►
From YouTube: Planning Committee – June 14, 2016
Description
Planning Committee meeting – June 14, 2016 – Audio Stream
Agenda and background materials can be found at http://www.ottawa.ca/agendas.
A
Okay,
welcome
everyone.
This
is
a
public
meeting
to
consider
the
proposed
comprehensive
official
plan
and
zoning
bylaw
amendments
listed
as
items
three,
five,
six
and
seven
on
today's
agenda
for
the
items
listed
above.
Only
those
who
make
all
submissions
today
or
write
submissions
before
the
amendments
are
adopted
may
appeal
the
matter
to
the
interior
Municipal
Board.
In
addition,
the
applicant
may
appeal
the
matter
to
the
interior
municipal
board.
A
Okay,
so
item:
let's
see
any
declarations
of
interest,
none
confirmation
of
minutes
of
the
meeting
of
theta
10th
anybody
have
any
changes
or
they
carried
carried.
Thank
you
item
number.
One
is
the
treasurer's
report
on
both
related
revenues.
We
have
no
one
signed
up
to
speak.
Does
anyone
on
the
committee
want
to
hold
this
item?
A
Does
it
receive
them
received?
Thank
you,
but
really
mature.
We
have
some
speakers
on
that
item,
which
is
the
Ontario
Ministry
board
Appeals
settlement
phase,
two
of
low-rise
info
Housing
Strategy,
a
number
three
we're
building
that
for
presentation,
and
we
do
have
those
speakers
on
that
and
that
is
the
Riverside
South
communities.
I'm
climb,
update
the
Official,
Plan
and
zoning
amendments.
Number
four:
is
the
Shan
Road
pump
station?
Mr.
Chau,
do
you
need
to
speak
if
we're
prepared
to
carry
it
and
what
about
committee?
Any
questions?
Is
it
carried?
Thank
you
thanks
mr.
A
A
Next
up
is
sowing
bylaw
amendment
20
to
80,
City,
Park
Drive,
and
it
can
health
Sara
Bell,
and
we
have
us
speakers
on
that.
So
we
go
for
that
item.
Zoning
bylaw
number
is
number
7
is
224,
Cooper
Street.
We
do
have
the
architect
here
and
the
owner,
if
needed,
for
questions
are
mr.
Martin
and
mr.
Murray.
Okay,
hang
on
a
second:
does
anyone
have
any
questions
for
either
of
them?
Do
you
need
to
speak
if
we're
ready
to
carry
it?
Okay?
Is
it
carried
there?
You
go.
Thank
you.
A
Okay.
Then
we
have
the
Confederation
line.
Proximity
study
fees,
don't
of
influence.
We
have
very
shown
here
well
for
a
bad
item,
he's
speaking
in
opposition
and
then
we
have
the
IPD
cash
and
Leah
parkland
okay.
So
we
go
back
to
the
beginning,
which
is
the
intera
Municipal
Board
Appeals
settlement
phase,
two
of
low-rise
infill
housing
study
and
I'd,
asked
mr.
Smith
and
mr.
mark
to
come
forward
and
mr.
Steve
go
Jay.
A
So
mr.
Smith
went
around,
do
you
prefer
to
start
of
mr.
Marx?
Okay
good?
Mr.
mark
madam
chair,
this
is
a
report
dealing
with
the
outcome
of
supplement
negotiations
concerning
infill
to
bylaw
to
15
2015
2
to
8
pre
hearing
was
held
in
front
of
interments
board
on
appeals
to
this
bylaw
on
January
5th
2016.
A
This
settlement
report
is
not
a
settlement
of
all
the
matters
before
the
board
and
it
was
expected
that
the
pre-hearing
back
on
January
5th
at
such
might
be
the
case
that,
when
the
report
came
forward
that
not
all
the
matters
would
be
settled,
one
the
less.
It
is
still,
in
my
opinion,
a
worthwhile
exercise
in
that.
If
the
settlement
is
endorsed
by
council,
it
will
significantly
reduce
the
issues
before
the
interior,
Mizpah
board
and
the
time
and
associated
effort
effort
required
for
the
hearing
by
all
parties.
A
Mr.
spinner,
though,
if
anybody
has
any
questions
from
committee
of
either
of
these
gentlemen
before
we
have
the
delegations,
come
forward,
feel
free
to
ask
them
mr.
Schmitt.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
So
just
really
briefly
from
a
contacts
point
of
view.
As
mr.
mark
indicated,
there
was
an
expectation
that
would
be
discussions
to
see
whether
or
not
various
settlements
could
be
arrived
out
with
the
with
the
parties
who
had
appealed.
A
So
the
principle
there
was
ensuring
that
we
maintained
a
sense
of
openness
within
the
interior
of
lot,
so
that
buildings
would
not
be
able
to
project
so
far
back
into
a
deep
law
in
particular.
That
would
adversely
affect
adjacent
properties
in
terms
of
them
now
have
a
new
realize
defined
by
side
walls
of
buildings.
There
was
also
a
fair
bit
of
work
that
was
done
with
respect
to
rooftop
amenity
areas.
Doing
sure
issues
of
overlook
would
be
appropriately
respected
in
address.
A
There
were
certain
refinements
that
were
made
to
that
recognizing
the
different
circumstances
that
could
be
associated
with
different
forms
of
balcony
type
conditions,
whether
it
be
on
the
front
on
our
one-story
addition
on
the
back
or
on
a
full
rooftop
area.
We
also
used
the
lidar
technology,
which
is
incredibly
detailed
to
better
understand
the
heights
of
buildings
within
different
neighborhoods
and
made
some
adjustments
in
terms
of
the
building
height
limits
that
would
apply,
particularly
within
the
lower
density
residential
zones.
So
all
in
all
my
timeshare
from
our
perspective,
the
negotiations
went
very
well.
A
Basically
an
agreement
to
disagree
was
with
respect
to
the
concerns
expressed
by
old,
Ottawa
East,
where
they
felt
that
the
height
of
a
triplex
should
be
reduced
from
11
meters
to
10
meters.
And
on
that
point,
madam
chair,
no
change
was
made
in
the
original
infill
bylaw
in
terms
of
heights
for
triplexes
the
height
that
existed
prior
to
the
infill
to
bylaw
and
what
exists
today
is
exactly
the
same.
So
we
didn't
make
an
adjustment.
There
were
discussions.
A
Our
sense
was
that
the
11
meters
was
necessary
to
approve,
allow
for
an
appropriate
triplex
development
to
be
built
and
I'm
sure
we'll
hear
from
from
them
in
their
position
today.
So
in
conclusion,
madam
chair
think
a
lot
of
negotiation,
a
lot
of
discussion
and
a
parties
were
fully
engaged
through
the
process.
From
our
perspective,
mr.
Gorky
and
my
view
did
an
outstanding
job
and
in
ensuring
that
we
have
open
discussion
and
dialogue
with
the
various
players
and
what
we
have
before
you
is.
A
Thank
you.
So
we
do
have
a
number
of
speakers,
but
we
have
some
preliminary
questions.
So
if
you
don't
mind,
they'll
go
to
those
preliminary
questions.
First,
so
I
think
they're
important
to
understand
the
context
of
the
speakers.
First
to
councilor
in
this
bomb
and
then
councilor
a
lie.
Then
councilor
leaper
anybody
else,
councillor,
Turner,
chanko,
okay,
I'm!
Thank
you
chair.
My
questions
actually
don't
pertain
to
the
outcome.
A
I,
don't
I
don't
have
any
particular
objection
to
the
way
that
some
of
these
issues
have
been
resolved,
particularly
in
light
of
the
fact
of
the
explanation
that
the
previous
real
setback
process
was
complex
and
would
have
resulted
in
additional
costs
and
fees
for
residents
say
building
a
real
addition
on
their
property.
Because
my
question
is
more
on
a
process
and
the
first
question
is:
did
the
applicants
who
I
know
were
very
involved
in
your
extensive
and
admirably
extensive
consultation
prior
to
it
coming
to
Council?
A
For
the
first
time
not
raised
these
issues
as
part
of
the
consultation
process?
I
wasn't
directly
involved
in
the
process
leading
to
the
original
infill
to
bylaw,
but
there
was
a
lot
of
discussion
all
that.
Mr.
gaerste
speak
to
the
details
around
that.
But
there
was
a
fair
bit
of
engagement
that
was
had
in
the
original
infill
to
clearly
once
was
adopted
by
council
and
acted
by
count.
