally
been
a
dragon
drop
exercise
to
to
carry
forward
those
policies.
I
Okay,
so
so,
if
it
still
applies,
that's
reassuring
because
there
will
likely
be
more
applications
on
redo
and
there
is
community
expectation
that
property
owners
do
follow
this.
You
know
the
provisions
in
here
now
for
this
application,
I'm
just
looking
for
clarity.
So
there's
a
number
of
elements
that
say
you
look
at
the
lot.
You
look
at
the
area,
you
look
at.
K
So
without
without
the
ability
to
trigger
the
density
redistribution
policies,
then
this
site
would
defer
or
reflect
back
to
the
baseline
conditions,
which
are
a
schedule
in
the
op.
Excuse
me,
the
secondary
plan
counselor.
So
that's
on
schedule,
2a
of
the
secondary
plan,
where
it
identifies
the
fso
and
a
baseline
condition
of
nine
stories.
So,
if
yeah,
if,
if
the
application
wasn't
approved
to
seek
relief
on
those
policies,
then
there
would
still
be
the
baseline
condition
of
a
nine-story
building
on
this
site.
I
So
I
guess
that's
what
I
sort
of
question
when
we
say.
Oh,
this
is
an
fsi
opa!
There's
the
height
is
permitted.
It's
a
bit.
It's
a
bit!
It's
a
little!
It's
a
little
loose
from
my
perspective
like
we
have
a
set
height
and
if
you
meet
privately
owned
spaces,
a
corner
condition,
there's
a
number
of
them.
I
I
don't
simon.
I
don't
know
if,
if
you
have
them
in
front
of
you,
then
you're
allowed
to
look
at
additional
heights,
so
that
would
bring
you
to
25
stories.
I
That's
what
got,
for
example,
trinity
at
chapel
to
get
that
additional
height.
So
I
want
to
go
back
to
it,
so
the
uptown
cdp
creates
provisions
as
to
when
you're
you're
allowed
or
when
we
should
consider
additional
heights.
But
then,
in
this
case
they
don't
need
that.
So
then
you're
referring
to
a
different
document.
So
I
I
guess,
I'm
questioning
I'm
questioning
the
integrity
of
the
uptown
cdp
under
that
that
assumption
or
that
those
considerations.
K
K
I
Okay.
Okay,
so
I
won't
take
more
time
off
committee
and
thank
you
simon
for
clear
answers.
Doug
as
well,
I
guess
the
committee
members.
My
comments
in
in
the
report
are
still
reflected
that
I'm
extremely
concerned
that
we've
just
embarked
in
a
recent
uptown
cdp.
I
recognize
the
op
staff
are
telling
us.
It
is
still
a
valid
policy
environment.
There's
a
number
of
trigger
points
that
define
where
the
height
is.
In
this
case
it
is
not
a
corner
condition,
so
that
to
me
is
is
where
the
nuts
and
bolts
of
this
rests.
I
F
F
Where
does
this
fall
with
the
the
old
official
plan
versus
the
new
official
plan
and
and
where,
like
applications
that
are
coming
in
now,
some
of
them
have
been
made
prior
to
the
new
official
plan
being
adopted?
And
I
understand,
I
guess,
that's
the
old
official
plan
those
would
be,
but
I
just
can
you
just
explain
to
me
really
clearly
what
we're
dealing
with
as
a
planning
committee
where
we
stand
with
the
old
official
planners
at
the
new
official
plan,
where
this
application
stands.
K
Just
on
your
on
your
earlier
point,
calendar,
the
the
policies
of
the
secondary
plan
are
absorbed
into
the
new
op,
so
we
we
know
that
the
the
evaluation
of
this
application,
though,
is
under
under
the
the
primary
plan
that
that
is
in
place
today
and
not
the
one
that
is
before
the
for
the
province
for
approval.
But
having
said
that,
we
still
have
looked
at
some
of
the
future
direction
for
for
the
new
op
in
this
segment.
K
As
I
noted
in
my
presentation,
the
terminology
is
fundamentally
changing
in
between
the
new
and
the
old
op.
This
is
now
in
a
transect
on
a
main
street
corridor.
We
don't
use
the
word
traditional
mainstream
anymore,
but
those
policy
objectives
were
still
looked
at
in
in
the
new
op
and
implemented
as
as
was
where
we
could,
specifically
with
the
with
the
mention
of
large
household
dwelling
units,
that's
direction
in
the
new
op
to
talk
about
providing
those
and
in
the
absence
of
specific
city
bylaws.
G
Him
but
yeah,
yes,
something
comes
in
today.
We
would
actually
we're
looking
at
it
under
both
we
most
of
our
official
plan
amendments.
Mr
chair
are
secondary
plan
amendments
and
those
are
being
carried
over
so
and
we
look
at
those
and
it
status
in
our
opinion.
Obviously
it
satisfies
that
something
came
in
today.
G
You
go
in
circulation
and,
although
we
look
at
both
but
depending
when
it
gets
to
council
we'd
have
to
look
at
be
approved
under
the
old
op
or
approved
under
the
new
op,
depending
on
when
it
gets
to
council
and
it's
all
sort
of
the
timing.
This
hope
I
mean.
Certainly
if
this
something
came
in
today
and
it's
january
and
wouldn't
get
the
council
until
say
june,
and
the
new
ops
in
place
then
certainly
we'd
have
to
look
at
how
it
fit
under
the
new
op
now
secondary
plans.
G
It's
the
same,
so
we'd
be
amending
the
secondary
plan
and
then
perhaps
asking
council
as
well
if
they
would
consider
amending
the
new
op
because
of
the
two-year
moratorium
and
then
making
a
recommendation
on
this,
so
maybe
we're
a
little
bit
lucky
because
it's
a
secondary
plan.
We
wouldn't
be
amending
anything
in
the
primary
plan.
P
F
F
We've
got
definitions
now
for
affordable
housing
and
deeply
affordable
housing,
and
we've
got
our
cues
to
get
anti-displacement
policies
in
place,
as
well
as
other
policies
in
place.
So
I
I
really
would
love
to
you
know
to
see
that
brought
forward
as
part
of
the
new
official
plan,
because
there's
concerns
here
with
regard
to
that
that
displacement
that's
happening.
I've
got
a
friendly
amendment,
I'm
hoping
to
council
flurries
motion
that
I'll
bring
in
a
moment.
F
In
the
meantime,
I
did
want
to
ask
about
the
section
37
agreement
and
I'm
wondering
why,
in
that
agreement,
there's
no
there's
no
provision
for
affordable
housing.
We
have
the
ability
to
do
it.
There
are
other
provisions
and
monetary
contributions
in
there,
but
there
wasn't
affordable
housing
included
in
the
section
37
agreement
so
just
to
question
to
staff
or
others
why
that
is.
K
Thank
you.
Staff
work
with
the
ward
councillor
in
in
preparing
the
section
37
agreement,
specifically
the
direction
of
those
funds,
so
we
work
and
take
the
direction
from
the
board
counselors
to
where
those
funds
should
be
directed,
and
if
that
is
something
that
was
desirable
or
or
chosen
to
be
so
then,
and
so
be
it.
Staff
have
have
no
particular
input
or
or
or
preference
in
in
in
how
they're
and
how
they're
allocated.
So
we
take
that
direction
from
from
the
word
counselor.
F
F
The
second
clause
is
in
the
last
clause,
where
it
says
subsidize
the
rent
differential
of
an
alternative
rental
accommodation,
another
building
in
a
unit
of
a
comparable
size
and
price
point
for
a
period
of
one
year,
and
what
I'm
proposing
is
to
change
that
to
a
period
equal
to
the
length
of
time
the
tenant
has
resided
in
their
current
accommodation
on
site.
