►
From YouTube: Planning Committee - 28 April 2022
Description
Planning Committee - 28 April 2022
Agenda and supporting documents available at www.ottawa.ca/agendas
D
C
B
A
Thank
you
kelly.
This
is
a
public
meeting
to
consider
the
proposed
comprehensive
official
plan
and
zoning
bylaw
amendments
listed
as
items
one
two
and
four
to
nine
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
ontario
land
tribunal.
In
addition,
the
applicant
may
appeal
the
matter
to
the
ontario
land
tribunal.
A
A
Confirmed
thank
you
minutes
for
a
minute
for
meeting
number
60
april
14th
2022
these
minutes
were
posted
yesterday.
Are
those
minutes
confirmed.
B
A
Confirmed
confirmed,
thank
you
also.
I
want
to
note
the
minutes
of
march
10th
have
been
revised
to
include
a
correction,
a
dissent
from
councillor
leaper
on
the
opa
and
zoning
bylaw
amendment
for
112,
montreal
road
and
314
gardner
street,
so
need
to
mention
that
formally
here,
okay,
we're
going
to
go
through
our
agenda
and
see
if
any
items
can
be
carried
by
consent.
A
If
there
are
any
committee
members
who
wish
to
speak
or
if
we
have
any
delegations
registered
for
the
for
the
items,
we
will
hold
them
so
we'll
begin
with
postponements
and
deferrals
from
previous
meetings.
The
first
item
is
a
zoning
bylaw
amendment
for
129
and
133
catherine
street.
In
somerset
ward,
we
don't
have
any
delegations
who
are
registered.
A
C
It's
to
staff,
it's
we
held
this
because
we
didn't
have
confidence
that
the
developer,
the
applicant,
was
going
to
fulfill
his
obligations
to
another
property,
and
I
see
that
staff
are
saying
that
that's
another
process.
I
still
don't
have
confidence,
so
I'm
just
kind
of
wondering
like
where
do
we
go
from
here?.
A
Well,
why
don't
we
hold
this
item
because
I
see
another
hand
up,
and
you
know
I
think
this
does
deserve
a
bit
of
discussion
and
background
from
staff.
So
let's
hold
this
item
and
we'll
come
back
to
it
afterwards.
Thank
you,
council,
dudes
and
council
leaders
saw
your
hand
as
well.
Item
number
two
is
another
deferral:
it's
the
official
plan
amendment
and
zoning
by
law,
amendment
for
335
and
339,
roosevelt
avenue,
344
winston
and
379
and
389
wilmont
avenue
in
kitchissippi.
There
are
delegations
registered,
so
we
will
hold
this
item.
A
Item
number
three:
is
the
carlington
north
veterans
housing
heritage
study?
We
had
quite
a
lengthy
discussion
on
this
at
built
heritage
subcommittee.
Was
it
last
week
ralston
or
the
week
before
I've
lost
track
of
our
committee
dates
a
week
before
council
brockington
is
at
another
event.
He
just
advised
us
yesterday
that
he
wouldn't
be
here
at
the
beginning.
He
did
say
in
that
email.
He
strongly
supports
this
item.
We
don't
have
any
delegations,
we
don't
have
any
delegations
registered
on
this.
A
A
So
on
this
on
this
item,
are
the
report
recommendations
carried
carried?
Thank
you
and
thanks
again,
you
know.
I
know
we.
We
thank
staff
and
this
local
councillor
and
community
associations
profusely
back
at
build
heritage
subcommittee,
but
probably
worth
doing
that
again.
Thank
you
to
everyone
for
the
collaborative
work
on
this.
This
particular
file
item
number
four:
is
a
zoning
bylaw
amendment
for
982
to
986
francis
street
in
rito
rockcliff?
H
Good
morning
so,
whereas
report
acs
2022
pi
eps0027,
recommends
approval
of
a
zoning
bylaw
amendment
to
facilitate
the
construction
of
a
30-story,
mixed-use
high-rise
building
and
whereas
an
inconsistency
was
identified
between
the
report,
the
location
map
and
the
details
of
recommended
zoning
therefore
be
resolved.
The
document
one
location
map
be
replaced
with
the
attached
map
and
therefore
be
it
further
resolved.
That
document
two
details
recommend
only
be
amended
by
replacing
the
text
tm
xxx
h92
with
the
text
tm
x6xh97,
therefore
be
for
resolve
that
no
there'd
be
no
further
notice.
A
A
Right
here,
I'm
having
a
technical
difficulty
my
hand
is
not
raised.
Apologies!
Okay,
thank
you!
Court.
We
have
no
delegations
registered
counselor
leeper.
This
is
in
your
ward.
Do
you
have
any
do
you
wish
to
hold
this?
Do
you
have
any
questions
or
comments
that
we
can
consider
now
or.
G
No
I'll
just
I'll
just
note
that
I'll
I'll
be
supporting
this.
Obviously,
several
years
ago
I
was
seeking
to
have
a
more
thoughtful
approach
to
scott
street.
That
would
see
some
added
density
over
what
the
secondary
plan
contemplated.
Where
heights
were.
You
know
clearly
inappropriate
in
light
of
the
arrival
of
lrt,
but
a
new
height
standard
has
been
established
around
this,
and
I
don't
have
the
planning
grounds
upon
which
to
to
object
to
this.
G
I
do
want
to
thank
the
developers,
who
have
had
a
a
good
back
and
forth
for
quite
a
reasonable
period
of
time
to
make
some
modifications
so
that
the
building
is
better
integrated
on
the
south
side,
but
I'll
be
supporting
this
one.
Today,.
A
A
Mr
chair
nope,
that's
fine
happy
to
proceed
as
this.
Thank
you,
okay!
Thank
you.
So,
let's,
let's
deal
with
the
technical
amendment,
first
is
the
technical
amendment
carried
married,
carried
carried
and
then
the
zoning
by
law
amendment
as
amended
and
report
recommendations
carried
terry.
Okay.
Thank
you
item
number.
Six
is
a
zoning
bylaw
amendment
for
54,
56
and
60
bayswater
avenue
in
kitchissippi.
H
H
Oh
no,
maybe
I
won't
read
it
from
the
start.
Just
go
back
to
the
bottom
therefore
be
resolved.
That
planning
committee
approved
the
following
with
respect
to
report
acs
2022
p-I-e-p-s,
zero,
zero,
three
five
one
accept
the
enclosed,
revised
report,
acs
2022,
p-I-e-p-s
ps035
and
two
defer
the
report
as
revised
to
the
may
12th
2022
meeting
of
planning
committee
with
notice
being
provided.
A
A
Okay
and
that
hand
is
down
again
another
another
technical
issue:
yeah
there's
some
changes
being
made
to
this
report,
and
so
we
thought
it'd
be
prudent
to
delay
this
to
the
next
meeting
so
that
the
community
has
time
to
review
and
and
consider
that
before
before
we
make
a
decision
on
it.
So
on
the
deferral
motion
is
that
carried
harry
terry?
Thank
you.
A
H
That's
an
issue,
whereas
proper
notice
needs
to
be
provided
at
least
10
days
prior
to
statutory
public
meeting,
whereas
staff
recommend
that
this
item
be
deferred
to
the
may,
12th
planning
committee
to
ensure
proper
notice
is
provided,
and
whereas
the
applicant
is
agreeable
with
the
proposed
deferral,
therefore
be
resolved.
The
plan
committee
defer
the
item
until
the
may
12
2022
planning
committee
and
authorize
a
revised
report
to
be
submitted
to
committee
with
notice
being
provided.
I
mentioned
that
the
people
that
got
the
the
wrong
notice.
Eventually
they
were
like
losing
their
minds.
A
Thank
you,
scott
on
the
technical
motion
is
that
carried
for
sorry
on
the
deferral
motion?
