►
From YouTube: Planning Committee - June 27, 2019 (2 of 2)
Description
Planning Committee meeting - June 27, 2019 - Audio Stream
Agenda and background materials can be found at http://www.ottawa.ca/agendas.
A
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
thank
you
for
your
presentation.
Mr.
Hoban,
you
certainly
provided
a
good
rationale
as
to
what
you're
trying
to
do
here.
One
thing,
I,
I,
don't
think
I
heard
you
mention
that
I
understood
was
part
of
the
rationale
for
needing
to
increase.
The
height
is
the
fact
that
you
had
to
go
from
single
layer
grads
to
two
stories
of
parking
to
get
more
cars
under
ground
and,
after
the
the
view
or
the
ground
level.
What's
that
correct.
C
That's
actually
not
correct.
The
two
levels
of
parking
are
quite
independent
of
that.
What
we
did
provide
was
parking
at
grade
which
couldn't
be
handled,
auto,
Blatz
Avenue,
so
it
caused
us
to
separate
the
building.
So
we
can
provide
parking
on
both
sides.
It's
not
that
doesn't
solve
the
parking
requirement
for
the
building.
We
have
two
levels
of
parking
down
below
that
connect
the
two
buildings,
but.
C
A
D
D
Okay,
oh
I
want
to
take
a
look
at
the
the
trees
on
the
ground
delay
in
relation
to
the
building,
and
you
had
a
perspective
that
showed
both
2a
and
2b.
Thank
you.
That's
the
one
yeah,
so
we
we've
chatted
a
fair
bit
this
morning
about
the
degree
to
which
secondary
plans
are
a
certain
sanctity
or
not
and,
as
you
know,
I
have
a
significant
sympathy
for
sticking
to
the
plans
we
plan
for
growth,
and
then
we
stick
to
the
plans,
but
sometimes
as
as
mr.
D
Chow
and
I
have
worked
together
on
note,
we
we
can
see
rezoning
when
there's
a
clear
public
interest
to
be
achieved.
So
one
of
the
first
things
I
want
to
try
to
understand
here
is
I.
Think
you
said
that
the
nine
story-
development
better
protects.
The
trees,
can
did
I,
miss
here
or
misunderstand
that.
C
C
I,
what
I
tried
to
what
I
tried
to
say
by
way
of
this
diagram
its
accumulation
on
the
site,
which
shapes
those
3
things
1
1,
is
the
tightness
with
respect
to
all
blacks.
Avenue
2
is
the
setback
from
of
trees
and,
since
all
Blatz
is
so
tight.
The
idea
of
having
some
support
parking
for
servicing
and
drop-off,
and
it
has
to
come
off
of
that
which
caused
us
to
separate
the
buildings.
C
D
C
Would
that
would
be
my
that
would
be
my
point
and
I
think
you
and
I
were
supposed
to
Poconos,
but
2a
and
2b
actually
designed
together
or
set
pieces.
We
took
to
a
ahead
of
to
be
just
make
sure
that
it
was
approved,
but
in
fact
the
accumulation
between
those
two
things
that
you
know
what
you're
really
talking
about
design
of
those
two
things
as
they
go
together.
I
talked
to
and
it's
much
more
fine-grained
than
just
the
simplistic
notion.
C
D
C
C
That's
a
fair
question
and
I
thought
it
covered
my
presentation,
but
all
and
it's
a
question
that
mr.
shrilly
universally
has
been
asking
of
appellant
of
those
opposing.
It
really
has
to
do
with
the
public
realm.
The
appropriate
setback
for
the
Grand
Elise
are
you're
talking
about
heritage,
you're,
talking
about
functional
requirements,
so
separation
between
buildings
and
everything
at
the
ground
plane
enhancing
the
pedestrian
experience
in
all
of
that,
it
simply
adds
a
transfer
of
area
by
use.
C
But
the
zoning
diagram
quickly
shows
that
and
the
buildings
are
offset
in
a
number
of
ways,
both
along
all
Blatz
facing
the
châtelet
Avenue
and
also
the
grande
la
all,
of
those
basically
are
suggesting
hey
we're
going
to
move
some
ass
around,
but
the
ground-floor
public
experience
is
still
strong,
in
fact,
so
as
longer.
Okay,.
D
C
C
A
C
A
C
A
C
A
If
some
of
us
that
were
on
council
last
time,
remember
the
mento
application
on
Bank
Street
and
the
integrity
of
that
little
park
was
in
your
ear
award
now
and
the
concern
and
the
detail
that
went
into
at
Clemmie
that
went
into
Klem.
Oh
I,
think
5th
Avenue
one
of
the
two
yeah
and
it
was
the
I
mean
we
actually
to
preserve
the
tree
and
and
and
let's
face
it
in
this
development,
we
went
to
some
extent
to
have
you
preserve
a
tree.
But-
and
we
that's
why
I'm
asking
so
you
had
an
expert
say.
A
A
You!
You
were
on
the
list
before.
Do
you
have
questions
of
the
staff
yeah?
It
is
counselor
Menard,
the
only
person
that
has
questions
of
staff-
okay!
Well,
you
probably
do
who
are
we
kidding?
I,
don't
even
know.
I
asked
that
question
knew
you
would
so
we
will
go
to
him
first
and
then
we'll
go
to
you.
Okay,
oh
and
you
have
a
question
too
okay,
I'm
on
to
staff.
Now
so
who
asked
questions
our
staff?
You
do
so
with
leaper
Gower.
E
A
A
A
Counselor
Menard
people
are
I,
think
I
suggest
you
sit
down
for
a
minute
just
to
since
really
this
is
your
motion
except
that
somebody
else's
me
so
counselor
Menard,
the
colleagues
are
asking.
Is
this
a
replacement
motion
for
the
other,
or
is
it
a
different
motion?
Can
we
give
back?
Thank
you.
It's.
F
G
Certainly,
madam
chair,
as
I
drafted
the
motion,
so
it
as
the
counselor
alerted
to
goes
along
with
the
first
motion.
If
the
decision
is
made,
my
planning
committee
and
council
to
change
their
wording,
a
secondary
plan
to
talk
about
a
range
of
building
heights
between
three
and
six
stories
that
we
then
have
a
circumstance
where
we
have
two
buildings
where
a
zoning
permissions
were
already
granted
within
their
four
heights
greater
than
six
storeys.
G
A
D
A
We're
gonna
put
it
on
the
screen.
Is
there
on
the
screen?
Now
it's
on
the
screen
now
so
I.
Don't
think
you
need
to
do
that,
but
if
but
now
questions
of
staff
and
then
questions
councillor
Gower
and
then
they
encounter
Menard,
who
else
wants
to
before
I
get
to
councilman
art
because
he
is
the
the
councillor
for
the
area
so
I'd
like
him
to
have
the
last
wrap-up
kind
of
stuff?
Okay.
So
please
chime
in
before
that
happens
thanks.
D
Gerry
I
just
have
one
question
of
staff,
which
is
the
you
DRP
comments
hinted
strongly
or
suggested
that
the
building
height
should
be
brought
down.
Why
again?
And
you
know
what
this
relates
to
more
than
just
this
building,
we
we
see
the
you
DRP
time
and
time
again
suggest
that
building
heights
should
be
brought
down
in
order
to
result
in
better
design
and
I.
D
G
Three
two
men
I'm
chair
I,
would
I
wouldn't
take
it
as
a
position
that
you
DRP
is
wrong.
Certainly
the
application
that
was
before
the
you
DRP.
There
was
a
number
of
changes
that
were
made
to
the
design
based
on
their
feedback,
including
some
additional
step
backs
on
the
upper
three
stories.
Some
changes
in
terms
of
materiality
working
with
Hogan's
office
to
reflect
more
the
situation
along
all
blades,
Avenue
and
and
the
grand
LA
and
those
are
found
in
the
report.
G
Some
of
the
changes
that
were
made
in
terms
of
the
actual
height
itself
I
very
much
appreciate
the
advice
that
we
get
from
the
urban
design
review
panel.
They
are
acting
as
an
advisory
body
to
staff,
so
we
take
their
recommendations
into
consideration,
as
well
as
the
recommendations
with
the
Comets
that
we
see
through
the
public
circulation
through
other
technical
agencies
and
use
that,
in
terms
of
formulating
our
recommendations
and
discussions
with
applicants
moving
forward,
so
I
would
I
wouldn't
suggest
that
not
it's
not
a
necessary
agreement
with
her.
G
They
had
a
slew
of
comments
and
we
took
those
under
advisement
and
made
some
changes
to
the
proposal
based
on
that
feedback
in
the
situation
related
to
the
specific
heights,
we
review
those
Heights
with
the
changes
to
the
step,
backs
and
didn't
fail.
Those
three
additional
stories
presented
undue
adverse
impact
on
the
surrounding
communities
in
terms
of
impacts,
and
so
that's
what
we
made
our
recommendation
based
on.
E
H
Thank
You
chair
Gower,
the
designated
parcel
associated
with
the
with
the
175
Main
Street,
includes
the
the
long,
a
tree
line,
delay
and
leading
to
the
the
building
the
forecourt
in
front
of
the
building
and
the
building
itself.
The
actual
la
is
fairly
recent.
It's
from
the
1950s
when
Saint
Paul
University
was
built.
The
driveway
changed
our
the
access
to
the
building
change,
but
we
considered
that,
as
a
landmark
within
the
heritage
concert
in
the
Heritage
context
that
it
was
worthy
of
inclusion
and
the
designation.
H
So
that
has
been
consistent
since,
since
the
beginning
of
the
plans
that
this
would
be
as
opposed
to
a
driveway
that
historically
went
through
open,
open
space,
it
would
now
be
flanked
on
either
side
eventually
by
buildings,
and
that
the
concern
was
to
preserve
the
buildings
there
or
the
trees
and
there
and
there
root
balls,
etc.
So
they
could
continue.
We've
also
worked
with
the
developer
to
ensure
that
there's
a
succession
planting
going
on
so
that
the
essence,
the
tree-lined
essence
of
the
of
the
boulevard
of
the
road
continues
so
that
that
has
been.
H
You
know,
part
of
our
ongoing
concern
and
in
so
again
and
in
terms
of
the
location
of
the
building
and
it's
in
our
of
the
new
building,
its
impact
on
the
LA.
It
has
the
same
impact
as
we
had
always
anticipated
in
terms
of
proximity
to
the
LA
and,
of
course,
a
six
story.
Building
or
a
nine-story
building
either
is
taller
than
the
tallest
tree
in
along
the
edge.
H
So
that
takes
us
to
the
impact
of
an
additional
three
stories
on
the
cultural
heritage,
value
of
the
Chatelet
building
at
a
hundred
and
ten
meters
away,
separated
by
a
what
will
be
townhouses
and
the
general
conclusion
of
heritage
staff
and
which
was
also
the
same
conclusion
of
the
heritage
consultant
hired
by
the
applicant.
Is
that
the
the
additional
three
stories
do
not
have
a
noticeable
impact
on
the
cultural
heritage,
value
of
the
designated
building
and
the
reason
the
outstanding
features.