So
it
speaks
to
the
topic
that
was
brought
up
by
the
developers
to
say:
look.
F
D
Thank
you
very
much,
captain
the
so
I
I
I
want
to
come
back
to
the
point
that
councilman
raised
because
it
is,
it
is
bringing
up
some
frustration
in
the
community
with
respect
to
the
official
plan
and
how
we're
evaluating
proposals
that
are
on
our
on
our
desk
right
now.
The
new
official
plan
has
not
been
adopted
by
the
province.
It
is
not
currently
in
effect,
there
are,
and
mr
miguel
is,
with
foten
they're,
frequently
bringing
up
at
our
development
open
houses.
D
D
Q
Mr
chair,
if
I
may,
with
respect,
continue
the
star
trek
analogy,
we
are
boldly
going
where
no
one
has
been
before
and
and
to
be
serious
as
I
ought
to
be.
So
what
is
different
this
time
than
in
any
official
plan
that
I've
been
involved
in
which
would
go
back
to
1988,
and
it
goes
back
before
then,
is
that
this?
It
is
like
an
on
off
switch
this
time.
Q
This
time,
for
instance,
if
there
are
any
amendments
under
appeal
at
the
time,
the
minister
approves
the
new
official
plan,
they
will
be
repealed.
The
bylaw
that
was
drafted
will
repeal
all
the
existing
official
plans
under
under
appeal,
and
it
was
necessary
to
do
that
in
order
that
we
get
the
benefit
of
the
10-year
period
by
reviewing
the
official
plan
as
opposed
to
the
five
years.
Q
So
the
position
that
I
currently
intend
to
advance
on
the
part
of
the
city
with
respect
to
official
any
well
with
respect
to
official
plan
amendments.
First
of
all,
council,
has
the
absolute
right
to
say
we're
not
going
to
consider
it
for
a
two-year
period
of
time,
but
with
respect
to
those
that
do
come
under
consideration,
even
if
they
were
applied
for
before
the
new
official
plan,
I
will
be
advancing.
Q
The
position
to
the
tribunal
should
something
be
appealed
that
we
should
be
looking
to
the
policies
of
the
current
official
plan
that
it
is
different
than
what
used
to
be
the
situation.
And
so,
if
any
members
of
committee
are
familiar
with
the
clergy
principle,
the
clergy
principle
came
out
of
a
clergy
properties
case.
Q
In
toronto-
and
it
stands
for
the
proposition
that
an
application
is
judged
by
the
policies
in
place
at
the
time
the
application
was
made,
I
would
be
advancing
to
the
drug
unit-
that's
a
different
world
now
and
that
now
that
we
have
a
completely
new
official
plan.
That
is
what
we
should
look
to.
Will
I
be
successful,
I
hope
so,
but
there
isn't
any
case
law
that
I'm
aware
of
it
at
this
time
that
provides
strong
guidance
one
way
or
the
other.
Thank
you
very
much,
mr
chair.
D
Okay,
so
thank
you,
that's
helpful
and
if
I
may
just
may
just
reiterate
that
then
the
to
make
sure
that
I've
understood
it
the
city's
position,
mr
mark's
position,
will
be
that
any
appeals
if
council
were
to
reject
this
on
the
basis
of
a
current
official
plan
policy
that
may
be
intended
to
change
in
our
next
official
plan.
Mr
mark
will
be
suggesting
to
the
tribunal
that
the
next
official
plan
is
is
the
more
relevant
document.
Q
And
if
I
can
issue
a
clarification,
I
don't
think
they
could
get
to
the
tribunal
without
council
commission,
because,
with
the
old
official
plan
being
repealed,
an
application
to
amend
the
old
official
plan
is
gone
and
you
can't
amend
the
new
official
plan
for
a
two-year
period
without
council
commission.
So
it
is
really.
It
really
is
a
different
world,
particularly
for
two
years
after
the
new
official
plan
comes
into
divorce.
D
Okay,
now
that's
that's
very
helpful.
I
mean
I
still
have
a
flood
of
applications
coming
on.
Large
developments
in
in
kitchissippi
and
residents
are
frustrated
at
being
told
that
it's
the
next
official
plan,
that's
going
to
be
the
likely
likely
guidance
on
that
one,
but
tough
news,
but
I'm
happy
to
pass
it
along.
I
will
leave
it
there.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
A
K
A
So
a
lot
of
this
discussion
is
coming
down
to
fsi,
which
is
not
something
we
talk
about
too
too
much
at
this
committee,
this
5.0
fsi
or
actually
any
fsi
in
this
plan.
Where
does
that
come
from
like?
Is
that
just
generally
accepted
planning
formulas
that
have
have
that
have
determined
that?
Does
it
come
from
provincial
policy
like?
Where
do
you
come
up
with
a
5.0
as
being
appropriate
for
this
from
a
policy
perspective.
K
I'm
part
of
that
I
can
answer.
Rather,
I
can't
the
the
the
idea
of
fsi
as
a
as
an
implementing
tool
in
zoning
is
one
that
has
been
used
in
in
this
city
and
other
cities
and
and
has
come
and
go
in
in
popularity.
So
it's
a
it's
a
mathematical
exercise
to
to
start
to
regulate
the
amount
of
development,
the
density
of
development
on
on
a
site
and
in
in
other
files.
I've
worked
on
and
in
other
municipalities
and
including
this
one.
K
K
They
did
an
analysis
where
they
thought
what
an
appropriate
fsi
would
be
for
the
lots
and
I'm
not
privy-
and
I
don't
have
that
exact
analysis
with
me,
but
it
was
that
it
was
that
modeling
or
idea
and
implementing
vision
of
what
they
thought
would
be
appropriate
for
for
these
particular
sites
and
and
the
schedule.
I
took
you
through
that
showed
sites
that
were
ranging
from
six
to
five
to
three
point:
five,
as
an
fsi.
A
K
I
I
would
agree
with
that
and-
and
I
think,
there's
also
other
specific
design
tools
in
the
secondary
plan,
such
as
a
maximum
or
a
general
maximum
floor
plate
size
of
750..
This
project
in
its
evolution,
was
at
a
floor
plate
size
that
was
over
800
through
comments
from
staff
and
public
and
udrp
the
floor.
Plate
size
was
reduced.
K
K
A
One
way
I've
been
thinking
about
fsi
here
is:
if,
if
we
were
to
take
their
building
design
now
and
and
hold
them
strictly
to
5.0,
I
guess
they
could
lop
off
some
of
the
stories
at
the
top
of
the
building,
and
you
might
end
up
with-
I
haven't
done
the
math,
but
maybe
19
stories
or
21
stories,
but
I'm
not
sure.
Fundamentally
that
makes
a
difference
to
any
the
design
or
the
impact
on
the
community.
You
know
you've
still
got,
you
still
have
the
same:
podium
you'd
still
have
the
same
setbacks
and
so
on.
A
A
This
is
a
kind
of
new
territory
for
our
committee
in
this
term.
You
know,
I
think,
usually
we're
talking
about
zoning
bylaw
amendments
and
official
plan
amendments,
we're
focused
on
height
and
setbacks,
and
very
technical
planning
notions
and,
more
and
more,
we
are
starting
to
look
at
what
we've
talked
about
here
today:
affordable
housing,
tenant
protections
and
so
on.
I
think
these
are
very
much
part
of
the
planning
conversation.
