►
From YouTube: Planning Committee – October 27, 2015
Description
Planning Committee meeting – October 27, 2015 – Audio Stream
Agenda and background materials can be found at http://www.ottawa.ca/agendas.
A
A
A
A
A
This
is
a
public
meeting
to
consider
the
proposed
comprehensive
official
plan
and
zoning
bylaw
amendments
listed
as
items
two
and
three
on
today's
agenda
for
the
items
listed
above.
Only
those
who
make
all
submissions
today
or
written
submissions
before
the
amendments
are
adopted
may
appeal
the
amount
to
the
interior
municipal
board.
In
addition,
the
applicant
may
appeal
the
matter
to
the
interior
municipal
board.
A
So,
committee
members,
we
have
any
declarations
of
interest
today:
okay,
confirmation
of
minutes
of
the
meeting
of
October,
the
13th
2015
Carrie.
Thank
you.
So
we're
going
to
hold
item
number
one,
which
is
the
official
plan,
amendment
and
zoning
bylaw
amendment
from
the
Ontario
Municipal
Board
settlement.
Fourteen
forty
five
to
fourteen
fifty
one
Wellington
Street.
We
have
17
speakers
so
far.
A
Number
two
zoning
bylaw
amendment
413
balsam
Street.
We
just
have
the
applicant
here
to
speak
on
behalf
if,
unless
you,
whereas
Matthew
McCullough
Matthew,
if,
if
committee
is
willing
to
carry
this
item,
do
you
still
need
to
speak?
Okay,
good?
Thank
you
very
much
so
back
to
committee.
Are
we
good
on
this
one
that
this
one
this
one
has
taken
like
a
couple
of
years
too,
and
it's
had
transition
I
know
mr.
Mazzy
was
involved
with
changing
it,
but
it's
a
it's
a
really
good
start
for
rejuvenation
on
that
in
that
community.
Thank
you
now.
A
The
third
one
is
zoning
bylaw
amendment
to
permit
a
broadcasting
studio
at
1391,
Wellington,
Street
West.
We
just
have
the
component
mr.
Lenny
Lombardi
president
and
CEO
of
chin
radio,
and
this
is
to
allow
a
broadcasting
studio
in
catch,
asipi,
Warren,
and
so
mr.
Lombardi,
where
are
you
okay?
So
does
anyone
have
C
reason
to
hold
this
item?
In
fact,
if
committee
is
willing
to
carry
it
mr.
Lombardi,
do
you
still
need
to
speak
well
good,
because
I
think
we
are
going
to
do
that?
Thank
you
very
much.
So
you
have
a
pardon
I.
A
B
D
A
You,
okay,
so
we'll
hold
that
and
then
my
no
counselor
Kadri
has
some
comments
on
it
as
well.
So
we'll
go
back
to
item
number,
one
that
we
have
mr.
James
and
mr.
hora
are
here
that
are
going
to
provide
us
with
the
presentation
and
I've
asked
them
to
to
go
into
some
detail
on
the
evolution
of
how
this
this
design
came
to
be
so
I
hope
that
you'll
find
it
interesting
to
see
how
that
happened.
Thank
you.
E
E
The
briefly
just
a
location
of
the
property
line
didn't
blue,
uniform
automobile
use
and
residential
dwelling
that's
been
converted
into
a
restaurant
on
the
site.
It's
approximately
eighteen
hundred
square
meters
in
size
with
frontage
on
Richmond
Road
and
it's
located
east
of
Island
Park,
the
site
actually
abuts
the
dead-end
road
allowance
of
Rockhurst
Road,
which
is
between
the
site
and
on
Park
Drive,
that
that
particular
road
allowance
will
be
the
site
of
a
future
park
to
the
south.
We
have
a
gasoline
service
station
and
we
have
commercial
and
mixed
use
to
the
east
and
west.
E
E
So
just
a
brief
history,
I
think
most
also
familiar
with
the
history.
The
proposal,
the
original
applications
for
official
plan
and
zoning
bylaw
amendments
were
filed
with
the
city
in
November
of
2013,
and
it
was
for
a
12
story.
Building
in
of
2014
staff
recommended
refusal
of
the
amendment
to
the
West
Wallington
secondary
plan
and
the
zoning
amendments
primarily
on
the
basis
of
height.
E
Refused
ur
was
appealed
by
the
property
owner
to
the
Ontario
Municipal
bored
and
a
hearing
was
subsequently
held
in
January
of
2015
on
May
7th
2015.
The
board
issued
an
interim
decision
that
identified
two
options.
The
applicant
could
come
forward
with
a
nine-story
proposal
which
the
applicant
subsequently
declined
the
opportunity
to
pursue
that
option,
which
was
their
right
under
the
board
decision.
The
second
option
was
basically
to
allow
the
applicant
to
pursue
a
project
of
greater
than
9,
storeys
and
creation
of
a
landmark
building
in
accordance
with
criteria
that
the
board
member
established.
E
It's
interesting
to
note
that
the
board
member
did
not
speak
to
any
any
of
finite
height
above
the
9
storeys
that
in
this
case
the
applicant
is
pursuing
a
12
story,
project
consistent
with
their
previous
applications
and,
basically
again
it
was
to
determine
if
a
landmark
building
could
be
built
on
the
property.
So.
E
E
Specifically,
the
board
member
was
looking
for
a
contribution
to
the
top
of
the
building.
There
was
not
really
any
dispute
that
the
the
base
of
the
building
was
well
designed
at
the
top
needed
further
attention
or
work
if
it
was
going
to
meet
that
landmark
criteria.
And
again,
as
I
mentioned,
the
board
member
did
not
express
any
opinion
as
to
the
number
of
storeys
beyond
9
that
would
be
appropriate,
and
the
decision
indicated
they're
looking
for
something
that
was
very
distinctive,
something
that
would
stand
out
by
virtue
of
its
design.
The
board.
E
Member
emphasized
that
it
was
very
important
that
the
site
is
on
a
scenic
entry
route
to
the
City,
Island
drive
and
again
emphasize
the
top.
In
terms
of
that
it
should
be
picturesque.
It
also
said
that
it
had
to
be
consistent
and
integrated
with
the
lower
nine
stories
of
the
existing
building.
There
was
a
reference
to
the
element
of
wow
the
board.
E
E
So
with
regard
to
the
tops
of
buildings
that
that
could
be
considered
landmark
or
highly
distinctive,
the
board
actually
pointed
to
several
high
profile
high-rise
projects
in
North
America
one
is
the
TD
Tower
Brookfield
place
project
in
Toronto
on
your
left,
one
Detroit
Center
and
two
high-rises
in
Montreal
on
McGill
collage,
Avenue
and
a
nearby
building.
So
these
buildings
range
in
height
from
36
to
53
stories,
they're
all
commercial
office
buildings
with
much
larger
floor
pates.
However,
the
board
noted
that
these
building
roof
lines
were
distinctive
and
contributed
to
landmark
status.
E
This
slide
shows
the
separate
property
property
in
the
context
of
existing
developments
on
West,
well-intended,
looking
east,
and
this
slide
shows
the
proposed
building.
Looking
from
the
West
there's
a
couple
other
buildings
that
are
conceptually
ghosted
in
that
that
could
be
built
in
compliance
with
the
current
West
Wellington
secondary
plan.
E
So
I
just
want
to
take
a
little
bit
of
time
to
walk
us
through
the
changes
that
were
made
to
the
building
and
the
from
the
initial
submission
that
came
in
in
July
of
this
year.
The
proposal
was
reviewed
three
different
times
by
the
Herbet,
the
city's
urban
design
review
panel,
July
27th,
August
17th
and
September
23rd.
This
was
a
fairly
extensive
process
and
resulted
in
significant
number
of
changes
to
the
proposal
and
at
this
time,
I'd
like
to
just
destroy,
describe
some
of
those
changes
that
were
made
from
the
initial
submission.
E
There
were
significant
improvements
made
to
the
corner
element.
Initially,
the
core
element
was
just
on
the
top
top
three
floors,
basically
of
the
building.
The
panel
thought
that
it
was
important
to
bring
this
corner
element
down
further
into
the
building,
and
it's
brought
down
to
the
fourth
storey
and
the
urban
design
panel
felt
that
this
element
contributes
to
the
building's
land
landmark
status.
E
There
are
a
number
of
improved
integration
elements
of
the
top
three
floors
with
the
main
building.
The
initial
submission
was
was
primarily,
you
know,
a
top
at
that
point.
In
the
design
process
there
there
hadn't
been
a
lot
of
integration
of
that
top
with
the
rest
of
the
building,
and
that
was
a
significant
focus
of
the
urban
design
review
panel.
E
The
mat
the
mechanical
penthouse
initially
was,
was
basically
an
opaque
layer,
but
the
board
felt
always
sorry.
The
panel
felt
that
it
was
important
that
the
same
type
of
treatment
be
applied
to
the
mechanical
penthouse
as
the
rest
of
the
top.
So
we
have
a
mansard
type,
angled
element,
copper,
roof
element
that
screens
the
mechanic
mechanical
penthouse
area.
E
There
was
a
slight
increase
in
the
ground
floor
and
this
was
to
create
the
opportunity
for
improved
commercial
or
retail
restaurant
tape.
Space
on
the
ground
floor,
we've
looked
at
a
couple
other
similar
projects
down
the
street
and
it's
important
to
get
that
background
floor
height
element
to
correct.
So
that
was
a
small
change
that
was
made
as
well.
E
Another
change
was
that
there's
modifications
made
to
the
the
balconies
on
the
west
or
Park
Island
Park
side
of
the
building.
Previously
they
projected
from
the
building.
So
now
they
have
been
recessed
to
match
those
on
Wellington
Street.
You
know
I
felt
that
was
important
not
to
have
those
balconies
detract
from
the
landmark
status
and
just
to
achieve
a
better
integration
with
the
park
and
Island
Park
Drive.
The
panel
also
stressed
the
importance
of
using
real
copper
in
the
design
of
the
project.
E
E
E
It
is
staffs
opinion
that
the
final
design
generally
satisfies
that
the
criteria
that
was
established
by
the
board
for
a
landmark
building
you'll
also
note
one
of
the
recommendations
in
the
report
directs
recommends
that
SAPI
directed
to
look
at
these
terms,
landmark
building
and
Gateway
architecture
and
recommend
sort
of
a
CY
policy
that
reviews
and
addresses
appropriate
locations
and
design
criteria,
and
it
would
be
a
report
back
with
recommendations
on
that
be
pleased
to
entertain
any
questions.
Thank
you.
F
You,
madam
chair,
my
question
for
staff:
is
the
inclusion
of
the
wow
factor
clause?
Yeah,
not
sure
where
we're
going
with
that?
Like
is
your
interpretation
of
the
Board's
ruling
that
we're
going
to
the
direction?
The
staff
will
be
to
create
some
new
category
of
approvals
that
if
building,
has
a
WOW
factor
to
it
that
it
somehow
is
it
to
be
expedited
over
something
that
maybe
doesn't
have
a
WOW
factor
to
it?
And.
E
Thank
you
chair.
That's
an
interesting
question.
I,
don't
think
that
the
board
is
saying
that
all
sites
are
all
projects
if
they
somehow
come
up
with
Wow,
whatever
Wow
is
will
be
entitled
to
you
know
greater
height
or
speedier
approvals,
I
think
the
board
man
on
this
site
given
and
again
it's
hard
for
me
to
interpret
the
board
members
total
thoughts
in
this
matter,
but
on
this
site.
In
this
context,
we
were
looking
for
something
more
than
the
original
mine
story
proposal.
They
were
looking
for
a
top
that
that
stood
out
that
had
Wow.
E
E
Timing
setup
in
the
recommendation
we
want
to
give
this
a
thorough
look.
It
is,
it
is
an
important
issue.
We
are
certainly
concerned
about
the
integrity
of
our
main
streets
in
the
city
and
want
to
take
a
very
close
look
at
this,
but
certainly
we
anticipate
reporting
back
to
to
committee
in
the
new
year
and
yes,
we'll
be
looking
at
other
municipalities,
Toronto
and
others
how
they've
dealt
with
us.
It
does
seem
to
be
a
unique
decision
and
speaking
to
Peters
and
colleagues
across
the
province.
E
F
My
last
question
is
I.
Think
we're
all
grappling
with
this
is
an
improv
show
could
make
it
a
little
clearer
for
us
all.
If
we
accept
this,
does
that
have
a
set
of
precedent
that
this
defines
Wow
or
by
doing
the
report
the
way
it's
it's
structured
to
suggest
that
you
go
in
and
look
at
it
and
staff
come
up
with
a
better
different
definition
for
us
that
we
will
be
able
to
implement
that
definition.
If
we
want
to
suggest
that
WoW
is
maybe
a
little
more.
This.
F
E
Chair
so
to
the
councillors
question:
no,
this
would
not
define
Wow
or
even
landmark
across
the
city
this.
This
is
very
specific
to
this
site.
We
do
think
it's
important.
We
do
want
to
have
a
look
at
those
that
terminology
in
the
Official
Plan
and
secondary
plan,
just
to
make
sure
we
have
it
right
and
if
we
do
need
to
clarify
that
wording
to
do
so
promptly,
but
it
we
don't.
We
don't
see
this
as
leading
to
a
bunch
of
for
lack
of
a
better
term,
allow
applications.
Okay.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Thank.
A
You
and
we
have
a
lot
of
the
members
that
want
to
speak
up
here.
We
have
18
speakers
in
the
audience
today.
I
just
thought
it
would
be
worthwhile.
My
mentioning,
because
you
brought
up
the
the
landmark
that
we've
changed
the
recommendation
to
there's
a
motion
that
Vice
Chair
attorney
is
going
to
be
moving
that
doesn't
restrict
the.
A
Parameters
of
landmark
our
gateway
to
Wellington
Street,
but
in
fact
on
cue,
3
2016
comes
back
with
those
for
the
entire
city,
and
so
that
is
a
change
that
we're
doing.
I
hope
that
that
contributes
to
what
you're
asking
next
up
as
councillor
Luce
kills.
Her
Lieber
kills
her
shirelle
encounter
Qadri.
H
H
Council
Kucha,
as
mentioned
by
the
planning
committee
chair,
we
put
in
a
second
recommendation
in
the
report
to
look
at
this
matter,
which
will
be
amended
by
a
motion
later
that
as
part
of
our
work
plan
into
next
year
for
a
report
to
come
back
by
q3
of
2016.
We
want
to
look
at
the
terms
landmark
and
Gateway
and
their
applicability
and
how
we
may
use
them
as
elements
in
the
planning
review
process
so
that
that's
something
that
will
be
part
of
our
work
plan.
H
Okay,
just
that
I
thought,
the
work
plan
had
been
established
to
for
the
whole
term,
but
you're
you're
able
within
current
resources
to
amend
that.
Yes,
your
committee
did
approve
our
work
plan
as
it
relates
to
planning
committee,
but
we
haven't
flow
on
these
things
and
as
needed.
We
add
these
kind
of
items
to
the
work
plan,
for
example,.
A
Because
we've
got
the
big
files
that
we
have,
the
the
infrastructure
standards,
they're,
building,
better
smarter
suburbs,
coming
to
you
soon,
the
building
better,
revitalize
neighborhoods
mr.
Mazzy
and
his
team
have
moved
around
some
of
the
components
of
the
work
plan
to
fit
together.
So
it
was
just,
whereas
maybe
we
had
them
in
the
fourth
year,
does
it
make
sense
to
have
them
go
down
the
same
path
with
others.
H
A
H
So
the
answer
is
no,
that's
fine.
My
last
question
in
Council
Ruby
talked
about
the
precedent
and,
and
the
definition
of
Wow
I'd
like
to
be
reassured
that
this
would
not
be
a
precedent
to
add
height
to
until
we
can
get
the
definition
of
of
landmark
and
put
a
little
bit
more
meat
on
the
on
the
WoW
bones
that
this
would
not
be
used
to
for
added
height
I.
Just
like
that.
That
reassurance.
E
Madam
chair
to
the
councillors,
question
certainly
from
the
staff
perspective,
staff
will
not
be
looking
at
this
as
a
precedent
in
terms
of
how
it
makes
its
recommendations
and
reviews
policies
with
respect
to
height.
