►
From YouTube: Planning Committee - January 23, 2020
Description
Planning Committee meeting - January 23, 2020 - audio stream
Agenda and background materials can be found at http://www.ottawa.ca/agendas
A
A
This
is
a
public
meeting
to
consider
the
proposed
comprehensive
official
plan
and
zoning
bylaw
amendments
listed
as
items
2
through
7
on
today's
agenda.
For
the
items
just
mentioned,
only
those
who
make
oral
submissions
today
or
written
submissions
before
the
amendments
are
adopted
may
appeal
the
matter
to
the
local
planning
Appeal
Tribunal.
In
addition,
the
applicant
may
appeal
the
matter
to
the
local
planning
Appeal
Tribunal.
If
counsel
does
not
adopt
an
amendment
within
90
days
of
receipt
of
the
application
for
zoning
and
120
days
for
an
official
plan
amendment.
A
The
comments
sheet
is
available
just
outside
the
doors
for
anyone
wishing
to
submit
written
comments
on
these
amendments
and
if
any
of
the
members
that
are
here
today
have
any
motions
that
they
intend
to
put
forward.
Please
do
let
us
know
as
soon
as
you
can
so
that
we're
able
to
share
that
with
the
public
and
with
the
applicant
and
with
us
amongst
ourselves,
so
I'd
like
to
start
off
the
day,
I
was
going
to
start
off
the
day
with
an
intro
to
the
year
ahead.
A
A
We
definitely
have
the
most
meetings
and
and
just
on
policy
economic
development,
zoning
we
have
so
many
works
ongoing
this
year,
but
instead
of
reading
it,
because
we
have
an
extremely
exciting
thing
happening
today,
which
is
the
unveiling
of
Ottawa's
new
main
library
and
that's
at
12:30
and
I
know
that
I
personally
want
to
attend
that
to
see
it's
exciting
and
so
be
nice
to
do
that
and
then
followed
up
by
that
we'll
come
back
here
for
the
Transit
Commission,
which
is
going
to
meet
in
this
room.
Anybody
that's
coming
back
for
that.
A
B
A
C
D
A
A
A
He
he
will
be
here
but
may
have
to
leave
if
we
don't
get
to
where
we
need
to
be
any
declarations
of
interests,
a
confirmation
of
minutes
from
the
minutes
to
planning
committee
and
Agriculture
and
Rural
Affairs
Committee.
That
was
our
joint
meeting
on
December,
the
9th
carried
and
the
minutes.
18
Planning
Committee
December,
the
12th.
It
seems
like
so
long
ago
carry
communications,
a
review
of
the
current
definition
of
warehouse
zone.
We
got
a
response
to
that
councillor,
Gower
inquiry.
A
A
It's
a
very
good
thanks
for
saying
that,
because
wow,
if
you're
as
old
as
I,
am
you
actually
and
and
there's
people
actually
older
than
me
here,
but
I
can
remember
like
that
when
they
were
pulling
it
around
in
wagons,
with
horses
right
and
Clark's,
dairy
was
right
behind
them.
It
just
was
a
big
part
of
Ottawa's
history,
so
that's
an
important
say
so,
congratulations
to
court
and
Dana
and
Leslie
and
all
your
heritage.
Folks,
on
that.
The
second
item
is
14:26
Scott
streets,
the
zoning
bylaw
amendment
in
councilor,
leapers
catch
asipi,
ward.
A
The
next
item
is
thirty,
eight
or
nine
borrow
Spokane
Road,
and
we
now
have
a
speaker.
We
now
have
somebody
wanting
to
speak.
We
were
going
to
hold
it
anyways,
because
mr.
Willis
has
asked
to
clarify
several
things
about
the
application.
So
that's
held
item
number
four
is
forty,
eight
hundred
and
forty
eight
thirty
six
Bank
Street
south
of
Finley
Creek
I.
Guess
we
do
have
an
eco
Church
in
Bryan.
Casa
Grande
are
here
to
speak.
Does
anyone
have
any
questions
on
this
one?
A
A
Thank
you.
Okay,
so
are
we
prepared
to
carry
it
carry
see?
Thank
you.
I
remember.
Five
is
116
York
Street.
We
now
have
some
people
that
are
speaking
in
opposition
and
in
support
so
we'll
be
holding
that
item
and
number
six
and
seven
we're
going
to
take
those
together.
They
are
wrong,
they
are
addresses
on
Robinson
Avenue
and
so
that
both
of
those
items
will
be
held
and
then
the
final
item
is
the
implementation
of
interest
rate
on
development
charge.
Deferrals
required
pursuant
to
bill
108,
we
do
have
staff
here.
A
E
So
the
Hintonburg
community
association
requests
that
you
refuse
this
application
for
a
temporary
rezoning
for
a
parking
lot
at
fourteen
twenty
six
Scott
Street.
To
give
you
some
context,
this
is
the
location
shown
by
the
star
and
I
forgot
to
bring
my
pen
the
Tonys
Pasteur
transit
way
station
is
just
to
the
left
at
the
end
of
the
narrow
purple.
Section
Bayview
station
is
to
the
right
where
the
two
purple
sections,
which
I
gather
our
mixed-use
centers,
are
intersect.
So
it's
about
four
to
five
hundred
meters
to
a
light
rail
station.
E
The
context,
since
the
previous
request
for
a
rezoning
for
a
temporary
parking
lot
has
changed
considerably.
As
you
can
see
to
the
right
of
the
slide.
There
is
a
former
school
that
has
been
converted
to
condos
and
there
is
an
18-story
residential
apartment,
building
being
constructed.
It's
considerably
more
complete
than
it
shows
in
that
picture,
which
is
2019.
E
E
The
the
rest
of
the
the
other
context
issue
that
that
has
arisen
is
the
rezoning
in
2014
as
a
result
of
these
Scott
Street
community
design
plan
at
no
cost
to
the
applicant.
This
site
was
rezone
from
GM
to
traditional
Main
Street,
which
permits
a
very
wide
range
of
uses
and
has
a
14.5
meter
height
limit.
So
the
options
have
increased
since
the
previous
time.
E
No
I
think
did
I
miss,
yes,
I
did
miss
one.
This
is
the
site
plan.
That's
proposed
for
this
particular
parking
lot
and
the
landscaping,
as
you
can
see
to
the
left,
is
actually
on
the
city's
property.
The
dotted
line
indicates
the
property
line
so
the
applicant
again.
He
will
be
required
to
provide
this
landscaping,
but
not
on
his
property
and
not
at
the
expense
of
any
of
the
parking
spaces
that
are
presently
available.
E
I'd
like
to
address
a
comment
that
was
in
the
report
from
the
city
planner
in
response
to
some
some
cause,
some
of
the
consultation
issues
he
says
the
owner
is
aware
of
the
city
and
communities
objective
for
transit,
housing
and
community
supportive
uses
within
this
area
of
the
city.
The
owner
is
also
cognizant
of
the
demand
for
parking,
especially
within
proximity
to
a
major
employment
district
and
the
transit
way.
I
have
to
disagree
with
this
comment.
E
It's
certainly
not
the
role
of
the
City
of
Ottawa
to
satisfy
a
demand
for
parking,
especially
within
proximity,
to
a
major
employment
district
and
to
to
light
rail
stations.
Indeed,
the
official
planner
transportation
master
plan
discouraged
the
provision
of
parking
in
these
locations,
but
there
is
for
in
this
neighborhood
is
a
demand
for
housing.
Here's
a
parcel
of
vacant
and
underutilized
land
zoned
for
residential
use.
E
We
are
inundated
with
requests
for
rezoning,
zuv,
smaller
sites
in
order
to
tear
down
what's
affordable
housing
in
most
instances
in
order
to
replace
it
with
more
units
which
is
apparently
going
to
provide
housing
for
the
missing
middle.
This
is
an
ideal
location
and
the
owner
should
be
encouraged
to
provide
missing
middle
housing,
not
parking.
F
So
we
ask
that
you
deny
this
application
for
the
continuation
of
a
parking
lot
at
this
location.
It's
been
temporary
for
over
twelve
years.
Nine
of
those
years
certainly
had
no
approvals,
and
for
three
years
there
was
a
temporary
zoning,
but
that
lapsed
five
years
ago
and
from
my
understanding
it's
five
years
ago
today,
so
it's
it's
had
no
legal.
F
Ability
to
have
parking,
but
it's
still
going
on
so
some
history
of
the
site
in
2002
it
was
a
gas
bar
and
they
sought
to
turn
it
into
a
used-car
lot
and
they
did
go
through
the
process.
We
did
not
oppose
it,
but
we
asked
for
a
1.5
meter
buffer
on
both
stirling
the
residential
street
and
on
Scott
Street
that
never
materialized.
In
2004
there
was
a
site
plan
for
a
two-story
daycare
facility.
Again
we
asked
some
questions
and
for
some
buffering,
but
that
never
materialized
either
in
2008.
F
A
temporary
parking
lot
was
approved
by
the
city,
but
the
owner
appealed
to
the
OMB
to
make
it
a
permanent
zoning
and
the
OMB
said
no.
It
should
be
just
a
three-year
temporary
parking
lot
and
that
the
owner
should
maintain
or
demolish
the
building
on
the
site,
because
it
was
really
in
terrible
condition
and
keep
the
site
clean
of
weeds,
litter
and
garbage
which
were
continuing
problems
for
the
community
September
30th
2009,
the
om
OM
B
appeal
resulted
in
a
temporary
parking
lot.
For
three
years.
F
The
applicant
was
to
submit
the
site
plan
control
honor
before
the
31st
of
December
2009,
but
it
seems
to
have
taken
until
January,
23rd
2012
for
the
site
plan
to
be
approved
and
that
site
plan
had
temporary
Landscaping
with
some
planters
that
appeared
for
the
first
summer
and
then
disappeared
during
the
winter
and
never
reappeared.
After
that.
F
F
F
Also,
the
site
plan
from
2012
appears
to
show
28
parking
spots,
as
well
as
the
report
from
staff
talks
about
28
parking
spots
yesterday
and
today
there
are
37
spots
being
used
so
again,
there's
a
compliance
issue
that
again
by
law,
is
going
to
have
to
deal
with.
If
you
approve
this
plan,
so
two
years
won't
mean
two
years,
just
as
the
2009
OMB
ruling
for
three
years
brings
us
to
today.
Ten
years
later,
there
will
be
lots
and
lots
of
bylaw
calls
property
standards
calls
etc.
So
please
deny
this
application.
Thank
you.
G
G
I've
spoken
with
a
number
of
my
colleagues
to
ask
them
to
please
reject
this
application
and
I'll
reiterate
that
this
morning,
I
really
am
seeking
to
send
a
strong
message
to
not
just
this
applicant,
but
applicants
who
have
seemingly
taken
for
granted
that
temporary
parking
exemptions
for
three
years
are
essentially
time.
Unlimited
exemptions,
I
share
with
you
the
same
belief
that
these
are
not
temporary
exemptions.
They
are
simply
exemptions,
because
council
has
not
been
willing
to
yank
those
exemptions
when
the
time
comes
up.
G
F
E
Given
the
number
of
applications
that
we
see
coming
before
us
as
a
zoning
committee
and
that
you
see
in
your
office
there's
a
demand
I
think.
If
the
applicant
was
interested,
he
could
find
a
partner
and/or.
He
could
sell
the
site.
People
want
to
live
in
Hintonburg
and
people
want
to
develop
low-rise
apartment
buildings
in
Hintonburg.
H
Morning,
Madame,
chair
and
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
Lloyd
Phillips
I'm,
the
planning
consultant
on
agents
for
the
owner.
Mr.
Burrowes
hitomi,
representing
his
numbered
company
I'm,
going
to
make
some
comments
and
then
mr.
Hitomi
will
follow
and
make
his
comments
I'm
not
going
to
cover
the
history,
because
that's
already
been
well
covered
by
the
previous
speakers
and
I'm
not
going
to
cover
the
LFA
all
the
planning,
designations
and
so
forth.
I
have
no
issue
what
what's
been
said
there.
H
What
I
do
want
to
say,
though,
is
that
we
first
of
all,
we
support
the
staff
recommendation
and
the
report
for
a
two-year
term
we
applied
for
three
and
staff
said
you
know
we
will
we're
willing
to
loo,
let
you
go
for
two,
and
so,
if
we
haven't
gotten
through
into
the
desired
development
and
state
as
I
think
as
you've
just
heard,
then
we'd
have
to
apply
for
another
extension
and
take
our
chances
at
that
time.
We
certainly
understand
and
the
concerns
expressed
by
the
Hintonburg
Community
Association
and
the
counselor.
H
The
lot
is
not
pretty,
but
it
certainly
has
its
own
useful
function
in
this
community.
For
the
time
being,
we
share
the
long-term
planning
goals
that
there
would
be
some
development,
but
on
this
property.