A
The
challenge
is
in
a
way
we're
flying
blind
here
as
a
committee
for
what
standard
to
use
when
we're
evaluating.
We
do
not
have
a
city,
bylaw
or
city
policy
that
tells
us
what
specifically
we
should
be
doing
about
tenant
displacement.
For
example,
we,
yet
we
have
yet
to
pass
an
inclusionary
zoning
bylaw.
A
I'm
appreciative
counselor,
fleury
and
for
staff
for
working
on
that
over
the
past
few
days
to
get
it
where
it
is
today,
but
I
did
wanted
to
mention
this
is,
is
voluntary
and
appreciated,
and
I
hope
that
other
applicants
who
appear
before
committee
will
have
the
same
same
constructive
approach
to
helping
us
address
these
issues
that
are
important
to
the
community.
Yes,
we
have
a
need
to
our
city
is
building
our
city
is
changing
quickly.
A
F
Yes,
I
sent
it
to
staff
chair
there.
It
is
on
the
screen,
so
there's
three
clauses
that
were
under
this.
This
is
the
third
clause
that
would
change
and
it
changes
equal
length
of
time
from
one
year
to
equal
length
of
time
the
tenant
has
resided
in
their
current
accommodation
on
site.
It
recognizes
longer
term
tenants
that
have
lived
here
at
a
specific
rant
for
for
a
while,
as
the
discussion
went
into
previously.
F
F
F
F
Okay,
so
I'll
I
I'd,
suggest
this
committee
add
a
similar
size,
apartment
and
rent.
That
is
what
anti-displacement
is
so
I
would
suggest
we
add
and
rent
to
that,
that
clause
I've
sent
that
to
staff
and
counselor
fleury
as
well.
So
maybe,
if
you
want
chair
your
indulgence,
if
you
want
to
vote
on
the
first
or
on
the
first
amendment
that
I
had
suggested.
A
Well,
that
actually,
what
I'd
actually
like
to
do
is
bring
in
mr
tabari
back
into
the
committee
and
just
get
his
comment
on
that.
This
is
something
that'd
be
easier
to
do
if
we
were
in
a
physical
meeting
room
and
having
everybody's
in
the
same
room,
but
I
think
it'd
be
fair
to
give
joey
a
chance
to
offer
any
comments
he
has
on
that
proposal.
P
Hi
guys,
thank
you
yeah,
so
just
commenting,
I
guess
looking
for
a
comment
on
the
updated
amendment
that
the
council
brought
forward.
It
would
be
difficult
to
do
that
in
the
first
place.
There
are
some
tenants
that
live
there,
that
there
is
no
lease
in
month
to
month.
I
don't
know
I
wouldn't
be
able
to
even
quantify
when
they
started.
I
think
that's
going
to
be
quite
the
exercise
to
find
out
where
everybody
started
in
I'm
thinking
about
this.
I
understand
the
purpose
of
this
motion
and
counselor
fleury's.
You
know
interest
in
this.
P
It's
really
bridging
people
and
not
force
the
note
where
they're
kind
of
left
lost.
What
I
think
would
be
good
is
to
propose,
if
it's
possible
to
do
this.
I
think
we're
kind
of
making
yeah
we're
treading
new
water
here,
because
it's
not
something
that
all
developers
would
do
with
something
new
or
kind
of
work
together.
P
It's
proposed,
maybe
just
a
time
frame,
have
two
different.
I
want
this
to
be
all-encompassing.
It's
one
package
for
everybody,
so
here
you
go.
You
can
have
we're
going
to
subsidize
your
rent
for
x
amount
of
years.
If
you
want
to
come
back
in,
you
can,
after
four
years
of
moving
somewhere
else,
but
it
would
be
at
the
market
rent
whatever
the
building
is
because
you're
taking
advantage
of
the
subsidy
not
choosing
one
or
the
other
and
paying
expenses
driver
for
something.
P
You
know
if
this
is
a
long-standing
tenant
like
I
said
it
is
a
lot
of
students
in
there
they're
there
for
one
year
and
then
they're
gone
we're
not
trying
to
have
people
taking
advantage
of
the
situation
either,
but
if
perhaps,
if
I
have
a
tenant
that
was
there
over
three
years
over
five
years,
they
would
get
a
three
year
subsidy
from
me.
If
they
were
there
under
that
three
or
five
year
time
frame,
then
it'd
be
a
one
year
subsidy
to
kind
of
get
people
for
what
they've
been
there.
P
If
something
has
been
seven
years,
I
understand
that
they
want
to
be
a
greater
subsidy
should
be
there
for
them.
I
think
we're
entering
this.
I
don't
know
if
we're
doing
this
as
a
holding
provision
or
a
memorandum.
If
it's
a
memorandum,
I
think
we
can
maybe
tim
could
comment.
I
think
we
can
write
this,
how
we
want
to
do
it,
how
we
think
the
the
best
you
know
the
individual
tenants
are.
So
that
would
be
my
proposal
back.
P
Is
you
know
if
you
want
to
go
up
to
five
years,
if
they've
been
there
for
five
years
or
more?
If
I
don't
have
proof
we'll
just
assume
it's
five
years,
then
because
then
it's
probably
been
longer,
then
we
do
a
three
year
subsidy
for
these
tenants.
If
they've
been
only
one
two
or
under
that
five
year
period,
then
it's
a
one
year
subsidy.
I
think
that
kind
of
bridges
between
both
options-
I
don't
know
if
council
can
comment
on
that-
is
that
something
we
can
put
in
a
memorandum?
P
A
P
P
A
I
Yeah
could
I
suggest
I
there's
been
a
lot
of
discussion
between
city
applicant
and
myself
that
led
to
this
motion.
I
appreciate
the
delegations
and
my
colleagues
clarification
based
on
on
those
submission.
Could
we
maybe
just
give
directions
to
staff
as
part
of
the
draft,
because
I
I
hear
some
openness
from
the
applicant
to
look
at
it,
but
I
think
if,
if
we
pass
something
today,
we
also
bind
the
mou
environment
which
it's
it's
a
bit
on.
The
fly
here
to
to
joey
gave
examples
of
where
he's
willing
to
go.
I
F
F
G
I
was,
I
think,
thank
you,
mr
chair
perhaps
is
to
alleviate
the
concerns
raised
today.
This
is
something
that
could
be
done
between
now
and
council
when
this
goes
to
finalize
the
I
mean
if,
if
it's
passed
today,
certainly
make
some
changes
between
now
and
council,
that's
that's
what
I
wanted
to
say.
A
Thank
you,
doug
that
I
was
on
the
same
wavelength,
so
appreciate
that
the
what
we
have
in
front
of
us
today,
emotion
is
is
a
start,
certainly
between
now
and
council,
it
can
be
refined
and
improved
rather,
but
if
we
go
with
the
starting
point
gives
time
to
make
sure
we're
we're
getting
it
right.
It
is
something
that's
been
put
together
in
a
relatively
short
period
of
time,
so
spending
between
now
and
the
council
in
february
might
give
us
a
chance
to
improve
on
it
even
further.
I
Sure
I
I
I
want
to
just
jump
in
there
was
a
a
point
in
relations
to
section
37
and
I
would
caution
colleagues
on
when
we
work
with
community.
We
understand
what
community
priorities
are,
and
in
this
case,
for
sandy
hill
and
lower
town,
active
transportation
and
park
improvement
are
top
of
mind.
As
you
know,
I'm
quite
knowledgeable
on
how
we
fund
public
housing
and
taking
a
small
portion
of
section
37
and
put
in
a
reserve
account
here
would
not
would
not
build
a
one
unit.