H
What
we
call
the
heritage
attributes
of
the
building
are
its
stone,
construction,
it's
its
style
and
it's
its
style
and
its
massing
with
the
the
pavilions
all
very
typical
of
religious
architecture,
its
windows
front
door,
and
so
those
are
all
none
of
those
attributes.
Our
shields
are
screened
or
impacted
by
the
additional
three
stories,
so
that
that
that's
the
opinion
of
the
heritage
heritage
staff
on
the
impacts
of
the
proposed
development
on
the
building.
Okay,.
E
Thank
you,
I
had
one
more
question
and
it
was
a
line
that
stood
out
to
me
in
the
councillors
comments
and
the
staff
report.
That
legal
did
not
agree
with
planning
staffs
interpretation
of
the
site,
which
I
think
is
worth
diving
into.
I
think
that
was
in
reference
to
the
original
report.
That
would
this
committee
would
have
considered
several
months
back
exact,
correct,
councilman,
art,
so
I
guess
my
question
now
would
be:
does
legal
staff
agree
with
planning
staffs
interpretation?
That's
in
front
of
us
today.
I
Yourself,
Thank
You
chair,
my
name
is
Garrett
Strom
with
legal
services.
Legal
counsel,
legal
staff
has
conducted
a
review
of
the
Official
Plan
in
the
course
of
this
application.
To
consider
the
ambiguity
that
we've
discussed
today-
and
it's
already
been
pointed
out-
that
there
are
two
provisions
to
policies
under
Section.
I
Legal
staffs
opinion
upon
review
was
that
this
is
resolved
by
or
the
most
reasonable
interpretation
is
to
look
to
section.
Ten
point
three
point:
four
of
the
current
secondary
plan
and
in
particular
policy
4f,
which
deals
with
refers
to
a
range
of
heights
between
five
and
nine
stories
for
the
residential
medium
rise
designation,
but
does
not
refer
to
the
mixed
use.
Medium
rise,
designation.
I
G
Thank
You
counselor
I'm
just
going
to
go
to
the
secondary
plan
designation
side
just
so
we
have
that
in
front
of
us,
so
the
Official
Plan
designation
area
that
we're
talking
about
the
mixed
use,
medium
rise
designation,
is
in
the
pink.
My
understanding
in
terms
of
landowners
and
I'd
have
to
clarify
with
those
particular
landowners,
but
that
the
landowners
of
that
pink
would
be
regional
homes
or
their
underlying
companies.
G
F
Thank
you
very
much.
If
you
can
actually
go
back
to
the
last,
I
was
actually
little
clear.
Was
it
that
one
or
the
one
before
no
bigger
I'm
looking
for
bigger
on
that
area?
I
guess,
that's
fine.
So
this
this
site
is
is
about.
The
entire
pink
site
is
about
13
acres,
I
guess
somewhere
around
there
about
13
14
acres,
it's
about
half
of
the
total
area,
I'd.
F
G
F
And
they're
they're
a
major
landowner
there
and
would
obviously
be
very,
very
affected
by
this
I
guess,
in
your
opinion,
how
would
you
characterize
the
initial
process
in
this
community
to
develop
a
large
piece
of
what
was
green
space
before
to
put
in
place
a
secondary
plan,
CDP
working
in
conjunctions
with
the
partners,
knowing
that
that
new
intensification
was
happening
I?
Would
you
describe
that
as
a
fairly
good
process
overall?
To
this
point,.
F
Okay,
very
good,
I
think
so
too
I
think
it's
been
a
similar
process,
but
generally
a
good
process.
I
wanted
to
go
back
to
to
legal
as
well
in
your
legal
service.
Review
of
the
site.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
we
clarify
how
did
how
did
you
interpret
the
the
secondary
plan
in
terms
of
allowing
Heights
allowable
heights
for
the
mixed
use?
Medium
rise
area?
F
I
just
want
to
confirm
that
in
your
interpretation,
because
it's
been
a
lot
of
bandied
about
about
what
what
this
allowed,
but
in
your
legal
services
review,
it
was
fairly
clear
to
you
that
it
just
went
to
L
Pat.
The
interpretation
would
be
six
stories
in
the
medium
use,
mixer
ice
mixer
as
medium
use.
I
F
And
also
with
this,
if
this
were
to
be
approved,
that
the
planning
excuse
me
the
staff
recommendation
in
your
professional
opinion,
would
it
allow
a
developer
and
an
advantage
in
terms
of
going
up
to
nine
stories
if
they
were
in
front
of
L
Pat
versus
if
the
secondary
plan
stayed
the
same
or
if
my
motion
was
approved
in
in
any
area
of
of
this
not
just
to
be.
Obviously,
this
is
a
huge
area.
Did.
F
I
F
I
guess
if
the
developer
would
were
to
come
with
an
application
and
the
zoning
recommendation
may
have
been
different
than
nine
stories
say
six
stories,
but
then
they
chose
to
appeal
that
a
tell
Pat,
with
the
Official
Plan
saying
that
this
area
allowed
nine
stories.
What
advantage
would
that
provide
versus?
What's
there
now
thank.
I
Chair
I
would
say
that
the
any
subsequent
applications
within
the
mixed
use
area
if
it
were
to
be
redesignated
as
as
contemplated
and
the
current
recommended
staff
recommended
report,
would
have
to
any
subsequent
applications.
Rezoning
bylaw
amendments
would
have
would
be
looking
towards
the
community
or
sorry
the
secondary
plan
for
compliance,
so
they
should
comply
with
the
secondary
plan.
So
in
that
case
they
could
argue
that
a
nine-story
building
would
comply
with
the
amended
secondary
plan.
Yeah.
F
Thank
you
very
much
that
that's
my
concern
is
that
this
is
not
just
the
to
be
building.
This
is
this
is
a
large
swath
of
area,
madam
chair,
that
were
that
were
designating
fully
here,
but
the
contention
is
around
sort
of
to
be
in
the
zoning
piece,
but
actually
what
its
changing
is.
St.
Paul
universities
lands,
as
well
as
everything
else
around
the
site.
What's
been
discussed,
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
was
that
was
very
clear
as
well.
I
think
that's
it
for
me
on
on
questions
for
staff.
A
E
G
A
A
No,
no,
oh!
No!
No,
no
see
that's
not
the
way
it
goes.
So
it's
going
to
be
just
like
you
know.
When
the
mayor
asked
that
question
and
it's
wrap-up
and
then
says
turn
to
speak,
it's
his
turn
to
speak
and
no
one
else
so
I
just
wanna
I'm
trying
to
be
you
know:
I
am
being
very
fair
here,
so
councilor
Menard
doesn't
seem
to
be
and
I'm
and
no
one
else
is
gonna,
be
speaking
floors.
Yours.
F
Thanks
thanks
very
much
madam
chair
I
do
have
several
comments
about
this.
Obviously
I
think
I
think
the
delegations
made
some
good
points
about
the
secondary
plan.
What
had
put
in
put
in
place
here
just
very
recently,
as
well
as
the
zoning
amendments
in
2015
and
madam
I'm
sure
I
I,
think
it's
important,
that
we
don't
just
dismiss
that
portion
of
it.
I'm
gonna
get
to
account
structure.
Ellie's
points
in
a
second
I
think
it's
important.
We
don't
dismiss
that
piece
and
I
think
it.
F
F
There
are
several
reasons
that
this
shouldn't
go
forward
as
planned.
One
of
the
biggest
ones
is
the
urban
design
review
panel's
discussion,
and
this
was
in
some
of
the
report,
but
the
the
panel
says.
The
panel
suggests
that
a
symmetry
of
height
would
likely
better
frame
the
Grande
LA,
and
the
panel
has
concerns
in
terms
of
relatability,
with
the
Heritage
context
and
the
proposed
height
of
nine
stories.
For
building
to
be,
they
go
on
to
say
that
reducing
the
architectural
contrast
between
2a
and
2b
would
establish
a
better
dialogue
between
the
two
buildings.
F
The
panel
agrees
that
the
grande
LA
is
leading
to
the
de
chelly
building
is
the
key
element
of
the
master
plan,
so
in
areas
where
there's
nine
stories
on
this
on
this
plan,
the
community
has
accepted
those
and
it's
not
as
prominent
or
as
important
as
it
is
along
the
ground
LA,
and
they
make
that
point
very,
very
clear.
This
is
different
than
other
areas
of
the
site
where
there's
been
height
allowed
and
the
community's
gone
along
with
that
high
lapped.
F
There
are
the
opinion
that
the
proposed
buildings
must
appear
as
background
buildings
which
are
handsome
and
relatable
to
the
heritage
building
and
which
frame
the
Grand
Ave
from
Main
Street
to
its
terminus.
This
does
not
do
that
on
the
density
question.
This
is
key.
You
heard
it
from
the
developers
in
this
case
on
density.
This
does
not
add
new
density
at
all.
This
is
a
question
about
surface
parking.
You
could
take
out
a
portion
of
that
surface
parking
and
get
the
exact
same
density,
and
you
could
still
have
a
walkway
through.
F
In
fact,
regional
had
proposed
this.
Previously
they
actually
came
with
a
design
that
had
that
a
full
building
on
the
site
and
then
a
walkway
through
that
wouldn't
be
as
21
meter
walkway,
but
it
would
still
be
a
walkway
through
and
accessible
with
same
number
of
units,
and
your
question
I
think
this
committee
considered
density
a
lot
right,
and
so
you
know
what
has
been
the
density
projections
on
this
site.
The
initial
projections
were
915
units
in
this
area
about
950
it
was
916
and
the
actual
projection
of
density
on
this
site.
F
Now
is
eleven
hundred
and
sixty
so
they've.
This
community
has
accepted
density
they've
gone
along
with
that.
They
want
to
see
that
there
they
do
want
intensification,
it's
about
where
and
how
you
do
it.
That's
not
happening
with
this
building.
You're,
not
you're,
not
doing
that
with
this
building.
So
it's
it's
incredibly
important
to
think
about
the
density
and
what?
What
publicly
are
we
gaining?
What
is
Ottawa
gaining
by
this
sure
it
could
be
allowable,
but
what
do
we
actually
gain?
We
don't
gain
density,
we're
not
gaining
affordable
housing,
we're
not
gaining
a
community.
F
F
There
are
other
buildings
on
this
area
that
the
community
has
negotiated
with
with
regional
on
and
talked
with
him
about
where
they
haven't
objected
to
them
that
go
higher
than
this
height,
and
so
it
you
know,
make
sure
that
you,
you
consider
that
as
well,
they've
done
that
they've
worked
with
them
collaboratively
throughout
the
entire
process,
to
allow
more
height
on
this
building
and
are
not
afraid
of
that.
I.
F
Think
at
the
heart
of
the
question,
some
people
will
ask:
why
can't
the
community
compromise
on
this
and
the
answer
to
that
is
that
they've
compromised
repeatedly
and
explicitly
they
use
to
have
a
large
portion
of
green
space
here
that
was
used
regularly.
