►
From YouTube: Planning Committee - January 23, 2018 - Part 1 of 2
Description
Planning Committee meeting – January 23, 2013 – Audio Stream Part 1 of 2
Agenda and background materials can be found at http://www.ottawa.ca/agendas.
A
This
is
a
public
meeting
to
consider
the
proposed
comprehensive
official
plan
and
zoning
bylaw
amendments
listed
as
items
1,
2
3,
4,
7,
&
8
on
today's
agenda.
For
the
items
just
mentioned,
only
those
who
make
or
submissions
today
or
written
submissions
before
the
amendments
are
adopted
may
appear
the
matter
to
the
Ontario
Municipal
Board.
In
addition,
the
applicant
may
appear
the
matter
to
the
Ontario
Municipal
Board.
A
We
go
through
the
items
to
see
what
can
be
carried
on
consent
of
what
we're
holding
I
wanted
to
start
with
an
update
on
the
release
of
reports
for
planning
committee
considerations.
So
normally,
since
this
is
the
traditionally
since
this
is
the
first
planning
committee
meeting
of
the
new
year.
It's
an
opportunity
for
us
to
kind
of
lay
out
what
the
year
is
going
to
look
like.
A
So
quite
briefly,
I'm
going
to
do
that,
but
I'm
going
to
start
with
something
that
you
probably
aren't
aware
of
at
all,
and
it
is
about
the
release
of
reports
for
planning
committee
consideration
right
now.
We
release
the
planning
committee
reports
to
the
public
seven
days
before
each
meeting
for
all
zoning
amendment
reports
an
official
plan,
amendment
reports.
However
official
plan
policy
requires
that
we
give
10
days
notice
to
anyone
who
provided
comments
or
who
signed
up
for
the
notification.
In
such
cases.
A
We
provide
a
copy
of
the
report
to
these
individuals
directly
10
days
before
the
committee
meetings
so
forth.
Those
are
in
the
audience
if
you've
been
part
of
any
of
the
planning
applications
and
you
signed
up
for
to
be
made
we're
or
to
see
a
report
or
to
be
advised
of
what's
happening,
you're
going
to
receive
those
ten
days
in
events.
What
you
don't
know
is
that
no
members
of
council
have
been
receiving
it,
including
the
ward
councillor,
so
that's
very
much
a
Jeremy
that
we
want
to
change.
A
So
we're
going
to
ensure
that
everyone
has
the
same
information
at
the
same
time,
starting
in
February
we're
going
to
use
a
two-stage
approach
to
posting
reports.
The
zoning
amendment
and
official
plan
amendment
reports
will
be
made
available
through
Ottawa
dot
CA
on
Fridays
ten
days
before
the
scheduled
committee
meeting,
then
on
the
following
Tuesday
seven
days
before
the
meeting,
all
remaining
reports
will
be
added
to
the
published
agenda.
I
spoke
with
councillor
Moffat,
who
chairs
the
Agriculture
and
Rural
Affairs
Committee,
and
he
agrees
with
this
approach.
A
We're
going
to
use
the
same
procedure
for
any
zoning
amendment
and
official
plan
amendment
reports
going
to
the
I-rack
committee
as
well
as
the
Planning
Committee.
The
city
will
review
this
new
procedure
later
in
2018
when
we
go
through
our
governance
review
as
typical
as
part
of
a
governance
report
going
to
Council.
But
this
early
release
of
documentation
will
further
advance
the
city's
transparency.
So
this
first
meeting
of
the
year
is
a
good
opportunity
to
look
ahead
at
a
few
items
we
expect
to
have
before
us
this
year.
A
We
also
expect
to
discuss
several
community
design
plans
this
year,
including
plans
for
bar
Haven,
South
and
Riverside
south
plans
for
clearly
and
new
orchard
areas
are
also
expected
addressing
the
future
development
potential
for
lands
near
these
two
upcoming
LRT
stations,
expanding
our
scope,
even
wider,
we'll
look
more
broadly
at
ottawa's
future
when
we
consider
a
report
about
a
planning
study
underway
known
as
Ottawa
next.
Public
input
is
now
being
gathered
for
Ottawa
next,
which
will
review
the
development
environment
in
Ottawa
and
prepare
scenarios
envisioning
our
city's
future
beyond
2036.
A
The
study
should
be
before
a
planning
committee
in
July
and
once
received
it
will
be
a
guiding
document
used
to
inform
the
next
version
of
the
official
plan,
so
we'll
be
getting
a
head
start
on
the
official
plan,
although
in
this
case
it's
kind
of
a
late
start,
because
we
were
supposed
to
start
it
before.
But,
as
some
of
you
are
aware,
we
do
have
some
appeals
that
sort
of
thing
staff
should
provide
us.
This
committee
will
also
consider
several
reports.
A
That
could
mean
changes
to
many
of
the
guidelines
and
regulations
governing
development
of
in
our
city.
Staff
should
soon
provide
us
with
a
report
with
results
of
a
study
on
residential
fourth
density
zones,
for
instance,
and
I,
look
in
the
audience
and
I
see.
Some
of
you
are
very
much
engaged
in
that
process.
The
first
phase
of
that
study
should
provide
clarity
around
multi
bedroom
residents
residences
by
setting
maximum
bedroom
sizes
and
better
defining
dwelling
units
and
bedrooms.
A
We
can
also
expect
a
report
aimed
at
implementing
official
plan
policies
and
new
urban
design
guidelines
related
to
tall
buildings.
Addressing
Hill
high-rises
should
be
designed.
We
should
see
a
report
on
the
small
scale
industrial
uses
in
commercial
zones
that
will
look
at
allowing
limited
small-scale
manufacturing
and
food
processing
in
commercial
areas,
including
micro
distilleries
micro,
breweries
and,
of
course,
the
ever-popular
popcorn,
and
the
report
of
the
infill
one
and
two
mature
neighborhoods
Papa
Chak,
and
a
report
on
the
info.
A
One
and
two
mature
neighborhood
bylaws
will
give
us
an
opportunity
to
fine-tune
the
regulations
which
aim
to
encourage
appropriate
development
in
our
oldest
neighborhoods
and
again
many
of
you
in
this
room
have
been
engaged
in
that
process.
Our
city's
development
review
process
could
also
undergo
some
changes,
particularly
around
the
site
plan,
control
process
and
fee
structure.
A
The
city
uses
the
site
plan
control
process
to
make
sure
land
development
is
safe,
functional
and
designed
appropriately
and
that
it
minimizes
potential
impacts
on
neighboring
properties.
We
should
see
a
report
by
summer
with
recommendations
about
exactly
what
changes
are
proposed.
I'd
also
like
to
take
this
opportunity
to
flag
that
will
be
hosting
a
major
city
planning
event
in
Ottawa
this
year
and
we'll
tell
you
more
about
that
as
we
get
closer
alignment
lists
who's
here
is
our
lead
I.
A
A
It's
going
to
be
held
right
here
at
the
Shaw
Center
and
participants
will
discuss
the
kinds
of
development
that
create
healthy
ten-minute
neighborhoods,
with
our
continued
focus
on
transit,
oriented
development,
our
upcoming
launch
of
the
LRT
transit
system
and
ongoing
efforts
to
make
the
city
more
walkable
and
better
for
cyclists.
Ottawa
is
an
ideal
choice
to
host
this
conference
I'm
certain.
This
will
only
enhance
our
reputation
as
a
lively
and
beautiful
city.
A
B
D
327
333
Montreal,
Road,
334,
mo4,
Street
and
273,
st.
and
Avenue,
as
my
daughter,
is
employed
by
shepherds
of
Good
Hope,
an
organization
that
has
within
the
same
funding
bracket
as
the
Salvation
Army
the
applicant
in
the
mentioned
here
in
and
could
see
its
operations
affected
by
changes
associated
with
us.
Thank.
A
A
A
A
A
D
It's
limiting
the
floor.
Space
is
what
we're
doing
with
the
motion.
My
understanding
and
staff
and
applicant
both
agree
to
this.
So
if
you
want
I
can
just
go
to
the
therefore
be
resolved.
The
planning
committee
recommend
council
prove
that
the
addition
of
a
place
of
worship
as
a
permitted
use
be
limited
to
five
hundred
square
meters
and
be
a
further
result
that
there
be
no
further
notice
pursuant
to
subsection
34:17
of
the
planning
I.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Okay,.
A
Does
anyone
have
any
questions
or
one
on
the
item
or
on
the
motion
so
on
them
on
the
motion?
Is
it
carried?
I
should
have
asked
you
first.
Did
you
want
to
speak
to
the
motion?
Okay?
So
if
we're
prepared
to
carry
this
item,
do
you
still
need
to
speak?
Okay,
thank
you,
mr.
Posen.
So
on
this
item,
is
it
Carrie?
Thank
you.
Everybody
item
number.
Five
is
a
fund
ending
agreement,
stormwater
management
ponds,
one
and
two
litre
enrolled
storm
drainage
system,
north-south
swale
and
oversize
trunk
storm
sewers
in
Leitrim.
A
Community
I
have
Pierre
Dufresne
here
from
tartan,
hi
Pierre.
Does
anyone
have
any
questions
Pierre?
Do
you
have
a
need
to
speak
to
us
if
we're
prepared
to
carry
it?
Hey
so
noted.
So
is
this
item
carrying
thank
you
item
number
six
is
agreement
the
Mississippi
Valley
Conservation
Authority
for
works
in
the
upper
pool,
Creek
sub-watershed.
This
is
just
an
agreement
on
that
I.
Don't
see
anyone
listed
to
speak.
Does
anybody
on
the
committee
have
any
questions
as
yet
I'm
Carrie?
Thank
you.
Okay.
The
next
one
is
number
seven.
A
It's
the
zoning
bylaw
amendment,
four
one.
Six
eight
Daly
Avenue
in
Kelso,
Flurry's,
Ward
I,
do
have
Lloyd,
Phillips
and
ambassador.
He
took
how
much
hearing
from
the
Embassy
of
Estonia.
Does
anyone
have
any
questions?
No
Lloyd?
Where
are
you?
Oh,
do
you
want
to
speak
Lord
if
we're
prepared
to
carry
this
item
and
the
Ambassador
agrees
with
you?
A
A
Paul?
Where
you
do,
you
need
to
speak
if
we're
prepared
to
carry
this
okay
so
on
the
items?
Okay.
Thank
you
so
number,
nine
is
the
part.
Locke
control
and
Road
opening
applications.
Part
of
300
Gruber,
enforced
Road
I
know
that
councillor
Cheney
has
a
motion
to
move
on
behalf
of
councillor
Wilkinson.
Before
we
get
to
the
end.
I
recognized
Jack
Stirling
is
here
and
you'll
speak
if
need
be
Jack.
Okay,
so
are
you
all
comfortable
with
council
and
I?
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair
where's,
the
city
staff
and
the
post-processing
application
for
part
of
law
control,
dealing
with
the
individual
law
creation
and
layout
of
the
KL
phase,
9
subdivision,
which
has
been
registered
as
large
blocks
and
whereas
they
plans
for
the
KL
phase.
9
includes
provisions
for
the
extension
of
the
slant
road
to
cross.
The
city-owned
went
through
subdivision
rail
corridor,
whereas
the
staff
are
proposing
to
exercise
the
NX
1
section
2
point
7
of
the
Official
Plan.
Where
indicates
that
the
city
can
acquire
the
protection
of
the
future
grade.
E
Separation
have
any
rail
corridor
in
crossing,
whereas
the
ward
councillor
has
lifted
delegated
authority
related
to
the
part
of
the
law.
Control
application
in
order
to
have
the
Planning
Committee
provide
direction
to
staff
on
this
matter
where,
whereas
the
contrail
corridor
sees
one
train
per
week
per
direction
and
whereas
the
current
and
there's
currently
no
long
term
plans
or
budget
established
for
the
construction
of
great
separation,
whereas
providing
great
separation
would
require.