So
we
had
appeals,
and
there
is
various
parties
to
those
appeals
and
the
focus,
as
mr.
A
A
A
Is
this
is
a
fairly
extensive
change
to
how
we're
determining
we
ordered
setbacks
again,
I,
don't
necessarily
have
an
objection
to
it,
but
it's
a
pretty
significant
change
and
what
I'm
wondering
is
if
the
applicant
or
the
appellant
in
this
case,
if
the
appellant
was
concerned
with
his
with
with
these
issues,
I'm
wondering
whether
they
were
raised
as
part
of
the
consultation
process
as
part
of
the
initial
until
2.
Yes,
they
did
raise
some
concerns
with
the
way
that
we
had
originally
structured,
the
Riaz
setback,
requirements
and
I.
A
Think
the
feeling
at
that
time
was
that
it
was
a
viable
approach
to
take
and
answer
was
put
forward
and
recommended
in
the
original
infill
to
subsequently
to
that.
As
we
know,
the
appeal
was
filed,
which
then
caused
I
think
everybody
to
look
much
more
closely
at
how
the
we
are
setback
requirements
would
be
defined
and
established
and
I.
Think
through
that
discussion.
A
I
think
all
we
came
to
an
understanding
that
the
original
approach
really
did
create
a
bit
of
a
complicated
situation
and
that
having
a
sliding
scale
approach
seemed
to
make
a
lot
more
sense
and
I
guess
in
the
fullness
of
time
we
could
have
explored
those
before
the
original
infill
to
you,
but
grew
out
of.
We
were
looking
to
move
forward
in
field
two
and
then
those
those
discussions
on
some
of
those
things
which
were
identified
initially
continued
to
the
point
where
we
are
today
a
question
for
mr.
A
A
Was
it's
because
the
fullness
of
time
I
guess
you
could
say
the
appeal
focused
minds
in
terms
of
coming
up
with
a
better
mechanism
to
determine
where
it
setbacks
is.
That
is
that
a
fair
assessment
is
fair,
characterization,
yes,
okay,
so
I
mean
I.
Think
my
only
point
is
in
cases
like
this,
where
you
do
do
and
again
impressive
public
consultation
before
hand.
You
know
the
process
issue
is
you've
taken
a
widely
publicly
consulted
document.
A
A
It
would
be
helpful,
notwithstanding
this
particular
case,
for
counsel,
to
be
informed
of
what
the
legal
vulnerabilities
are
at
the
time
that
were
initially
asked
to
pass
something
because
in
the
regular
course,
if
this
hadn't
been
an
issue
where
staff
accepted
that
there
may
be
was
a
better
way
of
doing
this.
The
process
issue
is
council,
approves
us
staff
and
council
on
the
same
page,
and
there
was
no
identification
of
legal
risk
at
the
time
that
council
adopted
this.
So
it's
just
more
moving
forward.
A
I
think
it
would
be
important
for
council
to
being
informed
if
there
was
a
feeling
other
availability
on
these
issues,
but
again
thank
you
for
all
the
hard
work.
I
think
this
was
a
good
process.
You
caught
the
mistake,
I
guess
in
time,
and
that's
all
I
have
to
say
at
this
stage.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Thanks
very
much
council
miss
Boone
killed
sir
egg
line.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I,
too,
want
to
thank
you
for
your
work
on
this.
A
Even
though
they'd
sit
on
this
committee,
I
had
numerous
discussions
with
staff
on
this,
and
you
were
very
helpful
terms
of
whether
we
should
have
known
or
shouldn't
have
known
to
the
questions
that
council
is
bomb.
You
know
everybody
has
a
right
to
appeal
until
the
appeal
is
filed.
You
don't
necessarily
know
what
the
what
the
frailty
of
your
position
is
so
so
I
think
staff
as
it
has
acted
accordingly
and
exacting
reasonably
in
trying
to
resolve
this
thing
without
the
uncertainty
of
a
hearing,
so
I
think
for
that.
A
So
first,
a
general
question,
I
believe
in
your
initial
presentation
was
respect.
You
said
that
there
was
consultation
after
after
we
approved
prior
to
coming
forward
with
this
proposal
and
that
that
those
consultations
included
not
only
the
parties
but
also
there
was
consultations
with
FCA
on
behalf
of
the
community
associations
throughout
the
city.
Is
that
correct?
A
That's
correct,
I
am
sure
I
mean
we.
We
were
into
the
process.
In
fact,
I
mean
the
other
participant
to
the
proceedings
was
Champlain
Park
and
we
actually
just
to
give
you
an
overview
in
terms
of
the
the
means
that
we
had.
There
were
six
meetings
with
greater
Ottawa
home
builders
and
domicile
to
discuss
the
various
issues
that
they
had
raised
in
their
appeal
to
see
whether
or
not
there
could
be
some
adjustments
made
to
infill.
A
There
were
three
Me's
that
were
held
with
the
old
Ottawa
south
group,
and
there
was
meetings
held
with
a
couple
of
individuals,
but
in
particular,
as
the
FCA.
We
want
to
ensure
that
the
FCA
was
in
fact
made
aware
of
what
was
going
on,
given
that
they
do
represent
the
community
associations
across
the
city,
so
the
expectation
being
that
some
of
that
information
would
be
then
disseminated
to
some
of
the
other
groups
that
may
have
had
an
interest
thanks
for
that
now.
I
have
two
more
specific
questions
and
you've
had
some
discussions
about
this
earlier.
A
Mr.
Schmitt,
as
you
know,
I
represent
a
number
of
communities
that
are
privately
serviced
and
they
have
particular
concerns
about
what
size
and
severance
is.
And
what
have
you
so
I
have
a
couple
of
questions
in
that
regard.
So
will
the
proposed
revised
by
law
have
any
impact
on
maximum
lot
coverage
requirements
or
will
be
staying?
The
same
coverage
requirements
in
the
Glenn
Xia
are
not
being
changed
at
all.
A
What's
being
changed,
the
performance
standards
with
respect
to
what
you
might
be
able
to
build,
which
is
generally
applicable
across
the
city,
but
in
those
unique
circumstances,
such
as
what
you
have
in
your
area,
that
has
not
been
changed
and
is
not
being
changed.
Okay,
appreciate
that
and
then
a
second
question
I
believe
in
Auto
1e,
the
private
service
slots
are
excluded
from
corner
wats
Evans's
and
with
the
proposed
language
in
the
settlement,
us
at
still
stand
or
they're
still
going
to
be
exemptions
for
the
corner
lot
sentences.
A
A
You
know
going
to
help
us
to
preserve
that
open
feeling
in
the
backyards
it's
going
to
help
preserve
trees
before
I
can
support
a
settlement
on
this
I
just
need
that
comfort
that
what
we
are
proposing
is
does
not
represent
in
any
way
a
diminishment
of
the
integrity
of
the
rule
of
setback,
win
that
we
had
me
originally
proposed
by
law.
Can
you
take
me
through
how
the
new
rules
will
accomplish
substantially
the
same
as
the
old
mr.
birch
a
respond
to
that?
He
is
much
more
intimate
with
the
details.
A
A
We
increased
who
had
said
that
for
three
story:
buildings
for
higher
billing,
but
there
was
no
change
for
the
rear
setback
for
building
like
two
story.
Well,
if
you
take
a
tree
to
30
meter,
deep,
not
25%,
really
add
setback
of
2008
to
50,
you
get
to
7.5
meters,
2
story,
building
with
typically
around
7
meters.
Ok,
so
there
wouldn't
have
been
any
changes
for
those
building,
but
a
tree
started
building
three
stories
single,
so
typically,
ten
meters
would
have
had
to
be
located
at
ten
meter
from
from
the
area.
A
So
that
results
in
those
higher
building
being
a
bit
closer.
Okay,
if
I
take
the
example
of
attorney
meter,
deep
law
means
that
it
is
a
true
story.
Ten
meter
high
building
will
be
located
at
9.40
meter
from
the
rear,
not
line,
but
the
two-story
building,
which
would
have
had
to
be
seven
point.
Five
meter
under
the
previous
insult
Obama
will
also
have
to
be
located
at
nine
point.
Forty
meters,
so
there's
a
big
gain
in
terms
of
the
open
space.
A
Accumulating
that
gained
five
percent
for
within
a
city
block
we're
achieving
the
preservation
surface,
preservation
of
vegetation
preservation
of
perspective
down
into
the
city
block.