They
could
have
fought
that
conversion,
as
is
happening
in
Canada.
Now,
there's
a
there's,
a
fight
going
on
there
of
a
green
space
deck
that
could
have
happened
here,
but
it
didn't.
F
They
instead
worked
with
the
old
late
fathers
who
had
a
planned
community
to
make
sure
there
was
a
CDP
put
in
place.
They
could
have
fought
the
conversion
they
have
allowed
higher
buildings
on
the
site,
as
I've
said,
depending
on
their
location
and
they've,
not
fought
them
they're,
not
opposed
to
that
height
they've
accepted
much
more
density
than
as
originally
proposed.
They,
our
compromising
they've
compromised
on
a
series
of
2015
zoning
amendments
as
well
wasn't
just
the
2011
plan.
They
compromised
there
too,
and
worked
with
that
developer.
F
So
I
think
that
they've
been
nothing
but
excellent
partners
and
I've
said
this
to
the
developer
too.
I
actually
have
appreciated
a
lot
of
the
work
we've
done
together
on
a
bunch
of
the
other
site
and
they've
done
some
good
work
on
this
other
site
and
I
actually
asked
them
before
coming
here.
I
said:
look
it
let's
just
work
together
on
this!
Don't
make
this
a
fight
week!
You
can
get
your
density
that
you
want
out
of
here
and
we'll
work
on
the
buildings
behind
a
shuttle.
F
Ii,
there's
three
major
buildings
planned
there:
they're
not
yet
approved.
Madam
chair
they're,
there
still
to
come
and
there's
gonna
be
a
lot
of
density
there
and
there's
a
lot
of
investment
and
profit
to
come
from
those,
and
so
I
said.
Let's
work
on
those
together.
Let's
let's
leave
this
here,
don't
take
the
risk
of
coming
to
committee
work
with
your
your
counselor
and
we're
gonna
get
done
what
you
need
to
get
done,
we're
going
to
go
back
to
community
work
together
that
didn't
happen.
We
shouldn't
be
rewarding
that
around
this
table.
F
We
should
reward
something
that
doesn't
benefit
Ottawa
at
the
end
of
the
day
and
as
and,
as
has
been
said,
as
a
risk
in
terms
of
working
together
and
so
I.
Just
urge
you,
let's,
let's
pass
this
this
motion
in
front
of
us
here
today.
The
other
motion
that
comes
with
it
will
take
care
of
the
issue
that
aaron
has
identified
and
we
will
have
a
planned
community
here.
Well,
they're
gonna
get
what
they
want,
but
this
this
this
risk
that's
being
taken
now
is
not
worth
it.
F
We
shouldn't
encourage
that
sort
of
risk-taking
in
the
future.
I
want
the
other
developers
to
work
with
all
of
you
around
the
table
as
well.
So
I
do
urge
you
to
please
support
this
community
support.
You
know
this
this
motion
and
ensure
that
we
have
a
well-planned
community
that
we
respect
our
official
clan.
We
respect
our
secondary
plans.
That
is
not
like
1970,
where
we
have
in
Flurry's
Ward.
Madam
chair
we've
got
some
flurry
in
site
plans
or
excuse
me
design
plans
from
1970.
That's
not
this!
That
is
not
this.
This
is
brand.
F
This
is
brand
new.
So
what
how?
What
guarantee
can
I
give
to
other
community
members
who
want
to
contribute
to
the
official
plan?
If
we're
gonna
say
a
brand
new
plan
is
going
to
be
changed
for
what,
for,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
not
Community
Benefit,
not
Auto,
a
public
benefit
the
benefit
of
one
proponent
and
also
st.
Paul
University,
st.
Paul
University
was
not
consulted
on
this.
They
owned
a
huge
chunk
of
this
land.
They
are
opposed
to
this.
They
don't
want
this
to
go
forward
either.
F
It's
not
just
regional
we're
talking
about
here,
hold
that
in
your
mind,
of
how
important
that
is
regional
is
there
and
st.
Paul
University?
Is
there
and
they've
written
a
letter
of
objection
to
this
okay
and
they
were
not
consulted
on
this
piece?
Do
not
approve
the
the
planning
staff
recommendation
here,
make
sure,
let's,
let's
approve
this
motion
here
today.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Thank.
A
A
If
this
wasn't
the
trigger
I,
don't
think
the
people
had
sitting
around
the
table
would
know
that.
I
think
that
was
how
much
was
that
councilors?
Really
over
thirty
million
dollars,
I
doubt
they'd
there'd,
be
the
argument
is
to
satisfy
the
footbridge
without
the
intensification
here.
I
think
that
the
LRT
station
being
the
proximity
I,
look
at
the
river
front,
I
mean
in
the
past
I
mean
how
many
of
you
have
had
access
prior
to
any
development
here
to
the
to
the
property
I'm
asking
you
because
I'll
tell
you
60
years
ago.
A
I
can
remember
beyond
that
65
years
ago.
I
didn't
have
any
access
to
it.
When
I
was
across
the
street
from
the
wing
gooses
house.
If
you
know
where
that
is
across
from
the
convent,
we
never
had
access.
So
you've
got
that
linear
park
there.
There
they
have
taken
a
brown
field
which
was
contaminated
when
my
mom
and
dad
swam
there
at
Brentwood
Beach
those
little
kids
swinging
out
on
the
tree
branch
over
the
thing
spent
seven
million
dollars,
as
did
the
city,
spend
eight
seven
million
dollars
in
your
community.
A
That
is
a
benefit
to
say
that
they've
done
these
things
for
a
profit
and
to
argue
the
fact
that
this
is
a
huge
profit.
It's
one
of
the
reasons
I
asked
mr.
Hoban.
What
are
we
talking
about
here?
It's
kind
of
a
wash
on
the
units
and,
as
somebody
mentioned
I
forget
who
it
was
the
reduction
from
where
they
could
have
built
those
tires
to
lowers
I.
Don't
think
that
we
ever
had
any
comment
on
that
so
well.
I
appreciate,
as
I
said,
the
work
that
you've
done.
A
I,
look
at
the
fact
that,
still
to
come
for
your
community,
which
never
would
have
happened,
a
community
building,
you
could
not
have
ever
come
old.
Ottawa
East
could
not
have
ever
said,
hey,
we
have
the
capacity
we
want
and
we
want
a
community
building
or
gym
or
whatever
all
the
things
we
talked
about.
None
of
those
things,
the
protection
of
the
Grande
delay
from
heritage.
The
investment
in
that
would
not
have
happened.
Who
would
have
done
it?
A
Can
we
put
it
up
on
the
it's
on
the
screen,
and
this
one
is
the
one
that
says
that
the
following
change
is
hereby
made
official
plan
of
City
of
Ottawa
the
old
Ottawa
East
secondary
plan?
Is
there
hereby
amended
to
add
the
following
text
in
between
three
to
six
stories
and
the
mixed-use,
following
the
words
residential
medium
rise,
designation,
number,
two,
the
old
Ottawa
East
secondary
plans.
Section
ten
point
two
point:
one
point
four
is
hereby
amended
to
remove
the
text
and
in
the
medium
rise
area,
will
not
exceed
nine
stories.
C
B
A
No
on
the
next
one
is
that
the
same
vote-
okay,
this!
This
is
the
next
one
that
says,
whereas
there
are
two
existing
sites
within
this,
these
are
the
two
that
rezoning
building
permits
buildings
greater
than
six
storeys,
therefore
be
it
resolved.
Recommend
the
council
that
document
to
part
BT
tells
of
official
plan
amendment
to
the
old
law
to
each
secondary
plan,
be
deleted
and
replaced
by
the
following
filing
change
is
hereby
mates
the
Official
Plan
in
the
City
of
Ottawa,
but
the
old
Ottawa
East
secondary
plan
schedule.
A
B
B
It
is
a
tidy
up
provision.
Madam
chair
and
legal
services
opinion
it
is
not
necessary.
That
did
not
help
so
so
well.
To
answer
the
council
answer
the
councillors
question
directly:
is
it
mooc?
No?
Madam
chair,
it
is
not
made
moot
by
the
first
motion.
It
is
a
different
matter
and
so
leave.
The
zoning
is
fine.
It
is
deemed
to
conform
to
the
Official
Plan.
If
you
wanted
absolute
purity,
you
could
do
this,
but
it's
not
necessary.
You.
F
F
F
A
We're
gonna
have
to
recess
because
I
you
said
you
is
it
just
coming
now
he's
just
she
just
receiving
it
now,
so
we're
gonna
take
a
recess
because
none
of
us
have
seen
it
no
nobody's
seen
it
so
we'll
get
that
we're
only
taking
a
five-minute
recess.
Well,
let's
say
a
seven
minute
recess
or
1:30
we're
back
here.
That's
it!
Okay,
don't
leave
the
room.
A
Okay,
so
we
have
the
reason
that
we
have
this
before
us
is
because
it's
an
amendment,
so
we
cannot.
Somebody
asked
me
councillor,
Ellie
I,
think
ask
me
why
we
wouldn't
vote
on
the
report.
First
now
miss
O'connell
was
asked
to
write
this,
which
she
did
I
want
her
to
what
and
I
want
her
to
say
what
her
opinion
is
on
it.
These
would
be
the
report
and,
and
then
we'll
say
to
mr.
mark
what
this
motion
does.
Okay,
so,
let's
start
with
miss
McConnell.
Thank.
G
You,
madam
chair,
this
motion
recommends
that
the
staff
recommendation
related
to
the
Official
Plan
amendment
be
deleted
and
replaced
with
a
site-specific
Official
Plan
amendment
that
is
specific
to
building
to
be
so
it's
permission.
It's
site-specific
permission
to
allow
for
a
nine-story
building
on
to
be
but
changes
nothing
else
in
terms
of
the
ambiguity
and
issues
with
the
secondary
plan
that
currently
exists
with
the
reference
to
both
the
six
and
nine
stories
for
the
remainder
of
the
pink
area.
E
B
E
G
Initial
application
from
regional
was
on
everything
in
pink
the
mixed
use,
medium
rise,
which
included
that
other
site.
Then
the
staff
recommendation
was
specific
to
Greystone,
so
took
the
removal
of
the
other
site
by
man
Avenue.
The
staff
recommendation
is
to
provide
clarity
in
the
secondary
plan
and
revise
the
wording
with
respect
to
everything
in
pink,
basically
on
the
screen
and
the
motion
is
rec
is
suggesting
to
delete
those
recommendations
to
the
changes
of
the
secondary
plan
and
just
do
a
site-specific
official
plan
amendment
to
allow
to
be
to
proceed.
I
G
F
G
A
A
A
E
E
E
A
A
A
A
A
D
Oh
colleagues,
I've
just
recently
received
opposition
from
the
Hintonburg
Community
Association
to
the
proposed
development.
258
Carruthers
members
of
the
Hintonburg
Community
Association
have
expressed
their
concerns
about
the
zoning
bylaw
amendment
application
for
258
Carruthers
and
the
potential
negative
impact
it
will
have
on
the
community.