E
The
redesign
of
the
subdivision
layout,
which
is
due
to
the
extreme
difficulty
of
the
train,
would
make
it
almost
impossible
to
serve
as
part
of
the
subdivision,
as
the
only
Road
and
section
would
be
lost,
therefore
be
resolved.
That
staff
be
directed
to
proceed
with
the
part
of
the
law,
control
application
without
the
protection
of
the
great
separation
for
salient
Road,
where
it
crosses
a
rail
corridor
and
be
further
resolved.
A
A
Head
number:
ten:
is
the
application
to
demolish
the
parking
garage,
chateau,
laurier,
one
rito
street,
a
property
designated
under
part
four
of
the
interior
Heritage
Act.
We
have
one.
We
have
a
speaker
that
Brian
Murray
that
wants
to
speak
to
that,
and
we
have
the
applicant
here
too.
So
we'll
be
holding
item
number
ten.
A
So
if
you're
here
for
the
chateau
laurier,
you
have
quite
a
long
wait:
application
for
demolition
and
new
construction
of
485
Maple
Lane,
a
property
designated
under
part,
five
of
the
interior
Heritage
Act
and
located
in
the
Rockville
Park
Heritage
Conservation
District
I,
have
no
speakers
on
this
and
I
understand
I,
chair
Nussbaum
that
it
carried
on
consent
at
your
committee.
Does
anyone
have
any
questions?
The
item
carry
great.
Thank
you.
A
If
anyone
wants
to
lift
this
item
for
discussion
of
motion
has
to
go
forward,
so
we're
just
going
to
receive
that
right.
Other
business.
We
do
have
a
motion
to
include
this
item
as
other
business
I'm
going
to
I'm
going
to
have
that
motion
right
now,
but
we'll
wait
for
the
other
motion.
Okay,
just
to
get
it
on
the
agenda.
So
the
first
motion
vice
chair
tyranny.
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair
where's.
He
Ontario
Ministry
of
Municipal,
Affairs
and
housing,
published
the
post
regulations
on
December
18,
2017
related
to
the
inclusionary
zoning
seeking
public
comments
by
February
1st
2018,
where
a
staff
reviewed
the
proposed
regulations
with
the
lens
on
providing
council
with
the
flexibility
and
its
need
to
make
decisions
regarding
how
to
best
use
the
inclusionary
zoning
provision
and
make
material
improvements
in
Ottawa's,
affordable
housing
stock
and
have
crafted
a
motion
on
councils.
Consideration
in
that
regard.
E
Whereas
council
is
scheduled
to
meet
on
January
31st
2018,
whereas
introducing
a
notice
of
this
matter
at
today's
Planning
Committee
would
allow
time
for
the
review.
Comment
and
potential
revision
prior
to
the
consideration
by
council
on
January.
31St,
therefore
be
resolved
that
the
Planning
Committee
approved
the
additional
of
the
addition
of
this
item
to
the
agenda
for
consideration
by
committee
at
the
23rd
of
January
2018
meeting
pursuant
to
section
89
3
of
the
procedural
bylaw.
A
A
B
B
Okay,
the
application
of
the
the
proposed
amendments
respond
to
an
understanding
or
Memorandum
of
Understanding
between
the
City
of
Ottawa
and
the
NCC
regarding
the
alignment
of
the
second
stage
of
the
LRT,
which
will
pass
through
the
corridor
along
the
so
Johnny
McDonald
Parkway
I'm,
going
to
give
a
very
brief
presentation
is
only
about
two
slides
involved
in
this,
but
then
at
the
end
of
it.
Mr.
mark
has
our
wants
to
speak
to
the
committee
next
slide:
okay,
so
Rochester
fields
and
open
space
linking
how
Richmond
Road
and
the
Ottawa
Parkway
aisle
River
Parkway
them.
B
B
B
If
I
can,
just
if
I
go
like
this,
I
should
be
able
to
I
can't
I
was
hoping
to
get
a
pointer
up
for
you.
So
I
could
point
it
out
that
it's
obviously
that
large
area
green,
open
field
north
of
Richmond
Road,
now
the
properties
informally
used
as
a
part
by
the
community
and
as
access
to
the
Dominion
transit
station.
The
properties
currently
zoned
in
the
city's
zoning
bylaw
to
reflect
the
provisions
that
were
carried
forward
from
the
former
city
of
ottawa.
B
And
if
you
have
a
copy
of
the
report
and
x42
that
report,
a
document
for
that
report
actually
identified
what
is
permitted
on
the
land.
Now,
that's
quite
a
significant
number
of
different
types
of
land-uses
they're,
all
subject
to
a
holding
provision,
which
requires
a
planned
concept
plan
to
be
prepared
by
the
NCC
if
they
wish
to
develop
the
land.
The
city
proposed
this
area
to
be
major
open
space
and
arch
of
traditional
Main
Street
back
in
2003.
B
B
B
It
has
a
holding
provision
on
it
and
that
holding
provision
is
conditional
upon
the
NCC
coming
up
with
concepts
for
the
development
of
those
sites
and
the
meeting
some
of
the
criteria
or
all
of
the
criteria
that
addressing
all
of
criteria,
I
should
say
in
the
special
exception
provisions
of
the
the
bylaw
those
exception
provisions
include
a
greater
setbacks
from
the
road
and
from
adjacent
properties
than
required
by
the
existing
traditional
Main
Street
zone.
That
applies
along
Richmond
Road.
B
This
was
intended
to
enable
the
existing
vegetation
along
the
frontage
of
the
field
and
at
Richmond
Road
and
adjacent
to
the
adjacent
residences
to
the
west
to
be
preserved
as
part
of
the
development
proposals
in
the
future.
At
this
time,
we've
got
no
idea
when
that
development
will
occur
or
what
it
will
be,
and
it's
the
provision.
That's
the
reason
why
we
have
a
holding
provision
that
we
can
assess
that
at
that
time,
the
development
of
these
two
sites
is
less
than
a
hectare
in
area.
B
So
if
you
consider
that
the
overall
sites,
approximately
four
hectares,
then
would
it's
three
three
quarters
park
and
one-quarter
development-
that's
all
I
have
in
terms
of
the
presentation,
we're
recommending
the
Official,
Plan,
Amendment
and
also
the
zoning
amendment,
that's
included
in
the
staff
report.
Now
then,
today
that
to
mr.
mark.
D
D
This
amendment,
these
amendments
as
staff
initiated
amendments,
would
be
subject
to
the
provisions
of
bill
139,
and
so
this,
as
this
is
the
first
report
that
is
likely
to
be
subject
to
bill,
139
staff
thought
it
worth
while
to
bring
it
to
the
attention
of
committee.
The
tests
for
the
Official
Plan
amendment
will
solely
be
consistency
with
the
provincial
policy
statement.
The
tests
for
the
zoning
amendment
will
be
consistency
with
the
PPS
and
conformity
with
the
Official
Plan.
Should
the
amendments
be
appealed
to
the
interior
miss
before
there
is
a
two-step
process?
D
There
is
a
summary
first
hearing
that
is
based
solely
on
the
record
that
the
city
sends
down
to
the
board.
So
that's
a
staff
report
and
the
comments
that
are
received
and
there's
no
evidence
otherwise
called
no
other
documentation,
no
live
witnesses.
There
is
simply
submissions
by
lawyers.
I
believe
they
are
proposed
to
be
time
limited
to
25
minutes
for
the
city,
25
minutes
for
the
appellant,
and
then
the
board
makes
a
decision
on
the
tests
that
I've
previously
spoken
to
and
if
the
board
find
that
those
tests
are
met,
it's
over.
D
A
A
If
you
haven't
been
here
before,
where
the
gentleman
that
we're
just
presenting
to
us
we're
sitting.
There
is
a
chair
right
at
this
at
this
end
over
here
it
says
public
delegations,
when
I
call
your
name,
you
come
forward.
You
have
five
minutes
to
speak
once
you
start
and
there's
a
button,
you
press
and
when
your
mic
is
read,
that's
when
you're
good
to
go
so
the
first
speaker
is
Julia
Clarkson
Julia.
A
G
That
good,
okay,
so
so
I
I,
don't
have
a
slide
presentation.
I'm
just
going
to
speak
from
my
own
little
written
comments
here
and
hopefully
meet
your
five-minute
deadline.
I
live
on
Mansfield
Avenue
I'm,
about
two
streets
over
from
the
southwest
corner
of
the
Rochester
field,
property
I
moved
there
about
five
years
ago
and
one
of
the
main
reasons
I
purchased
there
was
to
enjoy
the
green
space
along
the
river,
the
parkway
and
the
field
and
everything
else
that
goes
with
it.
G
The
fact
that
the
labor
hood
was
mature
and
not
stuck
within
fields
and
multi-story
apartment
buildings
was
a
large
part
of
its
appeal.
I
looked
for
a
while
before
I
bought
that
place,
so
you
can
imagine
my
distress
when
just
a
few
weeks
before
I
moved
in
I
became
aware
of
the
yellow
tea
proposal
and
the
desire
of
myself
and
my
neighborhood
to
remain
less
commercial
and
more
natural
was
made
apparent
through
its
efforts
to
keep
the
LRT
buried
and
out
of
sight.
G
So,
as
mentioned
in
the
city's
community
development
plan
for
the
area,
the
community
treasure
is
its
open
space
along
Leah's
gem,
including
Rochester,
feel
Rochester
field
is
considered
a
major
part
of
this
community.
People
flock
to
this
area.
I
have
yet
to
use
the
pass
on
either
side
of
the
Parkway
without
coming
across
other
people
enjoying
it.
The
peacefulness
derive
from
the
river
and
its
surrounding
landscape
does
not
need
significant
development
to
be
truly
appreciated.
G
Any
future
development
of
this
area
should
be
in
line
with
that
culture
not
contrary
to
it.
So
I'm
obviously
strongly
opposed
to
development
there,
but
I'm
not
naive
enough
to
know
that
it's
not
going
to
happen.
I
just
hope
it
happens.
My
in
a
smart
way,
the
city's
historical
riposte
having
this
portion
of
the
field
loses
open-space
status.
As
we've
all
heard,
the
city's
formal
plans
are
aimed
at
keeping
a
green
space
corridor
a
gateway
to
the
river
in
the
pathway
they
agreed
to
develop
within
MCC.
G
The
northeast
portion
of
this
property
and
I
can
only
assume
their
reluctance.
They
had
a
reason
for
that
and
I
hope.
It
was
because
they
recognize
the
value
of
green
space
to
our
health.
Physical
and
mental.
Developing
the
Northeast
makes
more
sense
to
me,
there's
already
multi
rise
buildings
there,
the
seven
storey
CIHR
building
of
495
Richmond
and
the
recently
built
25
story,
Minto
tower
Upper
West
at
485
Richmond,
which
isn't
reflected
in
any
of
the
diagrams
that
I've
seen
in
this
report.
G
Clearly,
neither
of
these
buildings
has
a
problem
being
near
another
building
because
they're
very
close
to
each
other,
so
keeping
the
development.
There
has
a
lot
of
benefits
in
my
view,
which
I
won't
bother
going
into
because
I
think
you're
all
aware
of
what
it
means
keeps
it
away
from
the
single
family
homes
on
Fraser,
Street
and
obviously
further
away
from
myself.
It
also
seems
more
in
line
with
other
things.
G
The
city
is
written,
the
design
of
the
city,
the
maintenance
of
green
space
and
the
high
quality
of
life
will
enhance
the
attractiveness
of
the
city.
This
is
from
your
official
plan.
Familiar
landscapes
and
heritage
buildings
will
be
maintained.
Despite
ongoing
change.
I,
don't
totally
see
that
here,
I
suspect
that
the
lands
for
CI,
Italian
echo
rest
locations
could
be
extended
to
private
about
four
provide
access.
You
guys
talked
about
needing
to
build
a
road
and
traffic
lights
to
get
at
any
development
that
might
be
in
the
Northeast
I.