But
what
that's?
When
the
time
is
right
and
when
the
owner
is
ready
and
refusal
of
this
application
is
not
going
to
change
anything
or
force
a
new
development.
H
H
Refusal
of
the
application
will
result
in
adverse
impacts
on
the
neighborhood
and
on
world
university
services
and
other
people
who
use
this
this
parking
lot
and
on
the
owner,
who
still
has
to
pay
taxes,
whether
or
not
there
is
parking
and
regarding
the
I'll
say
the
length
of
this
has
been
used
for
parking.
There
are
many
examples
of
where
a
temporary
zoning
has
gone
on
long
after
three
years
and
with
expulso
renewals
without
main,
so
you
undermining
the
long
term
intent.
H
This
temporary
parking
lot
does
not
preclude
any
long-term
planning
intent
for
the
site,
as
you've
already
heard
for
a
modest
scale,
traditional
Main,
Street,
mixed-use
or
some
other
development,
and
on
the
matter
of
the
planter
boxes,
the
owner
certainly
commits
to
returning
those
in
the
spring
when
the
commit
conditions
permit.
So
with
all
of
that,
we
request
that
the
Planning
Committee
approved
the
staff
recommendation.
Thank
you.
G
I
I
So
I
would
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
allow
me
to
go
ahead
until
the
land
assembly
is
done
and
it
would
be
for
sale
and
also
I
wanted
to
add
that,
prior
to
the
temporary
parking
that
I
apply
a
few
years
ago,
I
apply
for
the
permanent
parking
permit
when
I
bought
the
property
in
a
month.
I
got
my
permanent
parking
permit
in
my
hand.
After
eight
months
city
revoked
that
permit
and
after
I
went
through
the
$40,000.
I
The
experience
put
ashford
my
new
machine
to
put
there
and
city
just
been
just
said
that
you
cannot
continue
parking
lot.
So
it
cost
me
another
forty,
five
thousand
dollars
you
take
it
the
lawyer
and
to
go
to
that
joint
committee
of
adjustment
and
everything
to
get
for
three
years.
So,
in
a
matter
of
in
a
matter
of
six
years,
we
have
spent
over
ninety
thousand
dollars
just
to
get
three
years
pyramid,
and
that
is
not
that
much
amount
of
the
money
from
a
twenty
eight,
a
spot
we
can
make.
I
You
know
that
so
it's
just
pay
for
the
taxes
pay
for
some
of
there
is
no
removal
and
created.
You
know
it
gives
opportunity
in
this
case
you
know
vendor
is
a
parking
lot
there.
Everybody
is
winning
I'm
winning
city
is
winning
getting
his
taxes,
people
that
they
need
a
40
overnight
banding
they
they
have
parking
lot.
This
word
University,
which
is
the
biggest
need
of
the
area,
needs
a
parking
lot.
They
are
having
it,
and
that
is
I.
Think
we
are,
everybody
is
winning
and
everybody
is
happy
by
stopping
it.
I
I
think
the
only
person
only
on
it
on
the
body
would
gain
of
it
is
the
City
of
Ottawa
get
his
taxes.
Does
whether
I'm
the
owner
or
somebody
else
is
the
owner
so
appreciate.
If
you
consider
all
this
point
and
give
us
a
chance
to
go
ahead
until
I
finish,
the
land,
assembly
and
I
put
the
land
for
the
server
and
also
is
a
harvest
time
of
my
life
and
I,
don't
want
to
lose
the
opportunity.
I
I
K
H
K
The
reason
why
I
ask
is
I
think
it
does
help
frame
a
bit
your
intent
with
the
site.
So
in
this
case
you
have
a
zoning
in
place.
You
have
a
fiscal
plan
designation
in
place
that
permits
development.
You
have
a
community
association
that
supports
development
on
the
site,
knowing
full
well
that
when
this
site
gets
developed,
it
will
not
be
to
the
fourteen
point
five
meter
cap
on
the
site
and
that
rezoning
will
come
forward
and
it
will
be
much
higher
than
that.
K
So,
given
my
experience
with
community
associations
and
communities
embracing
the
stagnant
nature
of
certain
sites,
it's
quite
refreshing
to
see
someone
actually
wants
to
see
development
on
the
site
in
congruence
with
the
way
it's
zone.
So
what
steps?
Knowing
that,
knowing
the
designation
of
the
property,
knowing
that
you've
had
multiple
extensions
or
multiple
approvals
of
temporary
use
of
the
sites,
what
steps
have
you
taken
since
the
last
temporary
use
was
granted
to
advance
development
on
this
site?
Specifically
this
site,
not
other
sites
nearby?
This
one
as.
H
Mr.
Hitomi
has
mentioned
he's
been
working
on
a
land
assembly
and
he
has
one
more
piece
to
go,
as
he
mentioned
earlier,
to
to
complete
the
land
assembly,
and
the
intention
is
to
do
that.
Put
the
land
up
for
sale
and
then
the
development
can
proceed.
So
this
is
really
sort
of
it.
I'll
say
an
interim
measure
to
make
use
of
the
property
without
and
we
don't
think
that
it's
going
to
deflect
any
future
development.
There's
always
the
possibility
during
the
temporary
period
that
he
will
acquire
the
land
and
the
land
can
be
sold.
A
You
said
your
dues,
pardon
okay,
so,
on
this
item
yeas
and
nays,
did
you
request
that
councilor
leaper,
okay,
yeas
and
nays
on
the
motion
to
extend
basically
to
extend
the
permission
for
parking
for
two
year
period?
Counselor
do
does
no
that's
for
Garrett,
no
counselor,
sure
Ali,
counselor
leaper,
no.
L
A
Ford
I
was
yes
way.
Brockington
and
me
did.
Oh
sorry,
I
meant
no
sorry
I
meant.
No.
We
have
a
case
in
splendid.
Does
everybody
admit?
Allow
me
to
change
it?
No,
it's
42
see
I
actually
have
my
my
fingers
there.
When
I'm
reading
down
here
write
down
three
okay,
it's
confusing
I'm
glad
that
counts
for
Hugh,
please,
here
anyway,
it's.
A
A
A
Zoning
bylaw
amendment
430,
809,
Borisov
cane
road
and
on
this
one
I'm
mister
Willis,
has
asked
me
to
provide
time
and
we
are
going
to
be
moving
into
furrow,
but
we're
not
moving
the
deferral
until
after
staff
have
had
a
chance
to
provide
clarification
on
some
of
the
comments
that
were
made
on
this
file.
So
mr.
James
Barr
you
I'm.
J
A
J
J
First
of
all,
I
just
want
to
start
out
by
saying
that
the
application
to
redevelop
the
site
where
two
applications
were
submitted
in
January
2019
zoning
in
Sud
vision
and,
of
course
there
were
to
allow
the
proposed
residence
on
what
is
an
old
quarry
that
has
been
in
use
since
the
1950s
and
as
committee
would
probably
know,
is
in
relation
to
applications
are
submitted.
The
city
there
is
a
notification
process
that
takes
place
and
that
the
circulations
were
sent
out.
J
Signs
are
put
up
the
standard
notification
process
with
the
city,
of
course,
as
part
of
the
circulation
circulation
was
done
to
the
mystery
of
natural
resources
and
forestry.
They
were
fully
engaged
in
both
the
zoning
and
the
subdivision
process.
From
the
start,
the
applicant
provided
all
the
relevant
plans
and
studies.
They
were
done
by
professionals,
basically
what
what
happens
with
all
applications.
J
It
should
be
known
that
professional
applications
are
profiled,
professional
reports
are
filed
to
present
positions
and
those
are
sent
out
to
various
agencies
to
be
reviewed,
to
be
looked
at
and
comments
made
on
those.
So
when
an
applicant
files,
these
they're
following
the
standard
protocol,
standard
procedures
and
that's
what
the
case
was
here,
where
applications
were
sent
out
and,
of
course
it
be
sent
off
to
the
Ministry
of
Natural
Resources
for
their
review
as
well.
J
But
at
that
time
the
we
also
asked
the
Ministry
of
the
steps
to
surrender
the
aggregate
license,
and
it's
important
to
note
that
in
those
conversations
the
ministry
did
not
refute
that
the
site
was
exhausted
and,
of
course
they
provided
a
roadmap
of
how
and
I
say
a
roadmap
of
how
the
the
site
should
be
closed.
The
aigrette
supply
was
depleted,
such
as
the
case
here.
The
ministry
says
this
is
the
process
for
surrendering
that
aggregate
license
and
that
was
presented
to
us
just
on
the
next
slide.
J
Here,
I'll
go
through
it
briefly,
there's
8
steps
that
we
discussed
with
the
ministry,
one
of
course,
and
I'll
get
into
this
first
one
a
little
bit
later,
but
the
City
of
Ottawa
issues,
draft
subdivision
approval
from
that
licensee
submits
a
request
to
the
ministry.
It's
a
major
site
amendment,
there's
a
rehabilitation
plan
for
the
site.
J
Now,
but
of
course,
because
now
there's
going
to
be
Holmes,
put
it
up
put
on
the
site,
they
have
to
revise
that
rehabilitation
plan
to
reflect
the
approved
draft
plan
of
subdivision
and
then
once
the
draft
plan
of
subdivision
is
completed.
Of
course,
then
we
have
steps
three
and
steps
forward
which
relate
to
that
major
amendment
to
the
rehabilitation
plan
that
is
on
the
site,
so
that
these
are
the
so
that
the
aggregate
license
can
be
surrendered.
J
I
just
want
to
talk
about
with
respect
to
the
city's
role
in
this,
of
course,
I
mentioned
about
circulating
the
plans
and
documents,
but
the
ministry
itself
needs
to
know
how
to
amend
the
existing
rehabilitation
plan
that
shows
for
the
proposed
land
use.
So
that's
why
we
have
to
have
the
draft
subdivision
approval,
so
they
can
see
what
is
actually
proposed
and
that
was
done
in
November,
2000
19.
What
is
before
the
committee
today
with
the
cadena
has
to
consider,
of
course,
is
the
rezoning
of
the
site.
J
The
question
has
come
up
whether
or
not
there's
rezoning
is
premature.
It
is
not
going
to
tell
the
committee
now
it
is
not
premature.
There
is
nothing
in
legislation,
be
it
the
the
Planning
Act
or
the
agar
aggregate
resources
Act.
That
would
prohibit
the
use
or
the
rezoning
of
the
land.
I
can
say
that
I'm
as
mr.
mark
to
confirm
that
the
countif
committee
wishes,
but
there
is
nothing
to
prevent
this
and
as
well
and
I'll
show
this
in
a
second.
J
But
there
is
MNR
policies
that
allow
for
this
consideration
of
the
zoning,
then,
is
not
premature
and,
of
course,
with
the
zoning
in
place,
they
are
still
there
process
with
the
ministry
that,
after
the
license,
has
been
surrendered
that
they
have
to
go
through
in
order
to
obtain
that.
So
this
next
slide
here,
basically
as
an
excerpt
from
a
ministry
policy
policy
bulletin
from
2006.
But
it
says
and
I
read
it
out.
J
I
know
it's
a
lot
of
text,
but
it's
important
in
special
cases
where
the
intended
use
intended
after
use
of
the
site
has
significantly
changed,
and
it
gives
examples
and
I
think
we
have
there.
It's
a
residential
subdivision.
The
case
here
and
municipal
zoning
and
official
plan
approvals
have
been
attained.
So
after
that
the
licensee
may
request
the
site
plan
amendments
to
vary
the
rehabilitation
requirements
in
order
to
be
consistent
with
the
approved
after
use.
The
request,
then,
is
processed
as
a
major
site
plan
amendment
as
I
had
mentioned,
and
the
use
is
a.
J
What
is
used
is
the
approved
grading
plan
from
the
draft
plan
of
subdivision.
So
all
these
things
can
take
place
and
should
really
take
place
before
the
license
is
surrendered.
So
basically,
in
conclusion,
this
is
an
appropriate,
of
course,
inappropriate
use
of
the
land.
It's
an
expended
aggregate
site
and
the
applicant
could
probably
talk
to
more
about
that.
J
G
G
A
J
A
J
Madam
chair,
the
the
ministry
has
the
final
say
at
the
end
of
the
day
about
the
reuse
of
the
site.
They
have
to
go
through
this
process
to
to
end
up
surrendering
the
license,
so
they
we
are
following
our
steps
under
the
Planning
Act
we're
not
jumping
the
gun
or
not
pretty
mature,
we're
allowing
something
that,
of
course,
community
and
council
will
have
to
decide
if
the
zoning
is
appropriate
for
the
site.
But
the
ministry
has
its
own
process
to
follow
and
no
building
permits.
No
development
will
take
place
until
the
license
is
surrendered.
A
Okay,
thank
you
just
stay
here
in
case.