If
what
you
see
in
front
of
you
here
is
explained
more
details,
the
sliding
scale
is
meant:
the
setback
to
maintain
a
consistent
setback
going
from
25
percent
to
twenty
thirty
percent
on
very
shallow
Lots.
As
you
can
see
there
an
including
thirty
twenty
two
point:
five
meter.
A
We
maintain
the
twenty
five
percent,
then,
from
from
twenty
two
point,
five
to
twenty
five
meters
there's
a
formula
and
that
formula
is
meant
to
ensure
that,
if
I
take,
for
example,
the
24
metre
deep
law,
if
I
would
apply
to
the
percent
on
a
24
meter
deep
line,
the
myriad
said
that
would
be
more
restrictive
than
on
the
22.5,
so
the
real
wall
would
have
to
be
further
inside
the
lot.
So
there
will
be
inconsistency
in
the
alignment
of
the
building.
A
A
The
front
yard
setbacks
that
are
lesser
than
four
point:
five
meter,
lesser
or
equal
to
four
point:
five
meters,
the
next
category
and
this.
This
is
a
diagram
that
explains
what
I
just
explained
you
you
might
want
to
have
at
the
top
of
the
diagram,
the
red
line,
which
is
2008
250
against
it,
and
the
30%
really
a
setback
that
I've
just
mentioned
under
this
viola
compared
to
the
real
red
line.
So
if
you
look
at
the
graph,
you
look
at
the
location.
A
So
the
next
category
is
the
same
principle,
but
in
this
case
we
have
as
four
instances
where
you
have
a
front
yard
setback.
That's
greater
than
four
point
five
meter
if
I
take,
for
example,
a
lot
in
the
zone
where
the
front
yard
setback.
Everyone
is
tree,
Mina
versus
a
in
his
own,
where
the
jet
setback
is
6
meter
to
apply
the
same
rear
yard.
A
Anything
else
kills
her
maker,
okay.
Last
questions
before
we
go
to
delegations,
counselor
counselor,
mishchenko,
not
last
question
counselor
shyly
after
counselor
turns
chanko
and
then
we're
going
to
delegations.
Okay,
thank
you
very
much.
I
guess
I'll
be
asking
my
questions
in
two
rounds.
One
is
sort
of
how
we
got
here
and
where
we
stand
with
regards
to
that
unresolved
issue,
and
then
after
the
delegation
I'll
be
asking
staff
again
where
to
from
here
I.
A
In
a
sense,
do
you
want
to
just
wait
till
then
I
think
what
I'd
like
to
do
is
is
to
have
staff
clarify.
So
when
we
hear
from
the
old
Ottawa
East
Community
Association,
my
colleagues
will
understand
why
it
is
where
it
is
throughout
the
process
quite
consistently,
particularly
in
my
award,
because
this
condition
particularly
exists
in
my
award.
A
A
What
I'm,
looking
at
the
impasse
with
staff
was
that,
where
we
agreed
to
disagree
was
our
staff
did
not
feel
that
you
could
build
an
adequate
triplex
with
that
building
height,
whereas
the
community
association
thought
that
it
would
not
be
a
substandard
building,
you
could
in
fact
build
a
decent
triplex
still
at
the
10
meter
height.
What
I
want
to
know
is
during
this
period,
where
we
have
here
today
negotiated
settlements.
This
is
the
one
that
isn't.
A
Can
you
describe
for
us
what
efforts
were
made
and
why
it
is
still
an
impasse
at
the
moment
and
why
I
guess
staff
feel
unable
to
negotiate
on
this
point
this
time
you
know
I'm
sure,
as
I
indicate
upfront,
I
mean
this
was
something
that
was
looked
at
very
closely
both
by
ourselves.
We
had
discussions
with
our
and
coach
services,
people
to
sort
of
understand
what
typically
would
be
coming
in,
and
what
typically
you're
looking
at
to
achieve
effectively
a
triplex,
which
is
essentially
three
units
one
on
top
of
the
other.
A
I
think
at
the
end
of
the
day,
our
conclusion
was
that
the
11
metres
was
really
necessary
to
ensure
that
we
were
able
to
allow
for
that
permit.
It
used
to
be
developed
within
those
zones
where
triplexes
are
allowed,
and
hence
there
was
never
a
change
that
was
made
either
to
the
original
infill
to
buy
a
lot
went
forward.
A
There
was
no
change
that
was
introduced
in
terms
of
the
height
for
triplexes,
and,
while
we
again
looked
at
that,
subsequent
to
the
appeals
being
filed
again,
we're
recommending
that
it
remain
as
it
is
in
2008
to
50
so
effectively
no
change
from
what
has
been
in
place
and
allowed.
From
our
perspective.
A
It
is
a
height
that
really
allows
for
that
used
to
be
developed
appropriately
in
terms
of
the
concern
that
Ottawa
East,
expressed,
Abed
sort
of
the
height
of
the
elevation
that
same
concern
can
also
apply
to
a
single
detached
or
a
duplex,
where
a
builder
might
in
fact
decide
to
erase
the
elevation
up
a
little
bit
higher
from
the
foundation
point
of
view.
So
looking
at
addressing
one,
whereas
that
same
condition
can
apply
to
others
and
I.
A
Think
at
the
end
of
the
day
and
the
perceptive
difference
between
a
10
meter
and
11
meter,
we
didn't
think
it
was
justified
to
really
create
a
condition
where,
in
fact,
you
might
contribute
to
needs
for
various
applications
to
make
adjustments
to
the
allowable
height.
Again,
we
were
not
looking
to
preclude
uses
that
were
permitted
and
to
ensure
that
the
uses
that
were
permitted
could
be
appropriately
developed
so
to
clarify
or
when
I
misstated
a
little
a.
A
What
I
was
talking
about
was
that
we
were
ending
up
with
four
plexus,
really
were
through
committee
of
adjustment
with
that
basement
unit
being
large
enough,
so
that
that
can
be
turned
into
a
multi
bedroom
unit
and
in
a
sense
getting
far
too
many
occupants
on
the
site
and
the
support
of
the
site
forward.
It's
really
what
we
see
what
we're
seeing
my
question.
Man,
perhaps
to
mr.
mark
I'm,
not
certain,
given
that
a
an
appeal
was
filed,
the
OMB
required
some
form
of
negotiation
or
meetings
to
be
held.
Can
you
describe
who?
A
A
So
again,
as
I
indicated
in
my
in
my
response
to
a
question
from
councilor
eagle-eye,
there
were
three
meetings
and
one
site
visit,
specifically
with
the
old
Ottawa
East
Community
Association,
and
the
discussion
was
related
to
the
issue
of
the
height
for
triplexes.
The
site
visit
was
looking
at
sort
of
the
various
examples
that
a
lot
of
rough
east
felt
was
important
for
staff
and
I
didn't
participate
in
those
site
visits.
Mr.
Gocha
did
I
wasn't
involved
in
all
those
meetings,
but
the
focus
of
those
meetings
was
around.
A
A
Okay
and,
as
I
indicated,
will
will
after
the
presentation
get
at
where
to
next.
Is
there?
Is
there
anything
remaining
to
be
negotiated,
or
is
it
purely
an
OMB
appeal
that
would
be
necessary
and
for
I?
Think
it's
the
only
relief
yeah
mr.
mark
can
speak
to
that
right
now.
Country
mark
mr.
mark
Matt,
I'm
sure
it
would
seem
to
me
now
that
it
rests.
A
It
will
rest
with
the
OMB
to
make
a
decision
on
this
matter
so,
as
they
said
in
the
beginning,
when
they
introduced
us
that
the
well
there
still
are
some
issues
that
may
need
to
be
resolved.
The
lion's
share
of
the
art
of
the
appeals
has
been
dealt
with
in
this
recommendation.
It
doesn't
preclude
anybody
else
from
continuing
on
right,
so
this
specific
one
is.
A
A
A
The
reasons
for
that,
because
the
11
meter
might
for
a
particular
xxx
encourages
an
r4
will
produce
not
in
our
three
type
behavior,
so
the
the
exemption
of
the
xxx,
and
if
you
go
to
the
word
of
the
original,
it
is
explicitly
presented
as
an
exemption.
The
exemption
of
the
xxx
from
a
general
lowering
of
height
to
ten
years
encourages
apartment
type
uses
in
the
are
three
zones.
A
Now
the
association's
understand
r3
as
meaning
three
units
person
for
a
lot
at
a
three
storey
height,
this
particular
building
type
that
we're
getting
problems
with
is
continuing
of
the
four
unit
or
the
forcing
that
conversion
perplex
that
was
made
illegal
under
the
info,
biologic
2014
189.