G
The
NCC
website
comments
that
Rochester
field
was
to
be
bundled
with
maple
lawn.
To
maintain
a
heritage
theme.
Remember:
life
building
doesn't
meet
this
goal.
All
of
the
local
on
buildings
are
within
the
other
times
our
tenth
on
height
of
eight
meters,
as
this
is
owned
for
my
property
and
the
property
cells
of
Rochester
field.
So
to
me,
six
storeys
is
all
over
three
times
the
height
of
that
it's
too
high
a
low-rise
property
of
maybe
four
storeys
would
be
preferable.
G
G
We
thank
you,
okay,
so
I,
don't
know
why
there
has
to
be
continuous
going
there.
Why
can't
you
have
a
break
of
open
space
in
a
TM
zone?
You
guys
mentioned
a
12
metre
setback.
That's
that's
nice,
but
that's
a
maximum
I,
don't
know
what
the
minimum
is.
It's,
not
an
effective
setback.
Do
you
need
these
buildings?
If
your
reason
there
are
you
going
to
start
allowing
rezoning
and
other
parts
of
the
neighborhood
making
it
very
commercial
and
less
residential
traffic
implications,
parking
implications,
I
don't
want
my
street
to
become
a
parking
lot.
G
You
guys
mentioned
that
as
a
concern
in
your
document.
Five
comments,
but
I
don't
see
anything
being
done
to
prevent
this
from
happening.
I,
don't
know
why
the
corridor
has
to
be
in
the
middle
I.
Don't
know
why
that
TM
zone
has
to
be
on
the
southwest.
Where
I
can
it
be
pushed
to
the
northeast
or
at
least
to
the
east
rather,
and
why
can't
it
be
wider
Giroux.
A
G
F
You
very
much
Cindy
appreciate
your
coming
out
today
and
I
particularly
appreciate
your
pragmatism.
The
original
100
day
deal
would
have
seen
something
like
two-thirds
about
Chesterfield
developed,
we're
down
to
eighteen
and
a
half
percent,
and
that
is
in
return
for
the
ability
to
bury
our
LRT
underneath
the
serve
Johnny
McDonald
Parkway,
which
obviously
has
city
building
benefits
in
terms
of
extending
our
transit.
So
the
pragmatism
that
the
community
has
demonstrated
to
date
has
been
very
gratifying.
F
As
I
listened
to
your
comments,
it
sounds
like
you're,
not
necessarily
opposed
to
any
development
on
Richmond
Road,
but
that
there
are
better
configurations
for
it
that
we're
sort
of
getting
close
to
where
we
need
to
be,
but
that
there
are
tweaks
that
could
vastly
improve
this
for
the
community,
for
the
preservation
of
the
green
space
is,
that
is
that?
Am
I
hearing
you
properly
yeah.
G
I
mean
I
would
prefer
no
development,
I,
don't
think.
That's
realistic,
I
think
the
development
should
be
pushed
further
from
the
homes,
not
just
my
own,
but
particularly
the
people
on
Fraser
I,
think
that
would
be
horribly
tragic
if
they
went
out
in
their
backyard
and
looked
at
this
like
no.
Of
course,
we
don't
know
what
it's
going
to
be
and
that's
part
of
the
problem,
but
once
you
open
up
the
ability
to
put
in
the
six
storeys
other
places
have
pushed
that
to
18
stories.
G
F
That's
that's
interesting,
a
bit
later,
I'm
hoping
to
show
the
concept
plan
that
the
NCC
approved
that
shows
the
buildings
on
the
site,
because
I
think
that
will
make
it
clear
what
the
community
is
concerned
about.
There
is
a
50-meter
gap
right
now
between
the
two
proposed
T
and
main
street
buildings,
and
the
building
that
is
on
the
southwest
corner
is
is
no
really
close
up
against
the
the
residential
development
on
Fraser.
F
The
community
is
asking:
why
can't
we
move
that
building
that's
in
the
southwest
corner
closer
to
the
buildings
on
the
east,
to
create
something
contiguous
with
a
wider
corridor?
Does
that
sound
like
the
kind
of
solution
yeah?
It's
so
there's,
there's
room
here
to
improve
this
proposal
without
necessarily
opposing
all
developments
on
the
site.
I.
A
C
F
C
This
this
site
is
just
to
make
sure
we're
all
on
the
same
page.
The
this.
The
point
is
that
there's
nothing
inherently
required
about
traditional
Main
Street
on
this
particular
site.
It
for
one
thing:
there's
our
one
on
one
side
and
traditional
two-story
on
the
other
side.
So
it's
not
like
this
needs
to
be
zone,
traditional
Main
Street,
even
if
it's
going
to
be
developed.
So
the
thing
is
that's
what
the
plan
amendment
is
for
today.
That's
why
we're
here?
C
C
C
You
know
so
end
to
end
waterfront,
linear
park
and
that's
great
if
you're,
trying
to
you
know,
prove
out
the
concept
of
a
waterfront
linear
park
end
to
end,
but
the
fact
is
most
attendees
have
little
reason
to
know
or
care
about
Rochester
field,
but
we
do
so
we'll
zoom
in
on
Rochester
field,
and
this
is
an
overlay
of
the
proposed
amendment
and
here
I'm
overlaying
Byron,
linear
park
and
there's
a
reason
for
that.
Now.
Byron
linear
park
wasn't
part
of
the
plan.
C
So
it's
a
collector
of
all
of
the
community
activity
that
goes
into
Rochester
field
and
it
obviously
is
right
next
to
Rochester
field.
So
this
is
the
probably
a
familiar
picture.
This
is
document
three
in
the
package
that
you
have
and
it's
presented
by
the
NCC
as
I
think
the
document
the
park
part
of
this
development
and
not
so
much
the
development
I
couldn't
tell
you
what
all
those
pieces
of
the
drawing
are,
but
it's
very
pretty.
C
So
the
northeast
corner
of
this
park,
in
fact
that
entire
stretch
that
was
originally
in
the
MOU
said
to
be
eligible
for
development,
is
separated
from
the
rest
of
the
parkway
by
the
trench.
That
is
the
LRT
where
the
LRT
enters
the
tunnel
again.
So
that
means
that
basically,
a
minute
there's
a
big
fence
there.
C
So
this
is
that
doesn't
mean
this
park
is
completely
useless
as
parkland,
but
it
doesn't
mean
that
it's
it's
not
that
not
it's
not
what
everybody
probably
imagines
that
place
to
have
been
when
they
visited
it
before
looked
at
it
on
this
on
this
diagram
he's
in
LA,
it's
gonna
make
this
point.
A
much
is
being
made
of
the
fact
that
the
the
proposal
is
using
only
20%
of
the
parcel.
There
was
never
any
expectation
that
they
were
going
to
develop
the
entire
66%,
otherwise,.
C
So
just
want
to
point
out
that
those
grassy
rectangles
there
that
look
so
nice
in
this
pretty
diagram
are
actually
where
the
buildings
go,
and
so
they
separate
the
grass
the
grass
the
park
from
Byron
linear
park.
So
it
oscillates
these
two
important
green
spaces.
So
we
tried
to
warn
the
NCC
that
this
was
at
the
greatest
Block.
A
F
C
I
am
pretty
strongly
in
favor
of
sticking
with
the
Memorandum
of
Understanding,
because
I
would
say
a
whole
lot
more,
but
I
just
want
to
point
this
out
the
closer
that
development
gets
to
the
transit
station,
the
more
forward-looking.
This
whole
plan
is,
and
it's
just
simply
wrong
to
look
at
it
as
being
just
you
know:
either
it
is
or
isn't,
transit
oriented
development,
the
closer
it
is
the
train
station,
the
more
it
serves.
The
ridership
and
the
planners
in
this
in
the
city
should
be
paying
attention
to
that.
C
But
I
won't
continue
further
with
that,
I
know
that
the
real
question
here
is:
is
it
okay?
If
you
know
we,
you
know
tweak
and
get
it
closer
to
the
memorandum
of
understanding
and
broaden
that
green
space
and
broadening
the
green
space
is
by
far
the
most
important
thing
here,
but
I
also
realized
that
this
is
I'm
just
a
citizen.
This
is
different
levels
of
government
and
it's
like
a
mating
ritual
between
dancing,
elephants
and
citizens.
Best
role
here
is
to
throw
the
confetti
so
I
think.
F
Which
one
of
the
the
key
roles
that
citizens
are
asking
for?
Here's
to
bring
us
back
to
some
important
principles?
Obviously
this
design
has
changed
significantly.
The
plan
has
changed
significantly
from
when
the
city
struck
that
100-day
deal
with
the
NCC.
The
development
now
takes
up
far
less
space
on
Rochester,
but
some
key
elements
are
missing
again.
My
counselors
have
in
front
of
them
a
package
of
just
some
visuals,
one
of
which
is
the
the
concept
plan.
I
think
it's
the
fifth
slide.
F
My
assistant
Fiona
is
sitting
over
there
for
anyone
who
wants
to
pick
up
a
spare
copy.
It
shows
two
buildings
that
are
on
the
site
and
it
shows
a
15
meter
gap
between
those
two
traditional
Main
Street
buildings
is
that
15
meter
gap
between
mixed
residential
commercial
uses.
What
you
would
consider
to
be
the
green
corridor
that
was
at
the
heart
of
the
deal
that
was
struck
between
the
NCC
in
the
city.
Certainly.
C
Not
that
15
meter
corridor
is,
you
know,
a
shadowy
wind
tunnel.
It's
not
going
to
be
an
inviting.
You
know
engaging
place
for
this
for
the
for
the
public
in
the
community.
Who
are
you
know
on
Byron
linear
park
to
find
their
way
into
the
this
is
waterfront
linear
park
and
I
mean
again
I
think
this
is
a
huge
mistake
for
the
NCC.
It's
not
just
for
the
city.
The
NCC
is
doing
the
wrong
thing
to
themselves
here,
I'm
all
for
them
developing,
but
they
need
to
open
that
up.
F
A
I
allow
those
do
you
have
any
comments
on
anything
that
you
just
heard
about
proximity
stations
or
whatever
Thank
You.
Mr.
Bendele
Gary
come
forward,
please!
Well
the!
If
you
don't
it's
fine,
you
get
no
comments.
Okay,
so
after
Gary
is
a
Paul
pearl
collar
you
here,
let
don't
come
up
yet
Gary's.
First,
thank
you.
Go
ahead,
Gary!
You
know
the
the
way
we
roll
here,
five
minutes.
Thank
you.
H
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
being
an
old
resident
of
Westfall
I'm,
tired
of
hearing
his
property
being
referred
to
as
a
field.
It's
a
field
because
some
people
don't
cut
the
grass
that
they're
responsible
for
but
I
have
a
map
from
the
NCC
a
copy
in
front
of
us
that
states
this
is
Park
Parc
rochester,
PA,
RK,
1973
NCC
map
I
tried
to
find
the
original,
because
my
copy
isn't
the
greatest
and
the
only
thing
that's
missing
from
the
whole
school
of
beam
of
maps
that
went
to
Carlton
University
is
this
one.
H
So
if
we
refer
to
this
property
as
a
park
going
way
back
to
12
to
1973,
a
field
has
a
little
bit
more
we're
thinking
of
oil
in
the
country
a
farmer's
field.
This
is
a
was
apart.
According
to
the
NCC
and
I,
it
bothers
me
that
has
been
dropped
to
the
status
of
a
field,
we're
going
to
have
six
stories.
That's
like
a
wall,
and
this
Planning
Department
has
never
the
best
of
my
knowledge.
H
So
what
is
to
stop
a
developer
coming
along
when
the
NCC
gets
to
a
point
that
they're
going
to
have
this
property
developed
and
the
developer
says
I
can't
do
it
at
six
stories.
It's
got
to
be
higher.
We're
screwed
excuse
my
language,
but
we're
screwed.
It
will
be
a
higher
wall
based
upon
what
we
see
here
today.