Is
that
carried
carried
carried
very
so
that'll
be
deferred
to
the
next
meeting
item
number
eight
on
the
agenda
is
the
zoning
bylaw
amendment
for
22.75
road
in
cumberland?
A
We
do
not
have
any
delegations
registered.
This
is
in
councillor
kitts's
wards.
Do
we
need
to
hold
this
item
any
questions
or
comments
from
committee.
E
I'll
make
a
comment:
if
no
one
has
any
questions
but
yeah.
E
Yeah,
so
I
just
want
to
say:
I've
worked
with
the
applicant
on
this
application
to
satisfy
some
of
the
community's
concerns,
but
I
I
would
like
to
call
the
committee's
attention
to
the
fact
that
this
is
another
application
that
will
be
adding
cars
to
the
brian
coburn
corridor
that
has
no
rapid
transit
solution
at
present.
E
I
am
hopeful
that
a
joint
committee
will
will
soon
be
struck
to
resolve
the
impasse
with
the
ncc,
as
council
recently
approved,
but
I
would
be
remiss
not
to
take
every
opportunity
to
highlight
that
these
applications
continue
to
come
forward
as
the
impasse
remains,
and
with
respect
to
this
application,
there
will
be
some
phasing
with
the
higher
density
block,
but
that's
necessary
because
the
situation
is
becoming
increasingly
untenable
as
you've
all
heard
me
speak
about
many
times,
so
I
will
leave
it
there
for
today.
Thank
you,
chair.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
council
kitts.
So
since
we
have
no
delegations
and
no
requests
to
hold,
we
do
have
the
applicant
representative
from
the
applicant
lisa
dela
rosa
from
foten
lisa.
If
the
committee
is
prepared
to
carry
this,
do
you
need
to
speak
on
the
item.
C
E
A
Okay,
thank
you
lisa,
so
for
the
zoning
bylaw
amendment
for
2275
mail
road
are
the
report
recommendations
carried.
A
H
Therefore,
we
resolved
that
respect
to
report
acs,
2022,
pi
03.
The
comments
by
word,
counselor
section,
be
revised.
Two,
the
counselor
is
aware
of
the
application
related
to
this
report
therefore
be
further
resolved
that
there
be
no
further
notice
pursuant
to
section
3417
of
the
planning
act.
That's
a
heavy
one
which
probably
isn't
ace.
A
C
A
Okay,
all
right
are
there:
there
are
no
delegations
registered.
Are
there
any
questions
or
any
requests
to
hold
this
item?
I'm
seeing
none
melissa
cote
is
here
from
taggart
melissa.
If
the
committee
is
prepared
to
carry
this
item,
do
you
wish
to
speak
on
it.
C
A
A
Carry
okay
item
number
10
is
a
report
heritage
permits
issued
through
delegated
authority
2021
is
that
report
received.
A
Received,
thank
you.
So
that's
our
going
through
the
agenda,
so
we
will
go
back
to
the
very
beginning.
Item
number
one
that
we
held
was
the
zoning
bylaw
amendment
for
129
and
133
katherine
street
from
somerset
ward.
There
were
a
couple
questions
and
councillor
mckinney.
The
local
counselor
for
the
address
has
also
joined
us
good
morning.
Catherine
councillor
dude
asks
you
had
your
hand
up.
First
with
the
questions.
So
let's
go
to
you.
First.
C
C
Having
said
we
were
going
to
hold
it,
we're
going
to
hold
their
feet
to
the
fire,
make
sure
that
they're
going
to
do
their
due
diligence
on
a
property
on
another
section
of
our
downtown
core,
and
now
we're
just
going
to
trust
in
a
separate
process
today.
So
could
you
outline
what
that
separate
process
is
because,
once
again,
I'm
still
uncomfortable
with
this.
A
Okay,
we
do
have
steve
willis,
general
manager
from
planning
is
here
and
simon
diaco
who's
the
planner
on
this
file.
So
steve,
do
you
want
to
address
that?
Yes,.
I
Chair
thanks
very
much
and
certainly
members
of
committee.
The
department
remains
concerned
about
the
issue
of
somerset
house,
but
and
I'll
come
back
to
that
in
a
minute,
but
I
want
to
talk
about
catherine
street
and
the
reason
why
catherine
street
is
the
item
before
you
and
you'll
recall
that
last
committee,
mr
american
staff
did
identify
the
fact
that
these
are
separate
files
legally
under
the
planning
act
and
need
to
be
considered
separately.
I
We
respect
committee's
decision
because
of
its
frustration
with
respect
to
somerset
house
and
would
not
have
brought
this
forward
had
the
issue
not
circumstances
not
changed
and
circumstances
have
changed
in
that.
The
chief
building
official
has
identified
to
me
concerns
that
the
condition
of
the
catherine
street
location
is
deteriorating,
so
the
kathleen
street
building
just
recall
had
a
fire
in
it.
I
The
the
owner
saw
the
zoning
change
in
to
reconstruct
it
to
add
additional
units
in
the
building.
There
are
no
concerns
from
staff.
Mr
diaco
can
talk
to
it
about
the
nature
of
the
zoning
application,
but
the
chief
building
official
is
concerned
that
the
building
remains
unfinished
on
catherine
street
and
that's
detrimental
to
that
property,
and
we
don't
want
to
see
a
second
property
get
into
a
state
of
further
disrepair.
So
I
I
asked
that
this
item
be
brought
forward
again
to
committee
for
a
recon.
I
You
know
a
chance
to
the
committee
to
vote
for
it
because
we
think
it's
in
the
public
interest
to
advance
on
the
catherine
street
file.
While
we
deal
with
somerset
house
as
separately
and
again,
I
can
elaborate
further
on
matters
with
respect
to
somerset
house,
but
I
wanted
to
emphasize
why
catherine
street,
in
our
opinion,
needs
to
be
dealt
with
now.
C
That
that
is
very
helpful
and
I
don't
you
know.
I
suspect
that
the
word
counselor
has
additional
questions.
I
think,
though,
that
maybe
this
is
an
offline.
Maybe
it's
a
memo
to
committee
members
or
something
I
think
we
need
to
understand
what's
happening
with
somerset
house,
because
that
that's
a
huge
issue.
It's
been,
it's
been
percolating
for
god.
I
don't
even
know
how
long
what
a
decade
now
this
is
ridiculous.
So
I
am
comfortable
with
your
comments
and
respect
to
catherine.
C
I
wouldn't
want
to
see
that
that
that
spot,
that
location
is
now
putting
the
safety
of
the
community
in
jeopardy
or
that
that
can't
move
forward,
but
I'm
just
I'm
not
comfortable
with
the
somerset
house
condition.
I
don't
like
rewarding
bad
behavior.
So
I'm
comfortable
with
your
response,
I'm
not
comfortable
with
the
applicant's
proposal
at
these
two
sites.
So
if
there's
a
way
that
you
could
outline
the
process
on
that
other
property
to
us,
so
we
could
have
some
comfort
in
that.
That
would
be
appreciated.
I
So
chair,
there
are
a
number
of
moving
factors
right
now
on
somerset
house
and
staff
are
looking
at
mechanisms
to
bring
more
information
to
build
heritage,
subcommittee
and
council
on
that
there
are
enforcement
actions
in
progress
and
don't
think
it's
appropriate
to
talk
about
it
in
the
context
of
of
catherine
street,
because
catherine
street's
before
you
right
now,
but
certainly
we
we
will
be
prepared
to
update
council
on
somerset
house
at
the
appropriate
time.
C
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
to
councillor
dudas
for
for
your
questions
and
thank
you
to
this
committee
for
the
support
shown
on
this
file
and
by
file.
I
don't
just
mean
the
catherine
street
property,
of
course,
but
the
entire
file
under
this
this
owner
and
his
his
responsibility
and
lack
of
accountability,
lack
of
responsibility
that
he
shows
to
to
our
neighborhoods.