Somebody
else
has
questions
at
some
point:
okay,
everybody!
Next
speakers,
I
have
three
that
have
registered
individually
may
Pham.
Where
are
you
may
come
on
up
Frank,
Cairo
and
David
Gilbert
you're
coming
up
together,
okay
and
then
followed
by
George
Neville.
M
M
A
I,
don't
know
if
whether
just
me
or
I'm
not
used
to
this
room
because
usually
restriction
our
ears
to
here
in
Champlain
room,
which
is
one
of
the
reasons
why
we
came
here.
But
can
you
really
work
hard
at
focusing
your
your
words
right
into
the
speaker?
Please,
okay,
thank
you.
Go
ahead
whenever
you're
ready
my.
M
Apologies
so
first
off
I,
just
like
to
say
good
morning,
and
thank
you
to
you,
madam
chair
and
members
of
committee,
for
allowing
us
the
opportunity
to
present.
Today
we
felt
it
was
important
to
clarify
not
only
the
steps
but
also
I
think
what's
been
an
inadvertent
conflation
of
issues
related
to
this
file.
M
There
is
two
parallel
tracks
that
have
occurred
here.
One
track
with
respect
to
the
redevelopment
of
the
site
relates
to
whether
or
not
the
mineral
resource
on
site
has,
in
fact
being
depleted
and/or
exhausted.
The
second
parallel
track
is
the
process
by
which
the
license
itself
is
surrendered
or
retired.
Under
the
aggregate
resource
act
at
the
end
of
the
day,
I
think
that
much
of
the
confusion
surrounding
the
file
relates
to
the
fact
that
having
the
mineral
resource
exhausted,
that
is
not
necessarily
a
statutory
approval
process.
M
That
is
a
technical
determination
that
gets
made,
based
on
the
actual
quality
of
the
resource
itself
and
the
required
grading
to
rehabilitate
the
site.
Obviously,
the
retirement
of
the
license
is
a
process
and
of
itself
it
does
have
statutory
and
regulatory
framework
that
I
think
has
been
covered
well
today
by
mr.
James,
and
and
also
clarified
by
mr.
mark
I'm,
not
going
to
take
a
lot
of
time
here,
other
than
I
will
say.
M
If
you
look
at
the
image
on
the
screen
before
you,
the
process
and
we've
bucketed
those
steps
up
into
six
discrete
steps
to
bring
us
to
a
surrender
of
licensed
under
the
parallel
framework
between
the
planning
act
in
the
aggregate
resource
act.
Today
we
are
talking
about
what
would
be
point
number
four
on
the
chart,
which
is
zoning
approval.
The
completion
of
the
major
site
plan
amendment
process
with
the
MNR
F,
still
remains
outstanding,
as
would
number
six,
which
is
the
surrender
of
license.
M
We
have
not
said,
there's
been
no
indication
at
all
by
anyone
on
involved
in
the
file
that
this
process
has
been
completed.
We
are
here
to
complete
a
step
in
order
to
get
to
the
ultimate
surrender
of
that
license
under
the
Act
I'm
not
going
to
deal
with
project
status
unless
there's
any
specific
questions.
This
is
a
aerial
photo
with
the
draft
plan
overlay
of
the
subject
property.
You
can
see
clearly
that
there's
mining
operations
that
have
gone
on
the
lands
that
are
immediately
north
and
I'm
gonna
try
my
best
here
with
this
laser.
A
Yeah,
just
because,
like
most
people
in
the
room,
probably
aren't
don't
know
anything
about
Bar
Haven,
it
would
be
helpful
if
you
point
out
the
directions
strand
herd
is
the
direction
Barnsdale
is
and
and
forests
with
cane
used
to
be
called
cedar
view
and
where
the
416
is,
that
probably
would
be
a
and
the
Joc
River
those
major
identifiers.
Yes,.
M
Thank
you,
so
this
pointer
is
not
working,
unfortunately,
but
I'll
say
that
if
you
look
at
the
large
our
Terra
Road
on
the
west
side
or
the
left
side
of
the
plan,
that
is
Boris
O'kane
south
of
the
property
separated
by
a
couple
of
parcels
would
be
Barnes.
Dale
Road
north
of
the
property
separated
by
a
number
of
parcels,
would
be
strand
or
drive.
So
if
you
follow
Boris
low
cane
north
or
moving
up,
the
screen
you
would
reach
standard
drive
left
would
be
the
416
and
right
would
be
eventually
Green
Bank.
M
So
this
is
a
in
an
area
known
as
south
bar.
Even
the
lands
immediately
east
of
this
are
developing
in
the
south
bar
even
Community
Design
plan
area,
which
is
under
development
and
drop
plans
being
filed
in
and
approved
there.
We
are
essentially
a
continuation
of
that
community
design
plan
that
has
been
established.
These
lands
have
been
designated
for
development.
M
The
late,
the
two
blocks.
You
see
that
front
Boris
okhane
our
future
development
blocks,
the
more
intense
blocking
you
see
to
the
east
represents
the
residential
subdivision,
which
also
includes
a
park
I'm
gonna
get
to
the
next
slide,
just
in
a
moment
we're
going
to
delve
surficial
II
in
some
of
the
technical
aspects
of
whether
or
not
we
can
confidently
say
that
the
mineral
resource
itself
has
been
exhausted.
M
If
you
look
at
the
two
letters
a
and
then
the
two
letters
B
those
correspond
to
cross
sections
of
the
site
that,
if
you
look
at
this
elevation
of
the
site
and
I
apologize
for
the
technical
image,
I
think
it's
unfortunately
going
to
be
important.
That
I
clarify
a
couple
of
matters
related
to
the
site.
The
red
line
you
see
that
is
in
both
of
these
section
drawings
corresponds
to
the
required
grading
for
the
site
to
tie
into
the
adjoining
residential
land
uses.
M
M
It's
for
this
reason
that
we
can
confidently
say
that
the
resource
has
been
exhausted.
In
fact,
what's
interesting
about
the
site
is
we're
actually
importing
fill
in
order
to
bring
the
site
up
to
the
required
grading
to
rehabilitate
the
site?
There
has
never
been
any
equivocal
commentary
about
the
resource
not
being
exhausted.
For
that
fact,
we
have
to
bring
Phil
in
in
order
to
complete
this
project
and
have
the
grading
represent
a
rehabilitation
line.
That's
consistent
with
the
adjoining
land
uses.
M
You
can
see
in
the
notes
section
here
and
I
apologize
for
the
small
font.
This
presentation
doesn't
really
lend
well
for
a
large
room,
but
the
aggregate
resource
Act
actually
specifically
gives
clarification,
which
I
find
helpful
on
what
is
deemed
to
be
an
exhausted
resource
under
the
Act,
and
it
actually
specifically
references
the
fact
that
grading
required
on
site
building
of
roads
or
construction
of
that
infrastructure,
where
aggregate
that
exists
on
site
is
going
to
be
used
for
the
development
to
that
site.
The
aggregate
resource
is
deemed
to
have
been
exhausted.
M
So
in
this
case
there
are
a
couple
piles
of
material
that
you
can
see
on
the
top
image.
Those
piles
are
mineral,
but
the
truth
is
they
are
being
used
on
site
as
part
of
the
cut
and
fill,
and
we
are
in
a
deficit
situation
where
Phil
has
to
be
brought
in
to
complete
the
development.
So
these
are
just
clarifications
that
I
think
help
deal
with
outside
of
the
process
framework.
M
The
definition
on
whether
or
not,
technically
speaking,
the
mineral
resource
has
been
exhausted
on
site,
which
clearly
it
has
to
continue
and
I'm,
not
expecting
anyone
to
read
the
font
up
on
the
screen
right
here,
but
we
have
retained
an
outside
party.
Ghrelin
associates
to
actually
look
at
the
mineral
resource,
forgetting
the
fact
that
we
require
it
on
site
and
we're
actually
in
a
shortfall
of
fill
on
site,
to
look
at
the
mineral
resource
and
to
ask
actually
address
whether
or
not
the
quality
of
the
resource
itself
would
would
necessitate
further
extraction.
M
And,
what's
interesting
about
this
professional
opinion,
is
that
the
quality
of
the
resource
that
remains
on
site,
even
if
it
was
surplus
to
the
need
of
the
site,
would
not
be
worthwhile
harvesting
because
of
the
poor
quality
of
what
remains.
So.
At
the
end
of
the
day,
we
have
a
site
here
that
has
been
exhausted.
M
The
quality
mineral
aggregate
had
been
removed,
and
now
what
remains
needs
to
stay
on
site
in
order
for
us
to
harmonize
our
efforts
with
the
adjoining
residential
uses,
so
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
a
couple
of
these
matters,
both
technical
and
process,
and
obviously
attend
today.
To
answer
any
questions
that
that
the
staff
or
committee
would
have
on
this
matter,
but
I
hope
that
this
has
helped
clarify.
A
G
Just
wondering
if
you
could
put
the
letter
back
up
again,
please
does
that
letter
say
that
the
site
is
exhausted
or
not,
and
and
what
difference
does
that
make
in
terms
of
the
process
as
I
read
the
final
paragraph
of
that
they're
not
saying
that's
exhausted,
but
they're
saying
it's
not
very
good
material.
Is
that
different
from
exhausted
and
does
that
make
a
difference
in
the
process.
M
Thank
you
through
you,
madam
chair.
Do
you
counsel,
counsel,
Weber?
Thank
you
for
the
question,
so
the
the
letter
itself
was
intended
to
address
the
quality
of
the
resource
as
a
supplementary
piece
of
information
related
to
whether
or
not
the
resource
is
exhausted,
the
actual
resource
is
deemed
exhausted,
technically,
based
on
the
balance
line
required
to
rehabilitate
the
site.
So,
in
short,
the
fill
that's
left
on
site
right
now
is
needed
to
redevelop
the
site
and
therefore
that
the
resource
has
been
exhausted.
M
G
M
M
The
Ministry
of
Natural
Resources
doesn't
formally
under
any
approval
framework
deem
things
to
be
exhausted,
or
not
that
technical
definition
is
left
to
a
site-specific
circumstance
site,
specifically
whether
a
mineral
resources
exhausted
or
not
relates
technically
to
whether
or
not
there's
enough
resource
on
site
to
allow
for
the
rehabilitation
with
compatible
land
uses
that
surround.
So.
G
Forgive
me
Trevor,
that's
what
I'm
confused
about
is
on
page
six
of
the
report.
We
have
that
line.
That
I
think
raised
some
questions
and
the
party
councillors
the
lands
were
previously
utilized
for
mineral
resource
extraction
operations.
The
extraction
operation
has
recently
ended,
as
the
Ministry
of
Natural,
Resources
and
forestry
has
deemed
the
site
to
be
exhausted,
of
aggregate
and
no
longer
requiring
protection.
It
sounds
like
that
is
a
requirement
for
the
rest
of
the
the
process
to
move
ahead.
G
G
So
there's
no
linkage,
madam
chair
in
one
of
the
slides
that
was
presented
by
mr.
James
and
it
may
not
have
been
noted
by
members
of
committee.
At
the
time
there
was
a
reference
to
a
communication
between
city
staff
and
the
ministry
city
staff,
wrote
in
an
email
to
the
ministry
that
the
site
had
been
exhausted.
The
ministry
responded
with
the
surrender
procedure
and
the
ministry
did
not
challenge
the
statement
by
staff
in
that
communication
that
the
site
had
been
exhausted.
They
didn't
challenge
that
they
didn't
refute
it,
but
I
just
wanted
understand.
M
So
three,
madam
chair,
to
address
the
question
I
would
say
that
it's
a
technical
determination
made
by
Professional
Engineers
that
doesn't
require
an
approval
of
the
MRF
explicitly
under
any
legislation.
Whether
or
not
the
mineral
resource
is
exhausted,
is
a
mere
technical
determination
that,
in
the
case
of
this
site,
has
been
made
by
the
engineers
involved
in
the
file
and
is
solidified
by
the
fact
that
we
have
a
shortfall
of
fill
material
on
site.
M
So
the
the
the
resource
there
is
no
more
mining
available
to
us,
even
if
there
was
good
quality
material
to
remove
removing
that
material
would
mean
that
we
have
to
import
back
material.
So
just
to
give
an
example,
if
I
took
one
truckload
of
material
off-site
and
I'm
not
suggesting,
we
have
good
material
to
do
that.
But
let's
just
say
we
did
that
one
truckload
of
material
that
I
remove
it
remove
would
have
to
be
replaced
in
future
by
the
same
truckload
of
material.
Coming
back.
M
That's
why,
from
an
environmental,
economic
and
also
a
nuisance
perspective,
the
ministry
does
not
want
to
see.
Aggregate
operations
continue
only
for
material
to
be
coming
back
to
the
pit.