H
It's
interesting
that
in
March
2016,
the
three
concepts
we
got
from
the
NCC
are
not
available
any
longer
on
their
website,
at
least
when
I
tried
to
find
and
those
three
concepts
we're
received
by
the
public
at
a
meeting
in
March
of
2016
and
voted
on
according
to
the
NCC,
they
got
a
response
from
people
who
submitted
comments
and
one
of
those
concepts.
None
of
those
concepts
had
that
section
along
Richmond
Road
next
to
Fraser
with
a
building.
H
We
have
a
concept
on
richmond
road
built
by
Ashcroft,
where
they've
got
nine
story
buildings
and
in
between
the
two
nine
story
buildings,
you
should
be
able
to
see
the
convent
trying
doesn't
work
if
you're
driving
by
even
if
you're,
walking
by
and
I'm,
not
sure
why
you'd
want
to
walk
there,
because
it's
always
in
shadow,
you
don't
see
the
conduct
not
unless
you
walk
between
the
two
buildings.
So
it's
an
example
of
what
doesn't
work.
H
We
submitted
our
comments.
I
hope
the
members
of
committee
read
these
comments.
I'd
appreciate
it.
If
you
go
back,
if
you
need
to
other
an
interesting
part
of
all
of
this
is
we're
participating
in
the
city's
pre
consultation
process.
We've
signed
non-disclosure
agreements,
we
participated
a
huge
number.
This
application
was
not
part
of
that
process.
Why
not?
This
is
a
huge
impact
on
the
community.
Why
couldn't?
We
have
been
part
of
that
and
got
maybe
somewhere
further
down
the
road
with
what
was
being
proposed.
H
A
F
H
It's
they're
trying
to
give
us
an
alleyway
or
a
view,
or
whatever
a
pathway
to
the
sir
Johnny
McDonald
Parkway,
the
green
space
in
behind
and
the
river
and
I
cited
the
example
of
Ashcroft,
where
you
can't
see
the
convent
and
very
the
only
reason
you
get
in
back.
There
is
because
there's
there's
a
a
pathway,
but
if
you
don't
go
between
those
two
buildings
on
Richmond
Road
as
part
of
that
Ashcroft
development,
you
really
don't
get
to
see
the
conduct,
so
you've
got
to
be
able
to
go
be.
H
F
The
connection
between
our
byron
park,
which
is
receiving
renewed
attention
and
the
surge
on
a
McDonald
Park,
where
we
have
that
opportunity
to
create
a
real
link
and
bring
people
between
those
two
parks
would
be
lost.
I'll
just
quickly
make
note
for
for
counselors
and
those
who
have
the
package
and
again
I
hope,
I'll
be
indulged
in
putting
it
up
on
screen
a
little
bit
later.
F
I
You
were
saying
that
there
was
extensive
consultation
and
I've
spoken
with
counsel
deeper
about
this
you're
saying
that
there
was
extensive
consultation,
a
relative
term
in
March
2016,
where
concepts
were
studied
and
that
the
the
concept
that
we
are
looking
at
today
in
the
documentation
with
area
B
and
the
corridor
between
was
not
proposed
at
that
time
was
never
proposed
to
the
community.
You.
H
Know
we
had
a
there
was
a
meeting
hosted
by
counsel
earlier
in
October
I
think
it
was
of
2017,
and
that
is
the
first
time
we
saw
this
forth
concept,
which
came
forth
basically
as
a
slam
dunk.
This
is
what
you're
going
we're
going
to
be
doing.
So
there
was
no.
That
was
it
here.
It
is.
This
is
what
we're
getting.
This
is
what
we're
applying
for
and.
K
I
I
Massey,
but
what
I'm
hearing
is
so
no,
there
has
been
no
NCC
lead
or
City
led
public
consultations
on
the
option
that
we're
being
asked
to
look
at
today
and
and
from
the
first
lady's
submission,
and
from
my
looking
at
it,
the
the
western
portion
and
the
abutment
on
Fraser
Avenue
appears
to
be
an
issue.
So
thank
you.
Those
are
those
are
my
questions.
Those
are
my
comments.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
E
One
previous
consultations
on
this
matter
did
not
include
contemplation
of
mid-rise
buildings.
All
the
options
presented
the
consultations
gesture
that
the
maximum
height
of
buildings
in
rochester
field
would
be
low-rise.
This
changed
in
israel,
mid-rise
denigrates
a
purpose
and
integrity
of
the
consultation
process.
Mid
rise
developments
are
inconsistent
and
incompatible
with
the
intended
parkland
environment.
For
the
area
too,
the
development
was
originally
to
be
located
in
the
north
east
corner
of
the
field.
The
western
part
of
the
field
was
to
be
was
to
remain
as
green
space
2/3.
E
The
KATUSA
p
ward
already
has
less
green
space
in
most
other
city
words,
and
we
should
not
have
to
give
up
the
block
little
green
space.
We
already
have
for
most
importantly
around
along
Richmond
Road,
except
for
a
small
access
corridor,
we'll
make
the
park
uninviting
for
local
residents
hiding
most
of
the
green
space
from
view.
This
real
buildings
is
totally
inconsistent
with
councils
original
vision
of
a
green
corridor
connecting
the
buyer
and
Mini.
Apart
with
the
ncc
park
lands.
E
There
are
many
viable
options
that
have
not
been
fully
explored.
It
makes
much
more
sense
to
develop
the
northeast
end
of
the
area
early.
That's
the
northeast
corner
of
the
the
whole
area
under
consideration,
as
originally
planned,
because
it
is
closer
to
the
transit
way
it
makes
air
station
and,
with
a
non
500
meter,
walking
distance
that
will
encourage
more
people
to
use
transit,
which
is
very
much
a
part
of
a
Ottawa
city's
plan.
This
area
is
also
adjacent
to
current
commercial
and
high-rise
residential
developments
and
would
have
much
less
adverse
community
impact.
E
So
it
is
my
recommendation
that
the
proposal
not
be
approved
and
that
further
studies
be
undertaken,
hopefully
in
consultation
with
the
local
community,
to
develop
a
plan
that
will
one
recommend
land
uses
that
are
compatible
and
consistent
with
parkland
setting
to
serve
the
new
of
the
local
community,
three
prohibit
any
mid-rise
or
presumably
high-rise
developments
along
Richmond
Road
that
will
inhibit
community
access
and
four
limit
any
development
on
the
site
to
low-rise
structures
that
are
compatible
with
the
adjacent
green
space.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank.
E
A
L
This
is
I've,
always
thought
of
chin
you
get
to
Smith,
but
to
keep
the
polish
I'd,
make
it
Smith
ski.
You
know
for
tradition.
The
Smith
in
ski
I'm,
pleasantly
surprised
here,
I
think
someone's
pulling
my
leg.
They
said
their
big
countdown
clock
in
the
corner,
which
I
thought
would
be
a
little
intimidating
for
the.
A
L
You
start
you're
going
to
have
five
minutes.
Okay.
Well,
thank
you
for
having
me
here,
I'm
a
representative
of
the
condo
board
of
45
upper
west.
So
people
use
the
term
in
my
backyard
very
few
Slee
and
in
a
very
broad
sense
this.
This
literally
is
my
backyard,
the
property
backs
onto
it.
People
watch
me
holding
my
18
month
old
and
my
3
year
old
as
they
walk
by
the
park.
People
they
so
chose
to
could
literally
throw
a
rock
and
break
my
window.
L
So
you
know
my
grandfather
keeps
saying
sayings
like
all
the
good
old
days
and
I'm,
not
old
enough
to
remember
the
good
old
days,
but
every
time
I
look
for
evidence
of
what
he's
talking
about
I
find
that
he
miss
remembers
more
than
then
he
knows
the
then
he
actually
remembers
accurately
so
I
when
I
first
moved
to
us,
but
I
read
a
book
called
early
days
in
Westborough
Beach,
where
they
talked
about
the
history
of
this
land
and
the
history
of
this
land
is
very
simple.
It
is
before
the
Parkway
before
NCC
land.
L
It
was
Richmond
Road
with
linear
parks
on
Rochester
field
leading
to
the
waterway.
This
is
not
a
new
crazy
development.
This
is
the
history
of
the
land
and
at
the
same
time,
the
development
was
very
similar
to
what's
being
proposed
by
the
NCC.
For
a
very
simple
reason:
the
there
is
no
other
reasonable
way
to
place
a
road
all
the
other
other
than
Rochester
field.
All
the
other
land
is
privately
owned.
L
The
development
is
by
Richmond
Road,
because
that's
where
the
land
is
the
most
expensive
and
NCC
requires
that
that
revenue,
so
it's
either
16%
along
there
or
33%
somewhere
else.
So
we
see
this
proposal
as
a
reasonable
mild
return
to
history.
Anyone
who
lived
there
thinking
that
in
perpetuity
the
river
would
not
be
accessible
and
not
that
empty
field
of
land
would
not
be
consumed
at
some
point.
I
think
that
they
had
not
done
their
homework.
L
I
also
go
near
that
field
every
single
day,
I
look
out
on
the
northeast
corner,
I,
look
out
on
Richmond
field
every
day,
and
this
impression
that
the
community
and
my
councils,
trying
to
make
of
people
walking
down
byron
park
and
enjoying
richmond
field
and
playing
and
frolicking
in
the
grass,
is
a
figment
of
most
people's
imagination.
What
you
haven't
heard
here
is
my
volleyball
team
played
its
tournament
on
Richmond
field,
because
they
don't
you
don't
hear
about.
Oh
my
kids
birthday
party
was
there.
L
We
had
balloons
and
streamers
and
and
beaver
tails,
because
you
don't.
The
portion
that
NCC
wants
to
develop
is
simply
too
close
to
Rochester
Field
for
most
people
to
feel
sorry,
too
close
to
Richmond
Road
for
most
people
to
feel
safe
using
it
for
lack
of
better
term.
It's
dead
space
people
walk
behind
there
and
then
they
turn
right
onto
the
northeastern
corner
and
that's
where
they
liked
to
let
their
dogs
out
that's
where
they
liked
to
play.
But
now,
because
of
the
tick
outbreak,
people
use
it
only
as
a
path.
L
The
grass
is
too
tall.
Most
people
don't
feel
comfortable
with
that
I
don't
feel
comfortable
with
my
18
month-old
running
around
there.
Most
people
don't
let
their
dogs,
when
they
don't
picnic
there
on
some
parts
that
are
cut.
They
might
you
know,
there's
one
picnic
table
and
they
might
eat
their
lunch,
but
people
don't
use
this
field
in
the
way
that
they're
expressing
right
now
I
see
it
every
day,
it's
a
footpath
to
LRT
and
that's
about
it.
L
I
E
F
Thank
you
very
much
for
coming
out
and
and
thank
you
very
much
for
expressing
a
position
that
I
have
absolutely
heard
in
the
community
we're
hearing
a
lot
from
people
who
are
very
opposed
to
this
particular
configuration.
But
I
have
heard
from
a
few
people
who
have
expressed
them
the
a
different
view.
We
can
have
a
discussion
about
what
open
space
is
useful
for
at
some
other
time.
You
can.
F
A
F
That's
that's
an
interesting
discussion.
We'll
have
that
and
another
time,
but
I
guess
my
question
for
you
is,
would
you
oppose
like?
Is
this
the
perfect
can,
or
is
there
room
here
to
balance
the
different
perspectives
here?
Would
you
oppose
creating
a
wider
corridor
from
Richmond
Road
to
the
river?
If
we
could
do
it,
would
you
oppose
a
bigger
break
on
Richmond
Road,
or
do
you
feel
that
it
needs
to
be
filled
in
as
a
as
a
positive.
L
Well,
with
all
due
respect,
I
think
you're
asking
the
wrong
question
you
know
would
I
would
I
like
to
have
my
cake
and
eat
it
too
sure
you
know
I'd
also,
you
know
what
I
love
for
there
to
be
streamers
and
balloons
there
everyday
for
my
kids
to
enjoy
sure
the
question
is:
what's
the
trade-off
of
that?