C
This
has
been
exceptionally
frustrating
you
know,
including
up
and
to
including
the
fact
that
again,
this
owner
would
allow
this
property
to
fall
into
such
disrepair
and
start
to
show
mold
and
other.
You
know
other
factors
that
could
cause
damage
to
to
the
property.
It
is
just
further
evidence
that
you
know
he
is
not
a
responsible,
neighbor
and
somerset
house,
I
think
is,
is
the
most
egregious
example
we
have
of
that.
Probably
in
the
city.
C
Flurry
because
I
know
they
have
examples
in
their
awards
as
well
of
of
you
know,
pretty
neglectful
heritage
properties,
but
I
wanna
you
know.
I
think
that
I
just
wanted
to
to
emphasize.
I
want
to
thank
the
committee,
and
I
want
to
emphasize
that
that
I
am
working
with
with
staff
we
are.
C
I
will
be
working
with
staff
and
coming
back
to
you
and
asking
for
assistance
to
actually
make
meaningful
change
on
somerset
house
so
that
that
we
can
ensure
that
it
stands
as
a
piece
of
our
our
city's
heritage.
It
is
our
city's
heritage,
it's
a
piece
of
our
city's
heritage
and
the
owner
does
not
have
the
right
to
allow
that
to
to
crumble
and
does
not
have
the
right
to
keep
the
corner
bank
of
somerset
in
the
type
of
disrepair
that
that
it
is
so.
C
I
just
wanted
to
to
state
that
up
front
before
the
vote
on
this.
Thank
you.
A
A
Okay?
So,
on
the
report,
recommendations
for
the
zoning
bylaw
amendment
for
129
and
133
catherine
street
and
somerset
ward
are
the
report
recommendations
carried.
C
A
Married
carrie,
okay,
thank
you.
Thank
you,
councilman
kenny
for
your
comments
today
and
attention
to
this
file
and
the
important
building
at
the
corner
of
bank
and
somerset
item
number
two
was
held
as
well.
This
is
the
official
plan
amendment
and
zoning
bylaw
amendment
for
335
and
339
roosevelt
avenue,
344
winston
avenue
and
379
and
389
wilmot
avenue
in
kitchissippi.
A
We
have
a
number
of
delegations
registered.
What
we're
going
to
do
is
have
a
short
presentation
from
staff
from
steve
gotcha
he's
the
planner
on
this
file
good
morning.
Steve
then
we'll
go
to
the
applicants
for
a
short
presentation,
and
then
we
will
hear
from
each
of
the
five
registered
delegations.
J
So
no
need
to
read
the
address.
It's
a
very
long
address,
so
if
you
could
go
to
the
next
slide,
so
this
image
shows
the
location
of
the
property
located
immediately
south
from
the
transit
corridor
and
the
multi-use
pathway
to
the
west
is
roosevelt
avenue
and
to
the
south.
Is
a
wellmount
avenue
next
slide,
please?
J
J
So
the
zoning
bio
amendment
itself
is
to
resolve
the
entirety
of
the
property
to
residential
fifth
density.
J
A
height
schedule
will
be
applied
to
reflect
the
proposed
development
and
the
maximum
height
would
now
be
at
39
meters,
whereas
seven
stories
is
presently
permitted
with
30
40
of
the
footprint.
That's
allowed
to
go
as
high
as
eight
stories
and
that's
according
to
a
2014
omb
decision.
J
So
this
is
the
site
plan.
As
you
can
see,
there's
the
two
12
story:
high
rise
building
with
the
proposed
three
three
story:
low
rise
apartment
immediately,
south
you
can
also
see
the
different
step
back
that
are
applied
to
the
the
two
towers.
J
Next
slide,
so
here's
a
rendering
from
a
cell
perspective,
so
you
do
see
the
tree
three-story
low-rise
apartment.
The
two
apartments
to
the
east
are
linked
and
you
can
also
see
in
between
the
two
eye
rises,
a
connection
from
winston
avenue
to
the
multi-use
pathway.
J
And
on
this
slide,
you
see
a
45
degree,
angular
plane,
that's
being
applied
to
both
towers
well
to
the
entirety
of
the
development
from
a
cell
perspective.
So,
as
you
can
see
towards
the
west,
there's
very
little
encroachment
upon
the
angular
plane
for
the
west
tower
and
for
the
east
tower.
The
only
encroachment
that
you
can
see
is
to
the
east
of
the
building,
where
the
tower
has
been
slightly
recessed
at
two
locations.
J
So
to
do
a
comparison
between
the
2014
omb
decision
and
the
proposed
development
with
the
seven
and
eight
stories
permitted
under
the
decision,
sixty
percent
of
the
lot
could
have
been
covered
and
whereas
with
the
proposed
development,
48.6
percent
will
be
covered.
So
that's
19
under
the
60.
J
So
the
previous
proposal
that
was
appealed
to
the
omb
was
proposing
to
the
west
a
16-story
tower
and
to
the
east
the
14-story
tower.
But
this
proposal
was
appeal
and
an
omb.
A
decision
resulted
for
a
seven
to
eight
stories
where
the
as
of
right,
who
would
permit,
I
guess,
more
lot
coverage
but
less
high.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
steve.
We'll
come
back
to
steven
planning
staff
later
for
questions,
we're
going
to
move
to
the
applicant
presentation.
Now,
there's
a
number
of
representatives
from
the
applicant
here
today:
jacob
bolduc
from
foten
barry,
hoban
from
hoban
architecture
and
dan
tomka,
emily
myers
and
brian
casagrande
as
well.
Dan
and
emily
are
from
uniform
and
brian
is
from
foten.
I
believe
jacob
is
going
to
lead
off
with
the
presentation
good
morning
jacob.
K
Just
waiting
for
my
slides,
perfect,
thank
you
good
morning,
coach,
heiress
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
jacob
wold
duke
senior
planner
at
foten
I'll,
do
my
best
not
to
repeat
mr
gotee's
presentation
and
keep
it
brief.
So
if
we
can
skip
ahead
to
the
next
slide,
please,
this
is
just
a
a
slide
to
note
that
we
don't
have
a
site
plan
control
application.
At
the
moment.
It's
just
official
plan
amendment
and
zoning
by
amendment
I'm
going
to
focus
the
rest
of
my
presentation
on
sort
of
the
history
of
the
file.
K
This
perspective
that
you
see
on
the
slide
is
from
the
kichi,
cb
or
currently
dominion
station
transit
station
on
the
right
is
the
revised
design
you
see
before
you
today,
consisting
of
a
stepped
massing,
with
varying
step
backs
at
upper
levels,
to
provide
proper
built
form
transition
to
adjacent
residential
areas
in
the
public
realm
along
the
multi-use
pathway
and
the
new
proposed
mid-block
crossing
next
slide.
K
Please,
the
revisions
made
the
buildings
a
little
wider
in
squatter,
but
we
have
still
been
able
to
maintain
a
lot
coverage
of
under
50,
of
which
the
remaining
balance
of
land
is
predominantly
landscaped
open
space.
This
includes
the
new
mid
block
connection
at
the
northern
terminus
of
winston
avenue,
connecting
to
the
mop
and
providing
direct
access
to
the
transit
station
via
the
bridge.
Despite
lowering
the
building
heights
significantly
in
the
revised
proposal,
this
has
only
reduced
the
total
density
by
about
10
percent.
K
Further
uniform
has
revised
the
unit
mix
to
include
more
two-plus
bedrooms
resulting
in
fewer
overall
units,
but
a
more
family-friendly
mix
of
sizes
and
dwelling
typologies.
This
includes
the
new
proposed
low-rise
apartment
buildings
along
winston
and
wilmont,
providing
ground-oriented
housing
and
on-site
transition
to
abutting
residential
areas.