I
So
when
there
is
opportunity
to
build
more
affordable
housing
through
section
37
on
site,
I'm
certainly
favorable
to
it.
I
think
simon
can
highlight
that
as
part
of
the
application
there's
a
number
of
points
that
did
bring
down
the
section
37
drawdown,
which
are
the
larger
unit
and
there's
there
is
a
number
of
a
percentage
of
affordable
units
here
that
were
negotiated
between
staff
and
the
applicant.
I
I
just
want
to
caution
committee.
I
You
have
to
leave
me
as
a
local
counselor
or
you
when
you're
a
local
counselor,
a
little
more
flexibility
on
what
how
we
negotiate
section
37,
because
I
heard
clearly
from
my
community
some
concerns
around.
We
do
have
active
transportation
challenges
on
cummings
bridge.
We
do
have
a
heritage
park
at
mcdonald
garden.
I
D
K
A
Okay,
so
carried
with
one
descent
from
counselor
menard.
Okay,
thank
you.
Everyone
we'll
move
on
to
our
next
and
final
item,
which
is
number
four
in
the
agenda.
Zoning
bylaw
amendment
for
385
sussex
drive
in
rito
vanier
as
well,
we'll
begin
with
the
staff
presentation
from
allison
hamlin
and
then
a
presentation
from
the
applicant.
I
R
A
Thank
you,
scott.
All
right,
let's
continue,
so
I
actually
should
have
done
this
at
the
start,
rather
than
jumping
right
into
our
staff
presentation.
There
is
a
motion
on
this
item,
so
let's
get
that
on
the
table
right
at
the
start.
This
is
a
motion
from
counselor
flurry
introduced
by
councilor
moffatt.
I
So,
just
for
the
members
of
the
public
that
are
looking
at
this
and
colleagues,
I
my
preference
is
for
you
to
reject
the
temporary
extension
first
and
foremost,
if
you
do
not,
then
I
believe
this
motion
is
important
and
applicable.
So,
mr
chair,
I
will
look
to
you
in
terms
of
at
what
point
should
it
be
voted
on,
but
I
I
think
ultimately
I'd
rather
have
a
vote
on
the
staff
recommendation
prior
to
this
motion,
but
I'll
leave
it
in
your
capable
hands.
I
I
Whereas
this
commercial
parking
lot
has
been
the
subject
of
temporary
zoning
permissions
four
times
in
the
past,
in
2005,
2008,
2011
and
2015,
whereas
the
community,
the
city
and
city
council,
remains
extremely
disappointed
and
frustrated
with
the
inaction
of
redevelopment
of
this
temporary
parking
lot,
as
the
original
promise
to
redevelop
was
not
upheld.
Council's
patience
on
waiting
for
the
archdiocese
to
present
an
appropriate
redevelopment
plan
has
won,
and
this
extension
for
park
for
temporary
parking
must
be
the
final
one.
A
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
The
site
is
located
in
the
central
area
of
the
existing
official
plan,
and
this
plan
directs
the
city
to
facilitate
the
provision
of
short-term
parking
to
assist
with
retail,
commercial
and
tourism
industries,
while
limiting
making
that
parking
encouraging
to
commuters
the
policies.
Decor
sorry
discourage
temporary
surface
parking
on
vacant
sites
and
require
that
all
new
permanent
parking
be
located
within
a
parking
structure
or
below
grade
the
mobility
policies
of
the
new
official
plan,
direct
the
city
to
manage
the
supply
of
parking
to
minimize
and
to
gradually
reduce
the
total
land
area
in
the
city.
S
S
S
The
property
is
also
located
in
the
parliament
and
confederation
boulevard
special
district.
These
special
districts
are
important
internationally
nationally
and
to
the
wider
local
area,
and
they
serve
to
define
the
image
of
the
city
through
heritage
architecture,
public
realm
as
tourist
attractions
or
as
major
economic
generators.
S
A
H
Okay,
my
presentation
will
be
fairly
brief,
as
I
think
allison's
done.
A
great
job
in
covering
the
relevant
planning
considerations,
but
bernie
mcdonald,
who
is
the
ceo
ceo
of
the
archdiocese,
will
likely
speak
or
would
like
to
speak
after
I'm
done
just
briefly,
I've
put
together
a
slideshow
here,
moving
to
slide
two.
If
you
would.
H
So
this
slide
gives
all
of
us
an
appreciation
for
what
we're
dealing
with
today.
The
dark
orange
portion
of
the
property
is
where
the
this
is
effectively
the
subject
application.
So
that's
the
area
that
the
the
temporary
parking
requirement
is
is
sought
and
the
balance
of
the
lands
have
that
status
as
permanent
next
slide.
Please.
H
H
All
of
these
elements
were
originally
established
by
the
archdiocese
in
their
approved
site
plan
and
they've
made
agreements
to
make
sure
that
that's
maintained.
I
know
there
was
one
neighbor
across
the
street
was
that
was
interested
in
them,
replacing
some
vegetation,
so
they've
agreed
to
do
that
next
slide.
Please,
there
really
aren't
many
policies
related
to
new
temporary
parking
in
the
new
official
plan,
so
I'll
move
past
that
to
the
next
slide
next
slide.
This
is
just
planning
act
matters,
and
this
is
a
last
thing
I
want
to
close
with.
H
This
is
a
snapshot
out
of
the
ontario
municipal
board
decision,
where
the
archdiocese
lawyer
at
the
time
is
is
quoted,
and
I
think
there's
some
important
wording
in
here.
The
first
is
that
there
was
no
promise
by
the
archdiocese.
If
you
move
down.
I
think
it's
the
third
sentence
in
this.
He
stresses
it
as
a
long-term
plan
and
then,
if
you
move
down
a
couple
of
sentences
later,
he
uses
that
word
again,
so
it
wasn't
a
promise.
It
was
a
plan.
H
I
know
there's
some
nuance
to
the
difference
between
the
two,
but
I
think
we
wording
is
important
and
then
the
other
thing
that
he
stresses
at
the
end
of
this
is
that
they
did
not
expect
that
this
was
going
to
be
a
one-time
three-year
extension
that
they
would
need
to
seek
one
or
more
extensions
of
that
term
and
unfortunately,
they
find
themselves
in
their
their
fourth
request
for
that
right
now.
So
I'll
turn
it
over
to
bernie
at
this
point
so
that
we
don't
use
up
all
of
our
time.
A
T
T
We
certainly
understand
the
frustrations
relative
to
the
past,
and
but
that
said,
I
doubt
that
any
members
here
present
would
agree
to
the
establishment
of
a
of
a
committee
of
well-meaning
neighbors
to
redevelop
their
own
house
and,
in
that
regard,
we're
no
different.
The
standard
planning
process
is
supported
by
the
planning
act
in
the
city
of
ottawa
dictates
quite
adequately
how
involvement
from
all
stakeholders
in
the
planning
and
approval
process
for
future
development
should
happen.
T
So,
while
our
door
is
always
open
to
hear
concrete
proposals
from
the
city
from
anybody
in
the
community,
the
bottom
line
for
us
is
we're
requesting
this
extension,
because
we
do
not
have
the
capacity
at
this
point
in
time
to
deal
with
the
development
we
hope
to
get
to
it.
We
recognize
that
it's
important
developmental
lands,
it's
as
important
to
us
as
it
is
to
the
city
and
as
to
the
frustrations
of
the
past
other
than
being
sympathetic
to
them.