So
show
me
what
you
know
does
that
water
Boulevard
mean
something
else
will
be
down
or
they'll
be
less
lighting
or
there'll.
L
Be
you
know
what
about
you
know
I
believe
one
of
the
plans
mentioned
something
along
lines
of.
Maybe
it
will
be
a
hotspot
and
Wi-Fi
for
anyone
using
the
waterfront.
Does
that
you
know?
Will
that
be
gone?
So
you
know,
are
you
saying
they'll
want
more
sure
I
want
more
where's,
the
less
going
to
come
from
and
I
look
at
the
current
proposal
and
I
are
concerns
actually
note.
The
proposal
concerns
are
actually
with
lighting,
like
some
of
the
proposals
being
made
of
tobogganing
Hills
would
require
flood
lighting.
That's
what
we're
concerned
about.
L
Okay
is
at
midnight.
Our
window
is
going
to
be
and
like
whether
the
boulevard
smaller
now,
no
one
cares,
I
mean
I
and
I
mean
that
respectfully,
like
I
know
it's
important,
but
a
lot
of
that's,
not
a
people
care
about
people
care
about
how
often
where
the
garbage
is
going
to
be
picked
up.
Is
it
going
to
smell
in
35
degrees?
Is
the
lighting
going
to
be
like
that's
what
we
care
about?
How
is
this
going
to
impact
people
using
whatever's
there
and
will?
L
Will
it
affect
us
when
you
know
in
the
middle
of
the
winter
time?
Well,
like
nobody
uses
the
park
right
now?
Nobody
because
it's
covered
in
layer
of
ice.
Is
this
something
that's
going
to
be
usable
Neutron?
That's
we
care
about
the
width
of
the
Boulevard.
Let
MCC
in
the
free
market
decide
that
what
what
can
they
afford
and
where
can
that
money
be
used
for
otherwise,
but
that's
you
know
and
for
what
my
opinions
worth,
that's
what
we
talk
about.
Okay,.
L
Job
I'm
sure
you
have
thought
and
discussed
as
already
like
you.
You
wouldn't
be
this
far
into
step,
one
if
you
haven't
thought
of
possibilities
of
step,
two
or
three
or
four
so
I
mean
you're
right,
we're
not
officially
in
those
discussions,
but
no
one's
walking
into
this
blind
to
what
the
consequence
of
some
of
these
decisions
are
you'll.
A
D
So
the
communities
have
a
fair
chance
in
seeking
rochester
fields.
Preservation,
Rochester
Field
is
a
jewel
of
a
park.
It
connects
the
byron
linear
park
to
the
yes
gem
linear
park
is
used
by
dog,
walkers
cyclists
and
pedestrians,
making
their
way
to
and
from
the
Dominion
station
and
the
S
gem
linear
park.
It
has
heritage
to
it.
It
was
bequeathed
the
SEC
by
the
namesake
Rochester's,
who
gave
it
to
the
SEC
for
its
preservation.
From
what
I
understand
it
is
a
part
of
what,
if
I
can
paraphrase.
D
D
With
the
arrival
of
the
LRT
and
20
22
23
Westbourne
McKellar
Park
will
face
unrelenting
pressure
for
intensification
and
development
in
the
generations
to
come.
I
asked
them
to
be
smart
about
it.
The
little
green
space
we
have
must
be
afforded
the
highest
level
of
protection
and,
however,
thought
this
issue
is
where
some
of
the
political
dealing
until
now
I
ask
you
to
look
upon
a
history
and
look
upon
our
planning
boondoggles
of
the
past
and
to
say
that
we
should
not
be
giving
up
green
space
so
easily.
D
The
bottom
line
is
that
this
is
a
jewel
of
a
space
and
it
should
be
a
non-negotiable
between
the
city
and
the
NCC,
a
sentiment
that
has
been
expressed
by
some
of
the
residents
performing
and
I
asked
the
City
of
Ottawa
and
the
NCC
delay
any
proposals
or
propositions
that
would
further
and
see
the
space
developed
and
derive
us
the
chance
to
convince
NCC
and
city
and
any
proposal
leading
are
losing
leading
to
the
loss
of
our
park
space
forever.
So
thank
you
for
your
attention.
Thank.
F
City
Council
were
to
reject
this
proposal
as
needing
more
work
with
that
conversation.
What
would
that
conversation
be?
What
would
you
be
seeking
to
get
in
subsequent
consultations?
Would
you
come
to
the
table
to
say
no,
don't
put
development
on
Rochester
field,
or
would
it
be
more
along
the
lines
of
trying
to
seek
some
compromises
around?
What
this
proposal
looks
like
I
think.
D
Conversation
was
to
continue
I
think
we
back
away
from
the
principle
to
more
to
the
pragmatic
as
the
first
speaker,
keeping
the
best
minds
looking
to
keep
the
best
part
of
field,
the
open
part
of
the
field
on
the
western
portion
and
look
towards
a
development
where
it's
less
manicured
I'd
like
to
see
that
that
conversation
just
go
on
so
that
community
members
can
digest,
because
the
consequences
are
indelible.
So
so,
if
it
takes
another
year
to
come
to
that,
then
it
takes
another
year.
Thank.
F
K
Yes,
now
can
you
need
oh
yeah,
okay,
okay,
so
I
will
try
to
be
short
and
eliminate
any
repeat
comments.
I'm
grateful
to
my
other
fellow
residents
for
coming
today.
I
am
a
20-year
resident
of
the
area.
I
live
on
Mansfield
Avenue,
two
houses
down
from
the
Parkway
I
have
studied
the
history,
have
a
full
understanding
and
expect
to
retain
my
memory
still
for
a
while.
K
You
know
people
running
their
kites
people
playing
soccer
birthday
parties
held
in
the
fields
over
the
years
with
the
lack
of
maintenance
in
mowing
the
lawn
we
have
not
been
able
to
use
it,
so
those
who
are
who
are
residents
near
residents
to
the
neighborhood
will
observe
different
patterns
of
use
on
this
property
for
sure,
I
am
in
opposition
of
the
existing
plan,
as
submitted
specifically
the
Southwest
development.
The
concept
plan
that
we
were
given
access
to
on
the
left
does
not
clearly
delineate
the
buildings
that
would
be
set.
K
Councillor
leaper
kindly
gave
gave
me
an
updated
copy
on
the
top
right.
What
you
are
not
seeing
in
the
left
concept
plan
is
what
the
zoning
is
around
this
neighborhood
and
the
zoning
is
our
one
oh
and
I've,
blocked
off
in
blue,
where
that
north
sorry
that
Southwest
development
would
be,
it
would
abut
directly
upon
Frazier
Avenue.
There
is
an
inlet
of
three
streets
that
that
have
long
standing
residents
who
have
lived
there
for
years.
For
a
reason
they
like
the
access
to
the
Parkway,
the
green
space.
K
K
Nowhere
near
represents
creating
access
to
open
green
space,
in
fact
it
restricts
it,
and
when
I
look
at
the
NCC's
plans
to
promote
the
use
of
green
space,
I
recognize
that
the
need
to
get
northern
access
across
the
Parkway
is
it
is,
is
a
good
objective,
but
it's
not
achieved
by
developing
our
property
and
I,
say
our
community
property.
This
has
been
part
of
a
community
of
mckellar
Park
was
you
know?
K
I
do
also
agree
that
we
were
not
properly
consulted
in
this
program,
and
it
is
unfortunate
that
you
have
a
strong
representation
here
of
individuals
and
community
members
who
fought
very
hard.
You
know
with
the
city
to
ensure
that
we
protected
Byron,
linear,
Park
and
Rochester
Field,
and
you
know
we
weren't
quite
aware
that
that
was
then
contradicted
in
the
Memorandum
of
Understanding
and
we're
back
here
again
to
protect
Rochester
Field,
but
now
also
to
protect
ourselves.
Those
are
on
Frazier.
They.
K
A
A
E
A
E
A
E
Constituents,
often
along
violin
and
Richmond,
use
the
Rochester
field
all
the
time.
So
our
members
are
deeply
affected
by
what
happens
here,
I
want
to
say
that
we
have
no
problem
with
the
redesignate
of
about
80%
of
Rochester
field
is
open.
Space.
Keeping
80%
of
the
field
as
park
is
what
virtually
everybody
wants
and
I
think
you've
heard
that
today,
not
from
everybody
for
but
for
most
people,
so
we're
grateful
for
that.
Our
problem
is
with
the
20%
where
it
comes
from
and
what's
on
it,
and
with
that
we
have
a
lot
of
problems.
E
Our
strong
preference
and
virtually
everybody
in
the
community
agrees
with
this
would
be
that
this
was
also
designated
as
park
or
open
space.
As
you
know,
this
was,
in
effect
the
position
of
the
city
as
well
until
100-day
agreement,
the
NCC
didn't
agree,
use
the
100-day
agreement
you
to
extract
some
commitments
from
the
city,
and
that
brings
us
to
this
room
today
as
a
documentation
for
this
meeting
notes
from
the
staff.
E
The
agreement
between
the
city
and
the
settlement
of
the
outstanding
appeal
of
the
city's
official
plan
requires
the
city
to
permit
some
development
on
Rochester
field.
That's
from
the
staff
report.
So
by
the
agreement.
The
NCC
has
a
right
to
ask
for
some
reasoning,
and
the
city
has
an
obligation
to
give
it
some
rezoning
if
it
wishes
to
ask
for
it.
E
But
as
councillor
leapers
pointed
out,
the
city
is
not
obligated
to
approve
zoning
changes
that
are
significantly
different
in
letter
and
spirit
from
the
arrangement
work,
letters
and
result
of
the
agreement
and,
from
our
point
of
view,
as
a
community
association.
Even
more
so
it's
not
obligated
to
approve
something
that
is
widely
seen
in
the
community
as
not
having
been
subject
to
real
consultation.
E
E
The
NCC
had
a
series
of
consultations
put
out
three
concepts:
you've
seen
the
three
concepts
or
accounts
from
the
leaper
Haslem
for
USC
in
October
of
2017
councillor
delete
the
held
a
meeting
for
the
community
and
the
NCC
presented
a
concept
for
Rochester
field
that
we
had
never
seen
before
and
on
which
we
had
not
been
consulted.
That
was
the
first
thing
that
was
the
first
shock
at
that
meeting.
When
people
came
in
there,
6070
people
say
well,
everybody
left
angry
and
shaking
their
heads.
There
wasn't
only
to
that
I
remember
from
that
meeting.
E
The
first
was
that
we
hadn't
seen
this
before
and
we
hadn't
had
an
opportunity
to
consult.
It
was
also
made
clear
at
the
meeting
that
the
MCC
has
no
immediate
use
for
this
property
that
it
wants
redeveloped
as
traditional
Main
Street.
It
doesn't
know
when
it's
going
to
activate
this
designation.
It
doesn't
know,
what's
going
to
go
on
it.
E
In
other
words,
the
MCC
is
in
tension
with
respect
to
this
property
is
driven
by
financial
considerations
and
not
by
design
considerations.
If
you
go
back
to
the
1950s,
when
the
NCC
was
set
up,
it
was
supposed
to
be
an
alternative
to
development
decisions
made
by
the
profit
motive.
It
was
supposed
to
make
the
city
a
place,
that's
attractive
for
tourists,
visitors
and
people
in
Ottawa
to
come
to
this.
Isn't
it
frankly,
I
think
organizations
like
people
have
their
good
days
and
they
have
the
bad
days.
E
This
particular
proposal
from
the
NCC
is
not
the
NCC
on
one
of
its
good
days.
I
think
this
committee
would
do
itself
the
city,
the
community,
any
NCC,
a
favor.
By
saying
this
is
not
really
acceptable.
You
know
it's
not
acceptable.
It's
not
driven
by
the
highest
standards
of
the
NCC.
Historically
take
it
back.