Now
what
has
happened,
and,
curiously
enough
at
the
pre-hearing
in
January,
mica
Pawan,
you
know
I
had
a
conversation
in
which
he
said
that
the
city
that
this
would
happen
if
they
tried
to
remove
the
fourth
unit.
A
But
what
has
happened
is
that
the
the
first
two
stories
of
the
basement
story
in
the
ground
floor
now
as
a
single
unit,
often
with
seven
bedrooms,
and
then
there
are
two
separate
units
above
what
this
is
that
high
for,
if
you
require
a
ten
meter
height,
then
the
two-story
lower
unit
returns
to
a
thing.
That's
more
familiar
with
the
buildings
in
the
neighborhood
basement
is
used
for
teenage
caves
and
workshops
and
laundry
and
support
functions
for
the
house
and
the
house.
Sort
of
full
is
in
the
full
height
upper
storey.
A
A
So
here
we
stand
the
effect
of
having
this
one
building
type
exempted,
where
all
others
are
forced
down
to
10
meters
and
even
even
10
meters.
The
effect
is,
is
essentially
sort
of
a
continuation
of
a
spot
zoning
and
a
defense
of
a
particular
building
type.
That's
caused
problems
in
Overbrook
and
all
that
east,
since
it
was
brought
in
with
the
fourth
unit.
The
fourth
unit
has
caused
problems
at
committee
of
adjustment
for
years,
so
we
have.
A
Finally,
we
have
a
case
where
the
committee
of
adjustment
is
typically
exempting
frontage
and
lot
area
requirements
from
2005-2008
to
50,
comprehensive
by
law,
and
the
city
is
not
raising
any
objections
to
the
largest
building
type
being
applied
on
a
lot.
That's
too
small
for
it,
and
we
get
the
kind
of
things
that
you've
seen
in
the
photographs
from
Phylis
previous
presentations.
So
because
of
this
one
building
type,
an
entire
range
of
uses,
the
three
unit
and
use
is,
is
being
tarred.
A
A
Well,
I
should
point
out
that
India
in
the
mature
neighborhood
in
a
core
cities
there's
a
lot
of
those
neighborhoods
which,
at
the
time
were
created
for
lower
densities,
so
a
small
rod
fabric.
At
the
time
that
the
art
rezoning
was
introduced
in
the
zoning
bar
in
2008
to
50
there's
a
mechanism
that
was
taken
care
that
such
such
uses
triplex
would
fit
into
the
welcoming
neighborhood.
So
am
I
Frenchman
as
an
example,
you'll
see
as
a
minimum
lot
area
in
archery
zone.
A
A
To
go
to
the
committee
of
adjustment
to
get
at
least
the
variance
on
on
the
lot
size,
so
there's
a
mechanism
already,
so
if,
in
fact,
there
is
one
bada
that
we
visit
masses
for
the
permitted
uses
himself
as
a
mechanism
with
larger
setbacks
to
take
care
of
those
more
massive
build
for
introduced
into
the
mature
neighborhoods,
and
does
anyone
have
any
questions
for
mister
for
mr.
Pope
or
for
staff?
Does
anyone
have
any
questions
for
mr.
Pope?
Thank
you
very
much
for
coming
forward.
I
guess
for
Lisbon!
A
A
Neighborhoods
were
in
fact
conversions
were
occurring
of
existing
buildings,
creating
forms
or
were
really
too
much
for
the
Lots
that
they
were
located
on.
So
in
the
earth
free
zone.
A
three
unit
dwelling
is
the
maximum.
You
cannot
do
a
four
unit
dwelling
in
an
r3
zone
that
kicks
it
into
an
apartment,
use
and
for
an
apartment
use.
You
need
either
an
r4
and
r5,
so
the
use
is
not
permitted
in
terms
of
four
units.
A
The
issue
in
terms
of
the
lower
unit
being
larger,
that's
something
that
can
happen
and
it's
an
item
that's
been
identified,
something
that
will
to
be
taking
a
closer
look
at
as
part
of
our
4
zone
review
and
that
they
may
in
fact
translate
to
some
adjustments
that
also
impact
on
on
the
other
three
zones,
just
just
so
that
I
understand.
So,
if
an
applicant
now
goes
to
the
community
of
adjustment
wanting
to
convert
a
triplex
into
something
more,
the
canoe
adjustment
will
not
see
the
application.
That
would
be
a
rezoning.
A
A
Mr.
Mazzy
will
add
to
that.
I
could
add.
One
further
comment:
that's
separate
from
the
sea
of
a
matter
that
if
there's
more
than
three
dwelling
units
are
proposed,
even
for
converting
a
triplex
to
four,
we
require
site
plan
approval,
so
it
does
have
a
review
process
that
are
coasters
sigh
plane,
control
review
process.
A
Are
you
good?
Okay,
if
you
formulate
that
a
question
I
can
see
that
you're
you're
working
on
it?
Let
me
know,
but
miss
you're,
a
good
king.
Thank
you.
You
obviously
know
the
ropes
there.
You
are
I
look
up
and
there
you
are
sitting
right.
There
welcome
and
I'd
like
to
let
those
out
and
back
Sutton.
Are
you
here
to
call
us?
Okay,
you'll
be
up
next
thanks
very
much
go
ahead
push!
This
is
not
on
I'm
Paul,
good
key
past
cheerio,
lotteries,
Community
Association
professional
engineer,
my
experiences
in
construction
management.
A
A
A
A
A
The
property
line,
the
mass
of
that
thing,
the
apparent
mass
and
the
actual
mass,
is
ridiculous.
It
has
to
be
set
back
in
we're
told
that
the
stairs
are
typically
on
the
outside
of
the
building,
but
they
aren't.
The
stairs
are
typically
on
the
inside
and
that's
where
this
thing
should
be
so
it
stays
within
that
45
degree
plane
or
closer
to
it
anyway,
on
the
sides.
A
A
A
A
A
Average
grade
I
got
so
much
to
say
that
I
said
I've
spent
hundreds
of
hours
bet
it
gets
to
get
a
wrap
it
up
those
five
minutes.
Thank
you
very
much,
sir.
Does
anyone
have
any
questions?
Mr.
good
key
Steve?
Did
you
have
any
comments
at
all?
You?
Don't
if
you
don't
it's
fine
I'm,
just
asking
I,
think
we're
fine.
Okay!
Thank
you.
So
we
will
have
Phyllis
Auden
Bach
Sutton,
who
is
the
president
of
old
Ottawa
East
Community
Association,
followed
by
Lynn
Bankier
Lynn.
Are
you
here?
A
A
Thank
you,
I'm
on
May
26th
of
last
year,
I
spoke
to
this
committee
as
a
resident
of
old
Ottawa
East,
and
that
was
when
the
planning
and
growth
management
department
presented
their
infill
to
zoning
proposals
to
you.
At
that
time,
I
showed
a
series
of
pictures
of
my
own
street
I,
live
on
Rosemere
Avenue
and
provided
comments
on
the
existing
compatibility
of
mass
and
height
on
my
street,
while
still
encompassing
a
broad
array
of
permitted
forms
of
dwelling
types.
My
street
has
single
family,
duplex
and
row
houses.
We
do
not
have
stacked.
A
These
new
buildings
demonstrated
quite
clearly
a
massiveness
that
did
not
previously
exist
height
that
typically
towered
above
everything
else
built
in
the
past
and
often
elements
of
intrusion
in
terms
of
invasion
of
privacy
and
overlooked
into
neighbors
yards.
At
that
time.
Many
of
you
shared
seemed
to
share
my
concern
with
the
recent
built
structures
that
were
so
out
of
scale
with
their
surrounding
neighbors.
Indeed,
a
subsequent
article
in
the
Ottawa
Citizen
mentioned
these
photos
as
vividly
demonstrating
the
concerns
of
our
residents.
A
A
A
A
No
sir,
okay,
so
I'm
going
up
the
street.
You
can
see
that
these
are
small
houses,
but
there
are
some
such
a
house
that
has
been
a
two-story.
This
is
a
new
house
that
is
just
being
built.
It
is
going
to
be
a
single-family
home.
It
is
a
two-story
building.
I
also
got
some
real
shots
which
demonstrate
because
we,
actually
there
are
a
few
trees
that
are
going
to
be
tried
to
save.
So
that's
great.