I
can't
I
can
I
can't
deal
with
them.
T
H
A
M
M
M
Nevertheless,
there
was
no
past
agreement
or
if
there
was,
it
was
no
longer
valid,
because
the
applicant
lacks
the
capacity
to
plan
for
the
site.
So
the
reason
for
the
temporary
rezoning
is
now
being
said
to
no
longer
apply,
because
the
rezoning
was
made
in
the
first
place
and
past
plans
aren't
commitments,
since
they
were
never
delivered.
M
20
years
ago,
in
2003,
the
archdiocese
asked
permission
to
demolish
two
heritage
buildings
at
perron
and
geek,
and
build
a
surface
parking
lot.
It
stated
their
plan
was
to
someday,
build
a
compatible
structure
on
the
site
at
may,
6
2003
meeting
the
local
architectural
conservation
advisory
committee.
That
committee
voted
against
demolishing
refusing
the
city
staff
recommendation
to
allow
the
demolition
normally
in
accordance
with
city
bylaws.
M
After
the
application
was
then
appealed
to
the
omb
by
the
archdiocese.
The
compromise
was
struck.
The
city
was
to
allow
the
demolition,
but
only
granted
temporary
permission
for
parking
on
the
site
and
for
its
part,
the
archdiocese
undertook
to
come
forward
with
the
development
plan
within
the
time
frame
of
about
eight
to
ten
years.
M
A
A
R
Yeah,
so
from
the
at
the
beginning,
from
allison
hamlin,
we
heard
that
the
application
in
front
of
us
is
whether
to
grant
the
extension
or
not
for
the
use
for
private
parking
on
the
repeat
public
parking
story
on
the
lot
and
that
if
we
didn't
grant
the
extension,
it
would
simply
just
revert
to
a
use
of
a
parking
lot.
That's
not
for
public
use
and
just
for
private
use.
Now
I
get
your
contention
is
that
that
use
is
legal.
So
would
you
I'm
just
trying
to
think
here?
R
M
R
No,
it's
not
that
we,
unfortunately
sometimes
you
have
to
I
mean
that's,
that's
zoning
bylaw
infractions.
When,
when
the
applicant
doesn't
adhere
to
the
zoning
violent
fraction
and
address
the
issue,
then
it
ends
up
in
court.
It's
just,
unfortunately,
a
natural
progression.
It's
it's!
It's
a
lengthy
process.
I've
been
in
in
it
with
a
property
on
flew
on
road
for
over
five
years
through
court
battles,
it's
frustrating,
but
but
so
I
think
the
intent
of
the
motion-
and
I
recognize
fully
that
a
counselor
clearly
would
prefer
a
refusal
of
the
application.
R
But
the
motion
that
is
in
front
of
us
is
to
try
to
get
the
city
and
the
applicant
working
together
to
come
forward
with
something
in
the
future,
so
that
we
don't
have
to
keep
on
coming
back
to
the
well
on
the
extension
that
we
would
get
an
agreement
in
place
on
future
development.
Would
you
support
that.
M
R
M
R
A
I
A
I
I
I
What
was
the
mandate
that
was
given
to
you
by
the
applicant
and
the
second
piece,
which
I
think
as
a
standalone
is
not
fair
but
as
a
complete
picture
might
be
fair.
What
are
you
being
asked
today,
because
I,
I
think,
there's
been
a
change
in
mandate
when
there
was
I'm
also
now
pendergast
when
there
are
when
there
were
different
leadership
and
engagement,
it
seemed
clearer.
H
H
They
retained,
barry,
podolski
and
I'm
not
sure
there
might
have
been
some
others,
and
we
started
preparing
some
concepts
just
to
see
what
kind
of
development
would
make
sense
purely
from
a
massing
perspective,
they
weren't
certain.
Yet
what
type
of
use
made
sense
back
previously
they
had
envisioned
that
there
are.
The
archdiocese
offices
might
be
well
suited
here,
so
that
was
kind
of
in
the
back
of
the
mind.
H
If
you
will
and
we
met
with
yourself,
we
met
with
with
planning
staff,
and
I
believe
we
even
had
a
formal,
pre-application
consultation
meeting,
so
it
felt
like
it
was.
It
was
an
exciting
file
to
be
moving
forward,
and
I
know
the
archdiocese
was
excited
about
it
as
well,
then
covet
hit
and
the
diocese
actually
went
through
a
number
of
other
things
that
they
were
dealing
with
pre-covet.
H
The
archdiocese
has
has
a
new
archbishop
in
place,
they've
amalgamated
with
the
archdiocese
of
of
corn
of
the
cornwall
area,
alexandria,
cornwall,
and
they
had
some
serious
challenges
with
their
own
offices
relative
to
some
concerns
over
asbestos
in
the
plenum
and
and
I'm
sure
there
were
other
things.
But
you
know
all
of
those
things
started
to
come
together
really
quickly
all
at
the
same
time,
and
we're
basically
told
we
can't
advance
this
anymore
at
the
moment.
We're
being
asked
to
focus
our
energies
on
these
other
things.
H
So
what
are
our
options?
And
so
I
said:
well,
you
can
either
stop
using
this
portion
of
the
land
for
paid
parking
which,
by
the
way
relative
to
councillor
moffett's
comments
earlier.
I
I'm
certain
that's
what
the
diocese
will
do.
If
this
is
refused,
it
won't
be
a
scenario
where
they
want
to
be
against
the
zoning
and
then
fighting
with
the
city.
H
Secondly,
the
other
option
was
to
to
make
another
temporary
application,
because
what
he
expressed
expressed
to
me
is
they
just
weren't
in
a
position
right
now
to
continue
with
that
direction
before
and
who
knows,
they
may
even
have
a
different
thoughts
on
where
that
what
the
future
of
these
lands
should
be.
So
that's
why
the
application
was
made.
So
is
it
a
change
of
direction?
I
think
it's
more
of
a
response
to
an
emergency
type
situation.
H
That's
that's
emerged
within
their
organization
than
a
firm
change
of
direction,
because
I
know
that
all
the
people
I
speak
to
through
the
archdiocese
are
really
interested
in
seeing
something
happen
on
this
property
and
time
and
they're
very
sensitive
to
the
community's
interests
and
the
city's
interests.
For
this
and
other
reasons.
I
H
D
D
So
it's
either
going
to
be
a
parking
lot
that
the
church
can
make
money
on
which
all
churches
need
right
now
or
it
can
be
used
as
a
parking
lot
and
not
generate
funds
for
the
church
and
I'd
rather
say
something
like,
and
I
want
to
get
your
comment,
mr
casa
grande,
is
whether
we
amend
the
motion
and
not
give
you
three
years
but
give
you
one
year
with
the
expectation
that
we're
going
to
see
a
plan
within
the
year
for
this
land
and
the
property.
Would
you
be
agreeable
to
that
amendment.
H
I
guess
and
I'll
I'll
defer
to
my
client
to
make
sure
that
you
know
I'm
not
misspeaking
here,
but
I'm
fairly,
confident
that
they
wouldn't
be
supportive
of
that.
Mr
brockington,
because
I
don't
think
the
chaos
that
they're
dealing
with
right
now
is
such
that
they're
going
to
be
in
a
position
to
advance
advance
the
thinking
internally,
the
planning
in
a
meaningful
enough
way
to
be
able
to
return
to
this
group
within
a
year
and
not
you
know,
feel
that
all
of
us
feel
the
same
frustration
again
I
mean
I.
H
I
sympathize
because
I
think
I
know
I
can
tell
you
on
my
end.