Do
a
real
consultation
with
community
and
bring
it
back.
Thank
you
when
there's
in
real
consultation.
F
E
I
wouldn't
like
to
see
this
come
out
of
it.
As
I
say,
this
is
not
the
NCC
on
one
of
its
better
days,
but
as
I
get
older
I
come
to
the
conclusion
that
what
I
want
is
democratic
process,
I'm
unprepared
to
cook,
to
put
up
with
just
about
anything
if
I
know
that
the
people
involved
have
had
their
chance
to
talk
about
it.
If
there's
been
consultation,
discussion,
real
consultation
and
some
kind
of
input
from
the
people
who
are
affected,
this
isn't
it.
This
hasn't
been
done.
E
I,
don't
know
I,
don't
know
about
that.
You've
had
a
number
of
people
here
and
they've
all
said.
Take
it
back
and
rethink
it
rethink.
What
what
comes
out
at
the
end
of
the
rethink
I
think
you've
got
to
listen
to
people
the
constituents
in
your
ward
and
we're
all
saying,
take
this
back
and
rethink.
It
will
give
us
a
chance
to
rethink
it.
I,
don't
know
what
will
come
out
of
that
rethink
process.
It
might
be
this,
it
might
be
something
else
it
might
be.
All
of
Rochester
field
is
developed,
it
might
be.
E
None
of
Rochester
field
is
developed,
but
I
know
that
we
haven't
had
a
chance
to
talk
with
the
NCC.
The
NCC
are
the
only
people
that
have
any
Running
Room
on
this.
You
are
obligated
to
give
the
NCC
something
by
the
hundred
day
agreement.
They
don't
have
to
ask
for
it.
So
send
it
back
and
say:
is
this
really
what
you
want?
E
A
You
thanks
for
coming
out
today:
okay
David
Bosco
Oh.
What
OH
just
hang
on
a
second
just
hang
on
hang
on.
Who
is
it
you
John
you
Riley,
so
neither
of
you
do
okay.
Thank
you
very
much
for
coming
up
David
Bosco
and
followed
by
Diana.
Partridge
Diana.
Are
you
here?
Okay,
so
David?
You
have
five
minutes.
A
A
A
E
That's
what
it
looks
like
right
now,
I
took
that
a
couple
of
days
ago
you
can
see
the
river
through
the
trees.
You
can
see
the
trees
in
the
summer.
You
can't
see
the
river,
but
it's
there.
You
know
it's
there,
and
this
is
the
only
area
along
Richmond
Road,
where
this
is
the
case.
So
I
would
like
to
see
no
development,
obviously-
and
that's
probably
a
pretty.
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
F
B
So
I
want
to
go
back.
First
of
all,
the
the
zoning
bylaw
is
rezoning
all
of
the
land,
including
part
of
what
we're
proposing
to
designate
general
urban
as
open
space
and
is
removing
the
potential
development
rights
on
that
land
that
currently
exists
and
the
fact
that
we
designated
that
block
general
urban
is
more
a
practical
thing
than
anything.
B
You
cannot
see
that
on
our
schedule
of
the
Official
Plan
in
anything
smaller
than
that
size,
so
it
recognizes
that
there
is
part
of
this
site
is
going
to
be
general
further
than
the
zoning
applies
over
way
to
Richmond
Road
and
the
zoning.
The
open
space
zoning
is
permitted
in
both
the
major
open
space
designation
and
in
the
general
Ogun
designation,
most
of
our
parks
in
Ottawa.
B
You
will
not
see
on
our
official
plan
that
they're
zoned
to
protect
the
most
parks,
so
this
was
just
simply
a
technical
way
around
some
awkward
problems
with
the
scale
of
our
official
plan
Maps
and
still
protecting
the
corridor
and
the
zoning
the
TM
zone.
That
applies
to
the
two
parcels
fronting
on
Richmond
Road
can
only
be
changed
through
a
zoning
amendment
which
would
bring
the
NCC
back
to
the
city
if
they
propose
to
change
the
configuration
of
those
zones
that.
F
J
We
certainly
heard
from
the
people
that
appeared
and
gave
us
feedback,
and
we
went
back
and
made
some
changes,
and
one
of
the
changes
I'd
like
to
highlight
is
that
we
imposed
a
12
metre
setback
from
the
West
property
line
which
wasn't
there
before
in
order
to
preserve
the
row
of
trees
that
exist,
and
we
also
imposed
setbacks
from
the
traditional
Main
Street
in
order
to
preserve
the
row
of
trees
that
exist.
So
these
are
two
things
back
to
Bruce's
point
that,
if
nothing
is
done
today
will
not
exist
as
requirements
again.
J
A
K
K
So
this
is
actually
a
view
of
Rochester
field.
From
our
from
the
north
side
of
Ireland,
you
can
see
the
linear
park
you
can
see.
These
are
actually
some
students
from
the
school
they
come
down,
have
their
lunch
sitting
on
the
park
bench
and
they're
looking
across
and
they're
sitting
there,
because
this
is
a
peaceful
place.
K
People
like
to
have
a
green
space
in
spite
of
some
attendees
comment,
and
we
see
that
frequently
I
want
to
bring
this
to
the
level
of
the
human,
because
we've
been
looking
at
aerial
views
and
plans,
and
this
is
really
what
it's
like
here
is
Rochester
field.
This
is
your
gateway
to
the
river.
Oh,
let
me
get
go
game.
Can
I
change?
K
Okay,
tap
that
okay,
so
this
is
the
only
place
on
the
Iowa
River
that
you
can
sorry
on.
Richmond
Road,
you
could
see
the
Ottawa
River
and
it's
this
is
such
a
unique
opportunity.
This
is
the
languor
Park.
We
took
these
pictures
of
two
days
ago
without
the
playa,
and
you
can
see
right
through
to
the
river
and
look
at
the
gap
in
here,
sir.
Let's
not
lose
this.
This
is
a
broad
avenue
right
now
and
if
we
restrict
it
to
a
narrow
space
now
people
people
are
walking
on
it
in
your
Park.
K
Are
they
even
in
the
evening
and
they
can
see
the
river?
Please,
please
don't
restrict
this
view.
This
is
such
a
chance
for
us
for
our
grandchildren,
all
right
so
now,
I
try
to
show
you
from
a
ground
level
what
it
might
look
like
if
buildings
go
in,
so
this
is
Richmond
Road
near
all
the
cars
vehicles
on
the
right-hand
side
of
this
there's
the
cab
manner,
and
you
can
just
see
the
edge
of
the
trees
that
on
Fraser
here
are
two
buildings.
K
I
mean
they're,
not
real
buildings,
but
try
to
put
something
in
just
show
you
how
it
black
that
potential
and,
if
you're,
knocking
on
the
limb
you're
parking.
You
see
this
real
corridor
and
you're
going
to
go.
Alright,
let's
just
run
right
down
there
to
live
it
now.
You
know
it
anyway.
I
will
not
get
too
emotional
about
this.
So
my
conclusion
is:
let's
take
this
back.
Let's
have
a
better
look.
I
think
we
didn't
rush
too
much
it.
This
is
this.
This
is.
This
is
a
this.
K
Is
a
Heritage
Place
on
I
I'd
like
to
see
my
consultation,
so
I'm
not
really
opposed
to
development,
but
I
think
we
need
to
consider
it
more
and
I'm
doing.
I'm
here,
I'll
probably
be
looking
up
at
the
grass
rather
than
down
at
the
grass
by
the
time
this
happens,
but
I
want
to
protect
this
from
my
grandchildren.
A
C
A
F
Those
are
the
end
of
the
delegations,
I
assume
and
I've
asked
the
chair
for
some
indulgence.
Each
of
the
councillors
you've
received
just
a
quick
staple
deck.
I
just
want
to
take
you
through
and
I
think
two
and
a
half
minutes
what
you're
looking
at,
because
the
number
of
these
documents
are
not
available
publicly
and
I.
Think
that
they'll
add
some
urgency
to
the
the
question
that
we
are
asking
today.
F
Thanks
darling,
just
a
quick
perspective
on
what
I
think
we're
we're
making
a
decision
on
today,
I've
highlighted
first,
the
language
that
is
in
the
100-day
MOU.
You
all
voted
in
favor
of
this.
This
was
language
that
came
to
fedko,
and
then
it
went
to
City,
Council
and
I.
Think
that
the
important
part
of
it
is
that
you
know
we
were
allowing
a
fairly
significant
development
on
the
site
that
we
wanted
to
preserve
the
west
hand
side.
That's
what
we
voted
on
when
the
100-day
deal
came
on
the
next
slide.
F
These
were
the
materials
that
were
made
publicly
available
in
the
wake
of
the
100-day
vo.
We
had
a
number
of
open
houses
around
the
city.
I
believe
I
took
this
particular
document
from
something
that
was
attached
to
the
the
council
agenda
item.
So
again,
this
was
part
of
our
thinking
when
we
approved
the
100-day
deal
and
what
it
talks
about
is
that
green
corridor,
through
Rochester
field,
to
be
redesignated
to
park
space
and
enhanced
that
green
corridor
I
think
is
an
important
part
of
what
we're
talking
about
today.
F
I
would
ask
that
just
move
on
to
the
next
slide
in
August
of
2015,
the
city
began
a
process
to
implement
the
letter
and
spirit
of
the
100-day
deal
as
written,
so
we
had
a
process.
I
put
it
on.
My
blog
began
as
a
consultation
to
designate
the
the
2/3
of
Rochester
field
as
as
a
developable
area,
and
it's
interesting
to
note
that
at
this
point,
despite
the
fact
that
I
went
through
all
my
usual
mechanisms
of
making
this
publicly
available,
the
arc
row
was
relatively
minimal.
F
F
We
began
this
process,
I
made
it
public,
not
a
huge
outcry,
certainly
nothing
compared
to
what
we're
getting
today
and
it's
my
contention
that
that's
because
this
would
have
preserved
that
green
corridor
that
we
voted
for
and
that
we
showed
people
moving
on
to
the
next
slide
and
I
think
it
is
important
that
you
have
those
documents
in
front
of
you.
It's
no
longer
available
from
the
NCC
I'm,
not
sure
why
this
isn't
a
publicly
available
document
or
why
it's
not
part
of
the
process
that
we're
talking
about
today.
F
The
NCC
put
a
pause
on
that
Official
Plan
amendment
that
began
in
our
20:15.
Remember
that
the
city
is
going
to
pay
the
NCC
30
million
dollars
to
help
it
build
its
new
linear
park.
The
NCC
went
away
and
began
to
consult
on
what
that
park
should
look
like.
There
are
two
very
well-attended
open
houses
and
they
showed
people
these
three
concepts.
The
numbers
below
indicate
how
many
people
responded
to
the
concepts
positively
neutrally
or
negatively.
F
My
view
is
that
option
number
three
which
shows
that
denser
development
down
near
Richmond
Road
raised
you
know,
certainly
the
the
greatest
level
of
opposition,
the
greatest
difference
between
agreeing
disagree.
Obviously,
none
of
the
three
really
were
a
lot
of
enthusiastic
buy-in.
Again,
we
have
to
recognize
that
many
in
the
community
would
prefer
there
be
no
development
at
all
and
then,
if
we
go
to
the
next
slide,
this
was
finally
the
proposal
that
came
to
the
NCC's
board.
It
is
a
hybrid
of
the
other
options.
This
diagram
is
not
available
publicly.
F
It
was
shown
in
the
NCC
board.
I
was
able
to
watch
the
YouTube
live
cast
of
that
NCC
board
meeting.
Do
a
quick
screen
grab
in
order
to
be
able
to
get
this
and
what
it
shows
is
I
think
much
better
than
the
material
that
was
put
in
your
packages.
What
is
the
impact
of
putting
that
traditional
Main
Street
development
along
Richmond,
Road,
we've
gone
from
that
green
corridor
that
we
voted
for
and
that
was
promised
to
residents
in
100-day
deal
to
a
15
meter
gap
between
traditional
Main
Street
developments
there.