Moreover,
the
applicants
and
planning
staff
have
failed
to
address
our
concerns
under
proposals
with
respect
to
dwelling
unit
count.
The
HCA
opposes
this.
Application
is
submitted
to
the
Planning
Committee
for
a
zoning
bylaw
amendment
258
Carruthers
is
zoned
for
four
units
maximum
under
they
are
for
each
zoning.
D
We
oppose
this
proposed
14
units
as
it
undermines
the
intention
of
the
zoning
bylaw.
In
our
view,
this
proposal
is
inconsistent
with
the
existing
Scott
Street
secondary
community
design
plan
and
the
Scott
Street
secondary
plan
with
respect
to
maintaining
the
existing
residential
zoning.
The
CDP
and
secondary
plan
included
a
neighborhood
line
within
which
the
low-rise,
stable
residential
area
is
to
be
maintained.
This
was
understood
to
mean
that
the
R
for
zoning
will
be
continued.
We
are
aware
that
the
city
is
currently
studying
the
r4
zoning
and
may
change
it
to
permit
up
to
8
units.
D
This
proposal
far
exceeds
even
what
is
envisioned
as
a
possible
revision
to
the
r4
zoning.
Should
the
city
approve
this
application,
it
will
set
a
precedent
that
will
be
exploited
by
developers
and
add
to
current
residents
uncertainty
as
to
the
number
of
units
that
will
be
approved.
It
also
continues
an
unfortunate
pattern
of
the
city
doing
studies,
in
this
case
the
r4
study,
which
then
are
essentially
obsolete
before
the
study
has
even
been
completed.
D
Therefore,
we
call
on
the
planning
committee
to
reject
the
request
for
14
units
and
to
adhere
to
the
zoning
for
this
location.
This
demonstrate
to
residents
that
the
city
is
serious
about
ensuring
that
there
is
certainty
around
zoning
restrictions
and
not
signal
that
the
are
for
zoning
study
will
be
obsolete
by
the
time
it
is
completed.
I
think
many
of
you
know
the
Hintonburg
Community
Association.
They
are
a
pragmatic,
Community
Association
with
a
lot
of
sophistication
in
planning
matters.
The
you
may
be
familiar
with
the
r4
study.
D
The
r4
study
is
taking
zones
like
this
one,
which
are
that
what
we
call
the
Junior
our
force
restricted
to
four
units
and
it's
going
to
up
zone
a
lot
of
those
junior
are
fours.
The
Hintonburg
Community
Association
here
is
saying:
it's
unlikely
that
the
r4
study
is
going
to
up
zone.
Those
junior
are
forced
to
allow
as
many
as
14
units,
so
I'm
going
to
be
opposing
the
application
today
and
I.
Hopefully,
you
will
do
the
same,
given
that
I'm
relatively
recent
to
the
to
the
HCA's
objection.
D
I'll
also
be
working
over
the
course
of
the
next
two
weeks
with
the
applicant
and
with
the
with
the
Community
Association,
to
see
whether
or
not
there
is
some
kind
of
a
compromise
that
is,
that
is
possible.
So
chair
I,
don't
know
if
you
want
to
give
the
applicant
Brian
May
or
his
client
a
chance
to
respond.
But
I
would
ask
for
your
help
today
by
rejecting
this
application.
D
A
K
You,
madam
chair
Brian,
casa
grande
with
pho
ten
consultants
here
before
you
on
behalf
of
the
owner
of
the
subject-
lands.
Yes,
I
must
admit
it
wasn't
expecting
to
have
to
speak
today.
My
understanding
going
into
today
was
that
the
Community
Association
was
actually
supportive
of
the
project.
The
owner
has
made
a
lot
of
concessions
with
the
proposed
development
over
the
period
of
the
application
staff
are
certainly
supportive
of
it.
From
my
perspective,
this
could
have
been
an
application
that
I
could
have
taken
in
the
past
to
the
committee
of
adjustment.
K
The
permissions,
if
you
will
that
are
before
this
committee,
are
not
significant.
We're
not
asking
for
additional
height
the
rear
yard
setback
is
the
most
meaningful
relief
sought
relative
to
the
building
envelope
and
it
it's
above
six
and
a
half
or
in
the
six
six
meters
setback.
There's
no
rear
balconies
proposed.
That
was
a
request
of
the
Community
Association
and
the
existing
building
is
set
back
virtually
on
the
property
line
on
the
subject
property.
E
A
J
To
the
councilor
that
there
were
some
objections,
I
think
based
on
how
you
presented
it,
and
there
was
some
surprises
to
the
applicant
that
there
were
some
objections
and
the
counselor
has
said
he
wants
to
work
with
the
applicant
in
the
communities.
Perhaps
we
should
move
this
to
one
meeting
to
provide
that
opportunity
for
that
to
happen.
It's.
A
Doesn't
matter
as
far
as
the
council
meeting
it
would
go
to
because
it
won't
go
to
the
next
council
meeting,
but
seriously
I
mean
if
you
have
been
working
on
this
and
I
know
that
you
work
on
on
things
in
your
community
and
the
communities
th
and
at
the
very
last
minute
we're
having
a
change
in
direction.
If
that
is
the
case,
then
that's
very
surprising,
I
think.
D
K
Madam
chair
I
guess
this
I
mean
my
my
style
is
to
normally
embrace
that
I.
Just
in
my
and
in
this
situation,
I
would
much
rather
have
the
the
committee
consider
the
application.
I
think
the
merits
are
very
strong,
they're
14
units
effectively
within
600
meters
of
the
LRT
station,
the
tönnies
fashion.
A
I
think
I've
made
up
my
mind.
I
think
that
you
can
vote
on
referral
if
you
want,
but
I
think
that
we
take
a
vote
on
it
today.
You
work
on
with
the
community
for
council.
The
council
is
not
until
the
27th
28th
of
August
okay,
so
until
the
council
votes
on
it,
it's
not
final,
but
let's
take
a
committee
vote
today
or
support
deferral.
A
A
D
A
So
please
send
it
back,
so
let
us
know
okay,
let
other
than
rather
than
what
would
happen
today
earlier
I'd
like
to
have
some
time
to
actually
contemplate
it.
So
do
we
still
have
a
defer
on
the
table
or
can
we
vote
on
it
and
then,
if
there's
needs
to
be
any
change,
be
changed
at
so
on
on
the
report
or
on
deferral
on
the
report.
A
A
D
A
Well
and
the
ball
has
been
bouncing
all
day
because
we
have
not
been
and
I'm
gonna
do
my
best
to
change
that,
because,
right
off
the
bat,
the
beginning
of
this
meeting
I
said,
could
we
have
all
of
the
motions?
Okay?
It's
not
just
for
us,
although
it's
helpful,
if
the
people
they're
making
the
decisions
have
a
little
bit
of
time
to
think
about
something,
it's
really
nice
that
the
people
that
came
out
to
listen
to
us
and
to
participate
have
it,
and
it's
actually
very
fair
for
the
applicant
to
have
it
as
well.
A
That
did
not
happen
today
and
I
think
that
we
need
to
make
some
changes
to
make
sure
that
that
happens.
I'm
doing
my
best
by
saying
that
comes
up
earlier,
but
on
this
one
right
now,
planning
committee
has
supported
this
with
one
dissent:
it's
going
to
go
with
the
with
the
recommendation
of
the
planning
approval
to
council.
If
something
happens,
but
that
can
happen.
My
point.
A
A
E
A
A
M
M
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
Wanda
Cano.
This
is
my
husband
Richard
Moore.
We
live
at
89
Hinton,
Avenue
North,
which
is
one
of
the
properties
directly
behind
this
proposed
development.
We've
lived
at
this
address
since
1996
before
I
begin
I'd
like
to
just
make
a
correction
to
the
report
to
planning
committee.
It
describes
the
houses
on
Hinton
Avenue
as
converted
single
detached
buildings.
In
fact,
two
of
the
four
existing
houses
are
still
houses
that
have
been
there
for
a
hundred
years.
M
M
Since
that
zoning
bylaw
there'll
be
many
reviews
of
the
zoning
in
this
area,
but
the
following
concepts
have
remained
Parkdale
parking
market,
our
most
valuable
community
assets.
Parkdale
Park
is
a
community
focal
point
with
festivals
and
events
throughout
the
year.
There's
a
well-used
pilote
playground
located
in
Parkdale
Park
zoning
on
Hamilton
Avenue
should
be
a
wraparound
of
the
TM
zone,
formerly
neighborhood
linear
commercial.
On
Wellington
Street.
M
M
We
are
opposed
to
the
application
to
amend
the
Official,
Plan
and
rezone
16
to
20
Hamilton
Avenue
for
the
Hamilton
Avenue
North.
For
the,
for
many
reasons,
the
CDP
for
this
area
was
completed
less
than
ten
years
ago
after
countless
hours
have
been
put
by
the
community
City
Planning
and
business
community.
M
Approving
this
project
negates
all
of
this
work.
The
impact
of
this
action
does
not
just
affect
a
smaller
event:
Hintonburg.
It
will
create
instability
and
uncertainty
about
any
zoning.
In
the
past,
the
result
of
instability
has
been
landholding
with
the
lappa
dated
buildings,
weed
and
garbage
filled,
properties
and
hesitation
to
upgrade
buildings
were
waiting
to
sell
to
a
developer.
This
undermines
the
entire
neighbourhood
and
I'd
like
to
speak
about
parking.
This
project
has
63
parking
spaces,
49
resident
6
office
and
8
visitor.
M
However,
it
uses
its
proximity
to
Tunney's
transit
as
the
rationale
for
increasing
height
to
8
storeys
with
63
parking
spaces.
Mass
transit
is
clearly
not
a
priority
for
this
development.
Parkdale
Avenue
and
Wellington
Street
are
already
at
all-day
gridlock
with
multiple
failed
intersections.
We
cannot
add
an
additional
63
cars
to
this
area
from
one
single
building.
In
addition
to
the
dangerous
and
difficult
traffic
problems
in
this
area,
the
entrance
to
this
building
is
directly
across
from
Parkdale
Parkdale
Park,
which
is
essentially
a
playground.
M
Other
developers
that
have
approached
the
community
was
significant.
Increases
in
height
have
contributed
significant
community
assets,
for
example,
windmill
developments
added
the
Irving
Greenberg
theater
for
an
additional
two
stories.
The
historically
important
Bethany,
Hope
Center,
building
and
grounds
were
upgraded
and
maintained
for
density
transfer.
During
the
open
house
about
this
project,
I
asked
the
developer.
If
there
would
be
any
contribution
to
the
community
for
increase
in
height
and
I
was
told
there
would
not.
M
E
It's
not
clear
from
the
reports
to
the
planning
committee
are
the
number
of
approved
units
not
yet
completed
on
Hinton
and
Hamilton
avenues.
We
have
12
Hamilton
with
30
condo
units
84
to
96,
Hinton
Avenue,
north
140
apartment
units,
85,
hidden,
Avenue,
North,
30,
rental
units.