Of
course,
I
can't
speak
for
planning
and
community
council,
but
I'm
assuming
we
would
be
on
the
same
page
on
that
one.
Mr.
H
I
can
add,
madam
chair
the
vocabulary,
or
the
word
wow,
isn't
a
word
normally
associated
with
the
planning
review
process.
We
generally
rely
on
measurable
parameters
like
height
density
and
other
things,
context.
I.
Think.
One
thing
that's
important
to
note
here
is
that
we
always
look
for
good
urban
design
and
architectural
excellence
in
all
the
applications.
We
review
it's
a
it's
something
we're
always
looking
for
in
terms
of
wow.
It's
a
highly
subjective
term.
H
Obviously,
and
it
has
been
raised
in
this
board
decision
and
through
our
review
and
the
criteria
we
that
were,
we,
we
were
asked
to
look
at
we're
narrowing
it
to
this
site
and
this
application
only
as
per
the
board's
instruction
and
aren't
intending
to
apply
that
word
to
our
broader
review
process
and
and
just
to
just
to
close
up
and
I
agree.
You
know
we
in
this
committee
and
are
asked
to
deal
with
nine
stories
or
twelve
stories,
but
and
which
are
absolute
terms,
which
are
not
all-encompassing,
but
young,
good
urban
design.
H
A
That's
and
that's
why
I
think
that
if
you
were
to
put
a
slide
back
up
the
one
that
has
the
criteria
that
we,
this
should
be
looked
at
as
a
reminder
whenever
anybody
is
asking
questions
or
speaking
to
it,
I
think
that
that's
important,
we
didn't
make
those
up.
That's
the
criteria
we've
given,
but
mister
mark.
Have
you
ever
have
you
ever
seen
coming
from
an
OMB
such
a
request
for
a
position
on
on
WoW
or
landmark
ever
so
just
this
dress
is
the
precedent
setting
and
any
concerns
that
people
have.
A
C
A
few
questions
just
to
set
the
foundation,
as
we
begin
to
hear
from
presenters
and
I,
do
appreciate
that
this
is
a
very
unique
position
where
we're
not
in
Kansas
anymore,
on
this
I,
don't
envy
staff
their
position
position
having
to
weigh
in
on
this.
Obviously,
this
is
a
very
subjective
discussion
on
page
13
staff
of
characterized
this
architecture.
This
design,
as
it
can
be
landmark
on
page
16,
you've
characterized
it
as
if
it's
built
as
proposed,
it
will
be
and
I
do
think.
It's
important
to
understand
staffs
recommendation
is
this
building
landmark
architecture.
C
G
C
C
C
E
C
Principal
F
in
the
board's
criteria
speaks
to
the
fact
that
the
board
is
looking
for
a
project
that
is
consistent
with
the
elegant
and
distinguished
approach
to
the
rest
of
the
building
on
which
there
was
no
dispute
and
the
character
and
function
of
Island,
Park,
Drive
I
think
this
one
is
critical,
we'll
get
into
debate
in
a
little
bit,
but
context
should
be
something
by
which
we
measure
landmark
architecture.
How
have
you
addressed
the
the
function
and
particularly
the
character
of
Island
Park
Drive
in
the
staff
report.
E
Madam
chair,
the
that
was
an
issue
of
significant
discussion
at
the
actual
Ontario
Municipal
Board
hearing.
It
is
identified
as
a
scenic
entry
route,
but
there's
not
a
lot
of
policy
direction
on
what
that
means
for
development.
So
again,
there
were
minor
changes
in
terms
of
you
know:
recessing
the
balconies.
On
that
frontage.
There
will
be
a
you
know.
If
this
were
to
be
approved,
there
will
be
a
you
know,
a
nice
park
feature
that
would
be
built
there.
E
That
would
contribute
to
that
that
ambiance,
the
meringue
Klee,
it's
something
that
the
board
members
struggled
with
in
terms
of
the
West
Wellington
plan
and
picking
up
on
the
village
character
in
cues
on
West
Wellington,
but
the
other
objective
of
having
a
building
that
stands
out
and
Wow
I.
Think
in
a
born
board
members
mind
that
was.
E
That
was
a
difficult
thing,
so
so
to
go
to
your
question.
Aside
from
the
yield,
the
rate
of
changes
made
along
that
the
corner
element
also
will
be.
You
know,
visible
from
from
Island
Park,
Drive
and
and
the
the
the
panel
felt
that
that
was
a
significant
enhancement
to
the
project.
So
those
would
be
the
the
changes
that
would
contribute
to
that
that
I
won't
drive
all
beyond.
So,
if
you
will
I
don't.
A
C
Then
I
guess
I
would
ask
one
other
question,
probably
with
mr.
mark
mr.
mark.
Is
this
an
exclusive
list
criteria
by
which
to
determine
whether
or
not
the
building
is
landmark,
or
is
the
door
open
to
council
to
consider
with
our
well
rationalized
argument,
other
criteria
or
other
means
of
assessing
landmark.
G
G
J
You,
madam
chair,
just
starting
off
I,
think
the
the
OMB
judges
decision
I
think
his
only
error,
as
chief
error,
was
sending
the
term
Wow
to
this
council
to
try
to
try
to
expect
us
to
define
it,
because
this
is
not
the
wow
factor.
Ii.
Okay,
we
do
not.
We
do
not
fall
into
that
category.
We
have
right
now
fundamental
misunderstanding.
I.
Think
in
this
room
number
one
planning
is
not
decided
by
precedent.
It's
not
decided
by
stare
decisis,
it's
decided
by
committee.
Maybe.
A
J
Well,
I'll
just
ask
if
the
sister
by
committee,
making
decisions
on
a
case-by-case
basis,
I
could
have
moved
point
of
order
on
this,
and
I
should
have
actually.
So
we
have
something
put
in
front
of
us.
We're
asked
to
make
a
decision
and
what
do
we
do?
We
scramble
to
try
to
get
staff
to
come
up
with
some
parameters
or
definitions
know
we
have
discretion,
exercise
your
discretion
make
the
decision.
It's
our
judgment,
whether
it
has
the
wow
factor.
It's
never
going
to
be
defined
question.
No,
it's
a
point
of
order.
Now.
Oh
now,.
A
J
J
J
No
okay,
so
my
question
is
in
the
in
the
construction
of
the
upper
floors.
Was
there
any
work
at
the
parliamentary
precinct?
Is
this
an
actual
attempt
to
copy
that
appearance?
And
somehow
you
know
parliamentary
precinct
is
a
landmark.
Therefore,
this
must
be
because
it
looks
like
it
or
was
this
an
accident
or
was
actually
tailored
to
to
the
neighborhood
immediate
to
it?
Okay,.
A
So
on
that,
one
I
would
like
you
to
put
the
slide
up.
That
shows
the
four
locations
that
the
board
suggested
that
we
look
at
as
opposed
to
it.
Wasn't
anyone
in
house
that
suggested
these
are
the
four
that
were
part
of
that
criteria
list,
for
example,
look
at
these
suggestions
and
I
think
that
that's
yes,
but.
J
G
A
F
You
for
watching,
madam
chin,
just
a
couple
questions
just
our
first
question
is
in
terms
of
the
definition
of
a
landmark
and
I
think
you've
mentioned
it
earlier
in
your
comment:
does
the
city
have
a
definition
for
a
landmark
building
at
the
present
time?
I
know
you're
going
to
come
back
with
a
report
next
year,
but
at
the
present
time.
E
F
E
I'm
chair
to
the
councilors
question
in
terms
of
compatibility,
that
was
not
one
of
the
criteria
that
the
board
established
and,
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
I
think
the
board
member
was
struggling
with
the
objective
of
compatibility
and
having
something
that
stands
out
and
frames
that
corner
and
stands
out
from
the
rest
of
the
village.
In
effect,
so
I
think
that
was
again.
I
can't
speak
for
the
board
member,
but
I
think
that
omission
was
deliberate.
E
A
K
Chn
a
Civic
Hospital
Neighborhood
Association
opposes
a
staff
recommendation.
We
do
not
consider
the
structure
landmark
building.
We
are
providing
our
input
to
ensure
that
this
and
future
proposals
are
rigorously
assessed
with
respect
to
what
constitutes
a
landmark
building.
We
also
believe
believe
that
the
opinions
of
the
people
who
live
and
shop
and
visit
the
neighborhoods
should
be
used
to
help
city
officials
developers
and
the
OMB
I
guess
to
get
their
respective
heads
around
these.
K
The
elusive
vocabulary
that
that
we
have
all
have
to
to
start
dealing
with
in
determining
whether
whether
a
building
is
up
to
the
subjective
standards
expected
of
buildings
labeled,
as
landmark
or
icon,
or
picturesque
or
distinctive
etc.
So
we
looked
at
this
building
proposal
using
criteria
that
we
think
signify
a
landmark
building.
We've
chosen
to
look
at
the
building
from
the
point
of
view
of
what
it
communicates
to
the
residents
of
the
neighborhood
and
to
other
residents
of
the
city.
The
first
thing
we
looked
at
was
sensitivity.
K
A
landmark
me
building
in
our
opinion,
needs
to
make
the
most
of
its
surroundings,
but
it
is
a
balance
between
standing
out
being
distinctive
in
a
community
yet
being
integrated
within
the
community
and
reflecting
the
community's
history
and
traditions,
as
described
in
the
CDP.
A
bold
or
new
interpretation
of
the
old
built
form
values
should
be
used
to
provide
a
unique,
distinct
in'
regarding
the
neighborhood
that
is
being
entered
so,
despite
being
situated
in
a
very
congenial
location
in
a
warm
and
vibrant
community.
K
This
building
does
not
communicate
congeniality,
indeed
to
us
at
the
top
of
the
building,
brings
extra
height
and
a
formality.
That
seems
out
of
touch
with
the
neighborhood
it
seems
designed
to
dominate
and
therefore
it
seems
unfriendly
to
its
surroundings.
While
landmarks
should
be
distinctive,
we
don't
think
they
should
overwhelm.
Our
second
criteria
is
harmony
in
attempting
to
imitate
architectural
details.
We
think
from
the
parliamentary
precinct.
K
The
building's
main
reference
point
for
the
upper
storeys-
it's
is
outside
of
the
neighborhood
de
Valores
Elston,
recently
noted
in
an
article
in
the
history
of
the
corner
in
the
kitchen
sippy
times
that
the
heritage,
the
heritage
of
this
corners
of
boulevards,
of
villas
grand
homes
in
the
countryside.
We
don't
feel
that
a
condominium
referencing,
the
parliamentary
peat
precinct,
is
in
harmony
with
the
history
of
this
corner
of
West
Wellington.
The
third
thing
we
looked
at
was
charm
again
we're
bringing
criteria
that
we
think
should
be
applied
when
the
copper
roof
was
perched.
K
Atop,
this
building
it,
we
felt
it
brought
a
discordant
design,
design
element
the
precast
materials
which
was
with
which
the
lower
floors
of
the
building
are
built,
do
not
fit
with
the
notion
of
the
sort
of
aged
dignity
that
are
essential
to
the
charm
of
the
buildings
in
the
parliamentary
precinct.
So
that
isn't
that
charm
that
is
associated
with
the
parliamentary
precinct
is
really
missing,
though
this
building
references,
the
parliamentary
precinct
proportion.
K
That's
another
thing
that
we
looked
at:
there's
no
subtlety
in
the
attempt
to
reference
the
parliamentary
precinct,
the
building
looks
top-heavy
and
out
of
character
in
the
adjacent
neighborhood.
When
we
looked
at
the
proportion
of
the
architectural
details
of
the
building,
we
feel
that
the
upper
element-
the
copper
hat-
that
we
call
it-
is
a
little
bit
too
big
or
it's
quite
a
bit
too
big
for
the
rest
of
the
outfit,
the
building
balance
we
looked
at
the
building
in
the
parliament.
K
If
we
look
at
the
buildings
in
the
parliamentary
precinct,
these
buildings
are
situated
in
landscapes
with
central
walkways
spacious
vistas,
the
balance
between
hard
architecture,
soft
landscaping
provides
a
sense
of
quiet
dignity
in
place
and
contributes
so
much
to
giving
the
parliamentary
buildings
their
grandeur
and
the
balance
between
homes
and
landscaping
in
the
Wellington
West
neighbourhood
also
creates
a
pleasant
setting.
However,
this
building
does
not
reflect
the
balance.
It
is
too
big.
A
footprint
for
the
size
of
allotted
occupies
in
comparison
to
the
buildings
referenced
in
the
parliamentary
precinct.
K
Last
criteria
was
hospitable
in
keeping
with
its
position
as
a
scenic
entry
route
or
a
gateway
building
between
the
west
and
east
and
north
and
south.
The
characteristics
of
disability
do
not
offer
a
sense
of
welcoming
openness
that
signifies
a
gateway
building.
Instead,
it
represents
a
somewhat
graceless
heavy
barrier
between
the
neighborhoods.
It
is
supposed
to
connect.
So
in
conclusion,
we
do
not
consider
that
the
architectural
design
communicates
the
landmark
building.
K
A
C
Gonna
be
the
thank
you
very
much
and
I
agree
with
everything
that
you
have
said,
and
it's
it's
it's
good
to
hear
that
you're
on
the
street
I
see
you
pretty
much
every
week
walking
around
the
principal
F
that
the
board
has
addressed,
speaks
to
a
building
form,
a
design
that
is
consistent
with
the
character
of
Island,
Park,
Drive
and
I.
Think
that's
a
critical
principle.
That's
been
elucidated
by
the
board.
It
speaks
to
the
context
which
you've
also
spoken
to
you.
K
This
building
brings
design
elements
from
a
kind
of
a
governance
perspective
into
a
small
community,
so
I
think
that
it's
quite
the
opposite.
It
brings
discordant
design
elements
into
the
community
rather
than
reflecting
taking
something
that
signifies
that
community
and
using
that
as
the
the
landmark
elements,
so
we
I
would
say
quite
the
opposite.
Thanks.
C
K
H
H
L
H
A
M
Better,
so
the
building
is
assigned
very
intelligent.
It's
a
beautiful
building,
definitely
I'm,
not
an
architect,
but
in
my
opinion
it
does
meet
landmark
status
and
if
any
one
of
you
and
the
council
has
a
potential
background
and
can
dispute.
That
fact,
please
tell
me
so
because
I
like
to
know
what
the
OMB
means,
by
landmark
status,
does
that
have
the
wow
factor
absolutely
I
mean
what
we
have
now
is
a
building
that,
in
the
last
seven
years
for
different
Ottawa,
developed
developers
have
approached
us
have
made
serious.
A
M
What
I
like
to
frame
is
that
we
have
been
approached
by
Ottawa
developers
and
they
serious
offers,
and
then
they
pulled
out
once
they
found
out
that
the
landside
was
contaminated.
They
are
pulled
out
one
right
after
the
other
nice
rumours
awry.
His
first
intention
was
to
clean
up
the
ground.
We
used
to
have
a
hard
time
running
the
patio,
because
teenagers
were
smearing
the
words
we
graffiti
and
pot
smoking,
and
it
was
difficult
to
keep
balance.
A
A
M
M
A
M
Think
it's
I
think
it's
a
landmark
building
I
think
it
has
a
WOW
factor,
I
think
it's
intelligent
design,
I
think
it
has
parkette
for
the
neighborhood
and
I
think
it's
exactly
what
this
neighborhood
needs
and
that's
not
wait.
20
years
to
we
wake
up
in
the
morning
trying
to
run
our
business
and
find
no
one
abuts
and
use
condoms.
The
first
thing
this
gentleman
did
was
clean
up
the
site.
They
made
a
respectable
for
the
neighborhood.
Okay,
he's
got
great
intentions:
first
class,
the
only
guy
that's
willing
to
build
this
Lots
mine
up.
N
All
right
so
good
morning
and
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
and
for
the
only
a
few
minutes
of
time
today,
I'm
here,
because
the
proposed
development
affects
me
in
three
different
ways:
number
one
is
a
board
member
of
the
Rawlinson
village
Community
Association
number
two
is
a
homeowner
of
a
house
on
the
hard
drive
300
feet
directly
to
the
north
of
a
lot
and
as
a
member
of
the
general
public.