I
don't
enjoy
these
types
of
applications.
This
time,
we've
at
least
got
something
to
show
you
during
that
time.
I
don't
think
that's
going
to
be
possible
within
a
year.
I
think
it
it's
it's
much
more
possible
in
three
years,
but
of
course
I
I
don't
have
my
hand
on
the
rudder.
H
H
H
I
know
that
through
the
cities,
my
experience
with
staff-
and
I
know
of
the
city
cities
process
we're
going
to
have
to
engage
the
community
and
mr
mcdonald
didn't
say
he
didn't
want
to
do
that.
What
he
said
is
he's
open
to
doing
that.
He
just
doesn't
want
to
have
his
hands
tied
to
some
sort
of
committee
and,
to
my
view,
that
sets
potentially
unexpected
expectations
from
the
stakeholders
involved
and
I
think
the
normal
planning
process
sufficiently
allows
for
that.
Sorry,
that's
an
aside,
but
I
just
I
thought
I'd
mention
it.
No.
D
I
appreciate
that
my
intention.
I
want
to
be
very
clear:
I'm
not
here
to
financially
penalize
the
church.
That's
not
my
intent.
What
I
want
the
city
to
do
is
pass
a
motion
today.
That
gets
the
church
going
faster
than
what
we've
seen
to
date
and
I
don't
think
a
three-year
window
is
appropriate
in
that
regard.
So
I'll
leave
it
there
chair,
but
I
do
have
more
questions
for
staff
when
we
get
to
staff.
B
I
don't
know
why
that's
not
seen
as
the
way
forward
here
so
temporarily.
Yes,
we
we
allow
this,
but
there
has
to
be
that
I
agree
with
what
I've
heard
so
far
that
I
feel
badly
that
it's
been
a
tough
time
and
you
know
kova
didn't
help,
and
you
know,
attendance
at
churches
is
not
great
for
anyone,
but
there
seems
to
be.
B
I
thought,
an
understanding
that
they
would
just
go
away
and
think
some
more
about
it
when
I
think
the
better
thinking
is
done
with
the
community,
so
I
just
want
that
clarified.
Is
that.
Did
I
hear?
No?
We
don't
want
a
community
committee
or
group
or
meeting
what
what
would
they
be
happy
with
maybe
two
questions.
At
the
same
time,.
H
I
can
take
a
stab
at
this
and
then
I'll
welcome,
mr
mcdonald's.
You
know
confirmation
counselor,
but
my
understanding
is
that
they're
very
open
to
meeting
with
any
stakeholders
that
are
interested
in
speaking
with
them.
I
think
in
reality
those
meetings
won't
be
very
productive
until
the
archdiocese
is
has
a
clear
vision
as
to
what
they
think
they
want
to
use
these
lands
for
and
then
are
committed
to
actually
spending
the
time
and
money
meaningfully
advancing
that,
and
I
don't
think
they're
in
a
position
now.
I
know
they're
not
a
position
now.
H
I
don't
think
they're
going
to
be
in
a
position
within
a
year
beyond
that.
We
would
hope
that
they'll
be
in
a
position
to
start
to
do
that.
I
think
the
concern
on
behalf
of
the
archdiocese
is
to
take
some
sort
of
emotion
that
obligates
them
to
work
with
a
committee
in
a
way
that
is,
in
my
view,
a
duplication
of
a
planning
act
process
when
they're
ready
to
actually
meaningfully
advance
their
vision
for
these
lands.
H
They're
going
to
embark
on
the
typical
process,
which,
in
my
experience,
especially
a
site
like
this,
would
involve
hiring
the
necessary
consultants,
maybe
coming
up
with
some
conceptual
ideas,
meeting
with
the
community
and
the
and
the
city
and
any
other
stakeholders
that
are
interested
to
start
to
to
better
inform
the
plan,
making
a
formal
application
and
then
continuing
that
dialoguing
and
engagement.
That's
a
normal
natural
process,
especially
for
a
file
of
this
significance.
B
Okay,
I
hear
you
you
want
to
go
with
the
regular
process,
which
you
know,
as
we've
all
witnessed
works
a
lot
of
times
too.
I
guess
I
still
think
that
a
meeting
with
the
community
at
a
minimum
might
be
good
for
at
least
brainstorming
just
to
hear
what
the
community
might
think
is
a
good
idea.
You
know,
there's
I
don't
think,
there's
any
harm
in
that,
but
anyways.
I
will
wait
to
see
what
the
local
council
wants
to
put
forward.
I
have
heard
both
sides.
B
O
Question
it's
in
respect
to
so
one
of
the
references
it
was
made
in
the
report
by
by
the
councillor
was,
is
that
the
city
is
looking
at
revitalizing
the
byward
market
with
the
public
realm
plan,
there's
a
lot
of
plans
and
vision
for
the
area,
including
for
parking
initiatives
and
uses
of
the
destination
building.
So
there's
a
lot
of
plans
that
are
kind
of
in
place,
they're
going
to
take
some
time
to
to
unfold
you're,
currently
seeking
a
temporary
continuation
of
the
use
of
this
property.
O
T
T
All
of
the
proceeds
from
the
parking
have
been
put
into
a
designated
fund
as
per
our
undertaking.
It's
currently
1.725
million
dollars
in
that
fund
represents
all
of
the
parking
monies,
so
we
are
not
making
a
profit
off
of
that
money.
It's
dedicated
to
the
future
redevelopment
and
it's
audited
by
our
auditors.
T
O
Believe
that
mcdonald,
I'm
just
gonna,
I'm
gonna.
I
appreciate
that.
That's
not
my
question,
though
my
question
is
right.
Now:
there's
parking
you're
asking
to
temporarily
extend
the
use
of
this
site
for
continued
parking,
because
you
don't
have
the
ability
to
move
forward
on
plans
of
your
own
totally.
For
me,
that's
understandable!
I
get
that.
What
I'm
saying,
though,
is
that
the
city
itself
has
a
large
scale
vision
for
the
byword
market.
We've
passed
the
public
ground
plan
for
this
space.
O
There
are
lots
of
moving
pieces
in
regards
to
you
know
a
destination
building
parking
amenities.
You
know
better
infrastructure
for
pedestrians,
there's
a
lot
of
work
going
on.
If,
by
some
chance
prior
to
your
extension,
running
out
the
city,
approaches
you
and
says:
listen,
we've
got
this
phenomenal
initiative.
We
would
like
to
partner
with
you.
Would
you
be
in
a
position
at
that
point
to
partner
with
the
city
or
at
least
to
con
contemplate
that
kind
of
relationship?
T
Well,
you
know
my
background
is
development,
so
I
would
absolutely
be
open
to
that.
There's
no
reasonable
person
who
would
not
be
open
to
it.
That
said
whether
the
archdiocese
would
have
the
financial
capacity
at
that
point
in
time
is
still
something.
That's
very
unclear
to
me
as
an
interim
chief
advisory
officer.
O
Okay.
Well,
thank
you.
For
your
frank,
our
response.
I
appreciate
that
my
other
question
is
about
the
parking
itself
right
now
who
who's
using
the
parking
like,
and
I
asked
this
because
I'm
I'm
really
thinking
of
the
fact
that
we're
in
the
midst
of
a
pandemic
we're
coming,
hopefully
we'll
be
coming
out
of
it
sooner
rather
than
later,
and
that
the
cathedral
is
a
huge
tourist
attraction
within
our
city's
core.