All
of
these
projects
have
been
approved
without
an
official
planned
amendment
or
rezoning,
and
we
did
not
oppose
any
of
these
projects
going
ahead.
E
The
front
of
this
building
will
have
small
trees
because
of
the
hydro
lines
on
the
west
side
of
Hamilton
Avenue.
There
should
be
large
trees
with
potential
to
grow
quickly,
plant
it
in
the
rear
yard
to
contribute
to
the
urban
force
and
minimize
impact
of
this
building
after
living
in
this
area
for
28
years
I've
seen
many
proposals
for
unacceptable
development
have
not
been
completed.
However,
usually
a
rejected
proposal
is
quickly
followed
by
one
that
adds
to
the
community.
Please
respect
the
community
design
plan
and
send
this
proposal
back
to
the
drawing
board.
M
M
D
M
The
intended
use
of
the
mixed
use
area
was
to
add
a
gradual
transition
from
the
higher
density
at
Toni's
pasture
to
the
lower
density
for
instant
residential
on
the
south
side
of
Wellington.
But
the
area
between
Linda
hold
is
going
to
talk
to
this,
but
the
area
between
Armstrong
and
Wellington
actually
was
capped
at
six
storeys
to
provide
that
transition.
M
So
by
adding
8
storeys
in
there
we're
kind
of
going
up
and
down
instead
of
just
transitioning
down
to
the
the
house
form
that's
on
the
north
side
of
volatile,
so
it
was
intended
as
a
transition.
I
have
heard
that
there
is
density
transfer
because
of
some
of
the
historic
buildings
in
that
area.
There
are
quite
a
few
the
what
I've
seen
from
in
the
developers
proposals
is
such
an
extreme.
It's
just
laughable.
You
know
in
18
and
28
stories
on
a
part.
That's
now
a
parking
lot
as
density
transfer.
M
B
E
E
N
You
good
afternoon,
madam
chair
and
committee
members,
those
of
you
who
are
left
I
am
here
actually
in
my
own
name
today.
The
last
time
I
was
here.
I
was
impersonating.
Someone
else.
I
am
a
member
of
the
board
of
directors
of
the
Hintonburg
Community
Association,
and
you
have
received
the
the
communication
that
I've
sent
you.
The
hindenburg
community
association
has
reviewed
the
staff
report
and
we
urge
you
to
reject
this
application
for
an
official
plan
and
zoning
bylaw
amendment.
N
As
you've
heard,
the
blackened
has
shown
a
blatant
disregard
for
the
Wellington
West
Community
Design
Plan.
In
presenting
this
application,
our
position
from
the
very
first
pre
consultation
meeting
has
been
consistent.
Please
respect
the
six
storey
height
limit
in
our
community
design
plan
in
response
to
councillor
Shirley's
concerns
about
why
you
are
here.
I
would
like
to
submit
that
there
has
been
no
compelling
arguments
made
by
the
applicant
to
amend
the
Official
Plan
and
the
and
the
zoning
bylaw
amendment
his
the
the
reasons
I
raised
in
to
support
the
application
include
the
LRT.
N
The
applicants
consultant
has
claimed
that
increased
intensive
ocation
on
this
site
is
justified
because
the
Wellington
Street
West
community
design
plan
was
adopted
before
the
LRT
was
an
approved
project.
However,
while
the
LRT
had
not
been
funded
in
2011,
when
our
plan
was
done,
it
was
clear
to
the
city
and
to
those
who
are
participating,
including
myself,
that
the
transit
way
was
going
to
be
changed
or
replaced
by
LRT.
The
exact
date
was
not
known,
but
it
was
definitely
a
going
concern.
N
The
planning
rationale
for
approving
this
application
that's
been
offered
to
you
is
that
quote.
The
proposed
development
aligns
with
the
city's
growth
management
strategy
and
is
consistent
with
the
mixed
use
center
designation,
in
that
it
will
achieve
high
density
and
represents
compact
and
mixed-use
development
in
close
proximity
to
Rapid
Transit.
End
quote,
however,
the
need
for
further
intensification
on
this
site
or
on
the
near
the
tönnies
pasture
LRT
station
was
put
to
rest
by
the
Scott
Street
community
design
plan,
which
was
approved
in
2014
when
LRT
was
under
construction.
N
This
area
was
included
in
the
study
area
for
that
particular
plan,
but
not
in
the
community
design
plan
itself.
However,
there
was
a
very
significant
statement
made
in
the
report
which
you
received
from
staff
quote
this
area,
and
that
is
the
mixed
juice
center.
A
designation
around
Tunney's
pasture
station
is
different
than
many
of
the
other
transit
stations
outside
of
the
downtown
core,
as
this
station
is
located
adjacent
to
Tony's
pasture
and
is
surrounded
by
existing
mixed-use
and
residential
areas
that
are
already
close
to
meeting
at
the
minimum
density
targets
for
transit
oriented
development
areas.
N
N
The
panel's
suggested
that
the
the
mass
of
the
building
on
this
site
pushes
the
envelope
in
terms
of
height
and
setback
resulting
in
a
building
that
is
handsome.
However,
imposing
of
the
surrounding
buildings
panel
also
is
concerned
that
the
project
represents
over
building
the
lot
and
suggests
capping.
The
building
at
the
20
meter
limit
required
in
the
Official
Plan
in
order
to
not
set
a
precedent
of
over
development
in
this
area.
N
The
context
that
has
been
suggested
is
suitable
for
this
particular
eight
story.
Building
is,
in
fact
exactly
the
same
context.
That
was
there.
When
the
community
design
plan
recommending
a
six
story,
height
limit
was
was
approved,
nothing
has
changed
the
additional
height
at
the,
as
has
been
mentioned,
additional
height
at
the
Great
Canadian
theatre
company
was
negotiated
by
our
community
association
in
return
for
locating
the
theater
in
our
emerging
arts
district.
Before
there
was
a
section
37,
no
such
community
benefit
is
being
offered
by
this
applicant.
N
A
D
N
D
There
are
references
in
the
secondary
plan
to
future
light
rail
stations
in
the
neighbourhood,
so
it
was
well
contemplated.
Yet
it
was
decided.
You
know,
we
know
we
need
to
intensify
near
transit
and
that
intensification
is
going
to
become
less
and
less
the
further
away.
You
move
the
six-story
limit
in
the
block
between
Wellington
to
Armstrong
Street.
Is
that
an
arbitrary
number
like?
Why
was
six
chosen
by
the
community?
The
development
community
who
are
at
the
table
and
staff
as
the
appropriate
height.
N
See
the
recommendation
was
made
to
continue
the
transitional
Main
Street
height
zoning,
and
the
idea
was
to
turn
the
traditional
Main
Street
land
use
around
the
corner
to
para
to
along
the
side
of
the
park,
in
a
sense
to
sort
of
leak
that
main
street
and
the
uses
mixed
juice
ground
related,
and
it
was
recommended
actually
that
the
commercial
space
is
at
grade
on
those
buildings
along
Hamilton
Avenue
be
smaller
for
local
businesses
and,
if
possible,
related
to
the
the
Parkdale
market.
Food
related
resources.
So
it
was
an
extension
of
the
traditional
Main
Street.
There's.
D
N
A
A
A
J
O
Just
make
a
couple
of
brief
comments
here:
I
want
to
primarily
speak
to
what
appears
to
be
the
primary
concern
of
both
the
Community,
Association
and
councilor
Leeper,
and,
and
that
is
the
the
height
and
the
perception
that
we
are
not
sufficiently
respecting
the
secondary
plan
policies,
I'm
very
sensitive
to
these
concerns
and
I'm
sensitive,
because
I
support
the
goals
of
the
secondary
plan,
as
well
as
the
Community
Association,
and
what
they
are
trying
to
achieve.
I,
don't
believe
that
we
should
be
allowing
a
story
buildings
in
every
part
of
Intan
Burke.
O
That's
not
my
position.
I
believe
the
secondary
plan
is
a
foundational
role
in
shaping
the
growth
of
this
neighborhood
and
I
fully
appreciate
that
the
Community
Association
fears
that
this
will
set
the
wrong
precedent
for
this
neighborhood
now.
I.
Do
not
think,
however,
that
we
should
be
guided
by
by
fear
and
and
instead
believe
that
we
should
be
building
the
right
building
for
this
particular
site.
Legislation
allows
amendments
to
the
zoning
and
secondary
plans
for
this
exact
reason
to
give
opportunity
for
the
best
building
to
take
shape.
O
We've
taken
great
care
in
conjunction
with
my
architect.
In
my
planner
with
city
staff,
the
you
DRP
consultations
with
the
Community
Association
and
with
the
councilor
to
try
and
craft
the
best
building
that
we
can
here,
one
that
respects
its
contexts.
Limits
impact
rejuvenates
this
Street
and
will
further
enhance
Parkdale
Park.
Now
I
love
this
neighborhood
and
I
care
deeply
about
his
evolution.
I
have
my
office
and
my
office
in
this
neighborhood
for
the
last
three
years.
I
am
moving
my
parents
into
this
building.
O
We
are
moving
our
office
into
this
building
and
I'm
moving
here
with
my
with
my
wife
and
my
two
young
kids.
So
you
know
I'm
deeply
invested
in
this
project
and
I
want
it
to
be
the
best
building
that
we
can
build
here
and
and
I
hope
that
you
will
all
be
guided
by
the
incredible
opportunity
that
that
this
building
has
a
potential
to
bring
to
this
particular
site.
Thank
you.
K
Hello
again,
madam
chair
members
of
committee,
I
wanted
to
respond
briefly
to
some
of
the
comments
that
have
been
made
on
this
application.
Firstly,
with
respect
to
the
in
the
intensification
or
justification
on
this
property,
there's
various
reasons
why
this
can
be
and
should
be
considered.
The
first
is
that
the
parent
o
P
designates
this
a
mixed-use
center,
which
is
one
of
the
areas
in
the
Official
Plan,
where
intensification
targets
are
and
most
aggressive.
K
Secondly,
even
though
the
LRT
was
not
was
not
formally
approved
or
I
should
say,
even
though
the
LRT
may
have
been
known
at
the
time
when
the
secondary
plan
was
approved,
it
wasn't
formally
approved
at
that
point
in
time.
So
the
real
question
is
how
much
reliability
could
that
document
have
placed
on
that
objective.
K
This
document
up
there
on
the
screen
and
this
image
on
the
screen
shows
in
pink
what
could
be
done
in
accordance
with
the
policy
framework
in
a
six-story
building
so
effectively
the
same
setbacks
and
step
backs
that
the
zoning
would
want
and
increasing
the
height
to
a
six
story.
Building
in
accordance
with
the
policies.
K
So
this
to
me
is
all
about
handsome
architecture
and
the
right
way
to
develop
a
site
you're
looking
at
the
front
and
rear
elevations
there
and
we've
effectively
taken
that
mass
and
we've
squeezed
it
upwards
and
effectively
by
doing
that,
you're,
taking
the
impact
away
from
the
adjacent
properties
greater
than
the
as
of
right
and
you're,
creating
a
more
handsome
building.