My
first
comments
come
today
wearing
a
hat,
as
vice
president
of
the
WV
CA.
N
We
felt
it
was
important
to
appear
today
to
restate
that
our
position
is
unchanged
from
that
of
a
year
ago,
in
May
of
2014,
the
Association
presented
a
statement
of
planning
committee
where
we
stated
our
refusal
to
support
the
applicants
request
for
additional
height,
as
this
applicants
should,
first
and
foremost
comply
with
the
CDP
tree
iterate
from
our
previous
statements.
The
WBC
is
not
anti-development
and
welcomes
developmental
in
the
community,
and
we
welcome
development
on
this
slot
and
we
further
welcome
Mizrahi's
developments
to
Ottawa
and
their
quality
development,
which
were
known.
N
However,
the
WV
CA
cannot
support
development
that
goes
against
the
CDP
and
a
wsw
secondary
plan
from
here
on
out
the
comments
I
will
make
on
my
own
and
not
in
my
position
for
the
WBCA
so
very
quickly.
I'm
a
fifth-generation
catch,
asipi
resident
we've
been
in
a
community
for
another
150
years,
and
in
fact
my
family
is
my
immediate
family
is
all
lived
within
a
few
blocks.
N
To
begin
with,
I
will
state
upfront
that
I
do
not
agree
with
through
this
development
for
several
reasons,
chiefly
because
it
goes
against
the
CDP,
because
it
calls
for
the
destruction
of
a
true
piece
of
local
history,
because
it
goes
against
my
personal
hopes
and
wishes
for
Wellington
village
and
because
I
personally
do
not
find
it
to
be
deserving
of
the
term
landmark.
I
did
not
believe
that
merits
this
distinction
and,
more
importantly,
nor
do
I
believe
that
city
staff
and
a
planning
committee
should
be
determining
at
this
time.
What
is
a
landmark?
N
Regarding
these
terms
and
to
avoid
a
future
situation,
similar
will
occur
on
this
property.
To
me,
this
sounds
like
an
admission
of
unpreparedness
to
fully
and
fairly
deal
with
this
come
proposal.
I
was
an
M
shock.
The
OMB
has
open
the
soup
bowl
for
developers,
but
I
find
myself
even
more
shocked
to
the
City
of
Ottawa,
consider
rating
in
others
and
put
its
support
behind
the
definition
that
is
not
yet
established
versus
leaving
the
OMB
is
sort
of
their
own
loophole.
They've
created
I
to
agree
that
even
the
OMB
should
not
be
defining.
N
What
is
there
not
a
landmark?
This
is
not
the
role,
but
it
even
more
social,
obviously
councils,
or
at
least
not
right
now,
not
until
a
more
clear
and
concise
definition,
landmark
is
agreed
upon
and
then
at
the
proper
time
can
be
assessed,
perhaps
by
a
committee
made
up
of
respectable
architects
and
designers
empowered
to
make
these
decisions.
This
is
a
historic
property
with
a
lot
of
significance,
aim
back
to
the
old
days,
Richmond
Road
I've
written
a
column
about
it
about
what
goes
on
there
and
then
one
of
the
more
unfortunate
elements.
N
This
proposal
is
at
the
hundred
twenty
year
old
O'neill
house,
fellows
restaurant,
which
is
a
true
landmark
and
piece
of
local
history
will
be
demolished
in
order
to
construct
a
comparatively
artificial
landmark,
the
building,
and
particularly
to
redesign
top
three
storeys
simply
does
not
fit
the
neighborhood
as
much
as
it
might
downtown.
Ottawa
I
cannot
think
of
any
element
in
this
building.
That
looks
like
any
structure
in
kitchens
to
be
past
or
present.
N
There
were
and
are
many
structures
within
a
30
second
walk
for
which
inspiration
could
be
drawn
that
would
make
it
a
better
fit,
such
as
the
1860s
built
convent
building
across
the
street.
The
1830s
built
a
lean
Heaney
have
snow
richmond
with
its
distinctive
metal,
clad
mansard
roof
the
Frank
Lloyd
Wright,
inspired
home
on
here
on
Avenue,
the
unmistakable
stone
lampposts
up
and
down
Island
Park
Drive,
or
even
anyone
wanting
to
villages,
single-family
homes
that
have
been
built
over
the
between
the
20s
and
40s.
N
Then
there
just
a
few
example,
but
none
of
that
is
here.
It
simply
appears,
as
though
changes
when
they
do
p0
and
B,
not
for
the
good
of
the
neighborhood
without
hard
drive
or
Robson
Street
landscapes,
Street
scapes,
so
precedents
to
me
is
the
issue
here:
presidents
of
allowing
a
circumvention
of
the
CDP
by
virtue
of
an
arbitrary
landmark
status,
of
allowing
this
type
of
development
along
the
most
important
preserved,
scenic
entry
route,
impart
Drive
and
the
presence
of
city
making
this
decree
web
property
a
predefined
and
most
of
all
the
precedents
of
a
developer.
N
Knowing
what
the
rules
were
buying
a
property
at
a
price
that
was
too
high
to
make
a
profit
within
those
rules.
They
it's
still
succeeding
by
virtue
of
obtaining
an
exemption.
The
CDP
calls
for
a
neighborhood
standard
of
six
stories
of
height
a
special
Clause
within
it
allows
for
nine
stories
of
this
intersection
because
it's
considered
a
gateway,
goryeo
12
stories,
essentially
doubling
this
neighborhood
limit.
It
is
too
much
in
this
new
landmark
laws
and
used
by
the
OMB,
has
no
business
being
approved
or
even
considered
by
city
staff.
N
C
One
of
the
questions
you
cited
a
number
of
buildings
that
are
contextual
that
are
in
the
neighborhood
right
now,
from
which
the
architect
could
have
taken
taking
risk
use
you
not
suggesting,
though,
that
the
buildings
would
be
built
like
a
1930s
gas
station.
There
are
ways
to
be
sensitive,
I
assume
to
take
those
cues
and
building
them
into
something
that
is
modern
and
has
an
element
of
Wow
right.
N
C
I
A
B
A
B
Know
there
was
ever
an
athlete
with
the
Reznor
files
before
so.
I
am
Kate
files
and
I'm
about
46
garrison
Street,
which
is
the
house
that
that's
the
development
that
we're
talking
about
to
the
north
directly
and
because
my
house
is
located
at
the
very
back
of
the
property
line.
I'm
I've
said
this
a
million
times
and
meetings,
but
our
bedroom
window
is,
you
know,
feet
away
from
this
building.
B
B
I
also
want
to
remind
everybody
that
the
previous
chair
of
this
committee
and
also
the
Ontario
the
board
both
expressed
their
I
guess,
admiration
of
mizrahi,
for
the
overwhelming
support
was
in
the
community
for
a
building
that
he
was
proposing
at
that
time
and
again
for
the
building
that
he's
proposing
now.
I,
don't
think
the
C
sees
that
kind
of
support
for
a
lot
of
new
development
and
I
just
want
to
mention
that
that
meeting
that
happened
on
September,
15th
I
think
it
was.
B
There
was
a
slide
that
said,
there
was
only
seven
written
recommendations
and
sixty
against
I
was
not
aware
that
we
were
supposed
to
supply
a
written
comment
at
that
meeting.
They
were
just
went
and
we
spoke.
We
expressed
our
interest
in
our
approval
of
the
project,
so
I
think
that
seven
460
against
might
be
a
little
misleading.
B
Was
asking
about
the
character
of
our
own
park?
I
can't
speak
to
the
character
of
Island
Park
itself
that
I
I
could
make
a
educated
guess
at
an
abandoned
building.
That's
slowly
deteriorating
into
a
giant.
Eyesore
is
not
in
keeping
with
the
character
of
Island,
Park
and
there's
one
other
thing:
I
want
to
say
my
own
personal
recommendations,
the
Planning
Committee.
Is
it
take
a
very
long
and
careful
look
at
the
methods
that
mr.
B
Mizrahi
undertook
when
he
first
came
to
our
neighborhood
and
give
consideration
to
making
that
process
for
all
developers
in
all
areas
in
Ottawa?
All
of
us
who
took
part
in
that
would
be
happy
to
sit
with
any
member
of
this
committee
to
go
over
the
details
of
what
transpired
and
how
he
was
over
to
you
know,
introduce
himself
to
the
community
and
get
our
support
with
some
chart.
Concerns
make
changes.
He
made
a
lot
of
changes
to
that
building
before
he
ever
made
an
application
to
the
similar
model
for
a
building
permit.
B
A
You
very
much,
and
and
as
the
previous
chair
said,
and
as
this
current
chair
says,
if
you,
if
we
allow
clapping,
then
we
allow
booing
to
and
while
clapping
is,
is
far
nicer
to
receive
those
are
the
rules.
So
thank
you
very
much
any
questions
at
all
for
Miss
Sarah
files.
Don't
thank
you
very
much
for
coming
up
today.
A
And
if
you've
noticed
I've
kind
of
given
up
on
trying
to
structure
how
you,
what
you're
talking
to
to
keep
the
focus,
even
though
we
did
a
procedural
memo,
we
talked
about,
you
know
what
we're
discussing
today,
but
I
think
it's
not
about
what
I'm
gonna
win.
So
I'm
sticking
to
the
five
minutes.
Thank.
B
You,
madam
chair,
my
name,
is
Elizabeth
Marston
and
I
live
at
42
garrison,
Street,
this
property
abuts.
The
north
side
of
the
development
in
question
I've
been
in
that
neighborhood
for
over
35
years,
so
I
have
seen
it
go
and
I
have
seen
changes
most
most
changes
over
the
last
5-10
years,
I've
seen
houses
torn
down
new
modern
buildings,
constructed
they're
popping
up
everywhere
in
our
neighborhood
as
well.
B
In
Warrington,
Street
and
Richmond
Road
I've
compared
and
I've
seen.
Businesses
come
in
flourish,
new
establishments
with
very
modern
buildings,
I've
seen
progress
and
I,
see
I've
seen
I've
seen.
People
coming
in
the
neighborhood
has
really
quite
has
grown
and
has
changed
immensely
since
I've
lived
there.
In
particular
the
property
in
question.
I've
looked
at
the
building
and
I
think
that
is.
B
And
I
think
it's
unique,
distinct,
landmark
and
I'm
very
proud
to
have
that
in
my
neighborhood
as
a
landmark
as
a
gateway
down
Island
Park
Drive,
there
are
tourists.
There
are
international
figures,
there's
there's
people
to
come
into
that
neighborhood
and
I
wanted
to
be
able
to
say,
look
at
that
building,
not
building
at
the
corner
Wellington
and
Island
Park,
the
one
with
the
steeple.
That's
where
you
go
from
from
there
and
take
direction,
it's
an
orientation
location,
so
I
fully
support
the
12
story
in
the
present
present
design.
Thank
you
thank.
A
H
Okay,
I'm
sorry,
yes,
today,
my
name
is
Duff
Mitchell
I'm,
very
pleased
to
have
the
opportunity
to
appear
here
today
on
behalf
of
the
Island
Park
Community
Association,
to
explain
why
we
disagree
with
the
staff
report
of
October
20th.
Our
disagreement
comes
under
two
broad
themes.
First,
the
report
basis
its
recommendations
on
questionable
criteria
for
a
landmark
building.
Second,
the
mizrahi
design
does
not
meet
either
the
Owen
B's
or
the
cities
definition
of
landmark
building
now
I'd
just
like
to
take
a
moment
to
provide
more
detail
on
those
two
broad
themes.
H
The
first
theme,
our
criticism
of
the
staff
report.
The
staff
report
uses
selective
subjective
criteria.
It
relies
exclusively
on
the
owen
b's
criteria
for
landmark
building,
despite
the
only
B's
chairs
own
claim
that
these
are
not
exclusive.
According
to
the
staff
report,
these
OMB
criteria
are
vague,
distinctiveness,
picturesqueness
element
of
well,
none
of
which
is
an
architectural
term,
and
the
staff
report
clarifies
these
terms
by
referring
to
a
generic
dictionary,
the
Webster
dictionary,
not
even
a
Canadian
dictionary,
rather
than
standards
of
architectural
design,
which
could
be
found
googling
through
the
Internet.
H
Second
criticism
of
staff
report.
It
fails
to
mention
the
city's
own
definition
of
landmark
policy,
a
landmark
building
story
and
the
policy
behind
it.
By
going
to
the
internet
and
googling
the
City
Planning
Department
one
can
find
in
the
glossary,
as
we've
heard
already,
a
definition
for
landmark
building,
which
we
just
follows.
Landmark
buildings
can
serve
as
navigational
beacons
and
focal
points.
They
should
exhibit
the
highest
level
of
architectural
excellence
and
achieve
a
variety
of
community
objectives
and
then,
in
brackets
not
all
buildings
are
landmark
or
icon
buildings.
H
Third,
the
staff
report
does
not
consider
established
criteria
for
architecture
again.
If
one
had
used
the
Internet
one
could
have
found
out
that
there
is
in
Canada
something
called
the
Canadian
architect
Awards
of
Excellence.
They
provide
very
detailed
criteria
as
to
what
constitutes
architectural
excellence,
for
example.
They
it
reads,
according
to
the
website,
a
bearing
solidly
grounded
in
an
understanding
of
the
site
and
placed
program
to
create
a
thoughtful
narrative
with
clear
ideas
about
how
to
create
community
through
architectural
form
and
space.
H
Now,
I'd
like
to
turn
my
attention
to
the
second
broad
thing.
Our
criticism
of
the
Mizrahi
design
itself
like
to
look
at
the
design
from
both
the
perspective
of
the
cities,
definition
of
landmark
building
and
the
OMB
criteria,
drawing
from
one
of
our
residents,
who
is
an
architect
well
known,
I,
think
to
many
of
you
hear
the
truth.
Brisbane
the
project
fails
to
meet
the
criteria
of
architectural
excellence,
because
it
does
not
come
close
to
continuing
the
contributing
rather
to
the
urban
context
of
Westborough
parliamentary
precedent.
H
H
Historic
ISM
does
not
fit
the
vibrant
character.
West
bill
is
developing.
The
design
does
not
reflect
heritage
and
architecture
of
Island
Park
Drive.
Most
of
us
dates
from
the
1930s
and
Metroid's.
Now,
turning
to
the
OMB
Street
generic
criteria,
it
is
the
board's
position
that
the
project
is
not
sufficiently
too
think
of
thought
through
for
a
derivative
of
a
Gothic
style,
more
commonly
found
in
the
downtown's
of
water
or
London
and
other
capitals.
The
project
is
not
sufficiently
picturesque
and
the
project
classics
significant
element
of
well.
H
We
believe
that,
rather
than
well,
it
is
to
reproduce
the
following
reaction:
is
that
a
government
building
or
a
hotel?
So
this
the
staff
report
suffers?
Emissions
is
subjective,
selective
the
module
he
designed
is
not
sufficiently
distinctive
or
picturesque,
nor
does
it
contribute
create
a
thoughtful
narrative
with
clear
ideas
how
to
create
community.
It
therefore
does
not
merit
an
exemption
from
the
zoning
bylaw
and
secondary
plan.
Thank
you.
H
That
the
staff
report
should
represent
food
policy
advice.
We
believe
that
it
represents
bad
policy
advice
and
that
good
policy
decisions
should
not
be
based
upon
bad
policy
advice,
and
we
think
it
represents
that
policy
advice
because
of
its
omissions,
sative,
'ti
and
subjectivity.
We
do
agree
that
the
committee
makes
its
decisions
based
upon
what
criteria
it
sets
for
itself,
but
at
a
minimum
the
staff
advice
should
be
good
policy
advice
and
we
feel
it
fails
in
that
respect.
Ok,
did
you
understand.
J
H
C
H
H
The
Community
Association
tries
to
be
very
transparent.
This
matter
we
sent
out
an
email
blast
to
our
residents,
of
which
we
have
email
addresses.
He
responded
to
that
email
blast
and
the
request
was:
do
you
have
an
opinion
on
this
matter,
and
this
was
the
opinion
that
he
communicated
back
to
us.
We've
selected
some
of
his
comments.
He
had
other
comments
as
well.
Okay,.