This
is
a
triplex,
except
that
you
have
a.
A
A
The
next
is
the
typical
little
house
that
used
to
live.
That
is
there
and
it
is
now
go
to
triplex
on
each
side
of
it.
On
this
particular
side,
there
are
three
air
conditioning
units
that
of
course,
would
imagine
do
impede
on
the
privacy
of
okay.
This
is
a
single-family
home,
very
large,
on
the
corner.
That's
now
I'm
in
the
backyard
and
going
down
the
back
lane
way
so
once
again,
you're
seeing
large
single-family
house.
A
Hard
for
her
to
move
because
she
has
extensively
renovated
her
house,
because
she
is
in
a
wheelchair,
so
I
find
it
a
little
hard
to
understand
that
the
privacy,
if
her,
has
not
been
affected
and
you
had
triplex
in
construction
and
then
here
is
a
single-family
home,
which
kind
of
has
a
little
bit
more
reasonable.
Mouse.
From
the
perspective
of
the
rest
of
the
neighborhood
next
doors,
single
single
storey,
followed
by
two-story
and
and
they
were
back
at
the
end.
A
A
So
I,
just
if
you
have
if
I
could
just
make
one
last
point,
please
I
just
wanted
to
note
as
well,
because
we
did
talk
about
the
the
size
of
the
lot,
so
these
lots
are
zoned
for
maximum
duplex
and
they
are
only
being
able
to
build
triplexes
by
going
to
the
committee
of
adjustment.
So
this
is
the
result
of
what
is
happening.
Thank
you
very
much
and
thank
you
for
bringing
the
photos.
Does
anyone
have
a
question
Oh.
A
Surely
one
has
a
question
I
think
what
you're
addressing
is,
what
you
feel
are
some
inadequacies
with
info
to
the
original
bylaw
buildings
can
also
be
built
under
this
proposed
yeah.
So
what
keeps
out
of
what
we're
doing
here
today,
which
is
there
a
number
of
appeals
to
the
infill
to
bylaw?
What
has
changed
for
the
worse?
In
your
view,
from
in
fear
to
to
this
proposed
settlement,
we
have
not
addressed
the
10
meter
high
limit
in
my
neighborhood,
so
all
of
those
triplexes
are
11
meters,
which
means
they
are
building
them.
A
1
meter,
typically
above
ground,
where
the
elevation
is
they're,
building
a
very
large
basement
unit
and
they
are
having
it's
essentially
an
apartment.
Building
on
a
residential
street
in
an
r3
neighborhood,
that's
an
adequacy
I
think
you
would
argue
with
the
infill
two
bylaws
that
it
hasn't
addressed.
That
issue
and
I.
Think
the
representative
small
dotter
South
has
said
the
same
today.
A
Our
job
is
to
determine
whether
or
not
to
settle
the
appeals
to
the
infill
along
the
lines
of
what
has
been
proposed
by
staff
right,
but
the
there
is
an
appeal
outstanding
from
old
Ottawa
East
about
the
triplexes.
Yes,
so
that
will
move
forward
to
a
year
in
the
OMB
will
determine
whether
or
not
whether
I'm,
referring
to
your
principles
in
your
document,
which
talk
about
the
gradual
and
gentle
transition,
and
that
you
maintain
a
character
and
I'm
trying
I'm
trying
to
just
illustrate
that
I,
don't
think
this
bylaw.
A
Does
that
same
thing,
a
minutes?
It's
a
it's
a
flaw
in
your
view,
not
the
original,
but
not
something
that
we're
addressing.
Today.
We
settle
these
appeals.
No
I
was
told
that
each
of
our
presentations
was
to
cover
a
different
topic.
We
were
not
supposed
to
be
focused
on
same
one.
That's
why
I
focused
on
the
general
principles.
Okay.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank
you
very
much.
May
I
ask
a
win.
Thank
you.
Who's!
The
co-chair
of
Champlain
Park
Community
Association
to
come
forward.
A
B
A
Okay,
our
two
DS
owns
we've
been
extensively
involved
with
all
of
the
infill
to
development
that
has
happened
since
2008
in
our
community.
All
of
the
our
two
proposals
go
to
committee
of
adjustment
for
severance
--is
and
variances
on
lot
size.
So
we
a
lot
of
data.
We've
been
privy
to
all
of
the
plans
and
we
know
the
heights
and
we
know
the
real
yard
setbacks
of
all
of
these
developments.
Plus
we
have
a
lot
of
visual
data
for
the
are
one
side
because
of
course,
they
generally
don't
go
to
the
committee.
A
So
when
I
sent
you
my
letter,
I
actually
presented
you
with
a
data
table
that
showed
the
very
specific
real
yard
provisions
that
pertain
to
our
neighborhood.
We
have
a
6
meter,
front
yard
setback,
so
we
only
actually
fall
into
two
categories
of
the
rear
yard
provisions,
and
these
I
don't
know
if
you
want
to
number
them,
but
they're
number
three
and
number
five
on
the
list
of
real
yard
setback,
categories
that
apply
when
it's
greater
than
4.5
meters,
so
I'm
speaking
only
to
those
provisions
as
they
pertain
to
our
specific
neighborhood.
A
C
Shows
that
for
the
hundred
foot
deep
lots,
the
difference
between
the
original
infill
two
and
the
settlement
for
May
2016,
there
is
no
difference
actually,
but
that's
only
a
function
of
our
new
revised
height
of
8.5
meters
and
essentially,
we
will
obtain
or
more
of
real
yard
for
those
hundred
foot
depth.
Lots,
because
the
current
by
law
allows
for
7.5
meters
and
with
the
8
point
5
meter
height,
we
will
generally
obtain
an
eight
point:
five
meter
rear
yard
as
well.
C
D
To
us,
based
on
a
detailed
data
analysis
of
specific
properties
and
in
our
neighborhood.
Similarly,
the
8
point:
5
meter
height
was
a
very
big
game
for
our
community.
It
is
a
two-story
neighborhood
built
fabric
which
originally
had
an
11
meter
height.
We
worked
very
hard
with
the
Planning
Department,
with
our
councilor
Jeff
leaper,
to
bring
that
down
to
8.5
meters
again
having
presented
data,
photographic
numbers,
etc.
D
We're
very
pleased
that
the
ride
Rd
that
the
Planning
Department
has
presented
does
support
the
continuation
of
the
8.5
meters
and
we
will
want
them
to
continue
to
defend
that
at
the
OMB.
But
we
understand
as
part
of
the
settlement
that
is
no
longer
in
question.
So
those
are
the
two
main
variables
in
the
settlement
that
we
have
looked
at
and
that
we
have
spoken
to
our
process
with
the
Planning.
Department
has
been
satisfactory
to
the
extent
that
we
did
have
separate
meetings
with
them.
They
confirmed
their
support
of
the
8.5.
D
D
D
Myriad
setbacks
within
the
proposed
bylaw
provisions
to
begin
I'd
like
to
acknowledge
that
a
number
of
our
clients
have
experienced
challenges
adhering
to
the
infills
to
bylaw
as
currently
written,
given
that
it
limits
the
viability
of
bungalows,
particularly
in
deeper
Lots.
We
are
in
favor
of
the
bylaw
revisions
and
believe
that
city
staff
have
made
appropriate
revisions
regarding
myriad
setbacks
under
the
previous
by
law
revisions.
Sorry,
provisions,
two-story
drones
were
better
able
to
meet
the
rear
yard
setback,
provision
on
D
plots
as
compared
to
bungalows,
which
typically
require
larger
building
footprints.
D
D
Creation,
thank
you.
Okay.
My
name
is
Carol
black
okay
and
I'm,
a
resident
of
South
Capital
Ward
and
a
member
of
the
Planning
and
Zoning
Committee
of
the
Ottawa
south
community
association.
I
originally
became
interested
in
developed
in
my
neighborhood
when
the
3-bedroom
house
was
torn
down
and
became
a
multi
building
with
18
bedrooms
which
towers
over
adjacent
properties.
D
This
scenario
has
played
out
many
times,
and
residents
found
themselves
powerless
in
the
face
of
this
perceived
over
development
city
planners
Terrace
at
the
time
that
they
had
not
anticipated
that
developers
would
maximize
the
building
envelope
that
was
high
or
higher
as
wide
and
as
far
back
into
the
Lots
as
possible.
This
resulted
in
11
meter
high
boxes,
which
affected
privacy
light
and
residents
enjoyment
of
their
backyard
spaces.