Now
beyond
all
this,
what
is
the
benefit
of
this
project?
The
bylaw
does
not,
nor
does
the
policy
require
Jacob
or
his
development
to
do
any
commercial
at
grade.
K
Jacob
is
working
rather
aggressively
to
bring
in
some
some
community
retail
that
can
really
be
complimentary
to
the
park
space.
His
other
project
wasn't
able
to
do
that,
but
effectively,
this
project
is
going
to
be
able
to
do
that.
So
all
from
all
perspectives,
in
my
view,
madam
chair
members
of
Planning
Committee
I-
think
we're
doing
the
right
thing
with
this
project.
It's
consistent
with
the
general
emphasis
and
the
key
policies
of
the
secondary
plan.
It
is
not
throwing
those
out.
K
All
it
is
effectively
saying
is,
instead
of
having
the
building
more
squat
at
six
storeys.
Let's
look
at
bringing
it
up
a
couple
extra
stories
to
make
an
eight
story
built
formwork,
and
the
last
thing
I'd
like
to
say
is:
it
is
representing
appropriate
transition
that
can't
always
be
anticipated
when
a
secondary
plan
is
being
and
what
I
mean
by
that
is
north
of
Armstrong,
which
is
immediately
north
of
this
property.
K
Despite
the
fact
that
the
secondary
plan
envisions
eight
stories,
which
is
the
same
built
form
proposed
here,
which
is
also
flanking
the
park
just
like
this
built
form,
the
zoning
allows
at
least
two
of
those
significant
properties
to
have
buildings
that
are
in
the
teens
and
in
the
20
story
range.
So
it
was
done
without
cognizance
of
the
fact
that
the
zoning
would
allow
something
as
a
right
to
completely
disrespect
the
8
for
8
story
built
form.
K
So
when
those
properties
develop
with
those
Heights,
this
is
going
to
effectively
be
a
transition
from
the
six
stories
that's
permitted
along
Wellington
Street
to
the
greater
heights
that
are
permitted
north
of
Armstrong
to
the
even
greater
heights
as
you
get
closer
to
the
transit
station.
This
is
completely
in
line
with
your
policy
approach
and
the
transition
policies
in
the
Official
Plan
under
411.
Thank
you.
D
I
think
the
the
argument
they're
making
first
the
developer
and
I-
have
worked
on
other
projects
in
the
Ward
I
was
it
was
a
pleasure
to
support
the
the
nine-story,
despite
some
public
opposition
on
Scott,
Street
I
think
he
builds
a
good
product,
but
in
this
case
unfortunately,
I
do
have
to
disagree
with
the
this
one
moving
forward.
What
is
the
public
benefit
here
to
chipping
away
at
a
secondary
plan
that,
for
many
years
has
given
residents
some
significant
certainty
in
our
neighborhood
about
how
it's
going
to
develop?
D
One
of
the
one
of
the
things
I
say
about
the
Wellington
West
secondary
plan
is
that
it
has
been
working.
We
have
respected
it
by
and
large
any
deviations
from
it
have
tended
to
be
with
the
communities
buy
in
and
have
resulted
in
contribution
to
the
public
interest.
What
is
the
contribution
to
the
public
interest
that
you're
making
here
that
offsets
the
diminishment
of
trust
in
the
city's
planning
processes
that
would
be
implied
by
approval
of
this
project?.
K
K
Built
form
to
me
is
not
the
right
way
to
do
planning
and,
in
my
personal
opinion,
that's
why
I
always
have
difficulty
with
secondary
plans
that
lockdown
Heights
so
aggressively,
because
we're
forced
to
Abdullah
mend
Minh
sandals
that
we're
not
respecting
the
plan
or
the
community
and
so
on,
but
in
reality
we're
trying
to
work
within
the
predominant
constraints
of
the
plan
just
to
find
a
development
option.
That
I
think
is
going
to
be
more
interesting,
architectural
II
and
make
for
a
more
successful
development.
But.
D
This
isn't
a
big
wide
swath
of
the
neighborhood.
That's
been
zoned
with
a
single
zoning.
This
was
a
block
by
block
community
design
process
that
was
very
fine,
grained
detailed
and
took
hundreds
of
hours
of
planning
with
our
city
planning
staff
and
with
residents
I'm
trying
to
understand
the
benefit.
D
Sorry
you've
answered
the
question,
but
I'm
not
happy
with
your
answer.
Obviously,
if
you're
going
to
chip
away
at
such
a
fine-grained
exercise
to
undertaken
by
a
group
of
very
sophisticated
residents,
there's
got
to
be
an
offsetting
public
benefit
and
I
I,
don't
see
that
here
other
than
the
developer
profit,
and
it
pains
me
to
say
that,
because
you
know,
we've
had
dealings
on
other
projects,
so.
A
A
A
G
D
So
there's
a
technical
amendment
on
this
one
I've
read
the
report.
It's
it
just
clarifies
some
of
the
zoning
language
where,
as
the
report
proposes,
to
allow
two
additional
stories,
a
height
of
20,
7.5
meters
and
a
reduced
communal
amenity
area
and
whereas
document
3
contains
the
details
of
the
recommended
zoning
and
whereas
further
clarity
is
required
on
the
point
of
measurement
for
the
building
step
backs,
therefore
be
it
resolved.
D
The
document
3
details
of
the
recommended
zoning
paragraph
2a
be
replaced
by
revised
by
replacing
the
word
facing
with
closest
to
and
be
it
FURTHER
RESOLVED
that,
pursuant
to
the
Planning
Act
subsection,
34
17,
no
further
notice
to
be
given
happy
to
move
that
and
see
it
supported,
doesn't
mean
I
support
the
building.
Okay,.
D
L
Steve,
by
definition,
the
front
wall
is
always
the
wall,
that's
the
closest
to
the
front
property
line,
but
then
again
in
that
definition,
it
states
for
residential
buildings
this
this
building,
as
is
a
mixed-use
building
as
commercial
space.
That
great.
So
we
just
wanted
to
bring
clarity
to
make
sure
that
all
step
backs
that
were
mentioned
in
the
presentation
are
measured
from
the
front
wall
that
is
at
grade.
Just
brings
clarity
to
it.
Thanks.
A
D
L
Well,
staff
has
used
the
u
d,
RP
comment.
May
I
say
it
has
given
staff
leverage
to
shave
off
mass
in
the
frontage
in
the
front
facade
and
in
the
rear
facade.
So
the
this
building
initially
came
in
as
a
nine
story
was
dropped
down
to
an
eight
story.
Staff
were
not
necessarily
comfortable
with
the
step
backs.
It
went
to
you
the
RP.
L
U
the
RP
mention
about
the
height,
so
we
talked
again
with
the
applicant
asking
to
increase
the
the
rear
setbacks
and
the
rear
step
backs,
in
addition
to
front
step
back
where
staff
were
already
satisfied
that
they
were
sufficient
to
meet
a
45-degree
angle
or
plane
and
I
should
say
about
the
the
experience
like
the
traditional
Main
Street
experience.
That
is
meant
to
be
projected
along
a
Melton
from
a
street
experience.
If
you're
by
the
building.
L
You
will
not
see
those
additional
stories
if
you're
across
the
street
again
by
a
street
experience,
you
will
not
see
those
additional
stories.
The
only
way
you
will
see
those
additional
story
if
you're
standing
in
a
park,
but
then
again
it
doesn't
affect
the
use
of
the
park
because
it
doesn't
create.
It
doesn't
create
shadowing
the
looking
at
those
additional
stories
from
the
park
becomes
a
visual
preference,
but.
D
Exactly
the
the
rear
I'm
more
interested
in
so
you
know
how
Hinton
Avenue
is,
is
also
getting
redeveloped
at
the
six
storey
Heights
and
if
you
are
on
the
fifth
or
the
sixth
story
of
a
new
six
story.
Building
on
Hinton
Avenue
you're
gonna
see
those
additional
two
stories
on
top
of
the
Hamilton
Avenue
buildings,
I.
L
Agree
so,
but
may
I
may
I
run
through
the
improvements
that
were
made
like
the
the
the
as
of
right.
Zoning
only
requires
a
three
metre
setback
for
the
first
three
storeys
at
the
back:
okay,
whereas
in
this
development
right
at
the
second
story
and
third
story,
we're
at
six
point
six.
So
if
you,
if
you
mirror
to
development
okay,
so
this
one
had
attached
three
meters
and
the
property
at
the
back
on
intent
has
a
tree
meanors.
That
gives
you
six
meters,
the
as
of
right.
L
Zoning
would
allow
for
a
third
story
to
be
nine
meters,
so
there
you
would
certainly
have
shadowing
with
this
development
at
the
second
story,
with
we're
at
6.6
meter.
Okay,
so
mirror
that
you're
at
thirteen
point
two
meters,
which
is
significantly
more
than
the
the
addition
of
the
two
to
three
meters.
L
So
it
the
staff
did
not
ignore
the
you
DRP
command,
but
I've
used
the
you
DRP
command
to
have
leverage
in
shaving
off
significantly,
like
all
setbacks
like
the
the
second
and
third
storey
at
the
back
are
at
six
point
six
meter,
the
fort
and
five
are
at
seven
point
five
meter.
As
required
and
on
top
of
the
five
fifth
story-
you're
at
eight
point,
nine,
so
you're,
almost
nine
meters.
So
if
you
mirrored
the
nine
meter,
18
meter,
so
did
the
rear
and
the
front
experience
in
it
is
not
really
being
affected.
L
D
So
just
two
more
questions
here
because
I
know
folks
do
want
to
get
out
the
okay,
the
on
paged
lost.
The
page
12
of
the
document
and
I
think
this
is
a
really
interesting
paragraph
on
page
12
of
the
staff
report.
It
makes
note
that
there
is
also
a
12
story:
mixed-use
building
to
the
south,
the
Irving
Greenberg
theater
Center,
specifically
located
at
the
northeast
corner
of
Wellington
and
Holland
Avenue
north
an
eight
story.
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
basically,
with
respect
to
taller
buildings
in
the
area
they're
mentioned
in
the
staff
report
to
give
context
to
the
overall
larger
area,
and
also
there
was
also
mentioned,
and
actually
by
one
of
the
people
who
spoke
here
before
about
the
North
there,
an
Armstrong
where
you're
allowed
to
have
taller
buildings.
So
it's
basically
to
give
up
a
context,
a
wider
context
that
goes
down
to
that
gateway
that
you're
talking
about.
E
There
is
a
vision,
of
course,
within
the
secondary
plan,
and,
of
course,
when
we
analyzed
what
we
have
here
before
you,
we
felt
that
it
was
not
in
conflict
with
that
vision.
We,
as
shown
on
the
screen
here,
we
have
the
45-degree
angle,
that's
being
maintained.
We
have
that
one-to-one
Street
ratio,
those
top
two
stories
are
set
back
and
well
yes,
madam
chair,
they
will
exist
and
they
need
to
exist.