With
carbon
footprint
and
with
all
the
noxious
possibilities
that
come
from,
you
know,
big
trucks
moving
on
arterial
roads,
hauling
fill
needlessly.
So
the
short
story
is
the
technical
determination
of
whether
our
resource
has
been
exhausted
is
in
the
realm
of
professional
engineering
and
opinions
of
Professional
Engineers
and
the
case
of
this
file.
M
That
determination
was
made
by
David
Shea
for
engineering
and
Patterson
Patterson
group
here
in
Ottawa,
and
it
was
never
contested
and
therefore
our
position
is
that
there's
never
been
a
contest
that
the
resource
has
been
exhausted
and
therefore
we
feel
that
there's
been
comfort
that
everyone
agrees
that
it
has
been.
Okay,
that's.
G
That's
very
helpful:
I
will
have
a
question
for
staff
around
the
wording
that
was
in
the
report,
but
I
can
wait
until
after
the
delegations,
so
for
the
first
half.
If
why
then
did
the
report
say
that
M&F
are
has
deemed
the
site
to
be
exhausted
of
aggregate
if
the
determination
of
exhaustion
is
not
actually
M&R
FS
to
make,
but
is
in
fact,
yes,
the
developers
engineers
have
the
purview
to
make
that
determination.
J
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
It
was
as
mr.
Markin
as
I
had
mentioned
earlier.
In
the
slide,
it
was
a
statement
that
we
made
to
the
Ministry
of
Natural
Resources,
and
they
did
not
refute
it,
as
I
mentioned
as
well.
In
my
presentation,
professional
professional
positions
are
taken
by
engineers
that
this
site,
the
quality
of
the
fill
whether
or
not
there
is
any
fill
left
to
be
taken
out
of
there.
J
Those
are
presented-
and
those
are
reviewed-
and
it
was
not
mentioned
by
the
by
the
applicant-
was
not
refuted
by
as
well
by
the
Ministry
of
Natural
Resources.
So
in
our
conversations
with
the
ministry
that
there's
this
site
is
appropriate
for
redevelopment
for
residential
homes,
as
I
mentioned,
it's
been
an
aggregate
since
for
extraction
facility.
A
A
A
A
trip
and
that's
why
I
specifically
did
not
put
the
deferral
forward
so
because,
as
you
know,
once
you
have
a
deferral
forward,
you
can
only
put
on
the
table.
You
can
only
speak
to
deferral,
which
is
why
I'm
going
to
have
I.
Don't
know
whether
mr.
Neville
came
to
speak
to
deferral,
whether
it
came
to
speak
to
the
item
but
because
he's
the
fourth
one
signing
up
he's
going
to
be
the
fourth
one
to
speak
to
the
report
right.
E
A
You'll
you'll
hear
about
that
just
one,
so
I
think
this
probably
is
mr.
mark,
but
well
actually,
first
of
all
mr.
James.
So
is
this
the
first
aggregate
pit
that's
been
retired
that
we've
ever
redeveloped
within
the
urban
boundary
of
the
City
of
Ottawa
and
you're?
Well,
maybe
in
your
recollection,
but
there's
other
people
in
the
room
that
have
been
in.
A
J
J
With
without
the
rezoning
being
played
out,
there's
a
major
real
ability
with
well
that
I
think
that
the
zoning
should
be
in
place
which
was
put
onto
the
the
slide
was
in
another
document
that
was
up
there,
but
the
zoning,
and
we
don't
need
an
official
plan
amendment.
But
if
it
needed
to
be
done,
it
should
be
done
before
that.
The
way
that
policy
reads,
those
things
should
be
taken
care
of,
but
the
Minish
can
go
ahead
of
course,
then,
and
do
it
hasn't
done
it?
Yet?
J
A
That's
why
we're
having
this
conversation,
because
mr.
Willis
wanted
his
staff
should
be
able
to
come
before
us
and
explain
this
procedure,
which
we
wouldn't
have
any
conversation
about
this.
They
would
have
gone
about
their
procedure
because
of
a
policy
brought
the
app
of
application
to
us,
as
they
do
excuse
me
as
they
do,
and
we
would
be
here
where
we're
going
to
be
right
now
after
I
have
no
one
has
any
more
question
any
questions
of
of
may
Frank
or
David,
okay,
so
I'm.
So
thank
you
very
much
for
coming
out.
A
D
A
L
I
L
L
Of
its
release
by
the
Ministry
of
Natural
Resources,
that's
the
matter
to
my
understanding
has
to
be
requested,
and
then
then
that
sets
forth
the
operation
of
assessment
and
determination
and
I
think
that
this
is
beyond
a
little
bit
more
than
just
professional
engineers.
Surely
this
is
a
geological
matter,
geological
engineering
and
and
environmental
assessment
as
well,
and
the
reason
I
say
that
is
that
sand
pits
in
that
area.
L
Longhorn's
steel
are
quite
well
known
for
having
artesian
Springs
below
them
and
I'm
a
little
taken
aback
by
the
fact
that
phil
was
being
brought
in
of
some
of
it.
They
were
referred
to
here
by
Frank
is
obnoxious
this.
This
presents
a
potential
of
contamination
to
the
groundwater,
with
the
springs
coming
up
to
the
base
of
the
excavated
area,
and
as
first
question
is,
is
this
the
first
city's
consideration
of
remediation
of
a
of
a
pit?
Well,
it's
not.
The
Trail
Road
site
is
a
key
example
of
this.
L
Well,
that's:
it
was
be
the
first
classic
example
of
a
remediation
of
a
sand
pit
for
other
purposes
that
was
all
excavated
sand
there
and
also
to
the
area
immediately
to
the
west
of
that
of
the
corner
of
Cambrian,
south
west
corner
of
Cambrian
and
moody
Drive
that
that's
now
extracted
sand
pit
too,
and
in
fact
it's
full
of
artesian
Springs.
There's
a
creek
running
down
the
ditch.
That's
been
running
through
there
westerly
over
to
the
leemy
Creek
for
drainage
of
the
spring
water
within
that
area.
L
Who
showed
you
and
there's
another
good
example
on
the
northwest
corner
of
Barnes,
Dale
Road
and
Moody
Drive
of
a
whole
series
of
artesian
Springs
that
bubble
up
right
to
the
surface
in
the
wintertime
amid
the
Cedars
in
there,
and
if
you
go
further
north
on
Moody
Drive,
where
the
other
operations
are
there,
there's
ponding
of
water
and
to
some
depth
in
some
places.
So
these
are.
These
are
real
critical
matters
that
I
think
are
beyond
just
the
usual
professional
engineer,
which
in
most
cases
is
a
civil
engineer
who,
of
course,
geological
and
environmental
consideration.
L
A
You
thank
you
for
coming
out.
I,
don't
see
any
questions.
I
I
will
tell
you,
though
mr.
Neville,
that,
as
you
call
it,
the
CBC
expose
I
think
you
said
did
trigger
a
number
of
things
to
happen.
I
can
say
that
none
of
them
were
good
and
they
were
indeed
inflammatory
and
I.
Think
maybe
it's
not
even
the
report
that
was
done,
but
it
was
the
title
that
was
given
to
it
that
contradicted
what
I
think
the
intent
was,
but
I'm
just
guessing
of
the
what
you
call
CBC
expose.
A
A
What
was
happening
with
the
old
rules
was
that
any
soil
with
barium
was
not
allowed
to
be
used
for
development,
so
we
were
carting
away,
the
very
soil
that
was
natural
to
bar
Haven,
to
bring
back
other
soil
from
wherever
you
could
get
it.
I'll,
give
you
a
great
example:
we
had
to
close
down
Cambrian
Road,
one
Saturday
when
we
were
building
Mentos
wreck
in
the
very
early
stages
of
it,
so
probably
about
2012,
2013
I.
Remember
it!
A
Well,
we
had
a
caravan
of
dump
trucks,
I
think
there
were
50
or
60
that
had
to
bring
in
soil
from
outside
of
bar
Haven.
That
was
going
to
be
that,
but
what
we
ended
up
doing
is
we.
They
mayor
sent
a
letter
to
the
ministry
saying
this
is
ridiculous.
Okay
I
mean
just
the
greenhouse
gas
emissions
and
everything
of
50
trucks.
You
can
just
imagine
what
what
it
looked
like
in
having
to
close
down
a
major
arterial
and
to
bring
it
from
wherever,
probably
somewhere
in
the
west.
A
To
that
point,
so
we
were
able
to
logically
say:
let
us
use
the
fill
that
we're
having
to
take
out
of
our
stormwater
pond.
That
Minto
is
creating
to
the
west
of
to
the
east
of
what
is
now
long
fields
near
heart's
desire
near
palma,
TVA.
So
we
created
a
huge
stormwater,
beautiful
park-like
looking
place
there.
They
actually
allowed
us
to
use
the
land
that
we
that
the
soil
that
was
being
taken
are
there
because
it
made
sense.
Okay.
So
that's
why
that
was
part
of
the
conversation
here.
A
Having
this
discussion
today,
I
think
that
it's
one
that
maybe
when
councilor
Moffitt
was
at
Iraq,
you
would
have
seen
there
because
I
would
consider
Scott
to
be
our
specialist
on
council
when
it
comes
to
knowing
stuff
about
aggregate,
because
you
know
we
do
have
a
lot
and
I
don't
know
about
the
East
End
councillor
bleh.
You
would
know
more
about
that,
but
we
have
a
ton
of
aggregate
places
in
the
in
the
in
the
West
End.
So
this
won't
be
the
first
time
we
see
this
but
anyways.
What
we
have
before
us
is.
A
J
M
A
Okay,
so
the
other
reason
that
we
thought
this
was
important:
Vice
Chair
Tierney.
Thank
you.
This
is
your
big
day,
so
excited
for
you.
You
started
it
off
anyway,
I'm
so
excited
for
the
you
know.
We
wanted
this
to
come
forward
because
we
have
heard
from
I.
Have
a
my
senior
planner
was
say
my,
but
it's
in
bar
Haven
senior
planner
for
some
other
areas,
reports
to
Lily
now
Lily
used
to
be
the
senior
planner,
but
Shawn
Moore
held
a
community
meeting
last
Thursday
night,
a
mento
community
meeting.
A
Now
normally,
when
you
have
a
plan
when
you
have
a
meeting
in
the
suburbs,
okay,
unless
there's
a
really
good
reason
for
people
to
show
up,
you
might
have
like
this
application
did
at
its
meeting
that
it
was
held
at
mental
wreck,
which
is
in
the
report
to
people
show
up.
I
can
probably
even
tell
you
who
they
were
without
knowing
who
they
are,
and
they
just
hang
out
at
that
stuff.
We're
interested
in
what's
been
farming
it
since
the
50s
right.
So
in
this
case
he
has
30.
A
People
show
up
for
the
second
stage
of
mental
harmony,
okay
and
he's
called
a
liar,
and
people
are
saying
that
the
developers
in
bar
Haven
are
all
liars
they're
not
to
be
trusted
the
cities
not
to
be
trusted
in
the
process,
etc.
So
that's
why
it's
important
for
mr.
Willis
to
have
his
staff
for
the
record
show
how
very
competently
they
followed
the
procedures
according
to
the
policy
with
regard
to
the
aggregate,
but
also
the
policy
and
procedures
that
we
have
here
at
the
city
that
they
operate
under
the
Planning
Act
of
Ontario.
A
That's
why
we've
taken
this
time
so
now
we're
going
to
go
on
to
less.
You
have
anything
to
add
we're
going
to
go
on
to
what
happened
a
couple
of
weeks
ago
to
close
to
this
report
going
live
for
a
new
technical
nuance.
If
you
will
to
change
the
report,
modestly
Frank,
why
don't
you
say
what
happened?
One
of
your
people
came
in
and
then
Lily
I
go
over
to
you
and
then
may
I.
Ask
mr.
Moffet
counselor
Moffitt's
going
to
move
the
deferral?
Okay,
so.
M
Madam
chair,
in
the
posts
of
bringing
forward
the
zoning
bylaw
amendment,
site-specific
zoning
was
developed
to
accommodate
some
new
architectural
designs
that
we
had
been
advancing
and
staff
required
additional
time
to
consider
and
that
those
requested
changes
that
we
are
proposing
to
accommodate
the
architecture
on
site.
And
for
that
reason
we
weren't
in
a
position
to
have
staff
support
the
zoning
today.
They
needed
more
time
to
consider
it
and
therefore
it
was
being
shifted
to
a
committee
date
in
February.
M
M
Zoning
exceptions
that
are
proposed
that
needed
further
vetting
relate
to
a
small
component
of
the
site
that
benefits
from
some
complicated
grading
conditions
which
tie
into
the
discussion
we
had
earlier
about
complicated
site
grading
and
some
setback.
Modifications
to
relate
to
that
grading
are
the
ones
that
held
up
our
ability
to
proceed
with
approval.