This
provides
market-based
rental,
missing
middle
housing
and
a
much
needed
supply
and
diversity
of
dwelling
types
to
address.
A
variety
of
demographic
profiles
within
west
brom
next
slide.
Please
you've
already
heard
about
the
previous
omb
decision.
We've
received
many
comments
from
the
public.
K
Next
slide,
please,
with
respect
to
the
lrt
station.
The
new
cp
station
is
generally
surrounded
by
smaller
properties
containing
single
detached,
semi-detached
and
other
low-density
housing
forms.
The
larger
catchment
area
includes
a
significant
portion
of
the
parkway
and
the
river
resulting
in
a
lower
number
of
potential
riders
within
walking
distance
as
the
single
large
as
the
largest
single
property
in
close
proximity
to
the
new
lrt
station.
We
believe
it's
imperative
that
the
development
meets
transit-oriented
policies
under
provincial
and
municipal
frameworks.
K
This
set
of
applications
was
submitted
under
the
2020
pps,
which
requires
transit,
support
of
development
and
prioritizes
intensification
and
proximity
to
transit
corridors
and
stations.
As
you
can
see,
on
the
slide,
there
has
been
a
gentle
progression
from
2005
to
2020,
where
we're
seeing
more
frequent
terms
around
transit
and
intensification,
as
the
provincial
policy
directive
move
towards
transit
supportive
development
next
slide,
please.
K
The
official
plan
has
also
seen
many
changes
since
the
2011
application.
While
the
discussion
from
2011
to
2014
was
largely
centered,
around
alignment
and
funding,
the
new
kitchen
cv
station
is
set
to
open
in
two
three
years
as
part
of
stage
two
west
approved
within
weeks
of
the
2014
pps
opa
150
restructured
the
original
plan
around
the
significant
investment,
the
lrt
made
by
the
city,
including
policies,
supportive
of
infill
development
in
the
general
urban
area
near
rapid
transit.
Next
slide.
Please.
K
Further,
despite
changes
to
the
pbs
and
the
op,
the
secondary
plan
is
still
largely
the
same
as
when
it
was
approved
in
2009
nearly
13
years
ago,
the
secondary
plan
places
the
current
dominion
station
in
the
same
sector
as
westboro
station
identified
as
a
sector
5
on
the
slide
stating
that
westboro
station
has
the
greatest
development
potential
of
the
two.
The
new
kitchen
station
is
identified
as
having
a
more
limited
potential
for
the
policies
westboro
station,
despite
schedule
c
on.
K
This
slide,
has
seen
recent
approvals
for
over
25
stories
with
recent
proposals
seeking
up
to
40.,
given
the
policy
updates
over
the
last
decade,
including
most
recently,
the
new
official
plan,
the
secondary
plan
provides
little
guidance
for
intensification
near
transit,
given
the
updates
over
the
last
few
years,
and
if
and
I
suppose
I
would
end
my
presentation
by
saying-
if
25
to
30
stories
is
considered
appropriate
for
westboro
station,
then
I
believe
12
stories
is
surely
appropriate
and
considered
limited
per
the
policies
of
the
secondary
plan.
Thank
you.
K
I'm
going
to
pass
it
over
now
to
barry
hoban,
who
will
present
a
more
overview
of
the
design.
A
So
jacob
we
are
actually
over
our
five
minutes,
so
I'm
gonna
have
to
pause
your
group
there.
There
may
very
well
be
questions
for
for
you
and
barry
later
on
and
we
could
come
back
to
come
back
to
slides
as
needed,
but
we
do
have
to
pause
there
because
we
have
a
number
of
delegations,
so
we're
going
to
go
to
our
delegations
now.
The
first
first
delegation
is
tony
michelle,
so
each
of
our
delegations
will
have
a
five
minutes
to
present
is
tony
with
us.
D
D
I
a
decade
ago
I
went
to
the
omb
and
blocked
a
high-rise
on
this
site,
and
I
would
like
to
encourage
committee
to
again
on
behalf
of
the
wbca.
Can
we
go
to
the
next
slide
to
reject
this
opa
and
defend
the
integrity
of
its
new
official
plan?
I'm
not
going
to
read
everything
on
every
slide.
You
have
these
in
your
package
next
slide,
please!
So
what
happened
briefly?
D
A
three-year
omb
process
ended
up
in
the
city
losing
and
recalling
that
the
omb
and
its
successor,
the
olt,
are
semi-judicial
bodies,
the
city.
The
city
is
legally
obliged
to
obey
provincial
regulatory
tribunals
I'll
come
back
to
that
later,
although
this
site,
as
the
omb
said,
has
been
studied
for
years-
and
this
neighborhood
quote
has
been
arguably
among
the
most
intensively
intensively
studied
in
ontario,
you
won't
find
that
in
the
report,
its
history
section
ignores
everything
above
the
line
and
begins
in
2020.
D
So
I'll
give
you
a
quick
review
next
slide,
please,
why
did
the
city
lose
at
the
omb?
D
The
westboro
secondary
plan
articulates
a
policy
principle
to
preserve
the
neighborhood
as
a
low-rise
neighborhood
it
actually,
you
know,
blocks
high-rises.
It's
very
unusual.
Each
secondary
plan
is
unique.
It
does
this
through
some
maximum
height
restrictions.
So
this
opa
is
not
a
technical
interpretation.
It's
a
sharp
policy
shift,
so
high
burden
of
proof
next
slide.
D
What
is
new
not
really
much
since
2014,
we
have
the
same
planning
act
and
if
anything,
the
pps
strengthens
the
power
of
official
plans
to
be
the
most
important
vehicle
to
implement
it
next
slide
next
slide.
Yeah,
the
new
official
plan
is
only
five
months
old.
I
believe
it's
premature
to
be
amending
it
with
site-specific
opa's.
Already.
As
everybody
knows,
volume
one
is
the
guiding
principles
and
the
key
thing
here.
Volume
two
applies
them
to
the
specific
character
of
every
neighborhood.
D
So
what
is
our
plan
say
next
slide
secondary
plan
for
westborough
says
that
we
support
intensification,
but
we
need
a
framework
and
that
framework
requires
a
unifying
vision,
with
principles
such
as
preserving
the
scale
and
the
character
of
the
neighborhood.
I'm
putting
this
here.
It's
not
in
your
staff
report
next
slide.
D
This
is
the
sighting
question
I
want
to
give
you
a
google
map,
visualization
you're
floating
above
the
kitchissippi
lrt
station,
we'll
go
on
to
the
next
slide.
Please.
D
Again,
I'm
not
going
to
read
all
of
this,
but
it
basically
specifically
says
westboro
can
have
high
rises,
but
there's
very
limited
potential
at
kitchen
city
and
then
plan
goes
on
in
the
secondary
plan
to
outline
minimum
heights
maximum
heights.
Sorry,
next
one
please
that
was
not
in
your
staff
report
and
this
slide
is
not
in
your
staff
report
either.
It's
again
limiting
forbidding
high-rises
next
slide.
D
So
again,
this
is
another
view
more
from
our
community's
point
of
view.
Looking
across
the
strait,
I
look
straight
up
my
street
at
this
site.
In
the
past,
the
applicant
has
argued
this
sits
on
an
edge
of
the
community.
That's
only
if
you
completely
ignore
our
community
next,
please.
D
You
don't
have
to
take
my
word
for
it.
Here's
the
omb's
interpretation
of
our
secondary
plan.
It
says
projects
must
conform
to
a
height
maximum.
These
provisions
were
declared
to
have
a
unifying
vision
which
focuses
on
building
scale,
based
on
the
guiding
principles
that
one
should
preserve
the
scale
of
existing
neighborhoods,
the
intent
to
limit
height
and
regulate
the
skyline
was
unambiguous.