D
One
exception
is
the
color
by
focused
on
a
new
study,
which
resulted
in
at
nine
major
industries,
own
information
consultation
sessions
that
I
attended
in
the
past
three
years,
residents
were
told
that
info
too
would
address
the
concerns
around
here:
real
yards
and
height.
We
also
look
to
the
city's.
E
D
E
D
Itself
what
the
effects
are
and
how
things
are
progressing.
Thank
you
any
questions
that
Arthur
Miss
barkow
pay.
No
thank
you
for
coming
out
today.
Thank
you.
Next
up
we
have
Mary
Town
and
then
followed
by
Mary
challenge.
So
come
on
money
come
forward.
Hopefully
you
can
do
both
of
them
in
five
minutes.
D
E
2015
those
two
opponents
represented
by
Janet
Bradley
on
site-specific
appeals,
I,
note
that
miss
Bradley
is
not
here
this
morning,
I'm,
not
sure
if
that
means
that
her
appeals
have
been
resolved
as
she
has
no
issues.
The
third
appeal
was
filed
by
the
old
Ottawa
East
Community
Association
and
you've
heard
from
three
speakers
from
that
Community
Association.
This.
C
Morning
the
focus
of
their
presentations
and
the
basis
of
their
appeal
was
what
the
did
not
do
in
terms
of
reducing
the
permitted
item
on
triplexes
and
then
there
the
appeals
filed
by
domicile
and
goba.
So,
starting
with
the
GoPro
appeal,
it
was
a
fairly
broad
appeal.
There
were
many
aspects
of
the
infill
to
bylaw
that
the
industry
had
issues
with
and
in
response
to
council
earnest,
Baum's
question
at
the
beginning
of
the
discussion
this
morning.
Certainly
I
think
we
attempted
to
make
clear
to
the
committee
and
staff
what
those
concerns
were
before.
E
Been
presented
to
committee
in
the
staff
report
this
morning
is
by
no
means
our
preference
is
by
no
means
how
we'd
like
to
be
carrying
on
business
when
were
developing
and
maturing
neighborhoods
and
doing
our
best
to
achieve
the
city's
goals
and
objectives
with
respect
to
intensification.
But
we
are
prepared
to
accept
the
recommendations,
so
in
particular,
I
think
I
want
to
make
a
few
comments.
With
respect
to
height.
E
We
had
very
serious
concerns
about
the
reduced
building
height
to
zones
that
effectively
reduced
the
compatibility
rate
in
some
sub
zones
of
some
neighborhoods
from
a
three-story
building
to
a
two-story
building
have
two
very
in-depth
analysis
by
staff.
We
understood
that
there
are
a
number
of
neighborhoods
where
the
character
that
neighborhood
was
a
two-story
built
form,
and
so
it
would
be
appropriate
to
reduce
the
permitted
building
heights
in
those
zones.
Some
staff
have
gone
through
a
very
in-depth
exercise.
C
The
permitted
building
height
in
those
zones
to
eight
and
a
half
years
words
lots
of
discussion
about
real
yards
over
the
last
five
or
six
months
of
lots
of
discussions
about
words
before
the
bar
owners.
Planning
Committee
almost
a
year
ago,
has
been
a
serious
concern
to
the
industry
in
terms
of
the
loss
of
potential
developable
area.
We
will
try
to
intensify
in
these
mature
neighborhoods.
Having
said
that,
a
settlement
that's
before
you
today
still
results
in
a
fairly
significant
increase
in
the
railroad
setbacks.
D
Which
we
prepared
for
the
industry
and
provided
to
the
staff,
as
well
as
the
effect
on
your
typical
100-foot
lot,
92
thousand
1850,
the
railroad
setback
requirement
on
a
typical
underfoot
log
was
seven
and
a
half
years
depending
upon
the
depth
of
developing
weather.
The
front-door
setback
is
required
less
than
four
and
a
half
meters
that
way.
Yard
setback
has
increased
from
7.5
meters
to
either
0.5
+.
D
+
so
in
terms
of
saleable
square
footage
on
a
typical
100-foot
mod,
there
has
been
a
significant
change
in
what
can
be
built
on
those
properties,
the
industry's
preference,
to
avoid
the
time
and
expense
September.
They
are
prepared
to
accept
us
before
you
today
and
mr.
Chen,
that
is
your
first
5
min
effect.
I
was
about
to
move
onto
domicile
and
domicile
a
very
specifically
related
to
our
four
zones.
C
Be
interpreted
in
terms
of
building
hired
for
triplexes
in
north
or
zone.
We
spent
a
lot
of
time
before
the
bylaw
was
adopted
last
year.
We
spent
a
lot
of
time
since
trying
to
explain
to
both
staff
and
the
community
associations
why
we
feel
so
strongly
that
the
meta
building
heights
for
the
triplex
means
to
a
man
and
11
meters.
Now.
C
A
F
F
The
issue
about
bedrooms
is
an
interesting
one
in
terms
of
that
ground,
floor
unit
being
a
three
four
five
six
bedroom
unit,
there's
nothing
in
the
Bible
that
perking
precludes
that
from
happening.
There
never
was
anything
in
the
Bible
that
precluded
that
from
happening,
so
the
buyer
never
proposed
changes
with
respect
to.
G
B
After
five
or
six
months
of
negotiations
with
staff
to
tell
you
that,
generally
speaking,
the
industry
is
prepared
to
accept
a
settlement,
that's
before
you
this
morning.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank
You
mr.
chair
and
thanks
for
coming
out
today
account
straight.
Is
this
a
question
of
mr.
chair?
Yeah?
Tells
you
to
chinko.
Thank
you
very
much.
Mr.
B
Those
presentations
are,
and
not
so
much
about
the
boat
form
and
design
and
how
we
might
build
a
regulator.
I
come
to
the
conclusion
that
Street
is
an
example.
That
is
the
concern
actually
that
a
triplex
should
not
be
permitted.
Use
on
that
Street,
which
there's
a
different
exercise
from
what
we're
going
through
right
now.
B
I
think
that
if
a
triplex
is
out
of
character
on
the
street,
then
rezoning
on
the
street
is
inappropriate
admission
to
consideration
given
to
an
amendment
to
change
the
zone
from
an
r3
to
an
hour,
but
an
r3
zone
is
intended
to
permit
that
form
of
housing.
It's
a
desirable
form
of
intensification
if
it's
not
appropriate
on
that
street
that
amend
the
zoning,
but
where
it's
appropriate,
we
should
allow
it
to
be
built.
B
Yes,
I
think
there
is
you
characterizing,
as
different
issues
probably
agree
on
that
there
is
the
height
issue
and
and
other
aspects
of
of
street
character.
So
what
I
think
I'm
hearing
is
that
addressing
problems
of,
for
example,
20
people
living
in
a
new
building
on
a
street
where,
in
the
past,
four
or
five
might
have,
despite
the
city's
policy
of
intensification,
now
having
20
people
with
quite
possibly
inadequate,
store,
search
for
waste,
receptacles,
inadequate
parking,
inadequate
public
amenity
space
loss
of
green
space
and
and
and
trees?
B
That
is
one
issue,
a
very
important,
legitimate
set
of
issues.
The
other
is
purely
the
triplex
allowable
and
building
height
and
our
challenges.
How
to
protect
somewhat
a
a
changing
neighborhood
from
the
type
of
you
know.
Examples
we
see
there.
You
did
specifically
state
that
the
ability
to
put
in
to
go
to
committee
of
adjustment,
with
a
request
for
that
additional
unit
is,
is
not
allowable
if
I
understood
correctly
and
yet
I
am
hearing
cases
of
where
that's
precisely
what's
happening.
B
I
was
Steven
email
from
a
gentleman
if
last
week
saying
that
he
had
just
purchased
such
a
twenty
twelve
built
unit,
with
the
express
purpose
of
seeking
at
committee
of
adjustment,
the
ability
to
put
in
that
additional
unit
question
yet
sure
to
what.
Why
can
you
stay
with
such
certainty
that
that's
not
allowable?
Given
these
these
cases
that
I'm
aware
of
through
a
chair,
accounts
Larry,
you
can't
amend
the
list
of
permitted
uses
through
it.
An
application
to
the
committee
of
adjustment.
B
B
Okay,
anyone
have
any
questions
that
closes
the
hang
on
a
sec
that
closes
the
public
delegation.