Today,
it's
a
small
component
to
the
site
in
perimeter
locations
that
requires
that
zoning,
consideration
and
staff
in
fairness
needs
time
to
consider
it
that
early
and
and
that's
why
we're
not
being
considered
for
approval
today.
Thank.
F
Madam
chair,
because
staff
only
received
a
confirmation
from
the
applicant
that
they
agreed
to
delay
the
report
so
that
we
can
have
a
sufficient
time
to
identify
the
appropriate
locations
to
accept
a
further
exceptions
under
the
zoning
standard
of
revisions.
That's
why
I
reported
you
to
be
related
to
the
next
one.
So.
A
We
were
just
to
take
two
weeks
step
back.
There
is
nothing
unordinary
or
out
or
exceptional
about
this
application.
You
have
a
few
couple
of
changes.
Your
staff
want
to
have
the
time
to
review
it
as
they
always
do,
and
we
had
this.
We
were
up
against
today's
timeline.
So
there's
a
deferral
motion
from
councillor
Moffat.
A
A
No,
it
was
just
it
just
was
carried.
Nobody
had
any
questions.
No
money
came
out
to
speak
I
just
I'm
just
for
your
information,
because
it's
because
it
relates
to
you
yeah,
okay,
okay.
So
the
next
item
is
116,
York,
Street
and
O'connor
is
the
planner
on
file
we
have
we
have
the
applicant
is
here:
Peter
Ferguson
is
here
Peter.
Are
you
here
come
on
down,
followed
by
Carrie
Thompson,
it's
Carrie
here?
Oh
there
you
are
hi
Carrie
and
then
followed
by
David,
Fleming,
where's,
ecoo,
David
I
know,
I
saw
him.
A
L
You
I
just
wanted
to
briefly
remind
councilors
of
the
letter,
that's
included
in
the
report.
That's
under
discussion
here,
two-page
letter
from
September
2018.
The
position
taken
than
that
letter
remains
our
position
today.
I
do
want
to
point
out
that
on
January
13th,
the
board
of
the
Lower
Town
Community
Association
invited
the
developer
to
make
a
presentation.
He
did.
We
had
a
useful
discussion
without
rancor
I
might
add,
but
the
position
of
the
Association
remains
as
it
appears
in
the
letter.
Let
me
very
quickly
summarize
the
two
main
points
that
we
make
in
the
letter.
L
The
proposal
fails
to
contemplate
the
Heritage
character
of
the
Heritage
Conservation
District
and
the
negative
impact
that
it
will
have
on
it,
and,
secondly,
it
represents
inappropriate
development
for
the
site,
which
would
result
in
insufficient
separation
distances
between
existing
and
future
buildings
on
adjacent
properties,
and
that's
the
crux
of
our
position.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
A
C
So
Thank
You,
chair
and
members
of
committee
I
am
here
this
morning
as
a
concerned,
citizen
of
the
City
of
Ottawa
and
have
three
comments
to
offer
for
the
consideration
of
committee.
First
of
all,
I
want
to
thank
planning
staff
for
what
I
think
is
a
very
helpful,
thoughtful
and
insightful
report
pertaining
to
this
matter.
I
support
it
so
I'm
speaking
in
support
of
the
staff
recommendation
that
committee
and
hopefully
council
will
refuse
the
approvals
that
the
applicant
is
seeking.
C
It
appears
to
me
that
the
proposed
development
is
very
confrontational
and
insensitive
to
the
area
that
we're
speaking
about
one
that
is
subject
to
a
heritage,
designation,
one
that
in
good
weather,
is
really
just
a
short
walk
away
from
Parliament
Hill
in
what
is
the
capital
city
of
Canada
and
I?
Think
the
city
generally,
but
the
neighborhood
in
particular
deserves
more,
and
so
my
comment
to
you
that
offer
is
that
I
think
your
staff
report
amply
supports
the
position
that
staff
is
recommending
to
you
that
the
relief
that
is
requested
be
refused
and
I.
C
The
potential
effect
on
traffic,
the
potential
effect
on
the
streetscape
pedestrians,
how
it
fits
in
with
the
surrounding
neighbourhood,
will
be
at
play
there
and
I
think,
quite
frankly
that
what
is
currently
proposed
in
this
particular
situation
is
not
appropriate,
does
not
represent
good
planning
and,
frankly,
would
set
a
terrible
precedent,
a
terrible
unfortunate
precedent
for
other
areas
of
the
city
where
development
is
needed
and
development
is
going
to
be
coming
forward,
such
as
in
Somerset
Ward.
Thank
you.
A
L
You,
madam
chair,
I'll,
be
very
brief
heritage.
Autobots
position
hasn't
changed
on
this
item
in
the
past
16
months,
since
we
sent
the
letter,
which
is
document
8
of
your
of
the
staff
report.
We
heartily
endorse
the
staff
recommendation
on
this,
because
we
feel
that
the
proposal
ignores
the
central
recommendations
of
the
by
Ward
mark
at
Heritage,
Conservation
District
for
heightened
mass
in
context,
setbacks
and
streetscape
I
won't
go
into
any
more
detail
on
that.
The
other
thing
that
we're
concerned
about
is
that
the
rezoning
application
has
preceded
application
under
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act.
L
We
raised
this
question
16
months
ago
and
we
have
never
really
received
an
explanation
and
as
we're
going
ahead
with
the
new
Official
Plan,
where
there
is
emphasis
on
communities
in
context
in
communities,
you
know
I
think
we.
We
should
have
some
sort
of
explanation
from
staff
on
why
this
why
this
sort
of
thing
takes
place?
You
know
the
proper
procedure
for
us
would
be
to
apply
under
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act
to
have
a
Heritage
impact
statement
for
therefore
the
property.
Once
that
is
settled,
then
the
proposal
for
rezoning
should
come
forward.
A
G
A
G
A
N
Yeah
good
morning,
chair
members
of
committee,
my
name
is
bill.
Holzman
we're
the
planning
consultants
for
the
application
and
the
applicant
and
I
have
with
me
a
principle
of
the
development
company,
Samir
Giuliani,
who
will
start
our
presentation
and
then
I'll
follow
up
and
we'll
be
quite
brief.
Actually.
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair
I'm,
Samir
guilmon
II
represent
baby
Hospitality
Group
and
we
provide
prepared
some
slides
today,
which
I'll
take
you
through
briefly.
During
our
time,
baby
hospitality
has
been
in
business
35
years
as
founded
by
my
father.
It's
a
family
business
we've
been
building
hotels
and
residential
communities.
D
Since
about
2005
and
in
all
of
our
communities.
We
see
ourselves,
as
you
know,
part
of
these
communities.
We
we
don't
generally
build
and
sell.
We
build
to
stay
there.
You
know:
we've
created
employment,
we've
supported
tourism
in
the
markets
that
were
in.
We
recently
completed
the
hotel
in
Homewood
Suites
by
Hilton
in
Kanata,
as
well
as
a
residential
apartment
building,
and
we're
very
proud
of
the
work
that
we
do
this
site.
You
know
we
chose
this
site
because
of
its
relationship
to
the
Byward
market,
and
this
is
just
an
overview
here.
D
D
This
is
just
a
closer
view,
so
there's
a
22
story:
building,
that's
site
plan
approved
right
behind
us
to
the
south
just
immediately
to
the
west,
there's
the
Andaz
hotel,
which
is
at
nineteen
stories.
Originally.
When
we
submitted
the
plan,
the
plan
was
going
to
be
for
to
match
the
height
of
the
buildings
behind
us
at
roughly
20
stories.
D
But
after
we
did
our
community
consultations
in
a
pre
consultation
with
you
DRP,
you
know
we
didn't
get
aget
a
very
specific
guidance
on
what
to
do,
but
we
decided
to
drop
the
height
to
17
stories,
which
is
where
the
plan
is
it's
at
today.
We
also
did
consultations
pretty
broad
consultations
with
the
neighborhood
with
the
neighbors.
It's
a
tight
site,
it's
11,000
square
feet.
We
tried
to
see
if
we
could
pick
up
some
more
room
on
the
west,
east
or
south
sides,
and
we
were
ultimately
unsuccessful
in
doing
that.
D
But
you
know
it
is
still
a
buildable
site.
It's
a
parking
lot
now
and
you
know
we
think
that
what
we
want
to
do
here
is
contribute
to
this
market.
I
should
just
mention
that
you
know
the
policy.
The
city's
policy
here
is
that,
or
at
least
the
Byward
market
heritage
conservation
district
study.
One
of
the
guidelines
is
that
parking
lots
are
actually
very
undesirable
in
this
area
and
what
should
be?
There
is
an
active
streetscape,
so
you
know
factoring
all
that
in
what
we
did
was
you
know
we
put
in
an
active
streetscape.
D
You
know
what
one
interesting
thing
that
you
see
in
the
Byward
market.
What
makes
it
a
wonderful
place
to
be
is
that
as
you
walk
through
it,
every
30
feet,
there's
something
new
to
look
at
a
new
storefront,
and
so
when
we
added
as
part
of
our
design,
we
stepped
the
tower
back
in
order
to
mitigate
the
effect
on
the
pedestrian
environment.
D
We
incorporated
the
design
and
materials
that
you
see
in
the
Byward
market
and
I'll
just
mention
that
we
also
picked
up
the
architectural
facade
of
the
building.
That's
next
to
us,
which
is
called
the
major
building,
the
warehouse
building,
the
five-story
building
to
the
east
of
us
in
order
to
give
it
a
relationship
to
that
building,
which
is
a
recognised
category
to
category
two
in
the
in
the
in
the
study.
So
with
that
I'll
conclude
my
comments
and
happy
to
take
any
questions.
N
Just
add
a
couple
minutes
to
seniors
of
presentation:
we
were
the
firm
that
was
retained,
2018
to
prepare
the
land
use,
planning
rationale,
along
with
other
studies
that
were
done.
There
is
a
cultural
heritage
impact
statement
submitted
with
our
applications
as
well.
That
came
up
earlier
with
a
previous
speaker.
Our
report
concluded
that
the
the
zoning
bylaw
amendment,
the
minor
application,
was
appropriate
for
the
site
for
a
variety
of
reasons.
N
So
the
end
of
the
day,
what
came
forward
was,
and
again
we
felt
that
this
warranted
a
full
review
through
a
bylaw
amendment
not
seeking
to
go
to
the
committee
of
adjustment
for
variances.
We
felt
that
it
was
needed,
a
thorough
review
which
it's
going
through,
and
unfortunately
it's
led
us
to
the
point
now
now.
One
of
the
very
brief
points
I
will
make
is
that
our
application
was
filed.
It
was
it
was
deemed
complete,
it
was
processed
and
unfortunately,
we
we
attempted
to
try
to
deal
with
staff.
N
You
know
in
a
proactive
way
to
present
various
options
and
we
were
we
felt
we
were
making
some
headway
and
January
of
2009
nineteen
came
along,
which
gave
my
client
the
right
to
appeal,
but
they
had
no
intentions
of
appealing
so
continuing
over
the
next
nine
months,
or
so
we
continued
to
try
to
see
if
we
can
engage
in
in
a
constructive
manner
to
deal
with
their
issues.
It
came
really
out
of
the
blue,
where
staff
said
we're
preparing
a
report
to
refused
in
August
of
this
past
year,
and
we
were
quite
surprised.
N
Actually,
we
were
able
to
to
deal
with
staff
and
get
in
a
delay
of
that
that
brought
us
to
today.
But
again
we
we
felt
that
there
was
some
room
to
continue
a
constructive
dialogue.
Now,
as
Samir
said
again,
we
were
we
were
cognizant
of,
and
we
were
appreciative
of
the
policies
in
place-
guidelines
that
were
developed
in
30
years
ago
for
the
for
the
the
district.
But
at
the
end
of
the
day
we
felt
that
the
project
on
a
whole
was
supportable
by
the
land-use
planning
documents
which
Samir
has
indicated
very
briefly.
N
G
You,
madam
chair,
thank
you,
gentlemen,
for
your
comments
and
brief
presentation.
Just
so
I'm
clear
I
heard
that
the
initial
height
had
been
reduced
to
what
it
is
now.
Can
you
just
remind
me
what
the
original
height
was,
what
it
is
now
and
whether
any
other
significant
changes
that
you
made
to
the
original
proposal.
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
We
originally
had
our
plan
at
20
stories
and
we
decided
to
revise
it
after
the
informal
consultation
with
the
U
DRP,
we
dropped
the
height
to
17
stories.
The
direction
by
some
of
the
panelists
at
the
U
DRP
was
that
we
should
match
the
height
of
the
nearby
building
high.
In
order
to
do
that,
that's
how
we
got
to
17
stories.
The
other
thing
we
changed
after
that
point
was
we.