D
D
Okay,
I
want
to
show
you
this
because
it's
not
in
the
report.
It's
an
unusual
thing
to
see.
I
know
our
secondary
plan
has
a
height
maximum
for
every
property.
Can
you
go
to
the
next
slide,
which
zooms
in
a
bit.
D
D
You'll
also
find
in
my
deck,
which
you
can
review
later,
that
there's
a
basic
principle
that
the
specific
rule
always
overrides
the
general
rule.
The
approach
of
the
applicant
and
I'm
sad
to
say
of
planning
staff
has
been
to
pull
together
a
hodgepodge
of
general
principles
from
the
pps
and
volume
one
as
though
there
was
no
secondary
plan,
it's
beyond
jurisdictional
function
of
a
municipal
planning
staff
to
just
think
they
can
do
better
than
what
the
omb
has
done.
So
the
community
is
prepared
to
take
this
to
the
ontario
land
tribunal.
D
G
Thank
you
very
much
chair
tony.
Thank
you
very
much
for
the
for
the
presentation.
I
think
everyone
is
aware
that
I'll
be
supporting
you
in
in
rejecting
this
application.
Today,
one
of
the
things
that
was
in
the
omb's
decision
from
2014
at
section
59.
They
said
that
the
board
cannot
agree
with
planning
staff's
approach
to
the
governing
document
or
the
role
of
maps.
If
the
purpose
of
planning
is
for
municipalities
and
stakeholders
to
know
what
is
expected
of
them,
then
it
is
the
antithesis
of
that
purpose.
D
Having
had
this
decade
of
experience
diving
into
these
documents,
seeing
how
the
omb
rules
on
it,
I'm
very
sad
to
say
that
the
same
approach,
nothing
seems
to
have
been
learned.
I
don't
think
it
is
good
planning
and
I
could
even
talk
about
basic
democratic
governance
101.
It's
really
a
shame
that
policy
driven
planning,
which
is
what
we
were
told
by
the
member
that
planning
has
to
be
driven
by
policy,
is
evident
when
the
city's
planning
department
makes
beautiful
plans.
D
The
policy
section
of
your
of
your
planning
department
makes
great
plans,
but
then
the
other
side
of
your
planning
department
that
reviews
applications.
They
don't
write
plans,
they
write
opa's
that
undermine
the
plans,
and
you
know
good
planning
is
when
you
ask
private
interests
to
conform
to
the
public
good.
Not
when
you
amend
the
plan
to
fit
the
building,
it
should
be
the
other
way
around.
D
It's
incomprehensible
why
I
should
be
asking
the
city
a
second
time
to
defend
its
own
plans.
It's
public
plans
which,
as
you
say
it
give
you
know
the
average
citizen
a
sense
of
where
is
planning
going.
I
mean,
if
you're,
going
to
put
it
in
the
plan
and
then
you're
going
to
ignore
it
or
a
sort
of
small
group
of
experts
can
just
decide.
Well,
it
doesn't
really
mean
what
it
says.
G
What
do
you
make
of
the
argument
that
oh
there's
lrt
here
now
that's
different
than
2014.
D
Well,
in
terms
of
the
infrastructure,
there'll
be
a
you
know
station,
but
it's
a
very
you
know.
Everything
is
unique
right.
This
is
the
lrt
stop
that
has
the
least
number
of
transfers
in
the
entire
city.
It's
zero.
Okay,
there's
no
connecting
buses,
there's
no
intersecting
lines,
there's
no
park
and
ride
it's
pedestrian.
Only.
This
is
like
a
whistle
stop
the
thing
it.
D
You
know
it's
almost
like
a
historical
accident
that
we
even
have
a
stop
here,
because
westboro
is
a
hub
and
it
will
then
go
on
to
lincoln
fields
like
those
places.
That's
where
you
need,
perhaps
greater
height.
The
point
is,
though,
it's
not
for
you
or
me
to
decide
this.
It's
already
been
decided
and
applied
in
the
specific
rule,
which
is
the
secondary
plan,
and
that's
why
they
made
those
skills.
They
even
said
that
there's
limited
capacity
at
kitchissippi
station
and
this
is
not
an
old
secondary
plan.
You
look
at
the
plan.
D
All
of
the
number
one
and
three
lines
are
in
there.
The
name's
been
changed
like
it's.
The
planning
department
approved
schedule
c,
as
it
is
just
five
months
ago,.
G
Tony
thanks
for
thanks
for
the
presentation
today.
Thank
you,
chair.
A
Thank
you
any
more
questions.
Counselor
curry
has
a
question.
C
C
Motion-
but
I
actually
I
just
want
to
make
that
comment,
but
I
want
to
ask
you:
you
know
the
olt
in
canada
the
olt
just
ruled
against,
where
we
didn't
even
have
stormwater
management
plan,
and
they
didn't
care
about
that.
So
I
hear
that
you
might
want
to
take
this
to
the
olt,
but
I
would
tell
you
that
the
olt
right
now
is
maybe
not
your
friend
I
do
my.
My
main
question,
though,
is
if
this
is
approved,
and
it
goes
from
8
to
12.
What
is
the
harm
to
this
community?
C
D
Well,
I
mean
I
could
talk
about
the
immediate
harms
those
are
outlined
in
the
omb
report,
too,
about
oversight
about
completely
distorting
and
changing
the
scale
of
the
neighborhood
like
literally,
and
everybody
will
be
looking
up
at
this
behemoth.
You
know
at
the
end
of
at
the
end
of
my
street,
I
live
on
atlantis,
but
the
real
danger
I
mean
the
real
danger
is
that
the
slippery
slope
and
sort
of
like,
if
they're
allowed
to
do
this
well,
then
pretty
soon
we're
going
to
have
high
rises
right
up
against
the
the
ncc
land.
D
You
know
on
my
side
and
on
the
other
side
like
if
the
plans
mean
what
they
say,
it's
planning
staff's
job
to
ask
the
developer
to
conform
to
the
plans.
But
if
every
developer
who
comes
along
can
just
sort
of
negotiate
a
little
bit
and
it
becomes
evident
that
plans
don't
really
mean
anything
you
just
get
out
of
black
sharpie
ask
for
a
specific
opa
that
fits
the
building.
D
I
don't
know-
and
I
have
a
slightly
different
view
of
the
land
tribunal,
because
the
omb
is
its
legal
predecessor
and
there
is
a
certain
hesitancy
to
override
and
initiate
sort
of
the
previous
rulings.
They
have
to
have
a
continuity
there
and
the
same
arguments
still
apply
because
the
planning
documents
haven't
changed.
A
Okay,
thank
you
councillor,
curry,
councillor
moffat
your
hand
was
up
for
co-chair
muffet,
it's
not
anymore.
Okay.
Thank
you
very
much,
tony
for
your
presentation.
We're
going
to
move
on
to
our
second
speaker,
heather
mitchell,
chair
of
the
westboro
community
association,
there's
also
a
written
submission
on
file
from
heather
good
morning.
Heather.
L
F
A
huge
weird:
oh,
that's,
not
much
good
thing,
that's
better!
Thank
you
very
much
for
hearing
me
today,
I'm
with
the
I'm
the
chair
of
the
westboro
community
association,
I'm
not
going
to
reiterate
most
of
the
points
that
that
have
been
made
previous
and
besides
tony
is
the
expert
in
in
the
the
policy
issues.
So
I
just
want
to
pick
up
on
a
few
points,
one
that
that
jeff
pointed
out
lrt
planning
secondary
plan,
2009
omb
2014.
What
has
changed
in
terms
of
the
the
the
transit
planning?
F
Nothing
kitchissippi.
The
future
kitchissippi
station
has
been
a
bus.
You
know
station,
as
has
westborough
for
all
these
years,
there's
been
density
required.
The
trench
has
been
there
for
all
these
years.