Just
wanted
to
be
on
the
record
saying
that,
so
now
we
will
go
for
questions,
but
I'm
also
going
to
ask
you
to
do
simply
ask
your
questions
succinctly
and
then,
if
you
have
any
comments
to
make,
thank
you
Jenko.
B
A
G
That
10
meter
height
limit
it
would
only
be
through
the
OMB
appeal
that
that
might
now
happen.
Is
that
a
fair
characterization
of
where
we
stand
that
I'm
sure
to
be
fair
to
the
board?
The
board
didn't
require
negotiations
to
took
place.
The
board
was
told
that
the
parties
wanted
negotiations
to
take
place
in
the
board,
accommodated
that
about.
With
respect
to
the
second
aspect
of
the
councilors
questions,
the
answer
is
yes,
it.
G
In
my
meetings
with
staff,
you'd
indicated
that
monitoring
the
types
of
things
we
are
seeing,
these
sorts
of
buildings
is
what
is,
was
the
intention?
Can
you
describe
for
me
what
you
how
you
would
be
monitoring
what
you'll
be
looking
for?
What
you
would
do
with
if
we
see
more
examples
like
this
coming
up
in
this
initial
period
of
this
new
bylaw?
How
staff
might
respond
to
that?
If
we're
seeing
what
we
don't
like
or
what
was
feared
happening
anyway
now,
what
might
be
the
options?
I
guess?
What
are
you
monitoring
in
the?
G
What
would
the
next
steps
be
after
that?
No
chair,
so
we'll
be
developing
a
little
margin
forum,
but
generally
what
we
would
be
looking
at
is
building
from
an
activity
in
terms
of
development
that
would
be
going
forward
under
the
new
rules
that
are
being
put
in
place.
Infill
we'd
be
looking
at
committee
of
adjustment
activity.
G
Typically,
most
of
the
development
that
we
would
see
happening
through
infill
tea
would
not
generally
be
subject
to
a
planning
approval.
Some
of
them
might
be
if
you're
in
our
four
zone,
for
example
in
you
into
a
low-rise
apartment
building,
it
is
subject
to
site
plan,
so
we'll
keep
an
eye
out
for
that
as
well.
But
basically
it's
we've
got
the
basis
in
terms
of
why
we
introduced
infill.
G
We
want
to
see
what
kind
of
challenges
are
being
encountered
through
those
provisions,
whether
or
not
there
might
be
a
need
for
some
further
adjustments
and
whether,
in
fact,
the
objectors
are
being
fully
achieved
in
terms
of
making
sure
that
we
have
really
our
setbacks
that
are
appropriate
and
that
the
overall
massing
generally
fits
in
with
what's
established
within
the
communities.
Ottawa
East
definitely
is
a
unique
situation.
I
would
tend
to
echo
mr.
challenged
comments
that
really.
D
My
sense
and
mice,
my
feeling
is
that
the
issue
is
not
so
much
the
difference
between
11
and
10
meters,
because
I
think,
even
if
you
look
at
some
of
the
images
that
were
shown
for
the
developments
along
that
one
Street,
you
couldn't
tell
me
whether
or
not
that
was
a
10
or
11
meter
high
building
just
looking
at
it.
The
jackster
position
comes
into
play
when
you're
sitting
beside
a
single-family
and
you
have
a
three-story
building
next
door
to
it.
D
So
is
the
question
that
are
there
locations
where
triplexes
should
be
looked
at
more
closely,
and
that
is
a
use
issue.
That's
got
nothing
to
do
with
what
we're
dealing
with
under
infill
all
right.
Thank
you,
I
guess,
I
would
wrap
up
then
by
saying
we've
seen
a
thank
you
particularly,
although
thank
you
to
all
the
speakers,
particularly
mr.
Mack
Sutton,
who
illustrated
for
us
once
again
with
some
images,
but
also
in
drawing
attention
to
the
report
itself
and
the
values
or
principles
from
looking
for
the
right
words
there.
D
The
the
sort
of
gentle
transition
I,
don't
think,
there's
any
question
that
anyone
in
that
neighborhood
or
any
others
like
it
expected
to
see
one
storey
buildings
that
were
of
there
remain
the
dominant
character
of
the
neighborhood
in
a
in
a
time
of
intensification.
It's
more
a
matter
of.
Do
you
go
from.
D
You
know,
from
from
one
story,
to
a
four
story,
role
that
uses
as
much
of
the
property
as
possible,
and
that
is
what
I
and
I
believe
community
members
are
trying
to
protect
against
and
some
of
the
worst
examples
of
the
the
evolution
of
a
street,
something
that
is
so
different
in
the
way
it
works
and
and
not
purely
a
matter
of
sort
of
numbers
of
heights.
So
I
will,
of
course,
both
be
working
with
staff
to
try
to
use
the
tools
available
to
us
to
prevent
these
worst
cases.
D
Unfortunately,
those
tools
seem
to
be
somewhat
limited,
but
also
I.
Look
to
staff
when
you
report
out
on
the
next
maps
you
can
finish
by
telling
me:
is
there
a
time?
Is
there
a
time
when
we
would
get
a
report
back
on
the
monitoring
that's
going
on?
They
made
sure
it
all
depends
on
the
level
of
activity.
I
mean
if
you've
got
a
lot
of
activity.
You
have
enough
of
sort
of
substance
of
things
that
you
can
take
a
look
at
if
it's
a
low-level
about
killing
is
spread
across
the
entire
cities.
G
Just
like
we're
keeping
tabs
on
infill
one,
we
haven't
come
back
on
infill
one,
because
we're
still
sort
of
trying
to
get
that
critical
sort
of
understanding
of
what
is
the
level
of
activity
that's
happening,
and
can
we
start
to
identify
any
any
issues
or
concerns?
Okay,
well,
I
have
to
signal
my
desire
to
get
a
report
back
in
a
year
if
it's
possible
to
ask
for
that
as
direction
to
staff.
G
If
there's
a
more
complicated
mechanism,
I'll
try
and
use
that
so
that
we
can
really
quantify
for
committee
how
well
this
is
working
or
not,
I
think
that's
a
great
idea,
and
you
know
we
certainly
have
precedent
set
for
that
with
some
of
the
work
that
we've
done.
We
have
about
pilot
projects
that
are
going
on
started
in
in
in
the
Glebe
community
association
that.
C
D
Info
1
and
info
2,
and
anything
that
we're
noticing
for
and
against
how
it's
all
working
would
be
great.
Be
nice,
yes,
madam
chair,
for
it
to
be
meaningful,
might
I
suggest
one
year
after
the
order,
approving
in
field
2
is
approved,
is
actually
a
12-month
period,
that'd
be
great,
because
actually
that's
what
we've
added
some
more
of
the
pilot
community
associations
and
council
leaders
Ward
for
example,
because
we
weren't
getting
enough
information
or
just
the
one.
So
that's
good
advice
so
we'll
have
that
back
in
the
year.
I.
Thank
you
for
that.
D
That's
not
a
good
idea,
because
there
is
a
lot
of
activity.
As
you
know,
mr.
Schmitt
was
entertaining
in
areas
where
there
is
a
lot
of
activity.
There
is
and
looks
like
there
will
continue
to
be
so
I
appreciate
know
that's
going
to
happen.
Thank
you,
Thank
You,
counselor
labor
is
anyone
else
want
to
speak
on
this
item.
Nope.
G
A
A
Of
that
integrity
of
the
rear
yard
setbacks,
that's
a
critical
consideration
for
us,
one
quick
question
and
it
may
not
be
a
fair
one,
but
infill
was
passed
by
this
council.
You
know
a
year
or
so
ago
staff
have
been
commenting
on
various
committee
of
adjustment
proposals
ever
since
then,
with
the
infill.
A
Can
you
characterize
how
the
committee
of
adjustment
has
been
responding
to
those?
It
strikes
me
that
I'm
getting
an
accelerating
number
of
developers
who
are
phone
in
my
office,
small
developers,
trying
to
get
around
infill
one
I
think
they're
flowing
the
wrong
the
wrong
office,
I'm
also
hearing
occasionally
from
developers
who
are
trying
to
get
my
help
in
in
pushing
back
against
infill.
I
I
Yeah,
yes,
counselor,
we've
seen
a
very
limited
number
of
minor
various
applications
affecting
the
info
provisions
to
date.
I
don't
have
hard
numbers,
but
I
would
say:
staff
have
held
the
line
on
the
infill
provisions
and
any
variances
that
have
been
approved
through
the
committee
of
adjustment
have
in
fact
been
minor
and
there's
nothing
that
to
date,
we've
felt
the
need
to
to
appeal
I
want
to
thank
staff
for
doing
that.