O
I'm
knowing
that
the
city
does
not
have
a
you
know
a
ton
of
parking
spaces
available
in
the
byward
market
at
the
moment
and
we're
hoping
to
open
up
the
doors
to
our
city
once
we're
able
to
to
tourists
and
to
to
attract
people
to
come
visit
ottawa.
So
I'm
just
curious
as
to
this
temporary
extension.
Is
it
just
surveying
members
parishioners
who
are
going
like
who
are
we
talking
about
who
uses
this
parking.
T
A
A
I
think
the
revenue
must
be
important
to
you
and
the
revenue
is
going
to
redevelopment
funds.
The
revenue
must
be
important
to
you,
or
else
you
want
to
go
through
this
exercise
to
get
an
extension,
and
if
the
revenue
is
important
to
you
and
the
revenue
is
going
towards
redevelopment
funds,
you
must
have
an
intention
at
some
point
of
redeveloping.
T
T
I
I
don't
know
what
else
I
can.
I
can
say
about
that.
Certainly
you
know
in
terms
of
of
revenue,
that's
going
into
the
fund,
you
know.
Basically,
you
have
57
spots
12
a
day,
it's
not
a
fortune
by
any
stretch
of
the
imagination.
It's
taken
all
this
time
to
to
build
it
up
to
the
amount
that's
in
there.
Right
now
can.
A
T
Well,
I
think
it's
a
limitation
of
three
things,
not
not
two,
so
certainly
the
organizational
capacity
right
now
is
probably
number
one
on
that
list
in
terms
of
deciding
whether
or
not
we
have
the
financial
wherewithal
to
do
it.
I
would
say
to
you
that
you
know
I
suspect,
for
the
appropriate
project.
T
So
you
know
I,
while
I'm
sympathetic
to
the
need,
I
believe
that
we
have
in
our
portfolio
other
places
where
we
can
put
a
retirement
home
for
for
priests.
So
I
haven't
had
a
time
at
the
time
as
a
developer,
to
to
study
new
uses
and
and
quite
frankly,
if
there's
one
thing
that
that
kovid
has
shown
most
operations
is
that
downtown
office
sites
may
not
be
the
best
location
for
head
offices.
T
R
R
T
So
I'm
not
one
that
goes
around
or
purports
to
advise
clients,
whether
I'm
paid
or
not,
that
they
should
be
in
violation.
So,
but
as
to
your
interpretation
that
we
have
been
in
violation,
I
would
go.
I
would
refer
you
back
to
the
municipal,
the
omb
decision,
which
is
quite
clear
that
it
was
a
plan,
not
a
promise
and
the
wording
was
put
up
and
it
was
quite
clear
that
the
solicitor
at
the
time
said
it
was
long
term
and
that
there
was
would
be
a
need
for
lots
of
extensions.
T
T
T
T
No,
no,
basically
we're
applying
to
be
in
conformity
and
if
we're
not
in
conformity
to
be
quite
frank
about
it,
there's
30
reserve
spots
already
in
the
entire
site
that
we
don't
pay
for
we'll
just
put
them
over
there
and
then
we'll
lose
revenue
on
27
spots,
and
that's
I'm
not
saying
that
is,
take
it
or
leave
it.
I'm
just
saying
that
to
be
factual,
that's
that's
what
will
happen.
A
D
D
S
S
D
D
D
So
what
tool
other
than
this
does
the
city
have
to
motivate
development
at
the
site?
And
I
don't
see
that
we
have
any
so
why
give
them
a
three-year
window?
Why
not
say
you
come
back
in
a
year?
We'll
have
this
discussion
again,
but
we
want
to
see
forward
progress.
We
want
to
see
some
movement
in
this
regard,
so
to
staff
is
less
than
three
years
possible.
G
If
I
may,
mr
chair
just
planning
committee
and
ultimately,
council
could
have
a
reduction
from
three
years
to
two
years
to
one
year
and
you're
right.
We,
mr
chair,
we
don't
have
any
other
tools.
To
I
mean
we
put
the
zoning
in
place.
We
put
the
official
plan
in
place.
Put
the
policy
direction
in
place.
Those
are,
I
guess,
our
tools
to
incentivize
redevelopment
and
a
lot
of
developers.
Obviously
when
they
have
the
financial
capacity
to
do
so,
come
see
us
and
show
us
a
proposal
going
forward.
G
If
I
think
we
heard
today,
the
applicant
is
not
in
that
position.
If
you
were
to
do
this
for
two
years
or
one
year,
of
course,
they
would
be
back
perhaps
to
ask
for
yet
a
further
extension,
but
as
again,
we
can't
force
them
to
redevelop
their
site
it's
at
their
own
pace,
at
their
own
volition
and
as
stated
here
today,
this
could
be
a
parking
lot
forever
and
the
issue
is
whether
or
not
someone
who
parks
their
car.
G
There
goes
west
into
the
cathedral
or
goes
east
into
the
market,
and
that's
something
that
this
ended
up
at
the
ontario
land
tribunal.
That's
something
that
that's
the
issue
before
the
interior
land
tribunal
I
would
submit
to
committee
today,
but
in
terms
of
other
tools.
We
we
obviously
have
the
incentives,
as
I
mentioned,
through
rezoning,
an
official
plan
and
when
they
have
the
wherewithal,
I'm
sure
they'd
be
willing
to
do
it.
G
D
G
I'm
just
trying
I
was
around
I
just
trying
to
think
it's
been
a
long
time.
I
don't
mention
the
person
who
had
it
at
the
time,
but
it
might
have
to
do
with
the,
and
maybe
the
applicant
would
have
a
better
opportunity
to
answer
this,
but
I
thought
it
had
to
do
with
the
the
condition
of
the
building,
but
that
might
be
a
question
more
appropriate
for
the
applicant.
Mr
chair.
D
I
I
Oh
christine,
okay,
good
to
see
you
christina,
I
wonder
the
applicant
consultant
did
bring
to
the
screen
a
decision
of
the
omb
and,
as
counselor
barack
brockington
was
raising.
I
was
not
around
when
the
demo
was
initially
requested.
I
was
also
not
around
when
the
omb
appeal
was
was
decided.
Could
you
inform
us
as
to
the
city's
perspective
on
what
that
decision
meant?
It
would
from
my
understanding
it
wasn't
prescriptive
on
a
resolution
date,
but
did
steer
to
action.
B
I
Okay
and
and
in
your
legal
frame,
what
is
temporary
like
at
what
point
if,
if,
if
we
were
to
be
brought
to
court-
and
I
think,
we've
put
everything
on
the
table
today,
so
I
think
we
have
to
put
every
component
on
the
table
if
the
archdiocese
was
to
bring
the
city
to
court
and
say
you,
council
has
given
me
extensions.
These
dates.
These
dates
these
days,
therefore,
I've
I've
now
by
you
know,
20
years
in
the
making
had
permanent
use
of
this
element.
B
Mr
chair,
I
don't
think
that
that
is
a
concern
under
the
planning
act.
Municipalities
have
the
right
to
permit
a
temporary
zoning
up
to
three
years
and
can
extend
it.
There's
no
cap
within
the
planning
act
that
limits
municipality
with
respect
to
how
many
times
they
want
to
extend
each
three-year
term
or
less,
as
as
mr
james
had
suggested.
It
can
be
any
amount
of
time
up
to
three
years
with
respect
to
that
as
well.
I
Okay,
thank
you
if,
if
counts,
if
committee
today
were
to
refuse
the
staff's
recommendation
or
a
refusal
of
that
report,
what
does
that
mean
in
planning
terms?