A
I
Thank
you.
My
name
is
Val
Forster
for
the
past
24
years,
I've
been
professor
of
philosophy
at
the
University
of
Ottawa.
For
the
past
15
years,
I've
been
a
resident
of
Island
Park
and
of
10
houses
south
of
the
site
in
question.
I'm
a
member
of
the
island
of
the
board
of
the
Island
Park
Community
Association,
but
I'm
not
here
to
represent
their
views.
My
speak
for
myself
today,
I
have
to
say
the
only
B's
decision
is
listened
to
me
in
many
respects.
I
The
finding
that
a
12
story
building
is
permissible
on
the
site
if
it
constitutes
a
landmark,
is
not
based
on
any
justification
given
by
masaki
developments,
so
justification
conjured
by
the
OMB
and
I
find
that
troubling.
It's
true.
The
term
landmark
opposed
in
the
glossary
of
the
city's
official
plan,
but
has
been
already
mentioned
many
times.
The
definition
is
so
vague.
It
can't
possibly
serve
as
a
technical
directive
from
which
developers
and
citizens
can
rely
with
any
confidence.
You
and
me
made
no
serious
attempt
to
remember
a
precise
definition.
I
I
In
this
particular
case,
it
is
to
say
the
very
least,
institutionally
odd
to
have
the
very
panel
charged
with
providing
independent
you
Asian
of
the
Mizrahi
project,
working
alongside
the
developer,
in
an
effort
to
persuade
the
be
defined
against
City
Council's
decisions.
This
way
of
proceeding
is
not
just
odd,
however,
seems
to
me
to
introduce
an
incoherence
into
the
staff
report.
The
report
finds
that
the
majority
project
is
a
landmark
building.
That
resolutely
maintains
that
it's
inappropriate
stew,
inappropriate
to
its
surroundings
and
I,
don't
understand
how
both
of
those
things
can
be
true.
I
What
we're
telling
argument
against
a
landmark
status
of
the
building
can
there
be
then
staffs
claim
that
it
does
not
comply
with
the
intent
of
the
compatibility
and
design
policy
of
the
Official
Plan
and
does
not
satisfy
the
urban
village
vision
of
the
Wellington
Street
West
secondary
plan,
with
respect
to
requested
building
height
bulk
form
and
scale.
All
of
those
things
seem
to
me
to
me
the
mark
of
bad
Wow
when
a
more
narrow
and
subjective
question
of
the
project's
design.
I
just
wish
to
endorse
all
the
criticisms.
I've
heard
this
morning.
I
I
did
there
wasn't
one
I
disagreed
with
I'll.
Just
add
a
couple
of
others.
The
cap
to
me
is
still
not
integrated
with
the
rest
of
the
building.
It's
a
large
mass
of
copper,
stuck
on
a
very
heavy
nine
story
pedestal
and
the
two
parts
don't
tied
together
beside
you.
The
building
makes
this
especially
evident
to
me.
Secondly,
the
poplar
respects
moon
is
a
rather
cynical
replica
of
the
features
of
major
downtown
buildings
and
the
style
of
these
buildings
isn't
has
no
residence
or
connection
with
the
architecture
along
Richmond
and
Wellington
Street.
I
And
finally,
the
design
of
the
top
slate
floor
serves
to
isolate
residents
from
the
life
on
the
street.
It
seems
to
me
proposals
to
build
grandiose
mansions
in
the
sky,
complete
with
a
private
rooftop
playground,
and
that
could
be
not
could
not
be
a
merit
ARDS
with
the
open,
unfenced
and
accessible
character
of
the
residences
that
make
Island
Park
Drive
special.
I
So
as
a
result
of
the
problems
with
the
process
and
substance
of
the
staff
evaluation,
along
with
the
limitations
of
the
style
and
character
of
the
design.
Excuse
me
he's,
given
the
Planning
Committee
two
reasons
for
concluding
that
the
Mizrahi
project
is
not
landmark
and
such
a
decision
would
have
the
added
benefit
of
reoffending,
duly
arrived
at
planning
documents
and
the
authority
of
planning
staff,
Planning,
Committee
and
City
Council
to
apply
those
documents
to
developments
throughout
the
city.
Thank
you.
Thank.
C
I
Don't
actually,
it
seems
to
me
quite
at
odds
with
the
character
of
the
surrounding
buildings,
with
the
tree-lined
Street
and
towers
over
and
Dwarfs
the
single-family
homes
in
the
area
in
the
trees,
but
it
also
is
a
very
8
in
character
that
that
and
style
that
is
not
typical
of
the
area
at
all.
To
me
now,.
C
I
A
O
Good
morning
madam
chair
I
sit
before
you
wearing
achoo
hats.
The
first
hat
is
that
a
heritage
activist
and
the
second
architecture
buff
as
heritage
activist
I'm,
happy
to
report
that
no
designated
building
designated
heritage
building
will
be
harmed
in
the
construction
of
this
landmark
building
as
architecture
buff
I
find
this
proposed
building,
rather
striking
I
find
it
quite
poetic
that,
at
the
eastern
end
of
Wellington
Street
said
the
Parliament
Buildings
and
the
laws
fair
block,
neo-gothic
and
Second
Empire
style
buildings
with
copper,
roofs
and
at
the
western
end
of
Wellington
Street.
O
A
copy
of
this
far
west
might
not
have
a
context,
but
given
what
lies
at
the
opposite
end
of
the
street,
it
does
the
ever-changing
visual
of
a
copper
roof
at
the
intersection
of
two
of
Ottawa's,
most
prestigious
trees
changing
over
the
next
30
years.
Until
it
reaches
maturity,
will
add.
The
element
of
wow
sought
out.
O
A
You,
sir,
took
me
a
while
to
figure
out
which
side
you
were
on,
but
then
once
you
did,
you
know
actually
earlier
I
was
saying
to
councilor
miss
Baum,
who
chairs
the
built
heritage
subcommittee
that
some
of
the
the
detail
pulling
it
down
through
the
in
talkie,
but
the
mansard,
roofs
and
the
etc
makes
it
a
likely
candidate
if
it
has
ever
built
for
heritage
designation.
So
thank
you
very
much
mm-hmm
Naomi,
Lipsky
Naomi
and
followed
by
Roland
or
say
Roland.
Are
you
here?
Thank
you
we're
halfway
through
folks,
just
so
that
you
know.
B
Your
halfway
mark
I
already
submitted
my
comments
by
email
in
support
of
the
proposed
building,
so
I
won't
repeat
them
here,
but
I
would
like
to
be
emphasized
now
after
reading
an
article
in
the
citizen
this
past
weekend.
That
I
think
is
in
part,
misleading,
although
it
says
most
written
comments,
at
least
until
today
don't
support
the
proposal.
I
attended
the
only
public
meeting
on
September
24th
regarding
the
new
proposal
and
the
majority
of
people
in
the
room
think
is
supported
by
their
applause
time
and
times
throughout
the
meeting
when
the
architect
spoke
mr.
A
L
I
have
a
lot
more
to
say
about
Wow
and
landmark
in
a
few
moments,
but
I'm
here
to
join
to
voice
my
support
for
the
recommendations
of
the
city
planning
staff
report
and
to
set
out
my
reasons
for
doing
so.
My
name
is
Roland
d'orsay,
as
previously
mentioned
I'm
a
37
year
resident
violent
drive,
a
former
member
of
the
Highland
Park
Community
Association
board,
and
currently
member
the
board
of
the
Champaign
Park
Community
Association,
but
I'm
here
today.
On
my
own
behalf.
L
In
my
view,
the
staff
got
it
exactly
right
with
both
of
its
recommendations
and
I'd
like
to
emphasize
that
there
are
indeed
two
and
the
second
one,
in
my
view,
is
no
less
important
than
the
first
in
particular
I.
Think
the
board
the
staff
report
got
it
right
with
respect
to
the
fact
that
the
really
is
only
one
immediate
issue
before
us
today,
and
that
is:
does
the
name
is
Ronnie
design
satisfied
the
landmark
criteria
set
out
by
the
OMB.
L
There
might
have
been
other
options
to
consider
at
some
point
in
time,
but
those
are
foreclosed
as
I
understand
it
in
large
measure,
because
neither
the
city
nor
the
members
of
the
public
or
anyone
else
filed
an
appeal
or
asked
the
OMB
to
review
its
decisions,
its
decision
and
the
time
window.
For
that
is
closed.
So
as
a
practical
matter,
we're
left
with
only
the
OMB
provisions
with
respect
to
what
is
or
is
not
a
landmark
to
make.
L
Our
decision
in
my
view,
was
redesigned
satisfies
all
of
those
criteria
set
out
by
the
OMB,
but
I'd
like
to
focus
briefly
on
three
of
them
in
particular,
to
create
a
visual
orientation
point.
It
no
doubt.
Does
it's
gonna
be
hard
to
miss
that
building
if
it
gets
built,
does
it
provide
a
sense
of
location
within
the
larger
urban
pattern?
Again,
in
my
view,
it
certainly
does
you'd
be
hard-pressed
to
miss
it
and
to
figure
out
where
you
are
relative
to
that
building.
L
L
L
L
A
L
Wanna
comment
is
the
staff
recommendation
that
councillors
review
the
Wellington
Street
West
second
day
plan
and
the
official
plan
to
confirm
the
city's
objectives
with
respect
to
the
use
of
the
terms
landmark
and
Gateway
architecture.
I
think
that's
an
excellent
idea,
one
that
raises
important
public
policy
and
planning
issues
and
I
hope
it
will
be
widely
endorsed
by
the
community
associations
as
well
as
councillors.
I.
L
Only
suggest
that
intelligent
urban
planning,
in
my
view,
allows
for
the
creation
of
places
where
sometimes
the
unplanned
can
happen.
If
you
look
at
the
history
of
the
world's
most
vibrant
and
livable
cities,
that
is
often
where
their
greatness
is
to
be
found,
as
residents
want
city
planners
counselors
and
the
OMB
to
respect
what
we
intend
to
see
DPS
to
say,
as
they
should,
communal
associations
are.
A
Thank
you
and
listen.
Thank
you
for
you.
Thank
you
for
your
sending
us
ahead
of
time.
Your
pay
for
your
submission
appreciate
that
I
should
have
said
that
at
the
beginning,
we
have
a
lot
of
people
that
have
contributed
time
to
this
to
this
item
and
have
sent
in
submissions
and
I
want
you
all
to
appreciate,
and
if
you
know,
and
some
people
that
have
know
that
we
take
a
very
serious
and
we
read
them.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
very
much,
sir.
A
H
You,
madam
chair
I,
did
have
prepared
remarks
and
they
didn't
really
address.
Your
request
is
to
discuss
the
nine
marks
so
I'm
going
to
shoot
from
the
hip
here.
I've
been
a
property
owner
in
Washington
West
community,
since
1988
I
owned
a
number
of
residential
commercial
properties
in
the
neighborhood
I.
H
Founding
member,
it
was
continuing
to
be
a
board
member,
there
was
two
must
be
ia
and
I
have
been
following
this
valve
from
the
beginning.
With
regards
to
the
landmark
status
of
the
of
the
project
all
I
can
offer.
You
is
my
experience
simply
because
I
have
absolutely
no
qualifications
whatsoever
to
determine
what
is
a
you
know
qualifies
as
a
landmark.
H
My
background
is:
is
an
engineering
and
I'm
a
property
manager
and
I
would
say
to
you
that
most
of
the
people
in
this
room
have
no
qualifications
to
children,
whether
it's
a
landmark
that
said,
here's,
why
I
think
it's
a
landmark
whenever
I
discuss
the
part
of
the
project
with
people
who
are
unfamiliar
with
the
location,
the
fastest
and
simplest
way
to
bring
people
to
that
location
is
to
tell
them
it's
the
former
pro
showing
car
wash.
Does
that
make
the
and
right
away?
They
know
exactly
what
I'm
talking
about?
H
Does
that
make
the
potion
and
car
wash
a
la
mark?
That
said,
when
I
have
visitors
coming
in
to
Ottawa
and
trying
to
direct
them
to
the
pet,
the
Byward
market,
I
often
say
as
you
get
there,
you
will
see
the
shadow
area.
Thus
the
channel
area
is
a
red
mark.
What
I
would
like
to
say
to
you
is
that,
given
the
opportunity
for
shine,
carwash
was
shot
away.
I
would
suggest
that
we
should
ought
to
err
on
the
side
of
the
shadow
area
for
the
corner
of
Wellington
Park.
H
H
H
When
we
were
discussing
the
community
design
plan,
the
high-level
policy
documents
were
being
changed
to
to
promote
higher
intensification,
especially
a
gateway
locations.
When
you
look
at
what's
been
approved
by
Planning,
Committee
and
City
Council
that
the
other
gateways
primarily
Parkdale
and
Scot
witchcrafts
25
stories
and,
at
the
other
end
at
Somerset
and
B,
so
that's
Claridge,
30
stories.
The
12
stories
that
we're
looking
at
the
restaurant
gateway
is
small
in
comparison.
That
is
is
is
how
this
ought
to
be
decided
not
by
whether
it
qualifies
as
a
line
work.
Yes,
it's
a
landmark.
H
A
I
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
David
Mulcair
I'm,
a
recently
retired
Air
Force
officer
of
37
years
no
experience
in
city
planning
per
se,
but
I
have
seen
a
number
of
the
world
cities
in
30
years,
and
each
in
various
states
of
repair
and
I
can
talk
a
bit
about
city,
unplanned.
I
If
we
want
to
talk
about
that,
the
upshot
of
all
that
is
that
I
really
like
living
in
West,
Berlin
and
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
freely
speak
so
how
I
became
interested
councillor
leaper
sends
a
regular
newsletter
out
which
I
really
like,
and
in
that
this
issue
was
there
it's
only
five
or
six
days
ago
that
I
really
got
the
hook
here.
Looking
at
the
artist's
rendering
I
was
struck
by
the
lack
of
fit
aesthetically
speaking
and
the
present
design
is
so
obviously
out
of
character
with
the
culture
of
the
neighborhood.
I
That
I
wanted
to
understand
something
about
how
we
got
to
this
point,
and
that
was
the
hook
for
me.
So
is
it
landmark
or
not,
subjective,
I?
Think
all
of
the
interventions
today
are
subjective,
but
is
it
landmark
or
not?
I,
don't
think
so,
I!
Don't
the
proposal
satisfies
the
principles,
the
nine
principles
underlying
landmark
status
and
I
think
the
council's
recommendation
should
make
that
to
the
board,
should
should
say
so
plainly
and
I'll
go
on
a
little
bit
more
on
that
theme.
I
So
my
thinking,
if
I
were
asked
to
express
my
observations
in
the
language
of
the
report
or
the
language
that
I'm,
given
the
limits
of
language
I'm
given
I
would
say
that
the
proposal
evokes
an
element
of
wow
yes,
but
in
the
wrong
direction.
The
wow
factor
evokes
more
shock
or,
as
I
used
to
say,
shock
and
awe
and
detracts
from
the
local
culture.
I
I
think
the
reason
that
the
the
tops
of
the
TV
tower
Detroit
and
1501
and
1000
work
well
page
7
of
the
report
that
those
work
well
because
they
fit
in
the
context
of
their
respective
environments.
Those
tops
are
speaking
to
a
business
high
traffic,
some
tourism
use
gathering
places
professional
culture
etc,
and
the
board's
call
for
a
cultural
fit
this
cultural
fit
that
I'm
talking
about
or
character.
I
The
board's
call
for
that
is
reflected,
I,
think
best
in
principles,
D
and
E.
On
page
17
and
I
looked
at
this
thing
from
the
print
from
the
viewpoint
of
principle,
C
and
G
versus
D
and
E.
So
if
principle,
C
and
G's
use
words
like
distinctives
stand
out,
a
very
distinctive
and
upper
floors
must
display
that
element
of
wow
and
D
and
E
use
words
like
picturesque,
and
the
top
must
contribute
to
ambience.
That
prefix
is
important.
I
Ambi
is
a
prefix,
ambi
means
combining
form
and
ambiance
of
course
means
a
feeling
or
mood
associated
with
a
place.
So
looking
at
those
four
concepts
and
those
two
dualities
I
looked
at
and
the
report
I
found
a
flaw.