The
fact
that
it's
going
to
be
lrt
is,
of
course,
very
important,
but
we
knew
that
in
2014
and
the
omb
decision
made
their
decision
on
eight
stories
based
on
the
fact
that
the
lrt
was
going
to
be
there.
F
So
this
is
there's
no
new
information
here
at
all,
so
I
don't
see
any
reason
why
we
should
be
going
for
an
op
change
based
on
anything
to
do
with
with
transit.
Another
point
that
was
raised
by
the
developer
was
about
the
the
the
taller
slimmer
design.
If
you
want
to
call,
it
will
have
less
density
because
he's
losing
a
little
bit
of
density,
you
would
lose
a
bit
of
density.
If
you,
if
you
made
a
shorter
building,
there's
no
contact
has
been
presented.
F
There
are
many
many
many
many
buildings
going
up
around
this
area,
they're
going
along
richmond
road
they're,
going
along
in
smaller
infills.
There
are
some
low-rise
apartment
buildings
going
on
right
in
that
area
and
all
throughout
westborough.
F
There
is
a
significant
amount
of
intensification
happening
in
all
of
kitchissippi
ward
and
especially
in
westborough,
if
I
can
say,
and
also
some
of
the
other
community
association
areas
to
have
the
same
intensity.
The
same
density
on
in
this
site
that
we
would
expect
to
see
on
scott
street
is
is
unrealistic
and
unnecessary.
F
I
don't
see
that
it's
it's
any
sort
of
discussion
that
you're
not
maximizing
the
density.
I
don't
see
that
it's
required
here
at
at
all.
Some
density.
Yes,
of
course,
as
the
omb
decision
was
eight
stories,
great,
let's
bring
it
on
so
the
bottom
line
is
the
site
is
covered
by
the
secondary
plan.
That
prohibits
the
12
stories
and
that's
because
it
is
it's
a
low-rise
neighborhood
we'd
like
to
to
at
least
keep
some
of
the
character
of
the
neighborhood.
F
We
want
to
welcome
new
neighbors
to
the
neighborhood,
with
the
the
wonderful
eight-story
design
that
I
know
this
developer
can
produce.
This
developer
is
well
known
in
ottawa,
they're
excellent.
They
do
great
design
work.
I
know
they
can
do
a
beautiful
eight
story,
design
for
us
and
satisfy
all
the
requirements
with
with
to
the
op
itself.
F
The
secondary
plan
should
be
preferred
over
any
general
overarching
policy
discussions,
because
this
is
our
area
and
the
plan
has
meaning
and
is
significant
to
our
area,
and
our
residents
would
expect
it
to
be
followed.
F
We
just
would
ask
for
you
to
think
carefully
about
adding
another
development,
especially
given
the
policy
framework
around
this,
and
especially
since
this
site
has
been
contentious
before,
to
give
it
some
serious
thought
as
to
whether
we
need
this
kind
of
of
12-story
development.
We
would
really
prefer
that
this
committee
refused
the
12-story
design
and
asked
the
developer
to
go
back
and
conform
to
what
the
omb
gave
us
before,
and
that's
really
all.
I
have
to
say
thank
you
very
much.
H
Thanks,
sorry,
it's
not
a
question,
just
a
clarification,
there's
a
that's
the
second
time,
I've.
I've
heard
the
comment
that
this
is
an
official
plan
amendment
for
the
new
official
plan
of
the
city
of
ottawa.
This
is
this
is
an
official
plan
event
based
on
the
previous
official
plan.
The
new
official
plan
is
not
yet
in
effect
because
we're
still
waiting
on
that
from
the
province.
F
Thank
you.
I
was
looking
at
my
notes
and
I
realized,
as
I
was
saying
that
that
was
to
your
point.
Thank
you
very
much.
However.
I
I
hope
the
counselors
will
not
disregard
the
rest
of
my
presentation
as
a
result
of
that.
H
F
When
it
comes
to
those
issues,
listen
to
to
my
previous
colleague.
A
M
Morning,
thank
you
co-chairs
and
counselors
for
having
me
again
here
today.
It's
always
nice
to
speak
with
you
so
the
last
couple
of
presentations,
I
think,
focus
pretty
heavily
on
planning
and
some
of
the
technical
aspects
of
this
proposal.
M
I'd
like
to
talk
about
people,
the
people
who
will
be
most
affected
by
this
building
are
going
to
be
the
people
who
eventually
call
it
home,
they're
very
rarely
represented
at
meetings
like
this.
There
will
be
hundreds,
if
not
thousands,
of
people
who
live
in
a
building
like
this
over
the
course
of
its
lifetime.
M
This
project,
my
understanding,
is
it's
been
initially
proposed,
the
first
version
in
2011,
so
we're
talking
already
10
years
of
people
who
have
not
been
able
to
get
a
home
in
this
neighborhood
10
years
of
cost,
increasing
for
construction,
10,
10
years
of
rental
prices
skyrocketing
in
the
city,
and
you
know
that
is
a
huge
loss
to
this
neighborhood
to
the
city
to
our
community.
You
know,
I
heard
some
comments
about
not
needing
density
here
and
we
need
density
in
every
corner
of
this
city.
M
There
is
a
huge
housing
shortage
in
ottawa.
We
are
72
000
units
behind
the
g7
average.
Our
house
prices
are
out
of
control,
our
rent
prices
are
skyrocketing.
M
We
need
projects
like
this
and
it
really
frustrates
me
when
I
hear
people
talking
about
the
harm
to
the
community.
M
Councilor
curry
had
a
great
question
about
what
is
the
harm
to
the
community
if
this
project
is
12
stories
instead
of
8
stories
and
the
response
was
the
greatest
harm
to
this
community
is
that
people
will
be
uncomfortable
looking
up
at
a
tall
building
and
I'm
sorry,
but
that
is
not
a
good
enough
justification
to
deny
housing
to
thousands
of
people
and
that's
what's
happening
when
when
we
look
at
these
super
technical
things,
instead
of
the
stories
and
the
people
who
are
behind
these
projects,
when
we
think
of
these
projects
in
terms
of
the
city
versus
you
know
the
rich
evil
developers
and
we
ignore
the
fact
that
there
are
going
to
be
hundreds
of
family
who
call
places
like
this
home,
who
you
know
maybe
they're
just
getting
out
of
school
and
serving
a
career,
maybe
they're
a
student.
M
M
So
you
know
I
I
get
really
frustrated
when
I
hear
those
comments
and
I
I
would
just
urge
counsel
to
consider
you
know
as
a
broader
principal,
you
know
we're
talking
about
the
public
good
here.
What
public
good
is
achieved
by
denying
hundreds
of
people
homes
for
ten
years
in
a
place
like
this
in
a
community
like
this
right
next
to
transit?
M
And
you
know
the
last
thought
that
I
want
to
leave.
Leave
you
with
and-
and
this
is
for
the
community
associations
and
the
counselor.
The
the
federal
government
and
provincial
governments
are
increasingly
talking
about
what
they're
going
to
do
to
communities
like
ottawa
when
they
don't
build
density
near
transit.
M
If
this
project
ends
up
getting
delayed,
if,
if
they're
successful
at
appealing
it
at
the
lane
tribunal,
you're
going
to
see
another
proposal
in
in
five
years
from
now,
and
it's
going
to
be
25
stories
right
and
the
province
is
going
to
say,
you
have
to
build
it,
that
that
is
the
future
of
building
around
transit,
and
if
we
can't
get
modest
projects
like
this
approved,
the
province
is
gonna,
come
in
and
force
our
hands.
M
So
I
would
really
just
say
I
I
urge
you
all
to
approve
this
project.
Based
on
my
understanding,
it
looks
like
a
great
community
they've
made
tons
of
concessions
already.