So
then
they
would
lose
the
right
to
operate
to
generate
revenue
from
those
spots
which
would,
from
our
perspective,
would
force
a
redeveloper
would
would
encourage
them
towards
a
development?
I
B
So,
mr
chair,
a
refusal
can
carry
with
it
appeal
rights
from
the
owner
on
on
this
matter
to
the
tribunal
first
and
foremost.
Secondly,
it's
my
understanding
from
planning
staff
and
that
may
need
to
be
confirmed,
but
it's
my
understanding
that
they
simply
use
the
right
to
generate
revenue.
They
do
not
lose
the
right
to
have
this
parking
as
accessory
to
its
use.
B
Go
ahead
and
mr
chair
to
keep
in
mind,
I
believe
the
chair
had
noted
it
earlier
that
there
are
still
85
spots
that
are
legal
under
the
current
site
plan
for
this
particular
site.
So
we
are
talking
about
a
portion
of
the
public
parking,
but
not
the
whole
of
the
public
parking
that's
available
on
this
site
if
they
continue
to
generate
income
from
those
57
spots,
and
there
is
no
legal
zoning
available
for
them
to
do
so.
Certainly
a
notice
of
violation
and
provincial
charges
can
can
result
as
a
consequence
of
that.
I
Okay,
I
I
think
it's
easier
for
the
public
and
committee
members
to
the
numbers
can
be
tricky.
I
think
it's
about
40
percent
they're
talking
about
forty
percent
of
the
rear,
a
lot
which
is
they
would
not
be
able
to
generate
a
revenue
out
of
okay.
My
last
kind
of
question
questioning
line
is
around
an
interest.
Areas
is
expropriation,
so
the
city
has
interest,
and
I
I
I
liked
what
council,
where
councilor
dudas
was
going.
We
we've
we've
put
councils
past
the
byron
market,
public
ground
plan.
I
I
We
could
use
that
that
money
to
proceed
with
an
extra
appropriation
and
then
build
our
own
you
we
could
create
our
own
partnership.
We
don't
necessarily
need
to
do
it
our
city,
but
then
we
then
we
would
be
in
the
driver's
seat
for
the
redevelopment
of
that
site,
but
I'm
not
familiar
or
not.
I'm
not
knowledgeable
enough
on
expropriation
rights
and
how
that
works
in
that
circumstance.
B
So
unfortunately,
mr
chair,
a
municipality
has
little
ability
to
force
a
developer
to
come
to
the
table
with
a
development
it
is
owner
driven
in
ontario
and
other
than
you
know,
the
suggestions
that
have
been
put
forward
today
in
terms
of
partnering
with
certain
owners
and
what
not
to
bring
forward
these
developments.
There
is
not
a
legal
tool
that
can
force
an
owner
to
bring
forward
a
development
application.
I
D
I
want
to
see
them
continue
to
earn
revenues
from
this
parking
lot,
while
they
are
working
on
in
good
faith,
a
proposal
for
this
site-
it's
two
years,
because
I
think
that's
sufficient
time
to
come
together
with
a
proposal.
Do
the
work,
that's
necessary,
show
the
city
that
you
are
serious
about
your
intentions
for
that
site.
One
year
is
not
enough
time
and
I
think
two
years
is
reasonable.
D
Really,
this
is
we're
sending
a
message
that
says
we
want
to
see
progress
on
the
site,
we'll
extend
you
for
two
years
and
we
will
get
an
update
in
two
years
time
so
chair.
That
is
my
motivation.
Behind
this.
It
will
not
hurt
the
church
financially
at
all.
They'll
simply
come
back
to
us
a
year
sooner.
But
but
that's
that's
the
intent
behind
my
amendment
today.
A
S
A
A
A
There
are
not
many
tools
we
have
to
compel
redevelopment.
I
don't
think
accepting
or
rejecting
this
temporary
parking
extension
gets
us
particularly
closer
one
way
or
another.
I'm
appreciative
of
the
motion
that
counselor
flurries
put
together
around
a
working
group
with
the
community
and
with
staff,
because
I
think
it
would
help
provide
some
additional
resources
to
the
church
that
has
a
limited
operational
capacity.
A
I
I
agree
with
the
general
sentiment
from
other
colleagues.
We
don't
want
to
see
the
church
back
here
in
three
years,
having
made
no
progress
whatsoever
so
having
the
working
group,
I
think,
compels
them
to
work
on
something
and
I'm
I'm
partial
to
counselor
brockington's
suggestion
of
going
to
two
years
rather
than
three
years.
Just
add
a
bit
more
pressure,
but
that's
my
thoughts
after
an
hour
and
15
minutes
on
this
item.
I
I
A
I
Very
obvious,
but,
as
you
know
this
and
as
our
legal
team
has
said,
we
need
we
need
two
to
tango.
We
need
a
partner
to
dance
here
and
we're
not
getting
the
support,
as
you've
heard
for
and,
as
the
diocese
have
said,
they're
back
to
square
one.
I've
been
elected
for
the
lot.
It's
my
12th
year
and
here
we
are
they've,
been
in
violation
of
the
zoning
bylaw
now
for
three
years,
which
triggered
this
request
and
they're
asking
for
another
three
years
and
there's
no
end
in
sight.
I
So
I
I
would
like
members
of
the
committee
to
to
vote
against
the
report,
which
I
think
would
send
a
strong
signal.
If
that
doesn't
pass,
then
I
would
ask
for
your
support
to
create
the
advisory
committee,
which
would
at
least
force
the
partnership,
because
what
happens
is
as
you've
seen.
The
church
changes
the
community
changes
and
then
information
is
lost
and
we
lost
sight
of
keeping
this
on
track
for
redevelopment.
So
I
would
ask
for
members
of
the
committee
to
again
vote
against
the
report.
A
A
A
C
A
D
C
D
B
Q
R
A
A
A
D
D
Yeah
so
I'll
just
skip
to
the
therefore
be
resolved
that
the
general
manager
planning,
real
estate
and
economic
development
be
authorized
to
negotiate
and
enter
into
an
amendment
to
sunset
the
historic
development
agreement
and
enable
future
refinements
to
the
site
to
be
determined
through
the
city's
standard
site
plan,
revisions
process
and
future
site
plan
agreements,
rather
than
through
negotiations
of
amendments
to
the
historic
agreement.
And
if
you
just
want
to
scroll
up.
Oh
sorry
for
the
world
exchange
plaza.
This
is
with
respect
to
the
world
exchange.
F
Yes,
thanks
very
much
share
it's
just
asking
for
a
one
meeting
or
two
week,
extension
of
the
civic,
so
that
the
accessibility
advisory
committee,
who's
expressed
an
interest
in
the
project
can
have
time
to
review
it
on
february
15th,
rather
than
the
item
coming
to
us.
First,
before
they've
had
a
chance
to
review
it.
F
So
it's
therefore
be
resolved
that
this
item
is
deferred
to
the
planning
committee
meeting
of
february
24th
and
that
staff
is
directed
to
consult
with
the
accessibility
advisory
committee
at
its
meeting
of
february
15th,
so
that
it
may
provide
its
feedback
in
advance
to
the
planning
committee
on
this
significant
item.
Thank
you.
D
Thanks
recently,
recently,
an
infill
received
a
building
permit
in
wellington,
village,
on
kenora
in
the
r3i
zone,
despite
not
respecting
the
front
yard
setback
averaging
described
in
section
144
of
the
zoning
by
law
could
plea
staff
please
describe
under
what
circumstances.
An
infill
residential
unit
is
permitted
as
of
right
without
adhering
to
the
average
front
yard
setback
on
the
street.