What
I
thought
was
a
flaw
relating
to
how
these
two
principles
were
applied
in
deriving
the
staff
recommendation
on
page
13
third
paragraph,
the
staff
write,
the
top
of
the
building
dot.
I
Dot
dot
will
be
distinctive
from
other
developments
in
the
West
Wellington
West,
bro
neighborhoods
and
as
such
can
be
picturesque
and
in
this
statement
assess
the
staff
seems
to
be
telling
me
that
the
building
meets
picturesque
principles,
D
and
D,
because
it
meets
distinctive
principles,
C
and
G.
So
I
found
this
to
be
a
little
bit
logically
problematic.
I
The
board,
of
course,
when
it's
explaining
these
principles
on
page
17
intends
us
to
read
them
independently
and
to
apply
them
independently,
obviously
using
architectural
concepts
etc,
not
the
Webster's
dictionary,
but
still
to
be
applied
independently
and
mutually
exclusively
and
I
mentioned
the
word.
Ambience
there
I'll
be
combining
form,
I
think
ambience
could
be
a
term.
We
could
operationalize
architectural
II
here
versus
focusing
on
wow
wow
we're
focusing
on
Wow.
I
So
the
top
of
the
proposed
structure
achieves
the
element
of
well,
but
does
so
in
the
wrong
direction
and
I,
don't
think
D
and
D,
picturesque
and
ambience
have
been
achieved
here
and
I.
Think
they've
not
been
achieved
because
they've
not
been
well
operationalized
and
I.
Think
they've
not
been
well
operationalize,
because
time
is
of
the
essence
for
the
staff
and
I.
Think
councilor
leapers
comment
about
principle,
F
character
and
I
forget
the
other
word
was
not
operationalized
very
well
either.
Bottom
line
from
my
perspective
and
I'm.
I
Closing
now
is
that
the
landmark
status
has
not
been
achieved,
not
according
to
the
board's
guidance.
The
principle,
though
page
17,
and
not
according
to
common
sense,
either
just
just
a
quick
look
at
it
is
a
beautiful
building
in
its
own
right.
No
question
it
is
well
designed
and
as
far
as
I
can
tell,
mizrahi
is
a
great
developer.
That's
that's
my
my
and
cents,
so
I
think
counsel.
Here
has
an
opportunity
to
cite
principles
DME
quite
well
and
to
make
its
recommendation
that
way.
What
does
that
do?
A
A
O
O
Also,
an
architectural
historian,
I'm
supervisor
of
the
history
and
theory
of
architecture
program
at
Carleton,
University
and
president
of
the
site
of
the
study
of
architecture
in
Canada
I
want
to
make
some
comments
initially
about
the
design
itself,
because
without
wishing
to
diminish
the
amount
of
work
that
went
into
revising
the
design,
one
thing
this
struck
me
was
actually
the
fundamental
similarities
between
the
original
rejected
design
and
this
one.
The
footprint,
of
course,
is
the
same.
O
In
my
view,
it's
pretty
much
impossible
for
that
kind
of
pastiche
or
patchwork
design
to
design
to
produce
a
really
great
building,
but
I
also
realized
that
that's
not
the
question.
The
question
is:
is
it
a
landmark
design
and
I'll
start
by
observing
that
that
is
a
very
strange
question
to
ask
in
many
respects,
because
it's
posterity
that
decides
whether
or
not
something
is
a
landmark.
That's
not
a
status
that
can
be
assigned
by
a
committee
in
advance.
O
Be
that
as
it
may
and
whatever
you
take
landmark
to
mean
I,
don't
actually
think
that
you
can
create
one
simply
by
adding
aspire
for
pinnacles
quasi
tower
and
fo
flying
buttresses
to
building
that
so
clearly
does
not
need
them
has
no
reason
to
have
them
very
obviously
intended
to
have
them,
and
this
segues
into
some
comments.
I
want
to
make
about
the
process,
because,
although
obviously
I'm,
very
critical
of
the
design
I,
don't
think
that
the
developer
and
designer
are
solely
responsible
for
its
flaws.
O
If
you
require
that
ability
to
be
a
landmark
but
don't
actually
define
that
term
in
any
substantive
way
than
this
sort
of
pastiche
is
inevitably
what
you're
going
to
end
up
with
when
I
read
through
the
staff
report,
I
was
looking
for
a
clear
definition
of
landmark,
and
there
are
a
few
points,
of
course
that
are
up
on
the
screen
now.
But
the
closest
thing
I
could
find
to
a
consistent
definition
of
landmark
was
that
it
simply
must
be,
and
this
is
a
quote
highly
distinctive
relative
to
its
surrounding
environment.
O
Now
it
should
hardly
be
pointing
out
that
the
criterion
of
highly
distinctive
is
not
just
inadequate
as
a
definition
and
ashle
asking
for
trouble.
Some
before
used
the
term
shock-and-awe,
any
shock-and-awe
design
would
qualify
as
highly
distinctive,
but
that's
not
going
to
give
us
buildings
or
neighborhoods
that
people
will
actually
want
to
live
in
I.
Think
it's
the
wrong
thing
to
be
looking
for.
So
to
sum
up,.
O
O
A
Thank
you,
sir.
Any
questions.
Thank
you
see
this.
Both
camps
of
get
clappers.
You
just
said
I
now
have
got
the
picture
because
it
means
that
clapping
is
going
clop
clop
anyway.
Thank
you.
Next
up,
I
have
Richard
Brando
Richard
is
McKellar.
Park
CA.
Are
you
speaking
behalf
of
the
CA
and
the
Association
in
yourself?
A
combination
I
think.
Q
You,
madam
chair
I,
oppose
the
recommendation
on
the
grounds
that
the
proposed
structure
does
not
constitute
a
landmark
to
warrant
exception
to
established
height
limits,
although
it
won't
mean
much
to
the
OMB
at
this
point.
The
city's
response
should
nonetheless
assert
that
landmark
in
this
exceptional
location
must
mean
more
than
built
form,
but
rather
must
also
reflect
function.
Q
This
conforms
the
landmark
in
common
parlance,
turn
left
at
the
gas
station
at
the
car
wash
at
G
C
T
C,
not
so
much
at
the
5th
of
a
condo
blocks.
You
know
the
one
looks
like
Shrek
unzipped,
a
true
landmark
on
this
site
would
serve
a
distinctive
recognizable
gateway
function,
not
just
yet
another
condo
tower
with
maybe
a
restaurant.
Q
On
the
ground
floor,
the
city
should
insist
on
that,
meaning,
even
though
it's
unlikely
that
this
conventional
sense
of
landmark
could
hold
sway,
and
anyway,
G
C,
T
C
already
has
a
home,
so
the
city
must
respond
in
these
terms
of
mere
architectural
merits.
By
these
criteria
to
the
proposed
design
falls
far
short
of
landmark.
It
is
not
enough
to
stand
out
as
an
exceptionally
weird
building
and
that's
a
generous
assessment
of
this
proposal,
as
expressed
by
the
public's
twenty
six
to
seven
negative
response
following
the
September
24th
consultation.
Q
These
are
not
naive,
opinions
easily
dismissed
and
the
council
is
not
obliged
to
ignore
its
residents
in
deference
to
a
blue-ribbon
panel
of
professional
cut
jurors.
Please
listen
to
those
residents,
trust
your
own
eyes.
This
building
is
not
a
landmark,
it's
just
weird.
For
example,
this
may
be
the
only
residential
structure
on
the
planet
with
flying
buttresses.
Q
This
is
not
a
landmark.
It's
just
weird
and
Weebly
out
of
place.
Here's
a
private
condo
tower
in
Westboro
clumsily
mimicking
the
monumental
public
buildings
of
Parliament
Hill,
some
three
miles
away.
Otto
certainly
has
modern
buildings.
Would
that
gracefully
reflect
those
parliamentary
design
elements
sakis,
elegant,
National,
Gallery,
the
US,
Embassy,
etc?
But
this
is
a
mockery.
Q
A
H
H
R
R
Mizrahi
developments
could
have
gone
away
from
the
board
decision
and
done
the
design
independent
of
the
city.
They
chose
not
to
do
that.
They
engaged
with
the
urban
design
review
panel,
which
is
the
city's
panel
on
design
a
subcommittee
was
set
up.
There
were
extensive
half-day
meetings
in
Toronto,
exploring
all
elements
of
design
can
I
turn.
R
These
examples
of
precedents
that
were
discussed
with
the
panel
they
represent
buildings
such
as
the
Parliament
Supreme
Court,
chateau
laurier,
the
Lord
Elgin.
What
we
see
in
those
landmarks
are
Manso,
rooftops,
Prime,
early,
copper,
robust
masonry
or
limestone
facades,
no
projections,
balconies
and
turrets,
and
it's
important
that
those
images,
rather
than
the
images
from
downtown
Toronto
or
downtown
to
Detroit
became
the
Patna
that
the
committee
used
when
looking
at
at
what
was
appropriate
with
respect
to
this
development.
I
move
forward
from
that
this
is
the
final
design,
as,
as
we've
discussed,
an
image
of
that.
R
What
I
wanted
to
show,
because
there
was
some
discussion
about
an
image.
This
is
an
image
from
Island
Park.
Looking
south,
it
was
indicated
that
there
was
no
images
of
that.
Just
so
you
can.
You
can
see
it
from
that
perspective.
I
also
point
out
that
the
surrounding
buildings
are
nine
storeys
in
height
that
is
what's
planned.
The
context
of
this
building
within
the
nine
story
scenario,
is
very
important
to
understand
in
terms
of
the
future
outcome
of
this
street
and
I.
R
Think
that
needs
to
be
recognized
when
we
look
at
the
design
philosophy
of
this
particular
building.
I
think
what
we,
what
is
important
and
I'm
going
to
go
back
to
the
building
itself.
The
four-story
base
responds
to
the
five
storey
podium
of
the
adjacent
building.
The
nine
story
datum
responds
to
the
height
of
the
buildings
that
are
proposed
in
the
future.
The
three-story
coffer
mansur
roofline
is
streamlined,
it's
elegant
and
it
integrates
with
the
building
massing.
A
lot
of
work
was
done
as
part
of
that
design
review
exercise
to
ensure
that
that
occur.
R
The
facade
was
softened
and
simplified.
The
balconies
were
inset
and
removed
in
terms
of
their
projection
on
three
sides
of
the
building.
The
strong
vertical
elements
were
introduced
through
the
use
of
piers,
which
reinforced
the
copper
ridges
on
the
upper
floors.
The
mansard
roof
is
set
back,
allowing
for
a
continuous
terrace
at
the
tenth
floor
and
clearly
demarcate
a
demarcation
of
the
roofline.
The
mechanical
penthouse
on
the
top
is
also
going
to
be
clad
and
copper.
The
corner
is
punctuated
with
a
unique
identifiable
architectural
statement.
R
It
gives
a
pedestrian
a
clear
visual
marker
as
to
the
entry
of
the
neighborhood
and
integrates
the
roof
with
the
body
of
the
building.
I
do
want
to
also
point
out,
because
there
was
some
discussion,
the
secondary
plan,
the
West
Wellington
secondary
plan
calls
for
a
landmark
building
at
this
location.
That
was
before
the
board
when
this
was
dealt
with.
There
is
a
definition
of
landmark
in
the
city's
official
plan
that
was
before
the
board.
R
Landmarks
provide
a
sense
of
location
to
the
observer
within
the
larger
urban
pattern,
such
as
that
created
by
a
significant
natural
feature
or
by
an
architectural
form
which
is
highly
distinctive
relative
to
its
surrounding
environment.
From
my
opinion,
in
my
opinion,
I
should
say
this
design
has
been
through
extensive
consideration
by
design
experts.
The
nine
points
that
were
identified
by
the
chair
have
been
achieved
and
the
definition
of
the
city,
I
think
is
clear.
Relative
to
what's
been
achieved
is.
C
So
you're
surprised,
I
think
a
couple
of
different
questions,
but
the
main
one
is:
why
not
look
at
an
architectural
queue
that
is
appropriate
to
catch
asipi
I
posted
a
video
on
my
blog
that
I
did
with
Andrew
King
over
the
weekend
that
took
a
look
at
you
know:
half
a
dozen
we
distinctive,
historically
sensitive
properties
that
are
in
kitchen
sippy,
from
which
you
could
have
built
a
lovely,
modern
building
that
would
have
some
context
to
the
neighborhood.
Why
the
parliamentary
precinct
I
think.
R
The
the
architectural
I
think
he
called
himself
a
hobbyist
who
came
forward
and
talked
about
the
relationship
of
Wellington
Street
and
the
the
patterning
of
what
occurred
is
occurring
at
the
East
End
to
the
west
and
is
important
in
that
consideration.
I
think
the
overall
context
of
design
and
when
we
look
at
landmarks
in
Ottawa
didn't
reflect
the
Toronto
examples
better
reflected
the
Ottawa
examples.
I
think
there
was
agreement
that
that
was
appropriate,
I
guess.
R
The
other
point
I'd
like
to
make
is
the
other
celebrated
buildings
in
tho
and
on
that
Street
you
look
at
the
G
CTC
building
the
element
or
you
look
at
the
westboro
station
at
the
opposite
end
of
the
street.
When
they
went
forward,
they
didn't
reflect
what
was
on
the
street,
which
is
predominately
two
storey
more
of
a
village
style,
perhaps
automotive
oriented
developments.
They
were
also
opposed
on
the
basis
that
they
were
out
of
character
that
they
didn't
fit
with
the
street.
R
Now,
when
they're
built
and
they're
in
place,
they're
celebrated
those
are
the
buildings
that
people
talk
about
as
being
appropriate
and
accommodating
contributing
to
the
community.
I
think
that
this
building
is
going
to
have
the
same
outcome.
The
design
obviously
reflects
a
different
approach,
but
it's
a
design
that
was
done
through
a
very
collaborative
process
with
experts
and
I.
Think
that
is
important
relative
to
this
committee's
consideration.
If.
H
H
C
R
C
Why
we've
changed
why
the
proponent
has
changed
the
architecture
in
this
case,
from
what
I
think
most
people
consider
to
be
a
relatively
nice
building,
I,
take
it
that
the
copper
roof
that
mimics
Parliament
Hill
was
added
solely
as
a
reaction
to
the
fact
that
the
Ontario
Municipal
Board
was
asking
for
the
landmark
status
there
wasn't.
This
was
not
a
proposal
that
was
made
in
the
beginning.
I
mean
it's
certainly
a
reaction
to
try
to
make
it
red
mark
well,.
R
Again,
I
would
say
a
response,
not
a
reaction
and
the
response
wasn't
an
independent
response
of
the
architect.
It
was
a
collaborative
response
working
with
your
urban
design
review
panel
to
key
members,
James
Brock,
who
heads
up
the
urban
design
department
at
the
City
of
Toronto
and
Mark
sterling
very
experienced
in
design
and
architecture.
Also,
at
the
meeting,
the
city
staff
from
the
urban
design
branch
were
there
to
listen
and
participate
as
well.
So
I
would
say
it
wasn't
a
reaction.
It
was
a
response.
It
was
a
careful
response.
It
was
a
considered
response.
R
C
C
A
G
Madam
chair,
it's
my
understanding
of
the
board's
decision
that
it
was
looking
for
the
representations
of
three
persons.
One
is
a
corporate
person,
the
architect
and
what
he
would
propose
mr.
Herr
wire
as
a
planner
who
took
the
stand
for
the
city
and
then
of
course,
Council.
And
so
it
is
the
views
of
the
two
individuals
and
in
the
corporate
view
of
Council
that
the
board
was
seeking
in
its
decision,
as
opposed
to
any
other
group
of
her
I.
Understand.
C
What
you're
saying
mr.
mark
the
representations
that
we
have
to
go
to
the
board
relatively
soon
they're
going
to
come
from
City
Council,
but
when
the
Board
issued
its
May
interim
ruling
and
it
became
clear
that
it
did
not
consider
the
architecture
of
the
previously
proposed
building
to
be
landmark
at
that
point
would
have
been
inappropriate
for
the
architect
for
the
performance
or
said
we
need
to
change
course.
Let's
seek
some
advice
from
people
here
in
the
community.