D
That's
the
subject
site
the
blue,
the
blue
site,
just
to
the
east
of
that
is
the
major
building
which
is
noted
as
a
category
two
and
it's
the
reason
essentially,
that
the
the
Heritage
Conservation
District
jogs
out
to
try
to
grab
that
that
blue
building
that
that
category
two
building
and
has
included
our
parking
lot.
But
you
know,
because
that
is
a
resource,
a
recognized
heritage
resource.
G
Okay,
my
final
question
is
just
regarding
the
loading
space
provisions.
Staff
have
raised
concerns
with
I'll
use
the
word
in
there
inadequate
loading
space
provisions.
Can
you
expand
on
this?
What
what
are
your
thoughts
on
the
loading
space
provisions?
Why
are
you
proposing
something,
and
we
have
staff
raising
objections.
D
Thank
you,
so
the
you
know
one
of
the
challenges
with
this
site.
It's
the
11,000
square
foot
site.
You
know
in
because
it's
because
it's
tight,
the
you
know
we
had
to
have
the
parking
in
the
center
of
the
site
with
the
turning
angles.
The
concern
from
the
staff
report
is
that
you
know
it's
insufficient.
Now,
I
I
did
discuss
with
the
architect
that
you
know
some
of
that
can
be
revised.
You
know
with
respect
to
turning
angles,
making
sure
that
trucks
and
cars
can
get
out.
D
We
haven't
done
that
revision
yet
or
submitted
to
the
city
just
because
we
were
so
hung
up
on
other
aspects,
major
aspects
of
the
site,
but
none
of
that
is
insurmountable
now
and
since
we're
on
the
subject
of
the
parking
garage,
I
was
just
talking
about
that
as
well.
You
know.
The
intention
here
is
not
to
have
a
dark
garage
that
that
garage
represents
an
opportunity
to
have
some
public
art
have
a
light
wall.
You
know
have
something
that
contributes
again
to
this
to
this
beautiful
market.
D
Bills
are
reminding
me
to
talk
about
the
patron
drop-off,
the
so
the
so
the
the
guests
of
the
hotel.
You
know
that
it,
you
know,
taxis
and
the
pickup
and
drop
off
for
the
site.
That
would
actually
happen
inside
that
garage,
so
the
lobby
entrance
is
inside
there
and
we're
going
to
make
sure
that
the
turning
angles
are
appropriate
to
make
sure
that
that's
easy
to
do.
Thank.
A
A
A
So
here's
my
so
in
the
executive
summary
the
second
paragraph
says
the
proposal
does
not
align
with
the
planning
and
heritage
policies
applicable
to
high-rise
development.
At
this
specific
location
in
the
Lower
Town
neighborhood
within
the
Byward
market,
Heritage
Conservation
District,
the
property
is
designated
central
area
that
I
did
after
that
tada.
A
My
question
is:
this:
is
literally
next
door
same
height,
pretty
much
I,
think
nicer,
but
just
my
personal
opinion
I,
like
the
detail
they
put
on
the
bottom.
What
causes
you
specifically?
Is
it
a
change
in
policy?
I
think
probably
our
high-rise
policy.
Maybe
it's
the
change
in
policy
that
has
changed
it.
What
what
else
I'm
just
speak
to
me
on
this
because
you
know
to
to
hold
them
one
against
the
other.
I
knew
I
needed.
I
need
I,
need
the
facts
on
what
triggered
you
to
make.
That
decision.
J
Yes,
madam
chair,
as
members,
the
community
may
know
recently
and
has
been
done
through
zoning,
but
we
have
our
high-rise
guidelines
that
talks
about
separation
distances
between
buildings
between
high-rise
buildings,
so
everything
over
ten
storeys
in
height
with
preferably
23
meters.
It
can
be
augmented
down
somewhat
depending
on
circumstances,
but
we're
looking
for
tower
separations,
which
in
this
case
the
lot
is
very
small.
The
building
is
constructed
lot
line
to
lot
line
all
for
lot
lines
well
within.
J
If
you're
going
to
have
a
high-rise
building,
you
should
have
a
minimum
size,
it
might
be
about
1800
square
meters.
This
is
just
over
a
thousand
like
the
the
lot
size
doesn't
meet
that
requirement.
There
are
policies
for
transition
to
other
properties,
and
it's
a
building
that
goes
straight
up.
There
is
a
little
bit
of
a
setback
in
the
front,
but
again
the
zoning
that's
on
there.
Now
that
calls
for
that
angular
plane
is
to
have
a
lot
more
transition
than
exists.
Today
there
was
concern
as
well.
J
We
talked
about
the
ground
floor,
it's
you
can
see
it
there,
while
they
do
have
a
little
bit
of
area
on
the
ground
floor.
That
is
animated.
The
most
of
it
is
a
parking
garage,
no
matter
how
well
it's
lit,
it's
still
a
parking
garage,
there's
no
animation
there
and
on
the
right
side
there
is
some
utility
doors.
A
A
A
It's
good
so
on
both
of
them
I
have
the
developer,
who
is
registered
along
with
Scott
mcansh
Scott.
Did
I,
kill
your
name
or
come
on
up
come
on
forward?
Please
you're
here
on
behalf
of
Wendy
Dechaine
and
David
Alden,
and
thank
you
very
much
for
giving
us
all
of
that
information
ahead
of
time.
It's
really
good
to
be
able
to
you
know,
read
it
ahead
of
time,
so
this
is,
as
I
said,
the
zoning
bylaw
amendments
and
site
plan
controls
for
1929
and
1:30
for
Robinson
and
as
well.
A
I
I
appreciate
that,
because
there
are
slightly
different
concerns
with
36
than
the
other
three.
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
today
and
thank
you
for
indicating
the
Earthsea
of
my
written
submissions
in
advance.
I,
don't
intend
to
repeat
those
you
know
substantially.
All
of
us
be
covering
some
of
the
same
points
today,
but
I
I
want
to
say
the
outside
that
my
submissions
are
limited
to
the
zoning
recommendations.
I,
don't
intend
to
speak
to
the
site
plan
aspects
of
it
at
all,
as
staff
indicates
in
the
report.
I
The
main
thing
that's
being
sought
here
is
a
reduction
in
the
minimum
parking
requirements
for
all
four
of
the
projects,
and
the
reduction
sought
are
quite
significant
on
the
smaller
towers,
it's
from
a
minimum
of
17
down
to
effectively
to
with
the
car
share
lot
there
and
on
the
larger
Tower.
It's
a
you
know
nearly
half
of
what
was
initially
required.
I
Those
are
significant
changes
and
I
think
that
it's
important
to
you'll
go
over
the
policy
rationale
for
minimum
parking
requirements
and
the
recency
with
which
this
committee
and
council
have
considered
minimum
parkings
in
this
specific
area.
So,
as
I'm
sure
the
committee
is
aware,
Robinson
village
is
a
relatively
small
neighbourhood
at
the
bottom
of
a
hill
sort
of
bounded
by
Lee's,
Avenue
and
the
river
and
the
highway.
It's
currently
a
fairly
low-rise
neighborhood.
I
It
is
zoned
r5
primarily,
so
it's
certainly
intended
to
have
some
increase
in
intensity,
but
it
is
by
the
geography,
fairly
isolated
from
the
rest
of
Sandy
Hill
from
major
services.
Google
tells
me
it's
a
minimum.
24
minutes
walk
to
the
closest
grocery
store,
for
instance,
it's
a
fairly
isolated
little
neighborhood
and
I.
Think.
I
For
that
reason,
when
the
minimum
parking
standards
review
took
place
in
2016,
it
was
explicitly
excluded
from
the
area
zi
a
sort
of
waiver
of
parking
minimums
I
it's
in
the
inner
urban
area,
which
has
you
know
a
baseline
point,
five
per
unit
set
in
section
101
of
the
bylaw
and
that's
what
the
applicant
and
the
cities
with
the
city
support
is
seeking
to
waive.
Today.
I
The
city
effectively
says
that
it
should
have
been
included
in
Z
or
that
the
intention,
when
that
plan
was
looked
at,
was
that
other
sites
could
be
brought
into
that
fold.
But
I
think
that
ignores
the
larger
context
in
which
the
not
only
the
parking
minimums
but
the
whole
intensity
of
development
in
the
area
came
to
be
I.
Think
it's
important
to
recall
that
when
the
transit
oriented
plans
were
being
looked
at
for
Lee's,
Robinson
village
was
actually
down
zoned.
I
Well,
the
lands
closer
to
these
stations
were
significantly
up
zoned,
and
that
resulted
in
an
appeal
by
the
owner
of
the
den
owner
of
36
to
the
van
Owen
B,
which
I
understand
from
a
letter
that's
been
provided
from.
Other
clients
was
settled
with
the
city
to
leave
that
site
at
a
slightly
higher
density
of
8
storeys,
which
was
put
into
the
secondary
plan.
While
the
rest
of
the
lot
was
said,
it's
our
five
designation
effectively
stories.
I
So
the
parking
I
think
consideration
ties
in
with
that
view.
That
Robinson
village
is
special,
that
it's
a
lower
density,
Zone
in
a
transit
oriented
development
plan
that
was
looking
at
increasing
density
and
mixing
use
near
transit
stations.
This
little
corner
was
viewed
as
different
enough
that
it
was
down
zoned
and
it's
some
presidential.
It's
not
considered
mixed-use
so
its,
although
it
is
a
relatively
short,
walk
to
Lee's
Station.
It
is
a
special,
unique
community
and
I.
I
Think
previous
decisions
of
this
body
and
council
show
that
there's
an
understanding
that
that
is
the
case,
so
I
think
to
come
here
and
effectively
say
that
this
should
have
been
in
the
area
that
requires
ever.
You
know
effectively
considers
parking
is
not
necessary,
doesn't
reflect
the
history
of
the
process
or
the
reality
in
Robinson,
village.
Being
so
isolated
and
removed
from
services
means
that
people
who
move
there
are
likely
to
come
with
a
car.
The
walk
to
Lee's
Station
is
indirect.
I
You
requires
crossing
the
leaves
bridge
over
the
highway,
which
can
be
windy
at
times.
There's
a
graded
path
to
get
up
there.
So
it's
not
a
long
walk,
but
it's
a
walk
that
many
people
will
not
want
to
take,
and
so
more
than
two
people
out
of
46
units
are
likely
to
come
with
cars
and
the
effect
of
removing
the
minimum
is
to
externalize
on
the
community
the
pressures
created
by
that
car
ownership,
because
those
cars
will
have
to
be
parked
somewhere
and
I
know.
I
The
site
plan
has
a
requirement
that
people
find
legal
parking,
but
that
is
a
pressure
that
then
is
dumped
on
the
community
and
removed
from
the
site
owner
to
provide
that
to
the
people
purchasing
its
property
I,
don't
think,
that's
a
policy
direction
that
this
committee
wants
to
go
and
I
think
the
drastic
reductions
in
parking
here,
therefore,
are
not
appropriate
for
these
sites.
Now,
specifically
on
the
36
Robinson
site,
it
is
my
opinion
that
it
does
not
comply
with
the
designation
in
the
secondary
plan.
I
The
Sandy
Hill
secondary
plan
set
a
density
cap
of
8
stories
and
that's
quite
clearly
set
out
in
sched,
well,
which
I'm
counseling
they're
free
to
look
at
at
their
leisure.
But
it's
quite
clearly
states
that
the
density
cap
is
a
maximum
of
eight
stories
with
gnome
density
minimum.
The
application
here
is
proposing
a
nine-story
building
on
that
site.
I
Now
staff
say
that
that
still
complies
with
the
site-specific
zoning,
which
is
set
at
27
meters,
and
that
may
be
true,
but
if
counsel
knowingly
approves
a
project
that
blatantly
breaches
the
density
cap
set
in
the
secondary
plan,
I
would
say
that
there's
that's
legally
questionable
and
possibly
illegal
that
we
have
a
strict
cap
set
in
the
secondary
plan
of
8
storeys,
and
we
have
a
project
telling
you
that
they're
going
to
put
nine
there.
That
is
a
higher
density,
then
specifically
specified
in
the
secondary
plan
and
I
believe
on
that
basis.
I
36,
it
should
not
be
approved.
The
parking
concerns
apply
to
all
four
sites.
That
is
a
specific
concern
with
36
Robinson.
So
those
are
my
submissions
there's
some
other
concerns
raised
in
the
letters
I
sent
to
the
counselors
and
I
trust.
You've
read
those
will
consider
those
as
well
in
your
decision-making
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
that
you
may
have
great
day.
Thank
you
for
that
Scott
councillor.
G
Lieber
thanks
chair
I'm,
struggling
with
this
file.
Ordinarily
I
am
A
champion
for
reducing
parking
requirements.