F
You
see
that
narrow
corridor
and
a
lot
of
us
are
wondering
that
building
that
is
on
the
southwest
corner.
Could
that
get
tucked
in
behind
Maple
lawn?
Could
it
be
made
a
little
bit
smaller
and
made
contiguous
with
the
developer?
Will
portion
area
be,
that
is
to
the
east,
to
provide
a
much
wider
green
corridor
to
the
west
of
the
site
that
would
be
uninterrupted
park
access?
F
We
have
a
lot
of
things
that
we,
we
feel
could
be
done
with
this
particular
configuration
that
would
give
the
community
that
green
corridor
that
we
voted
for
and
that
was
promised
to
the
community
in
the
hundred
day
deal
I'm
not
going
to
get
too
deep
into
everything
that
was
delved
into
this
morning.
My
request
of
you
is,
you
have
heard
the
community's
concern.
You've
heard
their
pragmatism.
I
do
have
a
couple
of
quick
questions
from
staff,
though
step
one
of
the
things
that
was
offered
to
the
community
was
a
green
corridor.
J
Ature
in
our
minds,
15
meters
is
the
equivalent
of
one
of
the
very
nice
and
leafy
streets
of
West
burrow.
It's
about
twice
the
width
of
the
stairs
that
join
York,
Street
to
McKenzie
Avenue
between
revenue,
Canada
and
the
US
Embassy.
It
is
a
very,
very
different
experience
than
some
of
the
passageways,
for
instance,
that
you
find
behind
the
Byward
market
courtyards,
which
really
are
an
intimate
expression
of
public
access.
We're
talking
about
the
width
of
the
street,
except
here
nothing
requires
it
to
be
asphalted
and
it's
fully
pedestrianised.
F
We
all
have
to
disagree
on
that.
This
is
only
slightly
larger
than
the
passageways
at
Q
s,
for
example,
that
are
supposed
to
lead
to
the
convent
site,
which
are
not
an
inviting
pedestrian
cycling
connection
at
all.
In
fact,
they
they
keep
people
away.
The
opportunity
I
think
you've
heard
from
the
community
is
to
rethink
this
configuration
with
some
tweaks
to
provide
for
an
uninterrupted
Green,
Park
connection
between
Richmond
Road,
between
Byron
linear
park
and
the
Sir
John
McDonald
Parkway
is
one
of
the
things
that
I
think
needs
to
be
asked
is
this
is
this?
F
J
Chair,
that's
a
really
good
question.
The
city
is
not
the
proponent
of
this
design.
What
we
have
done
is
we
have
cased
a
holding
on
the
zoning
so
that
further
discussions
can
be
held
and
that
further
discussion
can
lead
to
perhaps
reconfigurations
that
might
better
meet
the
aspirations
of
all
the
parties.
J
It
is
an
NCC
proposal
which
they
developed
on
the
basis
of
the
information
they
received
from
their
exercise
that
they
ran
through
us
in
terms
of
setting
up
what
they
consider
to
be
their
requirements
under
the
terms
of
the
hundred
day
agreement,
but
nothing
in
what
is
in
front
of
committee
today
would
preclude
passages
from
being
configured
in
a
different
shape,
certainly
not
passages
from
being
green.
That
was
one
of
our
questions.
J
The
footprint
of
buildings
can
move
within
the
area
B
that
we've
outlined,
but
even
to
one
of
the
delegations
questions
the
application
of
the
general
urban
air
slightly
larger
square
would
allow
for
a
manipulation
of
footprints
that
might
reflect.
Perhaps
when
the
day
comes
for
a
natural
proposal,
further
discussion
and
further
design
attention.
When.
F
The
NCC
consulted
on
its
three
options
that
are
that
are
in
the
package.
It
came
away
with
the
inlets
English.
What
we
heard
document
with
the
priorities
that
have
heard
from
the
community
and
the
community's
priorities
were
pedestrian
access
and
experience,
protecting
and
maximizing
green
space,
user
safety
and
view
of
the
river
I'm
guessing.
It
is
not
the
city's
assertion
that
this
is
the
best
way
or
the
only
way
to
achieve
those
objectives.
Rather,
it
is
the
NCC
that
is
saying
this
is
how
we'd
like
to
accomplish
those.
J
J
We
also
saw
a
proposal
that
was
attempting
to
group
the
red
elements
in
the
right
place,
so
it
made
some
sense
to
us
and
that's
why
we're
recommending
it
to
have
the
green
space
as
part
of
the
continuation
or
the
the
continuum
of
the
corridor.
That's
along
the
river,
while
maintaining
that
accessibility,
a
Greek
order
to
reach
it
at
the
same
time,
as
we
heard
from
one
of
the
delegations
developing
in
behind,
might
introduce
a
building
footprint
and
a
building
profile
that
could
affect
the
backdrop
of
maple
lawn.
J
It
would
develop
on
very
sensitive
environmental
lands
that
some
people
have
identified
as
valuable
in
which
the
NCC
now
in
their
design,
is
proposing
to
maintain.
So
the
reason
why
we
felt
comfortable
recommending
this
is
the
placement
of
the
elements
made
some
sense
in
regard
to
what
we
agree
under
the
hundred-day
agreement
and
it
augments
the
amount
of
green
space.
It's
actually
being
maintained,
while
not
a
eliminating
the
chance
for
further
discussion
on
refined
design
when
the
day
comes.
F
It's
a
sorting
zone,
but
this
is
a
very
I,
don't
know
if
I
can
go
so
far
as
to
say
shrink-wrapped
zoning,
but
you
have
some
very
specific
setbacks
on
two
parcels:
a
zone
line
that
defines
the
width
of
the
corridor
between
those
two
buildings.
It's
going
to
be
tough
to
reconfigure
this
through
a
site
plan
process,
for
instance,
without
having
to
come
back
to
Council
for
rezoning.
If
some
of
the
elements
are
changed
around
can
I
ask
you
just
to
put
that
to
slide
the
the
NCC's
hybrid
concept
proposal
on
screen.
F
Thank
you
very
much,
and
and
really
you
know
if
we
want
to
talk
about
sort
of
compromises
that
we
can
make.
One
of
the
tweaks
would
be
to
take
that
building
that's
in
the
southwest
corner
and
somehow
add
that
hydro
density
into
the
building
that
runs
along
Maple
lawn
north
south
I'm,
going
to
have
to
guess
that
staff
wouldn't
oppose
such
a
change,
but
that
such
a
change
would
be
difficult
to
achieve,
given
that
it
would
have
to
come
back
for
rezoning.
J
Manager
that's
correct
because
there
is
a
holding
zone.
Nothing
can
proceed
as
of
right
without
having
a
return,
engagement
in
front
of
your
committee.
So
absolutely
if
the
day
comes
when
a
different
solution
is
arrived
at
and
there
is
a
redistribution
of
whatever
footprint
there
needs
to
be
as
a
lifting
of
the
holding
zone.
It's
a
process,
the
that
process.
That's.
F
J
We
can
call
it
shrink
wrap,
but
we
can
also
say
that
it's
constricting
the
development
rights
that
the
NCC
will
now
enjoy
as
opposed
to
what
they
have
today.
So
basically,
it
shrinks
what
the
NCC
can
do
on
this
land
from
a
hundred
percent
of
the
site
to
those
two
footprints
and
those
two
footprints
still
fit
within
the
general
urban
envelope.
So
there's
still
room
for
moving
things
around
if
need
be,
but.
F
That
room
is
through
an
additional
zoning
process.
That's
correct,
Matt
yep
the.
What
is
what
is
the
rush?
We
know
that
this
building
there's
there
are
no
plans
on
the
part
of
the
NCC
to
actually
develop
this.
Their
attention
is
going
to
be
taken
up
with
building
their
Park
through
the
course
of
the
next.
G
A
A
D
D
Sure
I
noted
after
mr.
Finley's
presentation
that
this
particular
matter
as
it
is
city
initiated,
comes
under
bill
139
and,
as
so,
if
it
were
appealed,
there
are
limited
rights
or
limited
ability
to
dress
matters,
limited
to
consistency
and
conformity
with
the
Official
Plan,
and
that
the
new
process
under
bill
139
would
apply.
Okay,.
A
A
J
I
mean,
quite
simply,
is
that
nothing
can
proceed
without
returning
in
front
of
your
committee
so
that
we
would
not
be
looking
at
anyone
pulling
permit
and
proceeding
with
a
site
plan
control
application
that
that
is
not
in
front
of
you.
And
that,
of
course,
presupposes
a
process
and
the
NCC
has
committed
to
us
and
to
the
public
I
think
to
undertake
such
a
process
and.
A
J
That
I'm
sure,
if
I
may,
there
is
a
timing
issue
associated
with
that
our
t-works,
the
construction
of
which
is
perhaps
12
or
15
months
away.
The
city,
through
its
LRT
program,
will
be
delivering
significant
amounts
into
the
park
space
and
part
of
the
agreement
with
the
NCC,
as
well
as
to
provide
them
with
certainty
of
the
developable
potential
that
flows
from
the
agreement.
D
Cancer
list.
Okay,
thank
you,
cherry
just
just
a
couple
of
questions
of
staff.
Looking
if
we
yeah
that's
it.
If
we
look
at
that
hybrid
rendition,
that
councillor
Lieber
got
from
the
presentation
at
the
NCC
board
and
I'm
just
sort
of
visually
overlaying
it
with
document
two
of
the
staff
report,
and
it
looks
as
if
the
intention
of
the
hybrid
version
is
to
have
that
building
on
the
southwest
side
be
relatively
shallow.
It's
you
know
it's
not
going
very
deep
north
on
to
that
that
west
side.
B
That
is
correct.
We,
after
the
consultation
that
we
had,
whether
the
public
meeting
that
the
counselor
organized
there's
quite
a
bit
of
feedback
and
through
that
feedback
there
is
an
expression
that
what
people
are
looking
for
is
the
protection
of
lovely
trees
along
the
western
boundary
of
the
property
and
also
the
trees
along
the
frontage
to
Richmond
Road.
We
had
our.
B
B
I
am
Eggar,
I
am
the
the
because
we're
going
to
change.
We
changing
the
zoning
to
allow
the
buildings
to
locate
further
away
from
the
property
we
extended,
the
smella
property
on
the
left
to
the
back
by
12,
12
and
a
half
meters.
So
that's
why
you'll
see
on
the
image
in
the
zoning
amendment,
the
property
on
the
left-hand
side
or
the
side
of
the
western
side
is
slightly
lot
deeper
than
the
one
shown
in
the
original
NCC
concept.
B
D
J
Madame
Ascher,
what
we
hear
as
well
from
the
delegations
today
is
wish
to,
when
the
day
comes,
to
design
this,
to
look
at
what
nature's
location
and
size
of
corridor
might
exist
between
Richmond
and
the
the
bulk
of
the
park
in
what's
in
front
of
committee
today.
Nothing
precludes
a
change
in
those
footprints,
I
mean
a
schedule
can
be
changed
and
it's
part
of
the
zoning
process
that
would
be
triggered
anyways
because
we
have
a
holding
zone.
J
D
So
let
me
turn
to
the
side
back
side
of
the
stage
under
document
2
on
page
18
of
the
staff
report.
Can
you
just
explain
because
I
was
a
bit
confused
under
5b?
Why
those
setbacks
that
were
just
mentioned,
the
the
front
onto
Richmond
Road
and
the
interior
side
yard
on
the
western
side?
Why
do
they
set
as
maximum
as
opposed
to
minimum
setbacks?
So
when
I
read
a
maximum
interior
side,
yard
setback
adjacent
to
a
residential
zone
of
12
meters,
I
can
imagine
that
if
that's
what
the
maximum
is,
then
there's
some
minimum.
J
D
And
maybe
mr.
mayor
can
comment
if
I
have
language
that
says
a
maximum
side
website
packet
called
meter?