Let's
seek
advice
from
Planning
Committee.
G
C
R
S
E
R
H
H
R
Through
the
evolution
was
on
integrating
the
body
of
the
building,
with
the
top
of
the
building,
with
softening
the
visual
impact
of
that
building.
To
draw
the
eye
to
the
prominence
of
the
top,
the
spire
was
brought
down
to
get
better
vertical
integration
of
the
building.
The
balconies
that
previously
projected
were
inset
in
the
building
to
create
that
strong,
again
vertical
line
similar
to
the
buildings
than
the
precedent,
iconic
or
landmark
buildings
that
we
see
in
Ottawa.
R
A
A
P
Good
morning,
chair
harder
and
planning
committee,
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
and
present
my
feelings
regarding
this
matter.
My
name
is
Jen
Gillespie
I
am
I,
live
on
Island
Park
Drive,
two
doors
south
of
the
proposed
development;
I,
sorry
I,
sorry,
my
name
is
Dan
Gillespie
Ladon,
Island,
Park
Drive,
two
doors
from
the
proposed
development.
I
too,
am
a
board
member
of
the
Island
Park
Community
Association.
P
Today,
I'm
presenting
as
a
kitchen
city
resident
I,
spoke
a
planning
committee
last
fall
and
at
the
OMB
in
May,
so
I
think
that
we're
all
ready
you
understand,
that
landmark
is
the
issue
and
the
distinct
definitions
of
distinctiveness
to
justice
and
Wow
have
already
been
addressed.
So
I
can
skip
that.
So
my
opinion
is
that
I,
don't
think
landmark
definition
has
been
satisfied.
I
feel
that
the
city
did
an
excellent
job
with
defining
the
definition
of
landmark
throughout
City
Planning
documents,
as
outlined
in
my
first
slide.
P
Ok,
so
in
planning
and
development
grocery
terms,
there's
a
definition
section
8
of
the
Official
Plan
has
a
definition.
These
definitions
are
not
intended
to
be
exhaustive
and
finite
so
that
they
can
be
considered
in
application
and
in
context
when
used
in
city
policy
and
planning
documents.
As
an
example
of
the
application
of
landmark
definition
of
city
planning
context
is
illustrated
in
Wellington
West
secondary
plan,
which
states
in
Section
A
to
B
that
landmark
buildings
should
incorporate
the
form
values
of
Main
Street
values.
P
The
urban
design
review
panel
admits
in
their
staff
conclusion
that
the
design
that
does
not
comply
with
the
intent
of
the
compatibility
and
design
policies
of
the
official
planning,
nor
does
that
the
proposals
satisfy
the
village
vision
of
the
Wellington
West
secondary
plan.
So,
despite
the
C's
excellent
job
to
consider
the
correct
test
of
whether
a
building
is
landmark
by
incorporating
architectural
accidents,
excellence
that
is
defined
to
include
the
surrounding
communities
characteristics
and
how
a
building
will
fit
in
the
city's
report
before
us
today
continues.
P
I'm
sorry,
I
just
went
one
beyond.
Nevertheless,
here
we
are
today.
The
Ontario
Municipal
Board
has
provided
an
interim
une
direction
that
a
building
greater
than
9
storeys
could
be
appropriate
for
the
property
provided
the
design
of
the
building
and,
in
particular
to
the
design
of
the
rooftop.
The
top
three
floors
was
considered
to
be
a
landmark
building,
which
also
included
the
army
chairs,
recommending
criteria,
a
picturesque,
distinctiveness
and
wow
factor.
P
P
There
are
many
concerns
and
a
lack
of
clarity
surrounding
this
report.
Number
one
want
the
city's
definitions
and
examples
of
how
landmark
buildings
touch
communities
not
being
consulted
or
even
referred
to
in
this
report,
except
for
the
one
in
the
tap
just
mentioned.
Why
is
he
only
suggesting
ways
for
a
developer
to
get
what
they
want?
Why
is
such
loose
terminology
used
for
the
Army's
definition
of
landmark,
yet
the
city
is
asked
to
tighten
our
own
wording.
Is
there
if
there's
a
deficiency
in
the
city's
definition
of
landmark,
then
why
wasn't
it
mentioned.
P
P
J
Thank
you
for
that
I'm.
Just
again
wondering
if
you
understand
the
nature
of
the
OMB
is
such
that
it
number
one
can
deliver
subjective
terminology
to
us,
and
that
does
not
mean
that
our
staff
are
unable
to
deal
with
it.
There
are
some
things
that
you,
the
majority
things
we
deal
with
the
staff,
although
are
objective
and
do
have
preset
definitions
have
to
be
complied
with,
but
the
fact
that
something
subjective
subjective
does
not
make
it
something
that
can't
be
handled.
Okay,.
N
J
H
P
J
A
A
Okay,
well,
thank
you.
Everyone
and
again,
as
I
said
at
the
beginning,
I
want
to
thank
all
the
people
that
took
the
time
to
send
us
submissions
on
paper.
Now
we're
going
to
come
back
into
committee
now
and
I
have
two
speakers
so
far:
counselor
miss
Baum
concert,
Brockington,
counselor,
sure
Ally,
counselor
leaper,
that's
it!
D
Can
stream
this
okay,
Thank
You,
chair,
I
I
want
to
start
by
just
taking
a
step
back
from
the
issue
of
whether
this
is
a
landmark
or
not,
because
I
think
the
context
here
is
extremely
important
at
its
core.
The
OMB
decision
states
and
is
based
on
this
idea
that
you
can
trade
additional
hype
over
nine
stories
for
landmark
status
and
I.
Think
it's
important
to
know
that
this
is
problematic
for
two
very
specific
reasons
and
again
I
know
it
doesn't
have
to
do
with
the
decision
before
us,
but
it
is
important
context.
D
It's
problematic,
firstly,
because
the
CDP
identifies
that
the
properties
at
1450
and
one
Wellington,
Street
and
I'm,
quoting
here,
are
gateways
to
the
West
Wellington
Village
area.
The
building
should
be
landmarks
that
stand
up
from
their
background
by
virtue
of
their
design,
architectural,
a
distinguishing
attributes
or
features
which
provide
a
bold
or
new
interpretation,
etc.
So
importantly,
the
CDP
already
established
as
a
cynic
on
on
that,
whatever
went
up
at
1450,
one
had
to
be
landmark.
So
that's
the
first
point
that
the
OMB
gets
wrong
and
by
the
way
that
is
set
at
six
stories.
D
The
second
point
is
that
this
notion
that
incentives,
including
architectural
II,
interesting
attributes,
should
justify
additional
height
increases.
Above
nine
stories
was
never
contemplated
in
the
secondary
plan
or
the
CDP.
In
fact,
you
could
say
that
both
documents
were
crystal
clear,
that
incentives
in
the
forms
of
section
37
benefits
could
move
the
zoning
from
six
to
nine,
and
both
documents
speak
very
clearly
about
a
maximum
of
nine
stories.
D
So
the
reason
I'm
stating
this
is
that
essentially
the
OMB
reading
in
a
non-existent
intention
that
incentives
should
allow
for
anything
to
be
built
above
nine
stories,
and
by
doing
so
the
OMB
is
taking
huge
liberties
with
what
council
has
decided
in
its
approval
of
a
secondary
plan
and
CDP,
and
obviously
this
the
choice
it
made
in
its
vote
back
in
2014.
So
I'm
left
in
a
bit
of
a
conundrum.
D
D
You
know
a
treat
in
front
of
us
that
should
never
have
been
placed
before
us
and
so
far
as
nobody
and
no
plan
and
no
council
ever
contemplated
greater
than
nine
stories
on
the
site.
If
this
had
come
before
us
nine
stories,
I
would
have
voted
in
favor,
but
I
don't
see
at
this
stage
how
I
can
vote
for
something
that
wasn't
contemplated
and,
as
I
say,
has
the
OMB
taking
great
liberties
with
council
discretion.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
You
before
we
go
any
farther
I
did
want
to
ask
if
Jamie's
Surtees
is
here,
I
did
call
a
few
times
and
he
was
not
here,
no
okay
good
also.
Does
anyone
need
to
see
any
of
his
slides
because
I'd
like
them
to
turn
this
thing
off
and
then,
unless
you
want
to
reference
the
slide
I'm
going
to
get
them
to
shut
it
down,
I
will.
A
S
Thank
You
Madame
chair
and
what
has
been
a
most
bizarre
discussion,
probably
the
most
bizarre
discussion,
I've
participated
in
a
planning
committee
over
the
last
year.
I
just
wanted
to
follow
up
on
some
comments
that
trustee
RM
councillor
Nussbaum
made
with
respect
to.
If
council
ultimately
believes
that
the
OMB
has
made
either
in
this
case
or
other
cases,
errors,
what
is
our
recourse.
G
So,
madam
chair,
at
the
time
the
decision
was
released,
there
would
have
been
the
option
of
seeking
an
appeal
and
the
question
of
law
or
which
is
to
divisional
court,
which
has
to
be
done.
15
days
after
the
decision
was
released
or
on
policy
based
matters.
There
is
limited
opportunity,
but
some
opportunity
to
have
the
matter
reviewed
by
the
interior
ministry
board
itself
under
what's
called
a
right
of,
but
it's
not
a
right
of
a
hearing.
You
can
request
a
rehearing
under
Section
43
of
the
Act
the
these.
G
Whenever
any
decision
that
comes
in
that
it's
not
in
accordance
with
councils
wishes.
I
do
turn
my
mind
to
whether
or
not
a
review
either
a
question
of
law
on
a
policy
basis
could
successfully
be
made.
The
board
member
did
turn
his
mind
to,
in
my
opinion,
all
the
relevant
aspects
that
he
had
to
turn
his
mind
to,
and
although
I
have
characterized
a
decision
earlier
today
as
unique,
it
was
not
one
that,
in
my
opinion,
could
have
been
successfully
reviewed.
Okay,.
S
G
There
are
I
think
three
possible
outcomes,
madam
chair,
so
outcome
number
one
is
that
council
adopt
a
staff
report,
and
so
it
provides
written
submissions
that
would
support
the
proposed
development
together
with
mr.
Herr
waters
and
the
architects
I
have
to
expect
that
the
board
is
going
to
approve
the
development
outcome.
Number
two
is
a
council
adopts
emotion
and
provides
written,
different,
written
reference,
written
representations,
presumably
in
opposition
to
this
proposed
development.
Then
the
board
will
get
again
we'll
get
the
architects
we'll
get.
Mr.
Herr
wires
will
get
councils
and
it
will
make
a
decision.
G
The
third
option
is
to
counsel
not
to
provide
any
written
representations.
I
have
two
comments
to
make.
First,
obviously,
the
board
would
receive
the
architect
and
mr.
Huaraz
written
representations.
I
would
strongly
caution
against
not
making
any
representations
at
all
for
the
city
of
for
the
council
City
of
Ottawa
to
ensure
that
its
decisions
are
given
due
regard.
It
has
always
been
the
opinion
of
legal
services.
That
council
should
always
show
an
interest
in
matters
of
Official,
Plan
amendments
and
Zoning
matters
that
are
before
the
board
and
silence.
S
Thank
you
for
that
comment
as
well,
and
just
for
something
for
committee
members
to
think
of.
As
we
discuss
in
debate
this
item,
Island
Park
Drive
itself,
does
it
have
a
special
designation
as
a
drive
up
and
beyond
any
other
drives
in
the
city?
I
know,
we've
talked
about
the
landmark
designation
at
this
intersection,
but
does
this
drive
have
any
additional
importance
or
status
officially
on
the
city
books
compared
to
other
streets.
S
G
Madam
chair,
at
this
point
where
we
are,
is
I
it's
my
opinion
that
the
representations
would
have
to
be
based
on
the
nine
criteria
that
are
listed
in
the
decision.
It
is
true
that
the
member
said
they
are
not
exhaustive,
but
later
on
in
the
same
decision,
he
does
state
he's,
expecting
representations
with
respect
to
those
nine.
S
S
So
we
have
a
staff
opinion
that
says
this
has
met
the
criteria.
That's
why
we're
recommending
committee
and
councils
ultimate
approval.
We
have
members
of
the
some
members
of
the
public
and
some
community
associations
who
disagree
and
they've
stated
why
some
residents
who
live
nearby
have
also
stated
that
they
support
this.
So
it's
very
difficult
for
me
to
you
know.
There's
two
main
factors
at
play
here:
I:
disagree
that
this
should
actually
have
a
designation
as
a
landmark
to
begin
with.
S
I
think
that
is
causing
some
difficulties
for
me,
because,
when
I
look
at
the
building
itself
in
compendex
use
or
commercial
zones
in
River
Ward,
this
would
be
welcomed
in
many
areas.
Yes,
we
still
have
similar
issues
that
we've
heard
today.
People
are
concerned
about
traffic
or
or
height
or
shadowing,
and
those
are
commonplace,
but
it's
a
well-designed
building.
S
It
looks
good
and
the
challenges
that
we
heard,
particularly
at
the
beginning
part
of
this
committee
about
Wow,
which
I
think
is
really
has
been
unfortunate,
because
everyone
has
a
different
definition
of
wow
just
like
when
I
say
something
is
good
or
something
is
nice.
I
interpret
things
differently
than
everyone
else
does,
and
so
I
fully
acknowledge
that
it's
difficult
to
adhere
to
certain
criteria
that
is
very
difficult
to
define,
or
my
definition
is
different
than
someone
else's
definition.
S
So
I
have
to
really
factor
in
well.
Will
this
negatively
impact
the
community,
because
I
believe
that
we
should
never
accept
developments
that
adversely
hurt
communities
or
such
a
great
distortion
between
what
currently
exists
and
when
you
look
at
West
Wellington
and
the
development
along
West
Wellington?
In
my
opinion,
this
does
conform
to
what
already
exists
and
what's
proposed
for
that.
Neighborhood
I
wouldn't
want
to
see
this
development
within
a
block.
S
A
Long,
Island
Park
Island
Park
has
distinctive
stately
houses
or
homes
manors,
and
this
would
not
belong
within
those
key
blocks
along
the
island
park
strip.
But
this
is
at
a
key
intersection
that
is
already
well
developed,
going
east
and
west,
so
I
think
the
wow
factor
is
a
bit
of
a
red
herring
and
we
can
certainly
provide
comments
back
to
the
OMB,
but
I
have
not
been
swayed
at
this
point
to
vote
against
the
plan.
S
A
J
First
of
all,
there's
a
part
of
this
decision
I
really
like,
and
that
part
is
that
well,
first
of
all,
subjectivity
is
valid.
You
know.
The
reason
we
have
elected
members
of
council
is
actually
to
bring
subjectivity
to
an
otherwise
preset
process
that
governs
a
city,
so
I
think
it
is
valid,
and
what
I
like
about
this
decision
is
it?
It
takes
a
step
back,
looks
at
what
will
proposed
tells
us
what's
missing
and
tells
us
to
go
fill
that
in
a
way
that
we
define
it
to
be
so
we
have
to
decide.
J
What's
got
the
wow
factor,
we
have
to
decide
what
is
a
landmark,
not
in
the
glossary
terms
of
our
official
plan,
but
in
in
the
sense
that
the
OMB
tribunal
spoke
about
it
and
I
know.
It's
had
an
impact
on
me
because
when
I
first
saw
this
design
I
wasn't
that
I'm
talking
the
original
proposal
I
wasn't
that
enamored
with
it,
but
then
we
went
looking
for
something
that
had
a
landmark
sense
or
a
WOW
factor,
and
then
this
was
was
produced.
J
Then
we
came
to
committee
today
and
we've
discussed
what
it
is
we're
looking
for.
If
we're
looking
for
something,
that's
got
landmark
feature
or
a
WOW
factor
and
the
more
we
talked
about
and
I've
talked
to
some
other
members
of
committee
too,
the
quicker
we
got
back
to
the
original
one,
because
so
we
went
out
searching
go
back
to
the
original
one.
This
is
the
architectural
equivalent
to
the
Pina
Colada
song.
We
end
up
back
at
this.
J
So
if,
if
what
we
consider
to
be
wow
is
something
that
is
going
to
represent
that
part
of
town
and
be
distinctive
as
a
representation
of
that
part
of
town,
then
probably
this
one
was
closer
to
it
in
the
first
place.