I
recognise
the
transportation
challenges
in
Robinson
village,
however,
that
is
not
a
particularly
friendly
pedestrian
environment
to
get
to
transit
unless
one
walks
north
to
the
University
of
Ottawa
and
and
groceries
are
going
to
be
challenging
as
well.
It
looks
like
a
bit
of
a
it
is
a
food
desert
in
that
immediate
neighborhood,
but
you've
asserted
that
people
will
move
there
with
cars.
G
I
G
Still
struggle
because
I
think
as
I
as
I
chatted
with
the
developer
yesterday
about
this
I
come
across
this
in
Hintonburg
and
Westboro
all
the
time
we're
developers
of
building
buildings
that
don't
have
parking
and
and
I've
been
supporting
those
buildings,
but
you
can
put
it
in
the
site
plan
as
a
condition
that
they
are
going
to
be
very
explicit
with
potential
tenants.
There
is
no
parking
when
there's
no
parking
for
a
building
and
people
move
in
and
they
ignore
the
landlord's
warning.
They
bring
a
car
they're
trying
to
park
on
the
street.
G
They
are
calling
my
office
within
a
few
months
looking
for
help
to
try
to
find
parking
because
they're
being
ticketed
there
they're
finding
the
inconvenience
of
having
to
move
for
overnight
snow
removal
is,
is,
is
too
overwhelming
and
and
oftentimes
they
simply
move
it'll.
Be
I
will
look
forward
to
continuing
to
hear
the
rest
of
the
delegations
on
that.
But
this
it
looks
to
me
like
this
is
an
area
where
there
might
be
at
least
a
fair
number
of
people
who
are
who
are
going
to
be
willing
to
move
in
without
cars.
A
And
sorry
I
had
to
leave
for
a
minute,
but,
as
you
know,
in
the
in
the
report
and
like
in
the
bylaw
mr.
James,
we
were
talking
about
this
yesterday
we
were
meeting
with
councilor
flurry
and
mr.
McCray
and
specific
to
the
notification,
I'm
not
sure,
legally,
whether
that
any
holds
holds
any
water
for
us.
Putting
in
there
that
there
will
Park
anot
be
available,
wondered
what
I
know
I
asked
I.
Think
you,
mr.
mark.
What
did
I
ask
you
about
that?
A
J
Yes,
madam
chair,
we
did
chat
about
that
within
the
site
plan
approval.
One
of
the
conditions
is
that
it's
under
parking,
it
be
noted,
a
registered
in
title
through
the
site
plan,
but
also
in
the
lessee
agreements
that
parking
may
not
be
available,
or
there
is
no
parking
on
site.
There
is
limited
parking
into
each
of
the
smaller
buildings
as
well.
J
If
you
look
at
the
zoning
for
those
smaller
buildings
and
a
larger
building
and
a
larger
building
does
have
more
parking,
it
has
about
50
little
over
50
spaces,
53
I
believe,
but
if
all
those
spaces
are
not
up
taken
by
people
who
move
in,
they
don't
have
cars
as
opposed
to
staying
vacant
people
from
if
they
have
a
car
or
might
have
a
private
vehicle.
We
say
and
the
three
others
and
the
smaller
buildings
they
have
the
opportunity
to
park
at
that
larger
one
too.
J
So
we're
allowing
the
opportunity
to
park
off-site
with
in
real
close
proximity
as
well.
I
should
note
that
through
the
rezoning,
there
is
a
requirement
for
a
car
sharing
one
of
the
sites
on
there
through
a
car
sharing
company,
so
that
people
who
move
in
and
do
not
have
a
vehicle
but
may
need
it.
They
can
get
in
and
go
to
the
grocery
store
and,
of
course,
there's
always
alternatives
by
taking
the
transit,
which
is
I,
say
eight
minutes
away,
it's
an
8
minute
walk
we're
having
15
minute
neighborhoods.
A
Yeah,
so
I
guess
counselor
flurry
if
I
was
because
we've
had
conversations
about
this.
Obviously
you
know
it's
a
using
the
15-minute
neighborhood
concept
and
this
one
that
we're
striving
for
through
the
new
official
plan
and
we're
going
to
be
doing
some
extra
work
with
the
Federation
of
community
associations
and
mr.
Mingus
and
and
and
Geraldine
wildmen
and
different
people.
A
Yes,
we
are
in
that
proximity
that
eight
minutes
neighborhood
to
the
two
very
very
large
node
of
transit
and
walkable,
certainly
but
not
to
amenities
not
to
things
like
a
grocery
store
and
and
and
that
sort
of
thing.
So
in
your
I,
don't
know
if
you
maybe
this
is
more
of
a
dawn
her.
Why
are
kind
of
question
but
from
economic
development
perspective
you
know
in
this
area
this
kind
of
a
build.
A
Would
it
would
it
encourage
more
commercial
local
amenities
like
we're,
seeing
in
some
of
the
other
larger
neighborhoods,
and
is
there
ability
for
in
the
area
for
that
kind
of
service
to
be
built?
Should
that
opportunity
come
up
and,
as
part
of
the
I
know,
this
isn't
under
your
bailiwick?
It
is
more
of
a
Don,
her
wire
as
the
director,
but
is
that
something
through
the
Official,
Plan
or
new
official
plan
that
we're
looking
at
just
like
we
did
the
neighborhood
review.
A
J
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
If
dawn
wishes,
he
can
add
on
to
what
I'm
going
to
say,
but
of
course,
what
we
do
through
planning
is
we
create
the
situation
to
create
the
policy
direction
now
those
15
minute,
neighborhoods
aren't
all
just
snap
and
they're.
There
they're
developed
over
time,
they're
to
be
developed
over
time,
and
what
we've
done
here
around
this
area's
we've
created
Tod
an
area
of
high
density
development
and
of
course,
you
have
the
opportunity
for
greater
development.
J
You
have
the
greater
number
of
people
moving
in
the
greater
number
of
people
and
in
those
amenities
will
follow.
It's
just
part
of
the
economic
situation
that
we
have
within
this
country.
So
you
create
this
issue's
situation
and
if
more
people
come
in,
of
course,
then
you
have
the
captive
audience
to
have
the
commercial
that
will
come
with
it.
What
we
have
now
in
the
meantime,
of
course,
is
as
I
mentioned,
other
waste.
J
If
you
have
to
travel
a
little
further
and
you
don't
have
a
vehicle,
you
still
have
other
opportunities
other
than
a
private
vehicle
to
go
to
those
amenities.
But
what
we
do
is,
as
I
mentioned,
was
we
create
that
situation?
We
create
this
energy
through
the
zoning
and
if,
by
allowing
more
people,
it
just
takes
one
more
step
to
getting
those
amenities
that
you
would
find
in
the
area.
Okay,.
A
A
O
A
Then
I
I
had
and
you've
been
I
just
introduced
the
site
plan,
part
of
it,
because
I
can
certainly
attest
to
the
fact
that
you
been
working
hard
on
the
site
plan
issues.
Certainly
mr.
McCray
mr.
James
have
been
working
hard
on
those
with
you
and
now
you've
come
up
with
something
that
I
think
is
quite
significant.
That
has
an
agreement
of
the
applicant.
A
A
A
O
G
Madam
chair,
the
the
the
next
motion
is
a
motion
to
allow
further
discussion
to
take
place
with
respect
to
the
site
plan
and
what
it
effectively
does
is,
rather
than
committee
exercising
its
delegated
authority
over
the
site
plans
for
the
properties
other
than
36
Robinson.
It
would
have
this
committee
recommending
the
site
plans
for
approval
to
council
at
its
meeting
on
the
29th.
So.
A
P
No
madam
chair
Brian
Casa
Grande
Kirsten
EJ
Roberto
Campos
on
behalf
of
the
applicant.
We
we
are
aware
of
the
nature
of
the
motion,
I
guess,
to
allow
us
to
do
some.
Some
adjustments,
I
guess
to
the
plans
moving
forward
before
council.
They
relate
specifically
as
I
understand
it
to
rooftop
amenity
area
and
I
can
give
more
detail
to
our
understanding
on
that.
When
we
go
through
our
presentation.
P
Madam
chair
just
to
be
clear
on
a
couple
of
things
given
that
there's
the
two
items
and
different
architects
for
both
files,
Roberto's
here
on
what
we
call
the
three
smaller
buildings,
the
six
storey
buildings
and
Barry
Hoban
and
his
team
are
here
for
the
36
Robinson,
which
is
the
nine
story
building.
So
hopefully
we
have
collective
five
minutes
for
each
and
Kirsten
is
going
to
go
through
our
presentation
and
then
Roberto
and
I
are
will
add
where
we
feel
is
needed.
B
B
At
the
plan
built
context,
there's
been
some
discussion
about
height
and
density
and
within
this
section,
so
you
can
see
here
so
the
sites
on
the
south
side
of
Robinson
Robinson
Avenue
directly
across
from
our
sites.
Our
plan
for
higher
density
in
acknowledgment
of
that
transit
that
transit
radius
and
proximity
to
Lee's
Station.
All
the
proposed
developments
are
within
their
permitted
height
under
the
zoning.
The
nine
stories
are
permitted
under
the
zoning
within
the
27
meters,
so
you
can
also
just
looking
ahead.
So
this
is
from
the
Ottawa
you
campus
master
plan.
B
You
could
really
see
that
this
area
does
plan
to
intensify.
It
is
evolving
over
time,
and-
and
we
are,
you
know-
eating
in
this
evolvement
and
increasing
density
and
as
I
think
Doug
said
to
you
know,
with
respect
to
grocery
stores
and
amenities.
You
know
that
synergy
will
come
that
market
will
dictate
what
happens
in
the
future
and
we're
providing
that
density
to
support
those
future
amenities.
B
And
so
I
guess
also
to
as
part
of
these,
this
future
development
with
you,
the
campus
and
the
lands
to
the
south.
There
are
those
opportunities
to
approve
connections
from
the
site
to
lease,
but
that
remains
to
be
seen,
of
course,
but
those
opportunities
are
there,
so
in
closing
I
think
we
just
want
to
reiterate
that
this
is
an
appropriate
development.
We're
within
our
you
know,
den
within
our
maximum
height
permissions.
Really
we're
just
looking
at
parking
today
and
acknowledging
that
these
sites
are
within
close
proximity
to
Lisa
Lise
station.
P
P
The
walking
distance
on
those
files
is
no
different
than
the
walking
distance
that
we're
dealing
with
here
and
although
Robinson
village,
you
know
would
like
to
convey
themselves
as
being
isolated
from
Lees
station
I,
don't
see
it
any
differently
than
those
files
and
in
those
files
we've
sought
and
received
support
from
Council
for
reducing
and
eliminating,
in
some
cases
the
required
parking.
So,
in
my
view,
this
is
no
different
and
I
think
it's
an
appropriate
initiative
to
be
putting
forward
with
respect
to
the
concern
over
food
desert.
P
Aside
from
the
fact
that
I
think
increasing
density
will
improve
demand,
I
can
tell
you
that
photon's
consulted
with
developers
already
who
are
interested
in
building
a
food
store
in
proximity
to
this
neighborhood.
So
in
time
that
that
will
change
and
right
now
it's
it's
simply.
Two
subway
stops
away
or
LRT
stops
away.
G
O
Soon
enough,
because
they
wanted
to
follow
up
on
two
things
that
want
one
which
was
raised
to
me,
the
last
24
hours,
but
one
that
was
raised
earlier
as
it
relates
to
so
I
will
speak
to
the
issue
of
parking
reduction.
That
you're
asking
for
in
my
time,
but
I
have
a
question
for
you,
as
it
relates
to
your
proposal
for
the
car
sharing
component.
How
would
if
this
goes
through
today?
How
would
the
applicant
ensure
the
sustainability
of
the
car
sharing
and
and
confirm
that
it
is
in
place?
P
So
the
site
plan
has
a
condition:
that's
obligating,
my
client,
to
provide
the
car
sharing
car
sharing
space.
If
you
will
on
the
three
low-rise,
not
mid-rise
sites,
we
have
a
commitment
letter
from
in
this
case,
I
believe
it's
virtue
car,
but
it
you
know,
could
ultimately
be
any
other
car
sharing
service
and
so
the
obligation
eternally
as
long
as
the
site
plan
condition
doesn't
change,
is
that
that
will
have
to
be
provided.
P
So
it's
going
to
be
on
the
surface,
it's
going
to
be
in
the
rear
yard
of
each
of
those
buildings
and
the
way
car
sharing
works
and
my
understanding
from
those
that
I
work
with
that
use
it
regularly
is
you
have
basically
or
a
member.
You
then
look
to
book
the
car
in
advance
and
these
the
service
simply
says
well,
where
the?
Where
are
your
options
for
that
day
and
time
that
you're
interested
in
so
this
would
be
available,
certainly
inconvenient
for
the
residents
of
those
buildings,
but
it's
available
to
anybody
else
in
the
neighborhood.