I
see
that
deliberate
effort
on
the
part
of
staff
to
defend
infill,
to
defend
infill
one
and
thus
far
it
seems
to
be
succeeding.
I
So
I'll
look
forward
to
seeing
the
more
comprehensive
report
that
comes
in
a
year
or
so,
but
so
far
so
good.
This
is
a
this
is
a
good
compromise.
It's
there
are
clearly
some
questions
around
the
adequacy
of
the
original
bylaw
we
dealt
with
it
back
then,
with
respect
to
settling
the
outstanding
appeals.
I
think
we're
on
the
right
course
Thank
You
chaplain,
thank
you,
kill
Reaper
kills
from
this
one
hi,
just
a
quick
question
staff
before
I
wrap
up
I'm.
A
couple
of
the
public
delegations
referred
to
a
specific
zoning
area.
I
I'm
gonna
buy
that
in
an
r3
area
that
has
some
lower
height
limit
nine
point.
Something
was
mentioned,
I'm
just
wondering.
If,
based
on
that
experience,
we
have
any
sense
of
what
the
result
has
been
so
half
triplex
is
being
built
in
this
area.
Are
they
deficient
in
somewhere?
What's
been
the
experience
on
this
area
which
I'm
not
familiar
with?
Thank
you
I'm
sure
my
understanding
is
about
was
a
little
section
on
colonel
by
dr.
I
There
was
initially
an
intention
or
a
desire
to
have
that
looked
at
as
a
heritage
district
and
my
recollection
was
that
that
was
not
pursued,
but
rather
just
determined.
Let's
take
a
closer
look
at
the
zoning.
It
was
a
councillor,
Trina,
Shaw
I'm
sure
is
familiar
with
it,
but
as
a
fairly
defined
area
and
I
think
it
was
originally
included,
but
then
was
taken
out
of
the
infill,
because
it
was
a
very
focused
analysis
and
determination
made
in
terms
of
zoning.
I
Just
in
terms
of
my
final
comments,
I
think
it's
important
to
note
that
the
monitoring
period
that
we've
all
been
talking
about
I,
think
that
was
actually
the
original
idea.
When
we
passed
and
fell
to
last
year.
I
think
it
makes
a
lot
of
sense.
A
couple
of
issues
which
I
raised
a
year
ago,
which
have
come
up
today
in
the
context
of
the
appeal,
include
the
rooftop
access
issue.
I
We've
gone
in
the
appeal
from
2.7
to
3
I'm,
not
going
to
quibble
about
30
centimeters,
but
there
is
an
issue
on
corner
Lots
where
we're
going
to
have
to
see
what
the
impact
of
not
having
a
side
setback
for
those
rooftop
access
is
that
if
it
does
indeed
create
a
14
meter
wall
that
affects
the
aesthetic
and
the
character
of
particular
streets,
I
think
we'll
need
any
years
time
to
look
at
that
again.
So
I
just
want
to
acknowledge
that
point
which
one
of
the
members
of
the
public
made.
I
The
second
issue,
which
gets
to
the
10
versus
11
meter
issue,
which
we
also
talked
about
last
year
and
I
think
ought
to
be
part
of
the
monitoring
period,
is
if
we're
seeing
situations
like
the
photos
we
saw
where
flat-roofed
buildings
are
overwhelming,
the
character
and
the
particular
areas
and
I
have
run
and
over
broke
were
certainly
seeing
a
lot
of
info
there.
Another
way
of
getting
at
this
is
relooking
at
the
height
measurement
and
I
pointed
out
last
year
that
the
City
of
Toronto,
for
example,
does
a
very
different
measurement.
I
B
B
B
If
we
see
a
whole
street
of
Rosemere,
for
example,
starts
to
become
a
applications
come
in
for
flat
roofs
flat,
which,
at
the
maximum
height,
would
infill
one
and
what
it
hoped
to
accomplish
through
the
massage
if
you
would
or
the
look
of
a
street
and
how
it
fits
with
that
not
kick
in
infill
one,
not
necessarily,
and
in
Phil
2
again,
it
really
depends.
I
mean
I.
Think
the
counsellor
makes
a
very
good
comment,
something
that's
worthwhile
to
keep
an
eye
on
I
guess
we
haven't
seen
that
experience
of
a
single
style
going
in.
B
A
D
If
you
were
tour
of
duty
here-
and
it
was
about
fitting
in
having
that
that
info
home
and
had
to
fit
in
with
the
the
way
that
the
the
tree
was
captain
way,
the
the
type
of
access
to
the
rear
yard
was
and
and
even
the
front
of
the
building
I.
Remember
it
distinctly
so
I'm
just
glad
that
there's
room
for
that
kind
of
thought
as
well.
So
I
just
wanted
to
think
well
before
we
vote
on
this
I
just
want
to
thank
mr.
mark
mr.
E
D
A
That's
developing:
that's
your
best
resolution,
that's
where
we
have
control.
So
it's
a
worthwhile
exercise
and
I
think
everybody
for
getting
us
here
today
and
so
I
would
ask
I,
would
ask
you
if
you
planning
committee,
recommend
council
endorsed
amendments
to
bylaw
2015
228
as
detailed
in
document
one,
it's!
Okay!
Thank
you
very
much
thanks
everybody
for
coming
out
today.
All.
J
The
community
associations
of
mr.
Chow
and
I
forget
the
other
person,
but
thank
you
all
right.
So,
as
we
setup
for
Riverside,
says,
I
want
to
bring
your
attention
back
to
an
item
that
we
held.
It
was
number
eight
and,
with
your
agreement
committee
I'm,
going
to
suggest
that
councilor
tyranny
is
going
to
move
a
motion
to
defer
the
Confederation
line.
Proximity
study
fees,
zone
of
influence
to
the
next
to
the
next
meeting
of
Committee
on
the
28th
come
to.
J
My
attention
has
come
to
staffs
attention
that,
while
at
a
high
level,
the
industry
was
told
that
they
were
looking
to
do
this,
they
were
not
given
any
of
the
fee
structure.
They
want
to
have
the
opportunity
they
weren't
the
opportunity
to
discuss
that
with
the
derail
group
and
and
staff
concur
with
that.
So
I
hope
that
you
will,
as
well
so
and
on
the
motion
move
by
Vice
Chair
Jenny's
Kerry.
Thank
you,
Jim.
The
28th.
J
That
was
number
age
so
now
we're
going
back
to
number
three
and
counselor
catfish
has
joined
us,
he's
the
counselor
for
our
rubber
site,
South
communities
on
Plan,
Update
official
plan
and
zoning
amendments.
We're
going
on
a
presentation
on
this.
This
is
a
very,
very
big
deal.
A
lot
of
work
has
gone
into
it.
A
lot
of
lot
of
people
have
been
involved
and
a
lot
of
effort
has
been
as
made
by
rich.
J
Mr.
sacks
was
a
leader
and
Mary
Jarvis
I
think
this
year
with
us
today,
so
I'm
gonna
introduce
Jericho
you're
going
to
row
start
this.
Miss
madam
chair
dawn,
takes
over
I.
Do
also
want
to
acknowledge
the
significance
of
this
of
this
item.
You
know
this
is
really
setting
the
framework
for
a
community
to
build
out
to
to
over
20,000
new
homes,
50,000
residents
and
27,000
jobs,
and
it's
it's
been
put
together
really
as
a
modernization
of
existing
CDP's,
with
a
lot
of
hard
work,
diplomacy
and
professionalism
on
the
part
of
the
planner.
J
That's
really
carried
this
forward
and
Dawn
is
going
to
be
the
speaking
to
the
presentation
today,
but
I.
You
know
when
we
look
at
the
significance
of
the
project
and
the
update
to
the
CDP
that
we
have,
and
you
know
the
amount
of
issues
of
contention
that
remain.
It
really
is
a
testament
to
the
to
the
work
that
he's
put
in
with
which
really
has
been
demonstrated
through
his
entire
career.
J
But
I
think
this
really
shows
shows
that
as
well
as
you
know,
the
diplomacy
that
he
carries
forward
and
working
with
communities,
landowners
as
well
as
other
city
departments.
So
with
that
I'll
turn
it
over
to
Don
MRSA.
Isn't
she
planner
and
with
us,
is
also
Michael
Bolton,
the
program
manager
for
a
suburban
East.