So
then
I
am
you
know
we're
looking
at
something
has
made
committee
uncomfortable,
because
committee
has
had
to
sit
here
and
deal
with
a
subjective
term
and
had
to
actually
make
a
decision
and
that's
very
uncomfortable.
J
Everyone
would
rather
have
a
preset
definition
that
they
could
just
plug
in,
because
anybody
can
do
that,
but
no
we
have
to
make
a
decision.
So
my
my
decision
is
that
this
original
proposal
was
actually
better
than
the
new
one
and
actually
accomplishes
what
I
would
like
to
see
better
than
the
new
one.
Now
does
that
matter
not
at
all,
because
the
OMB
decision
is
that
the
new
one
doesn't
stand
where
the
original
one
doesn't
stand,
the
OMB
decision
is,
you
have
to
do
better
than
that
and
move
on
to
something
else.
J
So
then
the
question
becomes:
okay,
that's
reality.
We
have
a
on
B
saying
the
original
doesn't
stand.
We
have
the
one
B
saying
you
must
plug
in
your
own
subjective
definition
of
these
two
terms
and
then
we'll
move
on
from
there
and
never
use
them
again
by
the
way
at
the
OMB.
They
may
use
something
else
like
awesome
next
time,
but
they
may
use
war
or
something
like
and
we'll
have
to
deal
with,
those
they're
really
cool
and
we
don't
wanna
be
coming
to
Ottawa
City
Hall
to
find
out
the
definition
of
cool.
Believe
me.
J
J
If
we
vote
no
to
this,
it's
going
to
the
OMB,
where
the
tribunal
will
decide
what
gets
built
and
so
I'm
wondering
which
is
worse
and
so
far
I've
seen
the
progression
away
from
good
to
worse
and
at
this
point,
although
I
have
made
of
final
decision,
whether
or
not
at
this
point
I'm
leaning
towards
supporting
us
just
because
I'm
afraid
of
where
it
leads.
If
we
don't
thank.
C
C
If
the,
if
be
whether
we
decide
to
reject
staffs
up
with
a
proposal
and
make
a
a
separate
recommendation
to
Council
whether
we
accept
staffs
recommendation,
we
are
stood
before
the
board.
There's
no
question
of
further
appeal
at
this
point
correct,
madam
chair,
so
weights
I
would
ask
my
colleagues
to
to
bear
that
in
mind.
The
obviously
the
ship
has
sailed
on
height.
This
ship
has
sailed
on
density,
a
12
story
building
according
to
the
Ontario
Municipal
Board
is
permissible
so
long
as
the
architecture
is
landmark
and
I.
C
Think
one
of
the
things
that
I've
been
at
pains
to
try
to
address
this
morning
is
that
the
criteria
by
which
we
determine
whether
this
building
is
landmark
or
not
our
relatively
open-ended.
We
have
a
responsibility
as
Council
to
make
representations
back
to
the
board
with
respect
to
the
nine
principles
that
it
has
set
out.
C
I
believe
that
one
of
those
principles
principle
efforts
piece
to
consistency
with
not
just
compatibility,
but
consistency
with
the
function
and
haricot
violent
part
draw
has
not
been
met,
and
if
we
reject
staffs
proposal
this
afternoon,
I
am
prepared
to
come
up
with
an
alternative
recommendation
to
Council
that
builds
on
that,
but
it
is
non-exclusive.
It
is
also
open
to
us
to
make
a
decision
that
we
think
will
resonate
with
residents
of
Ottawa
as
to
whether
or
not
this
building.
This
landmark
I
knocked
down
a
hundred
doors.
C
C
This
is
a
great
building,
but
the
vast
majority.
At
this
point,
an
overwhelming
majority
of
the
people
I've
heard
from
don't
consider
that
this
is
landmark.
They
can
say
that
the
building
is
ostentatious.
It
is
out
of
character
for
the
neighborhood
and
it
is
not
an
example
of
excellent
architecture.
C
I'm
asking
my
colleagues
to
support
me
in
rejecting
the
staff
recommendation.
Let's
go
back
to
the
Ontario
Municipal
Board
agreeing
with
their
residents
that
the
developer
can
do
much
better
in
terms
of
presenting
excellent
design
landmark
design.
In
keeping
with
the
the
vast
majority
of
people
who
I've
heard
from
over
the
course
of
the
past
several
weeks,
we
don't
lose
that
way.
C
The
staffs
recommendation
to
mr.
marks
paint
I
believe
that
it
just
sails
through.
If
we
say
no,
we
still
run
the
risk
that
this
building
will
be
approved
by
the
board,
but
it
won't
be
with
us
being
complicit
in
a
definition
of
landmark
that
has
become
really
distanced
from
what
common
sense
would
dictate.
A
landmark
should
be,
let's
go
back
to
the
board
and
ask
for
better
I
would
just
turn
it
back
to
the
chair.
Thank
you
very
much
to
the
members
of
the
community
came
out
on
both
sides
of
this
debate.
C
First
of
all,
I
want
to
thank
the
presenters
and
our
city
staff
they've
done
a
great
job
on
this
presenting,
but
we
need
to
make
a
decision.
I
think
that's
what
this
is
about
today.
A
lot
of
things
in
my
mind,
ai4
I've,
heard
today
from
people
are,
for
example,
the
car
wash
versus
what
this
could
be.
C
I
mean
those
are
things
that
my
mind
really
present,
as
landmark,
and
we've
had
fun
with
the
discussion
around
the
wow
factor,
but
we
also
have
other
elements
like
the
fact
this
one
through
you
DRP
a
process
that
we
support
here
at
the
city.
We
have
a
panel
and
a
committee,
that's
dedicated
to
these
kind
of
things
and
has
gone
through
three
times
three
times
so
I
think
we
we
have
what
we
need
to
make
a
decision
today.
The
one
thing
I
didn't
hear
all
day
long
is
what
people
consider
landmark.
C
Is
it
neon
lights
and
a
roller
coaster
on
the
roof
like
I?
We
haven't
heard
any
of
that.
We
just
heard
no
from
the
nose
and
that's
it
so
on
that
I
think
my
decisions
made
obvious.
So
I
think
this
is
gonna,
be
a
great
building
in
our
city,
a
will
be
landmark
and
I
look
forward
to
to
seeing
this
come
to
fruition.
Thank
you.
C
A
You
and
thank
you
for
stopping
that
before
I
had
to
say
anything,
I
just
wanted
to
I
wanted
to
thank
committee
and
I
want
to
thank
all
of
you
that
came
out
today.
I
want
to
thank
for
your
attentiveness.
I
have
been
vice
chair
of
planning
for
a
decade,
at
least
I,
think
and
no
chair
and
Kelsey
sure,
Ellie
and
I
have
been
doing
this
at
Nepean
as
well
on
the
planning
committee.
A
This
is
the
first
time
I've
ever
found
myself
in
this
position,
where
we
have
a
board
that
a
judge
that
has
said
that
put
us
in
this
position.
So
it's
it's
so
as
far
as
the
precedent
setting
goes,
it
really
is
not
precedent
setting,
because
that's
all
that's
like
18
years
come
November
and
I
think
that
staff
worked
appropriately
with
the
urban
design
review
panel
and
took
the
time
and
evolved
the
the
plan
to
what
we
have
before
us
today.
So
I
want
a
thing.
A
I
want
to
also
thank
the
people
that
aren't
here
today,
but
sent
the
submissions
and
our
committee
a
coordinator
did
a
rough
count
and
they're
very
balanced.
The
people
that
took
the
time
to
write
in
and
say,
I
support
this
and
the
people
that
took
the
time
to
write
in
and
said,
I
can't
stand
it
or
I.
A
Don't
think
it's
right
or
you
know,
whatever
your
position
is
so
I
think
we've
had
a
good
discussion
today
and
there's
a
couple
of
there's
a
motion
that
will
replace
recommendation
two
that
is
more
inclusive
from
the
city
perspective
and
I'm,
going
to
ask
counselor
vice
chair
Attorney,
to
introduce
that
this
is
one
I
mentioned
at
the
beginning
of
the
discussion.
Great.
G
A
A
So
on
item
on
the
first
recommendation,
then,
which
is
that
planning
committee
recommend
council,
approved
this
report
as
a
written
representations
required
by
the
interior
Municipal
Board
decision
in
respect
to
1445
to
1450
one
Wellington
Street
people
have
yeas
and
nays
on
that
kelcher
brain
yes,
council,
brockington
in
favor,
counter
sure
Ali.
Yes,.
F
A
Tierney,
yes,
I
myself,
yes,
6
7,
8,
that's
8
to
2,
and
we
have
another
motion
because,
as
was
mentioned,
this
item
returns
to
the
interior
Municipal
Board
on
November.
The
7th
is
that
the
7th
yes,
madam
trip,
and
so
therefore
we
only
have
one
council
meeting
between
now
and
then
that's
tomorrow.
So
the
motion
vice-chair
eternity.
Yes,.
C
Thinking
I'm
sure
we'll
see
each
other
Municipal
Board
hearing
for
1445
to
1451
wellington
street,
where
we
convene
in
early
November
and
we're
essentially
municipal
board
is
seeking
input
from
the
City
Council
on
whether
to
revise
the
proposed
development
satisfies
the
direction
present
presented
by
the
live-aboard
in
relation
to
allowing
the
landmark
building
at
14,
45
and
14
feet
to
1451
Warrington
Street
and
whereas
the
Ottawa
City
Council
meeting
prior
to
the
board
meeting
hearing
is
to
reconvene
on
October
28th
2015.
We
are
resolved
at
the
reports.
A
That
carried,
thank
you.
Thank
you.
Everyone
thank
you
for
your
attention.
Do
I
need
to
do
anything
else.
Mr.
mark
I'm
not
taking
any
chances
with
the
OMB.
Okay,
we're
good!
Thank
you.
Everybody
so
I
have
now
we're
going
to
go
to
item
number
for
the
zoning
and
plan
of
subdivision
62,
79,
Fernbank,
Road
I
believe
we
have
is
Lily.
Lily
Lily
is
up
and
mr.
petty
thank
you.
Dawn,
dawn
dawn.
A
A
T
Before
we
go
to
delegations,
I
just
want
to
give
a
quick
or
overview
of
why
we're
here.
The
the
report
speaks
to
see
were
seeking
council
support
of
the
agreement
of
the
principles
of
the
agreement
and
not
unlike
the
previous
item.
This
is
before
the
OMB,
and
this
will
help
supplement.
I
would
imagine
their
decision
ultimately
on
on
our
agreement,
so
the
back
in
April.
T
It
was
a
refusal
report,
quite
quite
right,
madam
chair,
on
a
basic
principle
of
lack
of
information
and
lack
of
information
as
it
related
to
impact
on
the
existing
area
with
regards
to
flooding
and
flood
mitigation
and
what
this
potential
or
this
application
or
potential
for
making
that
increasing
that
risk.
The
second
item
was
the
actual
impact
on
the
urban
natural
feature
and
the
impact
of
the
development
as
well,
along
that
key
urban
feature
in
that
particularly
immediately
adjacent
to
the
look
at
earlier,
the
subject
site
so
the
at
the
OMB.
T
There
was
an
agreement
to
sis
to
not
suspend
but
to
adjourn
subject
to
further
analysis.
That
analysis
is
now
complete
and
is
the
basis
of
the
agreement
in
the
report
of
documents.
Two
three
and
four,
the
we
think
it's
a
very
good
agreement,
but
certainly
it's
up
to
committee
and
council
to
do
not
agree
where.
T
Opinion
is
that
that's
it's
a
fair
agreement,
the
this
new
information
and
the
two
pieces
of
information
we're
looking
to
really
provide
us
with
some
guidance.
Some
education
is
the
actual
flood
mitigation
exercise.
That's
currently
underway
in
the
adjacent
sub
existing
subdivision,
as
well
as
wire
balance
analysis
that
we
needed
in
order
to
supplement
those
decisions
with
respect
to
the
natural
urban
future.
T
So
the
agreement
in,
if
I
can
say
in
at
the
highest
level,
looks
at
development
proceeding
successfully
and
I
say
this
with
some
hesitation
protecting
the
urban
Nashville
feature
and,
in
fact,
in
many
ways,
enhancing
that
urban
natural
feature
with
respect
to
some
of
the
drainage
improvements
we
will
see
and
hopefully
realize,
with
development
proceeding.
The
flood
mitigation
exercise
currently
underway
in
the
adjacent
neighborhood
was
with
the
agreement
of
the
applicant
and
with
some
credit
of
flows
in
that
system
allowed
for
the
city
to
better
protect
to
improve
the
flood
protection
for
those
neighborhoods
neighborhoods.
T
A
If
I
remember
correctly,
the
big
issue
for
us
and
the
reason
that
we
turned
it
down
at
the
time
was
because
of
the
concerns
about
the
stormwater,
the
drainage
and
that
sort
of
thing
correct.
So
then
he
went
away
and
and
actually
one
of
our
present
presenters
delegations
served
with
at
your
meetings
as
the
community
representative,
so
misma
Kim's
going
to
come
up
and
speak
first
of
the
presenters.
So
she
attended
you
had
the
community
that
was
involved
in
the
meetings
that
you
had
and
how
many
means
did
you
have
occasion.
D
D
T
D
It's
fair
to
say,
then,
that
the
concern
expressed
in
the
April
report
has
been
completely
resolved
in
terms
of
the
flooding
risks
for
future
and
existing
omma.
Yes,
it
is
okay
and
just
out
of
curiosity
in
cases-
and
this
may
be
more
of
a
legal
question,
but
I
don't
know
the
answer
to
this.
That's
why
I'm
asking
it
in
cases
where
there
would
be
flooding.
Let's
say
it
was
a
one
in
50
or
100
year,
flooding
risk.
D
G
Madam
chair
they'd
have
to
show
some
negligence
on
the
part
of
the
city,
so
it's
it
does
not
immediately
follow
that,
because
a
flood
occurred.
The
city
is
responsible.
They'd
have
to
show
that
there
was
a
duty
that
the
city
had
toward
those
people
and
that
there
was
a
failure
in
that
duty.
Madam
chair,
okay,.
D
F
You
very
much,
madam
chair
just
two
questions.
First
of
all,
when
you
speak
about
flooding
risk,
you
know
bateman
tore
solution
to
that
was,
did
not
plans
already
set
in
because
of
the
2009
flooding
in
this
area
to
handle
that
issue,
or
is
that
something
new
coming
because
of
this
application
going
to
OMB
sorry,
counselor.
F
Shows
there's
a
2009
flood
II.
There
were
some
mitigation
plans
put
into
play,
not
play
in
terms
of
developers
play
in
terms
of
up
plan
I'm,
just
wondering
how
much
of
that
plan
had
an
effect
on
mitigation
of
this
flooding
in
the
100
year
150
year
flood
or
that
program
is
separate
to
this
agreement
going
forward.
T
So
the
to
suggest
that
it's
completely
separate
is
not
correct,
but
there
are
elements
of
the
flood
protection
plan
that
the
city's
undertaking
in
that
whole
area
that
are
not
related
to
this
particular
site
or
the
development
of
this
site.
The
area
that
that
we
had
some
concern
was
at
at
the
outlet
at
Elm
Street,
which
there's
a
addition
that
services
both
the
urban
natural
future,
as
well
as
the
Fernbank
development.
T
Those
works
have
been
identified
as
to
the
extent
and
those
will
be
undertaken
as
part
of
the
development
of
blessed
sites,
so
that
that
will
be
the
only
the
immediate
area
that
is
influenced
by
this
development
and
the
the
city
has
identified
the
works
that
need
to
be
undertaken
in
order
for
those
flood
risks
to
be
managed
and
controlled.
Thank.
F
You
for
that,
and
in
terms
of
the
you
mentioned
in
your
comments
about
how
the
proponent
is
going
to
help
you
know
what
some
of
that
flood
mitigation.
How
much
of
that
flood
mitigation
is
upon
the
proponent
to
protect
or
advance
versus
the
city's
responsibility
in
terms
of
that
advancement
of
the
flood
mitigation?