O
P
I
believe
they're
they're
gonna
have
an
issue
in
terms
of
having
to
come
back
before
staff
and,
ultimately
you
to
revise
the
site
line,
condition
and
may
trigger
a
revision
to
the
site
plan
application
I'm,
not
sure
how
the
city
would
process
that,
but
we'd
simply
have
to
straight
that
there's
been
every
effort
to
try
and
bring
them
on
board
and
that
I'll
assume
it's
just
purely
market
demand,
because
at
the
end
of
the
day
this
is
a
business.
The
business
is
there
to
serve
a
demand.
P
O
My
second
question
relates
to
you:
you
had
a
you
had
lobbying
representation
over
the
number
of
weeks
and
as
part
of
the
lobbying
exercise,
there's
a
conversation
from
the
applicant
I.
Don't
know
who
specifically
about
some
capacity
to
build
an
elevator
from
the
grade
of
Robinson
to
the
overpass
of
the
417.
Is
that
can
you
extrapolate
with
the
the
lobbying
efforts
were
on
that
specifically
I?
Think
IRRI.
P
Calling
or
what
you
might
have
heard
counselor
is
fo.
10
is
often
asked
to
go
along
with
the
the
person.
That's
speaking
to
members
of
planning
committee
to
answer
planning
related
questions,
and
so
one
of
the
things
that,
if
we
had
more
time,
would
have
been
part
of
Karstens
presentation
because
we
had
discussed
it
in
advance
was
there's
a
whole
evolution
in
time
like
these.
P
P
But
specifically
we
were
asked
to
do
what
I
call
a
mini
master
plan
for
this
community
as
part
of
our
planning
rationale
really
to
look
at
opportunities
and
constraints
in
the
community,
so
that
the
community
and
your
self
counselor
and
staff
might
have
a
bit
of
an
idea
of
things
to
look
for
as
the
community
intensifies
over
time.
So
one
of
the
ideas
that
we
introduced
in
that,
then
that
exercise
was
recognizing
that
Kirsten.
P
If
you
can
back
up
in
the
slide
one
more
right
there,
so
you
can
see
that
there's
a
stub
of
I
guess
that's
Robinson
Avenue,
but
I
can't
read
that
go
into
where
the
parking
lot
is
for
the
park.
So
it's
okay,
herdmen
Road.
So
what
we
said
is
that
doesn't
necessarily
have
to
be
a
fully
wide
municipal
right-of-way.
P
It
could
be
reduced
to
a
single
lane
road
to
provide
access
to
that
park
or
to
the
parking
lot,
and
that
would
actually
introduce
an
opportunity
for
the
city
to
partner,
in
my
view,
with
the
lands
that
are
immediately
adjacent
to
it
to
actually
introduce
a
larger
building.
In
my
view,
that
would
be
an
appropriate
location
for
a
high-rise
to
be
considered
only
because
it's
so
close
to
the
transit
station
and
its
impacts
of
terms
of
shadowing
fall
on
the
park.
P
But
regardless
of
what
the
building
might
look
like,
you
could
actually
then
incorporate
something
within
the
building
that
would
be
escalators
or
an
elevator
or
something
that
would
provide
an
even
more
direct
connection
up
to
leas
Avenue.
That
would
address
any
accessibility
concerns
over
the
long
term.
This
is
pie-in-the-sky,
and
it
would
certainly
involve
you
being
a
champion
to
that
counselor.
But
it's
one
idea
that
we
came
up
with
okay.
A
G
Thanks
and
if
you
could
just
advance
the
two
slides
again
to
the
and
forgive
me
I
was
I
was
conferring
with
the
chair
on
something
that
I'm
sure
was
extremely
important.
But
what
is
the
timeline
to
start
seeing
that
density
here,
because
this,
this
neighborhood
will
be
significantly
more
livable
when
net
density
comes
and
when
density
comes
with
the
amenities,
but
is
that
10
years
from
now,
20
years
from
now
30
years
from
now,
I
mean.
P
That's
incredibly
difficult
to
predict
counselor,
but
I
get
at
the
end
of
the
day.
Most
of
those
yellow
Lara
buildings,
the
largest
ones,
are
on
the
city's
maintenance
yards,
so
I
get
there.
At
the
end
of
the
day,
the
city
would
have
to
agree
that
they're
actually
going
to
close
those
yards
and
can
either
jointly
develop
or
sell
the
lands
for
development.
G
O
Ryan's
role,
but
for
my
colleagues
question
and
for
everyone's
purpose,
what
is
the
dense,
yellow
section?
Is
the
city's
herdmen
yards
if
you
want
sidewalks
to
be
plowed
downtown?
If
you
want
operations,
all
your
winter
ops
for
downtown
streets
come
out
of
that
lot
and
Kevin's
team,
Kevin,
Wiley
and
Public
Works.
That's
confirm
the
importance
of
that
access.
So
for
the
record,
it
is
a
city-owned
Public,
Works
yard
that
has
important
use.
A
Question
is
it's
owned?
Anything
you
like
is
there
duo's
owning
on
it
like
in
for
marina,
spies
like,
for
example,
Nepean
we
had
dual
zoning
like
on
the
Strand
heard
snow
dump.
We
have
dual
zoning
recognizing
that
in
X
number
of
years
it's
going
to
not
be
a
snow
dump
and
that
very
valuable
land,
and
that,
in
the
case
of
that,
would
be
prestige.
Business
part.
So
is
there
that
on
it,
or
is
it
absolutely
up
for
the
Works
yard.
G
P
A
O
Madam
chair
I
will
ask
for
your
diligence
I
there,
because
we're
tying
to
reports
I
did
prepare
a
short
video.
It's
a
walk
from
the
closest
site
to
the
LRT.
That
I
will
ask
Matt
in
a
few
seconds
to
introduce
I'll
ask
for
your
diligence,
because
I
might
need
six
minutes
if
you
will,
instead
of
five,
because
the
video
is
four
minutes
so
just
to
maybe
set
the
context
and
the
only
matter
I
want
to
speak
to
is
the
history
around
the
Tod
for
this
site,
so
I
recognize.
O
This
is
the
planning
approvals
team,
but
previous
to
that
there
was
a
city
planning
policy
team
that
was
working
on
a
transit
Tod
for
lease
that
was
Don
Morse
and
Chris
Bauer
browser
a
I'm.
Sorry
I
can't
pronounce
his
last
name
properly
at
the
time
when
they
approached
us,
Robinson
was
not
included
in
the
site,
but
they
recognized
the
risk
if
they
didn't
include
that
arguments
were
going
to
be
made
at
it
as
its
proximity
to
the
lease
station,
so
they
included
it
in
his
own
and
wanted
to
put
height
caps
to
it.
O
At
the
time,
this
Tim
market
advised
that
team
that
hey
this
is
an
exercise
of
up
zoning.
So
you
can't
just
cap
to
the
height
that
you
have
today
and
zoning,
so
the
exercise
gone
through,
we
were
in
front
of
planning
committee
and
council
I
believe
mr.
mark
in
2013
for
a
bylaw
approval
in
2014,
something
in
that
range.
O
So
we
embarked
in
that
journey
and
we
were
appealed
which
then
that
was
settled
on
and
that's
the
nine
story.
So
that's
the
36
Robinson
and
really
that
that,
unfortunately,
that
component
has
sort
of
sailed.
But
one
thing
out
of
that
exercise
remains
is
that
the
City
Planning
Policy
team?
At
the
time
who
reviewed
the
Tod
kept
the
parking
requirements
it
did.
O
They
did
not
remove
the
parking
requirements
as
part
of
the
Tod
exercise
because
they
recognized
all
of
the
issues
that
were
raised
by
by
that
community's
lawyer
and
I
want
to
thank
the
community
you're,
seeing
about
ten
members
in
the
community
they're
about
50
of
them
and
instead
of
individually
speaking,
they
hired
a
lawyer
to
speak
on
their
behalf,
which
made
it
a
lot
clearer
for
everyone
and
and
saved
a
lot
of
time
in
today's
delegation.
So
I
want
to
thank
the
I
want
to
thank
that
effort.
O
What
what
I
want
to
what
I
want
to
show
to
you
is
the
importance
of
keeping
the
parking
requirement
and
that's
all
I'm
asking
today
not
asking
you
to
play
on
the
zoning
side.
The
only
thing
I'm
asking
is
what
the
exercise
that
we've
gone
through
to
the
Lee's
Tod
I
had
parking
requirements.
I'm
asking
you
to
keep
that
so
I
would
like
Matt
to
throw
the
video
so
that
I
can
show
you
the
complexity
of
walking
to
the
LRT
station
from
what
is
the
closest
sight
out
of
today's
app
the
for
applicants.
O
A
O
No,
no
okay,
so
I
so
I
will
send
every
member
the
videos
that
you
get
to
see
the
details,
but
I
walked
from
the
closest
station
of
Lee,
a
close
so
from
the
closest
building
to
the
Lee's
LRT.
It
took
me
eight
minutes.
So
when
you
look
at
it,
you
say:
okay,
it's
just
eight
minutes,
but
it
is
a
narrow
strip
of
sidewalk
that
we
all
have
in
a
this
is
a
one
in
one
out:
there's
not
it's
not
a
grid
community!
It's
one
street
one
out
in
the
summer.
O
It's
super
great
you're
near
the
the
Rideau
River.
So
there's
a
multi-use
pathway,
it's
great
connection
along
along
there
and
in
the
summer
sure
it's
it's
very
walkable
but
anytime,
but
that
especially
when
it's
dark
when
it's
cold
it
gets
very
complicated
and
I
want
to
share
with
you
the
great
difference.
So
Robinson
is
lower
than
the
four
it's
at
the
same
height
as
the
417.
Yet
Sandy
Hill
is
much
higher
about
and
I'm,
not
an
engineer,
but
let's
say
10
meters
higher.
So
you
have
to
start
up
this
at
the
Robinson
level.
O
Walk
up
this
ramp
that
follows
the
Lee's
overpass.
That
is
it's
quite
steep,
as
residents
would
confirm
it.
It's
often
well,
it's
not
properly
lit
it's.
It
often
takes
time
for
for
the
plow
to
get
there.
Then
you
get
to
near
Chapel
and
Lee's,
and
you
walk
over
the
417.
We
don't
have
many
of
those,
but
it
is
what
I
can
say
is
that
it
is
a
very
long
windy,
cold,
walk
even
on
the
coldest
days
so
you're
walking
all
over
top
and
then
the
yeah
okay.
O
Those
are
some
some
of
the
images,
so
so
what's
important
for
me
to
share
with
you
is
that
you
have
you're,
assuming
that,
so
there's
a
reason
why
we
were
asking
from
some
parking
amenities
and
that's
why
I
was
thought
through
as
the
LRT
you're,
far
from
any
food
source.
So,
okay,
great
you
take
the
LRT,
but
then
you
have
baggages
and
you're,
not
just
walking
at
the
street
level,
and
even
if
it
wasn't
it
could
you
could
have
easier
15-minute
walks.
O
Then
you
have
an
eight
minute
walk
to
this
location
and
that's
what
I
want
to
express
to
you
is
that
you're
very
far
from
amenities,
you're
lower
than
the
street
level.
You
have
to
walk
above
the
417,
so
you
know
we
can't
today
you
you
do
not
have
those
amenities
and
I
want
to
reaffirm
that
we
had
gone
through
the
Tod
exercises
and
the
planning
policy
staff
had
kept
the
parking.
For
this
exact
reason
it
is
a
ratio,
so
I'm
not
talking
about
36,
but
out
of
the
other
buildings
you
have
around
150
units.
O
What
would
be
provided
here
is
9
parking
that
that,
to
me
is
unrealistic.
We
have
students
in
the
neighborhood
and
they've
had
to
get
cars.
It's
gotten
so
complicated.
When
you
have
homeowners,
they
all
have
cars
and
they're
all
walkers
and
they
all
use
transit.
But
at
a
given
time
you
need
to
get
to
the
doctor.
If
the
LRT,
if
it's
not
on
the
LRT
line,
it
might
not
be
doable,
you
might
have
to
go
to
the
Costco.
You
might
have
to
go
to
the
arena
with
your
kids
so,
depending
on
the
variety
of
demographics.
O
For
that
area,
it
is
simply
you're
just
not
as
connected
as
it
looks
on
a
map
you
have
to
live.
It
and
I
know
that
some
members
of
the
committee
had
a
chance
to
go
and
see
the
product.
The
complexities
of
the
site.
Now,
for
those
of
you
who
had
not
I,
will
share
with
you
the
video
I'm,
sorry
for
today's
technical
glitch
and
I
would
encourage
you
the
only
thing
I'm
asking
for
you
is
just
to
uphold
the
parking
requirements
for
that
zone.
That's
and
that's
the
motion.
That's
in
front
move.