E
D
Obviously
I
disagree
and
then
I
just
the
the
last
question
I
have
for
you
is,
is
something
that's
come
up
a
couple
of
times
and
I.
Think
I
want
to
ask
you
about
it.
Mister
Casa
Grande
said
the
secondary
plan.
You
know,
doesn't
necessarily
contemplate
the
arrival
of
LRT
because
LRT
has
not
been
wasn't
formally
funded.
At
that
point,
does
our
secondary
plan
contemplate?
Was
it
planned
with
the
arrival
of
LRT
at
Bayview
and
Tiny's
pasture
stations?
Madam.
E
But
you
can
also
amend
a
secondary
plan
after
that
fact,
and
when,
as
I
said,
when
secondary
plans
are
not
cast
in
stone
they're
there,
you
were
to
evaluate
the
policies
of
that
secondary
plan
in
relation
to
the
primary
plan
and
whether
or
not
a
proposal
conflicts
with
those
contradicts
them.
So
it
might
very
well
have
been
so.
E
D
A
D
A
It's
good
comments,
but
you
were
unfair
and
not
mentioning
me,
because
I
actually
have
a
dedicated
bus,
rapid
transit
corridor
already,
and
we
have
enough
that
we
have
a
town
centre.
Cdp
that
was
approved
in
2006,
which
we're
now
changing
to
bar
Haven.
Downtown
bottom
line
is
it's
the
convergence
of
to
be
artis
that
are
actually
existing
and
that's
is
where
you're
going
to
see
height
so
I
mean
for
bar
Haven,
which
the
highest
thing
was
a
cell
tower
by
the
fire
station,
and
now
we
have
the
Lapine's
building
an
18-story,
and
is
it
like?
A
D
A
E
A
A
E
G
A
I'm
sorry
Erwin
come
on
up.
Please
you're
opposed
to
this
development.
This
development
is
in
councilor,
brockington,
z',
River
Ward.
We
also
have
with
us
Barry
Hoban
and
Jamie
Posen
from
Fulton,
whether
to
to
speak
to
it.
If,
if
you
want
to
okay
mr.
Britt
Driessen,
we
received
something
from
you
yesterday.
Yes,.
C
P
Me
start
upfront,
madam
chair,
as
I
did
in
2004
earlier
zoning
amendment
was
proposed
for
this
parcel
that
I'm
very
much
in
favor
of
development
of
these
two
parcels
on
Brookfield
Road
they're
a
prime
example
of
which
there
are
many
in
the
city
of
the
potential
for
intensification.
These
parcels
have
sat
vacant
for
way
too
long
and,
moreover,
aiming
for
the
Carleton
University
student
market
is
also
an
excellent
idea
going
by
what
I
have
seen
on
my
street,
which
is
just
around
the
corner.
There
definitely
is
a
demand
for
student
housing
in
at
this
location.
P
Still
I
object
to
the
proposal
before
you
for
one
key
reason
and
you've
heard
a
lot
of
a
lot
this
morning.
It
does
not
respect
the
Riverside
parks
secondary
plan.
Our
secondary
plan
came
about
as
a
result
of
a
visioning
exercise
and
neighborhood
plan
in
the
mid
90s,
a
plan
which
I
helped
create.
In
fact,
it
was
my
introduction
to
community
activism
and
land-use
planning
and,
as
I
say,
the
rest
is
history.
P
The
secondary
plan
designates
these
and
adjacent
parcels
as
mixed-use
intended
as
a
transition
between
whatever
can
I
post.
My
due
on
the
north
side
of
Brookfield
Road
and
a
single-family
house
to
the
south,
according
to
the
secondary
plan
and
zoning
for
Confederation
Heights,
those
potential
Northside
office
buildings
are
restricted
to
four
storeys
being
themselves.
P
In
an
earlier
attempt
to
accommodate
a
developer,
we
are
asked
to
understand
the
word
transition
to
mean
anything
but
building
height
land
use
density,
architecture,
landscape,
you
name
it
anything,
but
the
most
obvious
and
common
sense
interpretation,
height
of
buildings,
staff
in
Fulton
point
out
that
the
secondary
plan
does
not
specify
Heights
for
these
mixed-use
parcels,
in
contrast
to
more
recent
secondary
plans
which
are
explicit
in
linking
transition
to
Heights,
as
if
that
excuses
them
and
you
from
applying
common
sense.
In
fact,
the
reports
reference
on
page
7.
P
This
report
to
the
transition,
oriented
design
guidance,
speaks
of
transition.
You
guessed
it
in
terms
of
building
heights.
If
the
absence
of
specific
Heights
in
our
secondary
plan
is
a
weakness,
then
the
fault
lies
with
planning
staff.
At
a
time,
it
should
have
been
more
diligent
in
expressing
the
clearly
expressed
views
of
the
community
through
the
visioning
enable
plan
exercise.
P
There
is
a
remedy
for
this
situation.
If
this
land
transaction
is
like
many
other,
that
I'm
aware
of
its
terms,
are
not
final.
Until
the
relevant
approvals
have
been
obtained,
the
value
of
the
land
is
very
much
a
function
of
what
can
be
built
on
it.
If
the
applicant
is
told
that
no
more
than
four
storeys
to
the
north
in
two
storeys
at
the
back
are
allowed,
the
price
of
the
land
will
drop
accordingly.
P
All
that
is
required
is
for
this
committee
and
council
to
stand
behind
the
spirit
and
letter
of
our
neighborhoods
secondary
plan,
and
this
by
the
way,
would
bring
the
development
in
conformity
with
section
three
six
one
of
the
amended
as
amended
by
OPA
150,
which
sets
except
our
Theory
roots,
the
maximum
height
in
general
urban
area
at
four
stories.
I
know
that,
due
to
timing,
this
does
not
apply
here,
but
it
surely
indicates
the
intent
of
Council.
P
There
is
one
other
argument
used
by
staff
and
it's
a
surprising
one.
The
assertion
is
made
that
the
secretary
plan
does
not
Trump
a
zoning
bylaw.
This
runs
counter
to
the
most
elementary
principles
of
land-use
planning
in
Ontario
and
I
won't
go
through
the
hierarchy
that
I'm
sure
you
are
aware
of,
of
how
Planning
is
supposed
to
work
in
Ontario
in
in
2004,
there
still
was
a
two-story
office
building
with
an
underground
fuel
storage
tank
on
the
eastern
portion.
That's
now
demolished
the
rest
has
been
vacant
land
or
parking
lot
forever.
P
I,
don't
know
I'm
not
aware
of
how
these
parcels
got
their
zoning
before
the
secretary
parent
was
adopted,
but
obviously
the
zoning
should
have
been
adjusted
to
conform
to
the
secondary
plan
ten
seconds
and
as
I
understand
it.
This
is
by
no
means
the
only
case
where
the
city
failed
to
correct
the
zoning
after
something
changed
at
your
official
plan
level.
Final
point
well.
A
I
Good
afternoon,
madam
chair
members
of
committee,
my
name
is
Jaime
pose
and
Senior
Planner
at
Photon,
of
course,
with
me,
is
very
Hoban
and
I.
Think
the
staff
report
really
does
a
good
job
of
addressing
some
of
the
concerns
that
were
raised.
I'm
certainly
happy
to
hear
that
the
community
member
moment
moments
ago
say
that
he's
very
happy
that
the
site
will
be
redeveloped.
We
certainly
share
that
view.
I
guess
I'll
just
add.
With
regards
to
the
primary
concern
about
transition.
I
It's
certainly
not
just
about
building
height
and
certainly
staff
is
correct
in
the
report
to
mention
that
there
are
not
specific
building
heights
here,
but
I
think
achieving
a
transition
in
land
uses
and
so
I
think.
The
the
the
two
secondary
plans
in
conjunction
that
apply
here
basically
are
looking
at.
How
do
you
transition
from
a
high
density,
employment
area
to
a
low-density
residential
area
and
one
of
the
ways
that
it
suggests
you
do?
I
O
J
You,
madam
chair
into
question
for
legal
first
I,
just
want
to
acknowledge.
I
didn't
have
a
question
for
mr.
Driessen,
but
I
do
want
to
acknowledge
he's
a
very
active
and
engaged
member
of
the
community
he's
intelligent
and
he
files
follows
files
closely
and
I
appreciate
his
interest
in
this
file
for
quite
a
while
and
questions
that
he's
raised
and
I've
tried
to
facilitate
for
the
past
many
many
months
to
mr.
mark
through
you,
madam
chair
mr.
Driessen
references,
the
Riverside
Park
secondary
plan.
It's
an
older
plan.
B
Madam
chair
staff
went
through
this
on
the
prior
application
in
2003
2004,
and
they
concluded
at
the
time
that
there
was
not.
That
was
a
decision
of
City
Council.
It's
only
in
bylaw
was
passed
on
that
basis,
and
that
certainly
stands
as
something
that
if
there
were
ever
an
appeal
to
l-pad
the
city
would
be
held.
Madam
chair
and.
J
Reference
was
made
about
transitioning
from
the
Canada
Post
headquarter
buildings,
which
are
at
Herron
and
Riverside,
and,
as
you
work
your
way,
south
towards
the
residential
community,
the
expectation
or
in
mr.
driessen's
words,
the
intent
of
council
would
be
that
as
buildings
got
closer
and
closer
to
the
residential
community,
their
building
heights
would
be
lower
than
those
immediately
north
of
them.
Is
that
reflected
in
the
wording
of
the
secondary
plan
or
is
again
interpretation?
Or
how
can
you
explain
the
concerns
raised.
B
G
G
J
J
A
J
Madam
chair
I
live
very
close
to
this
proposal
as
well.
Mr.
Dury
I
call
mr.
Driessen.
My
neighbor
were
not
next-door
neighbors.
We
live
very
close
and
have
Co
served
at
different
times
on
the
community
association
he's
right
that
there
was
an
old
JDS
office
building
here
which
closed
many
years
ago
and
has
sat
vacant
for
many
years
and
Brookfield
Road
is
aesthetically,
not
pleasing.
Yes,
there's
a
high
school
which
I
went
to
and
there's
a
small
family-run
mom-and-pop
shop,
the
Brookfield
confectionary
close
to
Riverside,
but
it's
not
a
warm
and
inviting
Street.
J
And
you
know
the
current
community
going
back
to
2015,
has
been
engaged
on
this
item
20
if
this
was
actually
the
first
planning
file
that
came
across
my
desk
in
February
of
2015,
and
there
been
an
ownership
change
on
the
land
and
a
number
of
public
meetings
and
interest
in
getting
it
right,
and
some
of
the
concerns
of
the
abutting
neighbors
was
the
proximity
of
these
buildings
to
their
property
line,
and
some
compromises
were
made.
The
massing
tallest
part
of
these
buildings
is
actually
hugging.
J
Brookfield
Road
and
some
of
the
shorter
buildings
on
this
property
are
to
the
rear,
which
provides
some
relief
for
neighbors.