Is
there
anything
stopping
a
future
proponent
of
proposing
a
2
meter
side,
web
setback
and
arguing
that
that's
within
the
zoning
schedule
manager
I
want
to
be
certain
I
understood
the
question,
because
what
I
heard
is
if
a
maximum
side
yard
setback
of
12
meters
was
proposed,
could
someone
build
to
2
meters
and
the
answer?
That
would
be
yes,
because
it's
a
maximum
and
they're
building
to
less
than
that?
D
B
It
was
intentional
the
the
traditional
Main
Street
designation
as
it
stands,
citizen
traditional
Main
Street-
is
aiming
as
it
stands
today
has
I
think
it's
a
1,
liter
1
metre
setback
from
the
road,
and
the
intention
was
to
provide
an
opportunity
to
move
those
buildings
further
back
also,
as
part
of
the
design
of
we
have
provisions
in
the
zoning
that
actually
look
at
the
landscaping
and
the
protection
of
trees.
So
this
provides
them
the
opportunity
to
go
back
further
in
order
to
protect
the
trees.
B
B
D
Is
a
line
on
page
18
under
5b
in
column,
5
provisions
add
the
following:
a
maximum
interior
side,
yard
setback
adjacent
to
a
residential
zone
or
12
meters,
a
maximum
occurs
at
backtrack.
Mr.
Majella
said
that
the
whole
purpose
of
the
side,
road
setback,
was
to
maintain
the
row
of
trees
and
have
a
buffer
between
the
residential
homes
on
Fraser.
Is
it
and
this
building?
But
mr.
mark
has
told
us
if
you
call
it
a
maximum
side
yard
setback,
nothing
stops
a
future
proponent
from
building
it,
a
meter
away
from
the
side
yard.
So.
J
I
think
I
understand
the
question
better.
Madam
chair
I
think
the
maximum
is
0
also
to
account
for
the
fact
that
the
trees
are
not
all
in
a
line.
So
when
again
I
mean
we
have
a
holding
zone.
When
we
come
to
a
natural
proposal,
we
will
be
able
to
I
mean
it's
part
of
the
the
staff
report
that
we
want
to
maintain
those
trees
they're,
just
not
all
in
the
line
there.
J
You
know
helter-skelter
so
where
there
is
an
opportunity
to
come
closer
that
provision,
you
would
allow
it
when
it's
a
matter
of
protecting
the
tree
well,
at
at
the
point
of
lifting
the
holding
zone,
we'll
be
able
to
have
that
discussion
and
make
sure
that
the
footprint
protects
the
trees.
That's
what
it's
meant
to
do.
I
mean
the
as
mr.
Finley
indicated,
if
it
were
a
regular
traditional
Main,
Street
you'd
be
looking
at
little
or
no
side
yard
setback.
J
D
I
entered
into
this
questioning
very
sympathetic
to
the
staff
recommendation,
but
I
have
to
tell
you
that
that
answer
actually
doesn't
satisfy
I
mean
if
you're
going
to
argue
to
the
residents
that
there
is
an
intention
to
put
a
12-meter
side
yard
setback
on
that
site,
then
calling
it
a
maximum
side
yard
setback
and
admitting
that
there
could
be
a
zero
metre
side
to
side
yard
setback
subject
to
whatever
happens
under
a
holding.
This
is
not
particularly
reassuring
to
the
people
who
I
think
you're
intending
to
tell
look.
D
D
Now
Adam
chair,
the
councillor
is
correct,
as
has
been
confirmed
by
mr.
mark.
It
does
say
maximum.
The
intention
clearly
was,
as
mr.
mcLeese
indicated,
was
to
establish
a
setback
for
those
properties
fronting
onto
fraser.
That
would,
in
fact
ensure
the
retention
of
that
mature
vegetation,
so
we'll
definitely
take
that
and
we'll
have
to
make
an
adjustment
to
design
just
to
clarify
that,
in
fact,
it's
not
going
to
have
a
situation
aware.
We
create
a
condition
that
allows
somebody
now
to
come
in
and
push
a
setback.
That's
inconsistent
with
the
objective.
D
The
holding
provisions
do
speak
to
maximizing
the
retention
of
the
trees
and
and
and
we'll
clean
that
one
up
by
way
of
a
motion
that
will
have
brought
forward
to
council.
Okay.
Thank
you.
Let
me
turn
to
my
final
comment.
A
question
which
is
what
I
heard
from
some
of
the
public
delegates
was
a
concern
about.
D
You
know
the
width
of
the
entrance
from
Richmond
Road
and
a
concern
that
that
could
be
Canyon
like
I'm
wondering
if
the
fact
that,
in
our
official
plan
we
talk
certainly
on
traditional
Main
streets
of
maintaining
a
45
degree
angle
between
the
middle
of
a
street
and
the
top
of
the
adjacent
buildings,
you
know.
Is
it
staffs
view
that
you
would
want,
although
this
pathway
won't
be
a
traditional
Main,
Street
and
then
technically
wouldn't
be
subject
to
those
guidelines?
D
D
Okay,
because
again,
when
you
look
at
the
renditions
that
was
put
up
and
the
reason
why
I
focused
earlier
on
the
depth
of
that
first
building
is
for
the
most
part,
this
pathway
is
much
wider
than
15
meters,
because
after
you
get
past
the
first
building
according
to
the
rendition,
it
opens
up.
You've
got
a
applause,
a
fountain,
perennial
gardens,
and
you
can
imagine
that
being
actually
a
very
attractive
linear
park.
D
But
I
am
sensitive
a
little
bit
to
that
notion
that,
if
there's,
if
you,
if
you're,
going
up
six
storeys
on
either
side
of
50
meters
with
no
side
yard
setback
on
the
interior
side
on
the
pass
side,
that
I
can
understand
why
there
could
be
a
risk
that
people
would
worry
about
the
possibility
of
more
of
a
canyon
and
less
of
an
invitation
into
again.
I
think
what
could
be
a
very
attractive
linear
park.
J
Mr.
Finley
is
indicating
to
me
the
one
of
the
conditions
of
the
holding
is
that
the
buildings
located
in
the
TM
zone
are
to
be
designed
and
oriented
to
provide
a
public
space
in
an
entrance
park,
type
of
condition.
This
would
be
subjected
to
the
urban
design
review
panel.
Madam
chair
one
way
or
another,
so
it's
one
of
the
considerations
that
we
put
right
in
the
oiling
zone
and
we'd
be
discussing
with
whoever
the
proponent
is
it's
time.
Okay,.
A
D
Or
just
very
quickly,
I
was
reviewing
the
road
design
cross-section
for
stage
2
LRT
that
talks
about
the
reconstruction
of
the
park
and
Richmond
Road,
and
just
looking
at
that
cross
section.
The
width
of
the
linear
park
right
now
is
is
what
the
bio
bio
linear
park.
What
is
it
with
the
viral
air
park.
D
20
meters
yeah
the
picture.
The
slides
in
this
presentation
show
it
as
small
as
10
meters
in
some
spots
and
then
the
cross
section.
If
you
include
the
bike
lane,
is
gets
up
to
about
20
meters.
So
we're
talking
about
almost
the
same
width
as
the
Biron
linear
park
between
these
two
buildings,
almost
relative
and
the
bi-linear
Park.
Was
this
vaunted
thing
that
needed
to
be
protected
during
the
whole
stage
to
debate.
D
So
if
it's
nice
enough
for
the
buyer
in
linear
park,
why
is
it
not
nice
enough
to
access
the
river
quarter,
I'm,
not
sure
and
I?
You
know
it's
rare
that
I'd
really
councillor
Nussbaum,
but
I
do
in
this
instance
and
that
once
it
gets
past
the
those
two
buildings
it
it
broadens
out,
it
broadens
out
to
quite
a
wide
area.
So,
while
I
agree
sympathetic
to
the
idea
that
you
need
to
have
proper
access,
I
think
that
can
all
be
controlled
through
the
site
plan
process
and
through
the
lifting
the
holding
provision.
I
You,
madam
chair,
and
thank
you
for
your
questions
on
the
and
the
answers
we
got
on
the
holding
provisions
and
just
a
quick
question.
Maybe
mr.
mark
is
best
to
answer
this.
What
is
the
impact
on
the
hundred-day
agreement?
Mr.
mark
about
our
decision
here
today
or
when
this
item
goes
to
goes
to
council.
D
Madam
chair,
the
commitment
as
I
understand
it
is
to
bring
this
forward
and
to
present
it
to
committee
and
council.
That
has
been
done,
and
so,
in
my
opinion,
the
commitment
that
the
city
has
made
under
the
hundred-day
agreement
has
been
fulfilled.
One
aspect
that
I
didn't
know
that
I
think
perhaps
I
should,
and
it's
touched
on
the
report.
The
NCC
does
have
its
outstanding
appeal
to
the
official
plan
back
from
2003
that
is
outstanding,
and
so
the
NCC
does
have
the
means
to
get
this
to
the
board
under
that
appeal.
D
J
Madam
chair,
the
NCC
has
indicated
to
us
that
before
they
do
anything
meaningful
on
this
property,
they
will
re-engage
the
public,
and
that
gave
us
assurances
that
what
we're
doing
here
is
simply
putting
the
pieces
in
place
for
a
very
high-level
framework
and
then
the
more
detailed
discussions
will
follow.
Certainly
that's
the
way
we've
packaged
it,
but
when.
I
J
It
may
well
be
that
there
are
changes,
I
mean
as
we
heard
earlier.
There
is
never
a
single
way
to
do
things
and
there's
nothing
preventing
the
NCC
from
widening
that
corridor
or
changing
the
location
of
the
footprints
of
a
building,
and
that
would
be
through
a
process
that
comes
back
here.
In
order
to
amend
the
schedule
comes.
J
A
D
D
Are
there
design
plans
for
the
park
because
the
rest
of
the
park,
Stage
two
is
were
working
closely
with
the
NCC
to
take
on
about
six
or
seven
million
dollars
worth
of
scope
towards
early
elements
toward
implementing
that
park
itself,
so
without
the
certainty
of
which
lands
can
be
developed
on
this
site
at
a
future
time.
That
leaves
open
a
lack
of
certainty
for
the
rest
of
that
park,
space,
which
is
being,
as
we
said
before,
but
8%
of
it
being
left
open
for
public
enjoyment.
I
D
And
madam
chair,
just
I,
just
want
to
clarify
I
know.
Mr.
mclees
indicated
that
the
lifting
the
holding
would
come
back
to
me.
The
bylaw
to
lift
the
holding
action
needs
to
be
approved
by
council.
The
lifting
of
the
holding
under
the
delegation
of
authority
by
law
actually
can
be
done
by
staff
unless
the
councilor
in
this
case
there's
a
good
chance
that
we
understand
that
council
would
be
lifting
delegated
authority
on
the
site
plan.
D
So
we
automatically
bring
the
lifting
for
holding
forward
as
part
of
that
site
plan,
but
under
normal
conditions,
if
the
conditions
are
satisfied
for
the
lifting
of
an
H
that
H
can
be
lifted
under
delegated
authority
by
staff.
Well,
we
anticipate
in
this
instance
that
there's
a
very
strong
likelihood
that,
in
fact,
we
would
be
coming
forward
and
further
to
mr.
mcLeese
point.
If
there
are
adjustments
that
need
to
be
made,
those
could
be
effected
through
a
further
adjustment
to
the
zoning
at
that
time.
D
A
F
Jenny
I
will
keep
it
very
brief.
I
think
everything
is
on
the
table
and
I
do
appreciate
mr.
swales
intervention
there,
the
the
NCC,
does
need
certainty
in
relatively
short
order
about
where
they
will
be
allowed
to
build
their
Park.
The
kind
of
specificity
in
terms
of
zoning
where
the
corridor
between
buildings
is
is
not
really
specificity
that
the
NCC
I
think
needs
today.
Remember
that
when
we
started
this
process
in
2015,
it
was
a
very
simple
we're
going
to
designate
this
as
general
urban.