I
think
they
tried
really
hard
to
work
with
the
community
associations,
and
I
really
hope
to
see
this
approved,
because
this
this
is
the
type
of
neighborhood
I'd
love
to
live
in
and
see
more
of
in
our
city.
Thank
you.
G
And
and
dean
you
you
make
obviously
a
number
of
really
important,
legitimate
points,
and
you
know
the
every
community
across
ottawa
is
is
going
to
have
to
accept
greater
density.
Intensification
is
the
only
way
we're
going
to
build
a
sustainable
city.
You
you
mentioned
your
frustration,
though,
do
you
have
any
frustration
around
the
fact
that
for
10
years
there
has
been
a
path
for
this
builder
to
get
a
shovel
in
the
ground,
and
they
have
not
done
so.
G
M
Yep,
that's
that's
a
great
question
counselor
in
ensure
I
I
think
that
would
have
been
the
easy
way
out
and
and
the
developer,
I'm
sure
if
you
chatted
with
them,
they'd
say:
yes,
we
could
have
walked
in
and
built
this
eight
stories,
but
that
that
has
an
impact
too
right,
because
what
you're
talking
about-
and
we
see
this
whenever
heights
get
knocked
down
this-
this
proposal
has
already
lost.
M
I
think,
100
units
from
its
original
design.
Yeah,
you
would
be
losing
things
like
two-bedroom
and
three-bedroom
apartments,
so
you're
losing
some
of
the
family-friendly
stuff.
There
you'd
probably
be
losing
the
the
the
through
fair
between
the
buildings,
the
pedestrian
area,
which
was
a
major
concession.
It
looked
like
the
developer
made
to
try
and
keep
the
community
on
board
with
this
project.
M
G
G
That
will
have
a
significant
number
of
of
two
bedrooms.
There's
low-rise
units
that
face
onto
the
street
that
are
ground
oriented.
You
know
the
the
difference
in
terms
of
the
number
of
people
who
can
be
accommodated
in
kitchissippi
ward
in
this
instance
is,
is
negligible.
They
could
have
built
this
six
years
ago
with
the
permissions
that
were
extended
by
you
know
it
wasn't
a
council
decision,
it
was
a.
It
was
a
provincial
tribunal
decision
and
in
the
meantime
you
know
we
continue
to
see.
G
Thousands
of
units
which
makes
significant
dent
in
the
housing
inventory
continue
to
be
approved
across
the
ward.
So
I
I
just
raised
it
as
a
as
a
perspective
to
play
devil's
advocate
here.
I
do
appreciate
that
that
you
came
out
today.
M
Yeah,
thank
you,
counselor
and
I
I
certainly
appreciate
your
support
for
for
other
density
projects
in
in
your
ward,
and
I
know
you
always
try
and
take
a
very
balanced
take
on
on
these
issues,
and
I
appreciate
your
perspective.
M
I
I
would
just
reiterate
that
you
know
there's
a
huge
loss
to
people
when
we
can't
get
this
stuff
built,
and
I
I
understand
what
you're
saying
you
know:
it's
not
100
people
today,
but
over
100
years
you
know
a
difference
of
50
units
is
hundreds
of
people
or
thousands
of
people
right.
So
that's
that's
the
perspective
I
was
trying
to
share
so
thank
you.
A
B
All
right
good
morning,
just
give
me
a
second
here.
I
think
I
should
have
video.
B
That
all
right
good
morning,
thanks
very
much.
I
really
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
address
this
count
this
committee.
Yet
again
I
would
say
my
name
is
gay
stinson
and
I
live
at
350.
A
whitby
avenue
whitby
is
where
I
live
is
about
two
blocks
from
this
proposed
development.
It's
not
as
if
it's
right
in
my
backyard,
I
would
see
it
if
it
sticks
way
up
high
in
the
sky,
but
otherwise
my
concern
is
of
as
a
resident
of
this
neighborhood.
B
I
was
one
of
the
three
appellants
in
that
case
that
went
to
the
omb.
It
cost
the
residents
three
years
of
fundraising
thousands
of
dollars
a
great
deal
of
anxiety
going
to
the
omb
at
three
different
occasions.
Finally,
to
have
a
decision
that
was
in
our
favor
and
I
have
to
say
it
is
with
great
dismay.
In
fact,
a
number
of
residents
are
just
totally
appalled
that
here
we
are
again
the
same
developer,
coming
back
with
a
modified
and
improved
proposal,
but
one
that
still
exceeds
what's
allowed
under
the
omb
decision.
B
So,
like
tony
michelle,
you
have
and
also
the
developer
and
so
on.
You've
already
heard
the
story
about
the
various
tools
that
the
city
has
for
governing
the
the
sort
of
development
it
wishes
to
have
way
back
from
2009
the
overlying
objectives
and
principles
objective,
one
intensification,
the
first
principle
number
one
preserve
the
scale
and
character
of
established
residential
communities,
etc.
B
B
So
it's
it's
part
of
in
designing
ottawa,
section
2
5
2.5.1,
to
ensure
that
new
development
respects
the
character
of
existing
areas.
I
mean
it's
throughout
policy
statements
and
it's
also
entrenched
in
the
official
plan
secondary
plan
that
is
currently
in
force.
B
The
dna
report
in
a
decision
from
the
omb
says
the
board
disposes
of
this
matter
as
follows:
the
draft
official
plan
amendment
for
the
city
of
ottawa,
proposed
by
the
developer
file
blabla,
is
modified
and
set
out
below
instead
of
the
draft
phrase,
10
stories
or
more.
The
official
plan
amendment
shall
use
the
phrase
up
to
eight
stories.
B
So
that's
the
decision.
That
is
the
current
decision
and
is
in
force.
We
are
appalled
that
once
again,
a
developer
is
going
ahead
to
ask
council
to
say
no,
never
mind.
We
don't
mean
those
principles,
we
don't
mean
those
schedules
as
past
we
don't
we
don't
need
to
adhere
to
an
omb.
Oh
that
was
a
few
years
ago.
Now
is
now,
after
all,
so,
let's,
let's
just
not
pay
any
attention
to
it.
I
think
we
need
to
pay
attention
to
those
things.
Those
are
the
tools
the
city
has.
B
Those
are
the
tools
that
residents
have
someone
asked
the
question:
what's
the
harm
to
the
community,
the
harm
to
the
community
is
to
sacrifice
the
character
of
our
neighborhood,
the
characteristics
of
our
neighborhood,
it's
typified
as
a
low-rise
residential
area.
We
have
a
lot
of
intensification,
a
lot
of
doubles
coming
where
there
was
a
single
family
home,
but
that
they
are
two
stories
sometimes
three
stories.
There
are
two
low-rise
apartment
buildings
at
three
stories
plus
basement.
B
Our
community
is
predominantly
and
massively
a
low-rise
residential
community.
Our
community
is
not
really
part
of
the
community
across
the
arterial
roads
and
the
scott
street
corridor,
where
the
westboro
station
is
going
to
be
all
along
scott
street.
It's
a
main
arterial
road,
all
of
those
20
something
and
30
something
story.
Buildings
are
over
there.
It's
not
part
of
this
community.
B
This
neighborhood
is
an
established
low-rise
community
neighborhood,
and
we
wish
to
retain
that
character
and
having
two
great
big
blocks
that
rise
up
into
the
horizon
and
override
sort
of
the
the
whole
feeling
of
open
sky
and
the
kind
of
residential
walkable
neighborhood
that
we
have
substantially
changes
the
characteristics
of
our
neighborhood,
which
is
what
we
love
about
the
neighborhood
we
all
live
in.
I've
lived
here
for
12
years.
B
I've
represented
residents
before
on
this,
and
this
is
the
overwhelming
opinion
you've
heard
discussions
about,
even
in
the
applicant's
proposal
about
how
there
were
meetings
a
lot
of
people
attended.
They
were
opposed.