The
minimum
setback
of
7.5
meters
was
amended
to
be
greater,
believe
it's
20
meters
and
as
a
compromise,
some
of
the
building
Heights
went
up
closer
to
Brookfield
and
that's
because
the
community
that
was
active
in
this
process
made
that
request.
So
it
may
not
be
perfect,
but
certainly
this
is
by
and
large
from
the
community
a
welcome
addition.
J
We
are
close
to
the
O
train
station
Mooney
Space
Station,
which,
if
it's
geared
towards
post-secondary
students,
will
be
ideal
for
them
and
certainly
the
87
bus
route
will
be
good
if
students
don't
go
to
Carleton
University
in
particular.
The
other
wants
that
many
in
the
community,
like
is
the
Grand
floor
retail
component.
There
is
a
shortage
of
retail
opportunities
in
the
community
and
folks
acknowledge
that
we
shouldn't
be
driving
out
of
the
community
for
some
of
the
more
needed
type
of
services,
so
for
a
property.
J
That's
been
vacant
for
many
years,
there's
sort
of
a
welcoming
feeling
in
the
community
to
have
this
come
in
acknowledging
some
of
mr.
Irwin
or
mr.
driessen's
concerns,
which
I'm
sure
he
won't
be
satisfied
with,
but
have
tried
to
facilitate
through
the
planner.
The
Senior
Planner,
the
general
manager
of
planning
mr.
mark
have
all
been
engaged
to
try
and
provide
some
context
to
secondary
plans
which
are
now
over
20
years
old.
So
on
that
madam
chair
I
will
be
supporting
the
staff
recommendation
before
us.
A
Thank
you
pardon
so
on
the
item.
Zoning
bylaw
amendment
7/16
and
770
Brookfield
Road-
is
that
carried.
Thank
you
very
much.
Okay.
The
next
thank
you
for
the
people
that
have
stayed
around
I
know.
It's
been
a
long
haul.
I
can
tell
you
in
the
old
days
you
used
to
be
a
lot.
The
hall
used
to
be
a
lot
longer
like
9:30
in
the
morning
till
9:30
at
night
was
not
rare,
break
councilors.
Really
so
the
next
item
and
is
john
negra,
here,
nay,
crew,
hi
John,
come
on
up
again
you're.
A
A
O
Thank
you,
madam
chairman,
and
councillors
on
the
members
of
the
Planning
Committee
I
am
the
Secretary
of
the
Board
of
Directors
of
Ho
CSCC
nine
to
two,
which
is
the
mental
ampersand
community
directly
south
of
the
properties
in
question.
Here
the
intersection
of
sue
Holloway
and
marketplace.
Avenue
is
the
sole
north
and
west
exit
for
this
community,
which
comprises
a
hundred
and
twelve
units.
O
Construction
traffic,
but
we
also
anticipate
in
great
increase
in
numbers
in
traffic
when
the
buildings
are
finished
from
the
residents
and
we're
particularly
concerned
about
Lapine's
desire
to
reduce
the
number
of
parking
spots
on
the
property
which
is
going
to
force
those
people
out
into
the
community.
Now
we
are
not
opposed
to
the
buildings
or
the
development.
O
Major
high
schools,
specializing
in
construction,
so
I
do
have
a
bit
of
a
background
in
urban
planning
and-
and
one
thing
I
can
say-
is
that
any
urban
plan
that
does
not
incorporate
intelligent
traffic
planning
is
doomed
to
some
kind
of
big
problems
down
the
line.
So
as
it
stands
now,
there
is
no
traffic
regulation.
At
that
intersection,
we
have
been
asking
for
a
four-way
light
to
be
incorporated
into
the
plan.
O
We
were
told
that
McGarry
would
not
be
connected
to
marketplace,
but
it
has
been,
and
so
we
presume
that
that
is
some
kind
of
a
precedent
for
the
developer
to
leave
it.
That
way,
we
are
asking
immediately
for
a
four-way
traffic's
to
so
that
the
true
there's
some
semblance
of
order
to
the
traffic,
but
in
the
long
term
we're
looking
for
a
traffic
light,
there's
also
a
commercial
lane
about
30
meters
down
the
way
which
complicates
it
and
then
a
crosswalk
even
further
than
that
between
the
Staples
and
the
Walmart.
A
You
very
much
so
thank
you.
So
where
are
you
looking
for?
You
I,
mean
obviously
I
know
the
area
better
than
anybody.
Really,
oh,
so
you're
talking
about
the
commercial
lane
is
behind
the
Staples
and
the
winners
and
that
sort
of
thing
right,
the
pedestrian
cross,
a
px.
Oh,
we
call
it
in
front
of
the
stables
to
the
Walmart.
That's
a
new
thing.
A
As
you
know,
we
only
have
one
set
of
lights
along
that
whole
marketplace,
and
that
is
you
know
where
the
trans
away
is
so
I,
don't
think
it's
the
intent
of
this
being
an
access
to
market
place
for
the
people,
that'll
obtain
people,
the
people
that
may
live
there.
I
personally
think
that
the
access-
and,
if
that
is
that's,
that's
a
whole
different
thing,
but
I
think
right
now
it's
for
purposes
of
construction.
O
A
Okay,
so
the
delegation
is
right
to
be
concerned,
then
you
know,
because
we
see
this
too
many
places
on
farther
down
standard
I
have
a
new
one
with
mento.
That
is,
you
know.
No
one
gave
any
consideration
to
the
fact
that
strand
here
is
what
it
is
awful,
and
so
this
case
I
think
that
what
we
need
is
problem.
This
is
not
in
my
ward.
A
As
far
as
some
of
the
other
concerns
that
I
did
hear
from
somebody
who
owns
an
ampersand
I,
don't
think
they
lived
there
I
think
they
live
in
Stonebridge.
It
was
the
question
of
the
traffic,
that's
parking
on
sue
Holloway,
and
that
sort
of
thing
right
now
I
would
suggest
in
that
case,
that
you
have
a
chat
with
your
counselor
and
get
her
to
speak
with
traffic
staff,
who
can
look
at
maybe
some
remediation
and
that
they
can
do
regardless
of
anything
else
happening
that.
O
O
A
O
A
D
E
A
Thank
you
now,
on
the
neck
of
the
last
item,
which
mr.
Chow
and
I
think
are
you
still
here:
Murray
Oh,
John,
Murray,
oh
sorry,
I
just
saw
the
corner
of
the
hair.
I
would
never
confuse
the
two
of
you
I'm,
not
sure
why
you
stayed
but
I
know.
That
obviously
was
important
to
you.
It's
item
number
seven,
which
is
the
front
ending
report
on
March
Road,
sanitary
sewer
and
water
main,
can
add
a
North
Orban
expansion
area
in
councillors,
suds
and
Elgin
Terry's
areas,
two
floors,
yours,
okay,.
E
Thank
you.
It
has
been
a
long
day
and
I'm
not
I
did
want
to
stay.
I
want
to
indicate
our
support
for
the
report,
however,
and
the
the
I
wanted
to
point
out.
One
issue
that
I
just
want
to
be
on
the
record:
we've
had
were
over
budget
on
the
project
significantly,
and
the
budget
was
prepared
last
year,
based
on
projecting
forward
from
2018
prices.
What
we're
seeing
this
year
is
significant
construction
increases
in
both
public
sector
and
private
projects,
to
the
tune
of
about
twenty
to
thirty
percent.
E
E
E
A
So
I
think
Derek.
Is
there
no
there's
a
motion
on
the
next
one,
so
Derek,
twenty
to
thirty,
throw
30%
increase
in
anticipated
costs
and
I
mean
I.
Think
that
you
know
I
mean
while
I'm
acting
like
with
the
on
shock.
The
fact
is
is
that
we
know
that
all
the
developers
are
having
a
heck
of
a
time
trying
to
get
a
construction
staff
and
and
etc,
etc.
It's
like
it's
the
deserts
dry,
so
it's
probably
driving
the
prices
too.
A
E
Chair,
I,
guess
and
I
will
invite
mr.
Marc
to
comment,
but
you
know
with
the
tenders
documents
just
closing.
Yesterday,
city
staff
of
Nod
yet
had
a
chance
to
review
it.
I
would
you
know
I
think
mr.
riddle
is
an
agreement
that
they
haven't
had
a
chance
to
go
through
and
depth
those
numbers
to
see
if
there's
opportunities
to
find
additional
savings.
But
you
know
in
a
typical
scenario
and
I
think
the
reason
that
mr.
E
Iredale
wanted
to
make
sure
this
was
raised
and
on
the
record
today
is
you
know
in
in
similar
situations
where
we've
seen
cost
overruns
that
we
know
about
in
advance
of
a
project
starting?
We
have
you
know
we
have
looked
for
opportunities
or
brought
forward
opportunities
to
amend
the
budget
or
the
amount
in
the
development
charge.
Background
study,
so
you
know,
we've
got
a
front
ending
agreement
report
before
you
today.
E
That
speaks
to
the
funding
that's
available
in
the
background
study,
the
issue
or
the
opportunity
in
the
future
is
to
amend
the
background
study
at
some
point
in
the
future
to
reflect
the
actual
costs
and
then
provide
an
opportunity
like
we
did
on
the
Shae
Road
pump
station.
That
was
the
source
of
much
discussion
over
the
last
24
hours
to
bring
that
forward
and
amend
that
agreement
to
recognize
the
costs
that
we
acknowledge
are
higher
than
the
numbers
that
are
in
the
background
study
today.
Thank.
A
B
Marc
anything
dad
yes,
madam
chair,
as
you,
you
will
be
called
and
in
the
shape
motion
that
was
introduced,
rachet
Road,
we
spoke
to
bringing
forward
a
report
in
September
staff,
have
already
identified
a
couple
of
stormwater
matters
where
it
will
be
necessary
to
bring
forward
a
amendment
to
the
background,
study
and
they'll
have
to
be
public
meeting
under
the
development
charges
Act,
and
so
the
preliminary
thought
that
staff
have
had
today
in
respect
to
this
matter
is.
This
could
probably
be
rolled
in
into
that.
B
Madam
chair
and
I
just
want
to
say
one
of
the
concerns
staff
have
had
in
the
past
when
these
matters
arise.
It's
that
it's
not
brought
to
our
attention
until
after
the
report
is
carried,
and
in
this
case,
where
mr.
riddle
has
raised
it
up,
while
the
reports
going
through
the
process,
it's
very
helpful
because
it
allows
us
to
plan
ahead
and,
as
the
Shea
Road
motion
said,
we
think
we
can
probably
address
it
through
report
committing
council
in
September.
B
A
B
E
A
A
So
we
had
two
IP
DS
that
I
didn't
mention.
One
was
monitoring
findings
regarding
amendments
to
zoning
bylaw
2008
to
250,
as
that
received
and
the
other
one
was
hearings:
Official
Plan
amendments
numbers,
150
and
180
urban
expansion
phase
as
I
received
notices,
a
motion
and
he
notices
a
motion
for
a
consideration
at
the
subsequent
meeting,
which
isn't
until
August
the
22nd.