F
T
T
Where
am
I,
so
this
alien
here
was
a
particular
concern,
and
this
is
where,
over
the
last
few
months,
we've
been
able
to
spend
quite
a
bit
of
time,
analyzing
some
of
the
flows
and
in
the
sewers
as
well
as
overland.
So
there's
two
things
happened.
The
applicant
has
agreed
to
undertake
these
works
to
improve
the
drainage
and
protect
these.
T
This
existing
area
from
flooding
as
well
key
piece
to
the
to
this
exercise
was
that
the
capacity
of
a
ditch
Inlet
at
this
location
here,
which
again
provided
drainage
for
the
urban
natural
feature
and
the
Fernbank
site,
were
accredited
to
the
city
in
order
for
that
the
city
to
provide
increased
flood
protection
for
the
area
downstream.
So
we
could
not
proceed
unless
that
happens.
So
this
is
where
the
applicant
credited
the
city
black
capacity
to
provide
additional
protection
to
the
existing
area
in
this
location
here.
F
T
F
F
Thank
you
for
that,
mr.
to
see
Noah
mr.
slate,
madam
chair.
The
reason
why
I'm
going
through
that
line
of
questioning
my
concern
is
I,
don't
want
this
development
move
forward
or
not
move
forward
based
on
what
happens
in
the
area.
I
don't
want
to
have
this
development
become
as
an
excuse
to
have
better
flood
control,
or
vice
versa,
having
better
flood
control
because
of
this
development.
So
that's
why
I'm
asking
those
kind
of
questions
thank.
A
You
thanks
for
the
explanation
too.
Okay,
so
I'm
going
to
ask
miss
Jillian
and
the
Kim
to
come
forward.
Gillian
is
the
co-chair
of
Southwest
Central
Community
Association.
She
was
here
when
we
had
the
original
Item
come
before
committee
and
she
has
been
the
community
representative
on
the
team.
She
puts
the
community
on
to
the
team.
Welcome.
K
Thank
you,
the
president
had
the
opportunity
to
be
part
of
the
experts
meetings.
Over
the
past
six
months,
we've
heard
the
proposed
solutions
for
the
stormwater
management
plan
and
the
water
balance
model.
We
believe
that,
should
the
stormwater
management
system
be
installed
and
work
as
modeled
that
the
adjacent
communities
should
not
experience
undue
adverse
impact
related
to
the
water
from
the
proposed
development
at
six
to
seven
nine
Front
Menken.
K
This
is
why
there
was
a
problem
in
the
area
and
continues
to
be
a
problem
in
the
area.
There
is
concern
that,
in
a
major
event,
the
urban
natural
feature
that
is
directly
adjacent
to
the
Fernbank
properties
will
flood
nearby
residents
homes,
as
it
is
plan
to
take
on
all
the
stormwater
that
the
site
cannot
manage.
K
Does
the
committee
have
a
clear
picture
of
the
costs
of
the
additional
flood
mitigation
measures
that
have
been
indicated
necessary
in
the
in
the
existing
community
to
support
the
flooding
on
the
show
a
site
to
be
developed?
We
know
that
there's
a
flood
mitigation
budget,
but
is
there
room
in
the
budget
for
additional
mitigation
measures
to
be
implemented
within
the
timelines?
The
developer
is
expecting
the
stormwater
management
solution
agreement.
K
Page
nine
of
the
staff
report
suggests
that
there
will
only
be
cost-sharing
for
the
works
to
upgrade
the
Cypress
Gardens
Park
pond
should
additional
resources
measures
arise
that
are
related
to
the
site.
Should
the
city
and
taxpayers
be
required
to
pay
at
the
end
of
the
day?
Is
that
the
only
off-site
work
that
will
be
required
to
allow
the
shaniyah
development
to
proceed?
There
is
concern
that
the
city
is
backing
itself
into
a
corner,
but
not
at
least
anticipating
that
additional
off-site
work
might
be
required.
K
Who
is
responsible
if
the
site
is
designed
one
way
and
installed
another?
The
community
continues
to
be
unsatisfied
with
the
grade
raises
the
number
of
houses,
the
adverse
impact
on
the
adjacent
history--
adverse
impact
to
the
wildlife
and
natural
features
of
the
site,
as
well
as
the
undue
adverse
impact
to
the
adjacent
homes
during
the
construction
period.
The
uniqueness
of
the
site
is
that
is
surrounded
on
three
sides
by
existing
residents
and
protected
urban
natural
feature
to
the
west
of
the
site.
K
During
the
brief
construction
period
between
January
and
March
2015,
the
developers
machinery
disrupted
the
surrounding
residents
for
up
to
12
hours
of
at
a
time
who
routinely
beyond
the
bylaw
allowances
of
noise,
caused
by
dumping
of
aggregate
and
banging
of
the
rear
bed
doors
as
they
brought
in
fell
to
the
site.
The
nature
of
the
site
requires
the
grade
to
be
raised
up
to
3
metres
at
the
street
level.
K
On
one
side,
children
could
not
play
outside
due
to
flying
debris
from
tree
removal
and
later
I
forget
dust
from
the
fill
as
it
entered
the
residence
yard.
The
fumes
from
the
trucks
entered
the
homes
and
the
yards
of
the
residents.
Stat
salvage
Association
president
wrote
to
the
BIA
regarding
the
issue.
It
was
unsafe
for
the
Fernbank
residents
waiting
for
school
buses
at
the
end
of
their
lane.
Ways
for
as
trucks
often
failed
to
stop
at
signs
and
cut
across
six
to
seven
nine.
K
Six
to
eight
7
firm
bank's
laneway
resident
pets
refused
to
go
outside
and
it
caused
stress
to
them.
Residents
who
worked
from
home,
wast
days
of
productivity
or
had
to
find
alternative
work
solutions.
Do
the
sheer
amount
of
noise
and
vibrations
in
the
spring
homes
and
yards
were
covered
in
aggregate
dust
which
turned
to
a
gray
paste
in
pools
and
on
homes
and
filled
interior
ventilation
systems.
K
Significant
sums
were
spent
by
residents,
cleaning
and
managing
the
mess
caused
by
pre
site
construction
as
per
issue
nine
on
the
OMB
issues
list.
This
is
undue
impact
to
the
adjacent
existing
residents.
Another
question
is
regarding
the
city's
new
protocol
for
wildlife
protection
during
construction
or
initial
preset
construction
began
in
January.
Most
of
the
wildlife
in
the
wetland
was
hibernating.
K
Will
this
protocol
be
enforced
with
this
project,
or
will
a
proposal
be
grandfathered
once
this
development
is
approved,
the
residents
will
have
a
repeat
of
winter
2015
and
the
rainy
period
of
site
prep,
which
we
have
been
told,
could
last
from
months
up
to
a
year
before
the
construction
begins,
at
which
point
there
will
be
houses
that
block
at
the
Sun
from
rear
yards
and
light
pollution
that
will
cancel
out
the
night
sky.
This
is
also
undue
adverse
impact
to
adjacent
existing
residents.
K
149
houses
will
increase
traffic
noise
and
pollution
within
the
community.
They
were
put
strains
on
already
capacity
filled,
local
schools
and
recreation
programs.
Environmental
specialists
from
both
the
city
and
developers,
team
of
experts
have
already
identified
several
significant,
mature
trees
on
residents
properties
surrounding
the
perimeter
that
will
negatively
be
impacted
by
the
construction,
as
our
critical
root
zones
are
too
close
to
the
site.
With
all
the
deforestation,
there
is
further
risk
of
destruction
to
the
mature
trees
on
adjacent
residence
yards.
K
While
the
developer
in
the
city
have
heard
the
concerns
of
the
community,
we
are
not
convinced
they've
taken
them
into
consideration.
Each
resident
and
surrounding
properties
have
been
given
an
opportunity
to
express
their
concerns
following
October
14
community
meeting,
which
resulted
in
my
attendance
today.
It
is
the
opinion
of
the
community
that,
while
the
developer
has
shown
engineering
solutions
to
make
this
proposed
development
proper
possible,
they
are
extreme
measures
that
will
cause
undue
adverse
impact
to
the
adjacent.
K
A
A
Just
wondering
mr.
Kim
I
want
to
thank
you
for
your
service
on
behalf
of
your
community,
but
I
read
an
article
that
you
had
in
the
Statesville
paper
and
I
feel
that
you
have
a
different
opinion
than
you
did
in
the
article
that
you
wrote
and
I
wonder.
What's
causing
that
is.
Was
it
pressure
from
the
community?
There.
K
A
Then,
just
to
to
staff
you've
heard
the
concerns
that
have
been
addressed
today
if
I,
miss,
McKim
and
you've
been
part
of
the
process
of
working
on.
This
are
your
concerns
alleviated.
Are
you
comfortable
with
this,
obviously,
with
this
recommendation
that
you're
putting
forward,
as
in
as
an
engineer,
yes.
A
A
H
T
Well,
the
concerns
with
regards
to
the
engineering.
We
have
to
still
do
our
final
engineering,
drawings
and
review,
and
that
has
to
occur.
We
have
to
review
that.
We
have
to
make
sure
that
it's
consistent
with
the
design
in
the
existing
area.
Those
are
the
two
key
things
or
the
design
of
cities
works
on
Elm
Street,
which
will
be
undertaken
by
the
performant
or
by
the
applicant,
as
well
as
the
design
within
the
Fernbank
lines.
T
F
You
for
that,
mr.
petty,
but
my
question
is
yes:
I
understand
the
engineering
part
in
the
flood
mitigation
I
think
mr.
Kim
was
addressing
other
concerns
in
her
comments.
I'm
talking
about
those
comments,
one
of
the
comments
she
mentioned
is
the
wildlife
strategy,
for
example,
in
terms
if
it's
an
it's
an
enforcement
and
so
on
moving
forward
are
those
going
to
be
looked
at
through
the
next
step
and
to
the
site
plan
with
respect.
T
To
those
policies,
whether
it's
noise,
the
works
that
happen
on-site
wildlife
policy
of
those
will
all
be
included
in
the
in
the
draft
plan
conditions
and
will
be
to
be
clear
to
all
as
to
what
our
city
expectations
are.
With
respect
to
construction,
they'll
have
to
follow
all
the
existing
bylaws
with
respect
to
noise
and
dusts
and
pollution
and
those
kinds
of
things.
So
we
expect
those
to
be
respected.
T
I
would
also
provide
advice
to
the
applicant
that,
given
the
drainage
concerns
that
we
will
be
looking
at
those
the
the
boundary
elements
and
where
how
we
tie
into
existing
areas
rather
closely
to
ensure
that
the
protection
that
we've
we
speak
to
today
is
maintained
and
and
included
in
their
design,
Thank
You.
Mr.
F
Petty
so,
madam
chair,
just
a
couple
of
comments
on
this
proposal.
First
of
all,
I
want
to
thank
the
community
and
members
like
mr.
McCabe
for
participating
in
this
process
and
also
want
to
thank
the
proponent
as
well
as
city
staff,
for
allowing
that
community
participation
in
a
process
that
wasn't
done
before,
at
least
not
to
my
understanding,
so
I
do
want
to
pass
on
those
congratulations
and
thank
you.
The
community,
as
misma
convention,
is
still
rather
upset
about
this
development
and
I
know
we're
not
dealing
with
that
today.
F
We're
here
to
deal
with
the
agreement
that
the
city,
staff
and
proponent
and
the
community
has
worked
out
from
day.
One
I
was
opposed
to
this
development,
because
I
feel
this
is
a
large
infill
development
on
a
piece
of
property
and
I.
Do
respect
your
comments,
madam
chair,
at
the
start
of
this
conversation
about
how
long
has
it
been
as
an
urban
general
designation?
The
issue
is:
this
was
normally
a
provincially
significant
wetland.
F
Yes,
the
designation
changed,
but
at
the
time
staff
did
assure
me
in
my
office
at
the
time,
not
in
writing,
but
to
say
well,
this
piece
of
property
probably
will
never
be
developed,
probably
will
never
be
developed
so,
based
on
that,
the
designation
was
carried
forward.
Having
said
that,
am
I
happy
with
the
development
going
forward.
No
I'm,
not
I'm
happy
with
the
solution
that
the
staff
has
worked
out
in
order
to
protect
the
community
not
only
of
today
but
in
the
future,
from
future
flood
mitigation
proposals.
F
F
Maybe
reducing
the
number
of
homes
possibly
or
which
is
you
know
in
front
of
the
U
and
B,
but
also
looking
at
what
goes
in
behind
the
existing
homes,
currently,
whether
single
family
or
single
level,
the
development
like
bongos
or
where
those
two
stories
also
as
though
they're
in
the
process.
So
the
concerns
I
have
is
still
the
same
as
from
day
one.
Although
engineering
is
a
key
factor,
but
it's
not
the
only
factor-
and
you
know,
based
on
that,
I
will
not
be
supporting
this
item
going
forward.
F
Although,
like
I
said
I,
do
encourage
the
community
committee
to
look
at
the
solutions
that
they
worked
out.
City
staff
have
worked
out
and
I
do
want
to
thank
a
consonant
small
for
his
question
for
the
future
of
that
mitigation
factor,
and
my
concern
again
will
be
that
if
this
development
goes
forward,
although
they're
great
promises
for
mitigation
I'm
still
concerned
as
to
how
the
149
homes
will
fit
into
that
part
of
the
community,
both
from
an
engineering
perspective
engineering
perspective,
as
well
as
an
infill
development
into
this
community.
Thank
you
very
much,
madam
chair.
F
A
Thank
you,
I
think.
That's
because
I
didn't
ask
you
if
you
wanted
to
take
a
lunch
break,
because
I
figured
that
you
would
all
agree
just
to
continue
on
with
this
item.
So
what
we
have
before
us
is
it's
the
second
time
we've
dealt
with
it
this
year,
but
it
isn't
really
a
unique
application.
We
have
that
mr.
A
Mazzy
was
saying
we
have
this
same
situation,
many
places
in
the
city
and
fortunately,
we've
taken
the
time
to
look,
as
you
said,
councillor
Kadri
the
strategies
in
order
to
ensure
that
we
don't
have
a
situation
that
has
been
compromising
the
community
in
the
past.
That
actually
does
improve.
It
I
like
to
hear
that,
because
we
didn't
hear
that
back
earlier
this
year.
So
thank
you
for
your
comments
and
all
your
work
that
you
have
done
on
this
filing
and
thank
you
Miss
McKim
again,
thank
you
to
staff.
A
We
have
a
motion
before
us
that
planning
committee
recommend
council
support
draft
approval
of
the
proposed
plan
of
subdivision
amendment
to
zoning
bylaw,
2008
250,
462,
79
for
and
Bank
Road
subject
to
the
principles
set
forth
in
the
stormwater
management
solution.
Agreement
conditions
to
subdivision
draft
approval
and
preliminary
zoning
bylaw
amendment
details
attached
as
documents
three
four
and
five
did
you
want
yeas
and
nays.
Madam.
A
A
C
You,
madam
chair,
whereas
the
Ontario
Municipal
Board
on
this
matter,
adjourned
on
consent
before
the
conclusion
to
allow
further
study
and
discussion
between
community
representatives
to
developers
and
City
regarding
stormwater
management,
and
whereas
these
discussions
have
resulted
in
a
proposed
agreement
to
allow
the
subdivision
to
proceed
subject
to
a
series
of
conditions
and
whereas
all
parties
before
the
board
have
been
included
in
discussions
to
resolve
this
matter
and
those
discussions
have
been
extensive,
therefore
be
resolved.
At
the
reports.
Proceed
to
City
Council
on
October
28
2015
for
consideration.
C
C
A
We
can't
have
yeas
and
nays
on
that
if
you
want,
if
they
want,
they
are
entitled
to
it
or
they
have
any
other
questions.
Okay,
so
we're
not
asked
for
yeas
and
nays,
so
is
it
carried
dissent
dissent,
two
dissents
dissent
by
cows,
really
/
sent
by
councillor
Kadri.
Thank
you
very
much.
Many
notices
of
motion.
Everybody
for
a
consideration
of
subsequent
meeting,
know
how
about
increase
I'm
sure
we
have
a
lot
other
business
good
adjourned.
Thank
you.
Our
next
meeting
is
November.
The
10th.