You
heard
you've
seen
counselor
lieper's
report
saying
the
residents
are
opposed.
B
A
Brockington
does
have
a
question
for
you,
though.
Council
brockton.
N
Thanks
sure
I
do
good
morning
everyone
I
miss
denson
represent
neighborhoods
similar
to
yours.
They
say
that
there
needs
to
be
efforts
to
defend
the
characteristics
of
an
existing
mature
neighborhood.
I
I
hear
that
loud
and
clear
and
in
the
same
breath,
though
they
say
but
riley,
if
you
can
preserve
the
heart
or
the
integrity
of
a
neighborhood,
we
will
support
much
greater
diversity
and
height
on
the
periphery
of
a
community.
N
So
I
want
to
ask
you
directly.
The
proposed
development,
in
my
opinion,
is
on
the
periphery
of
the
community.
It
abuts
the
transit
way
and
we
do
want
to
see
density
near
transit
way
stations.
So
I'm
not
understanding
how
the
proposed
location
takes
away
from
the
character
of
the
neighborhood,
in
particular
the
the
heart
of
the
neighborhood.
The
integrity
will
be
maintained.
N
B
Well,
I
think
perhaps
the
the
main
point
is
what
you
consider
our
neighborhood,
what
we
consider
our
neighborhood
goes
on
both
the
north
and
the
south
side
of
that
that
transit
way
it's
westbrook
beach
and
westborough
community,
but
we
are
together
that
walkway,
that's
so
important.
That's
going
to
be
maintained
from
roosevelt
straight
through
to
the
other
side.
People
use
that
I
mean
families
use
it
every
single
day
the
kids
go
to
school.
B
That
way
coming
and
going
from
the
north
side
down
to
the
south
side,
people
come
and
go
to
go
shopping.
I
mean
it's
simply.
Our
two
sections,
shall
you
say
the
north
side
and
the
south
side
form
one
community
and
we
are
all
residential
on
both
sides
of
that
the
the
edge
community
you
describe
might
be
over
on
dominion.
I
think
it
is
where
there's
a
high-rise
apartment
over
there,
and
then
it
falls
away
into
sort
of
a
brushy
area
and
then
goes
off
further
to
the
health
institute
or
on
the
eastern
side.
B
A
I
wanted
to
ask
okay
in
the
photo
presentation:
there
was
one
slide
that
had
an
eight-story
building,
taking
up
the
maximum
amount
of
lot
space
that
the
olt
or
the
omb.
I'm
mixing
up
my
acronyms
that
the
that
the
previous
decision
would
have
allowed
for
and
it
would
have
been
a
very
or
would
be
if
that
was
what
they
went
with
a
very
big
blocky
building.
A
Would
that
be
better
than
what
is
being
proposed
now
because
to
me
it
seems,
like
you,
wouldn't:
have
some
of
the
transitions
you'd
have
less
open
space
on
the
site?
You
wouldn't
have
the
same
missing
middle
kind
of
transition,
that's
being
proposed
now,
so
would
it
would
a
full
lot
coverage
maximum
eight
story
throughout?
Would
that
be
better.
B
Well,
I
don't
think
that's
even
an
option.
I
I
think
the
designer
simply
put
that
forward
to
scare
the
community.
The
first
time
around
to
say:
look,
you
can
have
a
soviet
walk
institutional
prison-like
building
or
you
can
have
our
lovely
tall
pinnacles
rising
to
the
sky.
I
think
it's
a
false
dichotomy.
B
There
is
no
reason
that
the
developer
could
not
have
two
towers
of
eight
stories
expand
the
footprint
they
in
their
own
presentation.
They
said
their
footprint
is,
is
48
rather
than
60,
that
they're
allowed
if
they
took
the
60.
That
still
leaves
40
percent
of
open
space,
the
pass-through
area
for
pedestrians
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
There's
no
reason
they
can't
do
that.
In
fact,
in
a
in
a
consultation
that
I
believe
was
november
of
2021,
somebody
asked
the
developer.
Well,
let
me
put
it
another
way.
Is
there?
B
Is
there
any
constraint
or
is
there
any
an
impediment?
I
think
it
was
there
any
impediment
to
your
designing
a
space
that
would
have
a
maximum
of
eight
stories
and
the
answer
was
no,
except
for
financial
differences.
Well,
yes,
so
if
it's
only
for
financial
reasons,
they
want
high-rise
and
great
views
and
blah
blah
blah,
then,
is
that
the
purpose
of
the
city
planning
council?
Don't
let
that
go
ahead
because
they're
going
to
be
those
those
you
know,
high-rise,
penthouse,
et
cetera,
et
cetera.
I
my
position
is
no.
B
I
think
your
your
role
here
is
to
use
the
tools
you
have
to
come
with
the
best
judgment
for
the
community,
so
there's
no
impediment
to
having
two
eight-story
towers,
not
a
huge
indus
in
industrial
looking
block
and
have
the
the
stage
down
and
the
three
the
three
story,
as
that
comes
close
to
to
winona
and
or
rather
to
will
wilbrod-
and
you
know
I
can't
remember
wilmot,
I
said
so
yeah.
I
just
think
the
the
old
eight
story
block
thing.
No
one
ever
would
have
actually
designed
that
so
design.
B
A
Okay,
thank
you,
I'm
not
seeing
any
other
questions
from
committee
members.
So
thank
you,
gabe
for
your
presentation
today.
O
C
O
On
the
north
side,
so
I
do
want
to
just
emphasize
the
piece
to
respond
to
the
previous
question
quickly
that
I
will
be
affected
directly.
I
suffer
somewhat
some
seasonal,
affective
disorder
and
I
will
probably
lose
three
hours
of
the
first
morning
sun
in
the
winter,
so
other
than
that.
I
do
not
want
to
go
over
my
first
chart.
So
could
you
jump
quickly
to
chart
five?
Please.
O
And
then
now
please,
if
you
could
skip
to
the
next
slide
and
again.
This
is
just
an
aside
if
you've
already
spoken
about
what
the
official
policies
are
and
the
height
and
the
rationale
for
the
height
has
been
played.
Around
transit
has
been
played
before
the
original
plan
and
the
community
development
plan.
Central
plan
deviated
from
low-rise
r3
next
to
the
transit
way,
because
it
was
a
transit
way.
O
The
rmv
ruling
in
2014
increased
the
height
from
the
from
the
previous
ones
to
seven
stories
and
partially
eight
because
of
the
transit
way.
Was
there
so
get
a
new
argument
in
the
planning
staff
document,
which
is
argues
basically
that
we
have
to
treat
a
multi-use
pathway
as
an
arterial
road
to
get
more
height,
and
I
think
of
council
forwards.
I
mean
if
the
committee
forwards
this
to
council
as
a
rationalist,
remove
that
item
next
slide.
Please.
O
O
You
might
think
that
it's
I
just
point
out
that
the
streetscape
for
seven
stories
is
completely
different
from
what,
in
fact,
the
planner.
The
document
is,
which
is
more
than
12
stories
for
a
significant
portion
of
it.
O
There's
lots
of
open
sky
here,
the
the
building
is
long
or
that
the
footprint
of
the
skyline
is
quite
substantially
at
more
than
40
12
stories
for
the
proposal.
O
So
while
you
may
not
think
that,
depending
on
what
this
block
looks
like,
you
may
not
approve
of
it,
but
I
can
certainly
tell
you
from
the
north
side
it
doesn't
cast
shadow
over
the
the
houses
of
whisper
beach,
okay.
Finally,
our
next
slide,
please,
this
is
a,
I
think,
a
point
it
hasn't
been
emphasized.
O
O
A
The
amer,
that's
your
time,
so
I'll
ask
you
to
just
have
to
hold
you
there,
I'm
looking
to
our
committee.
Are
there
any
questions
from
our
committee
members
for
liam
I'm
seeing
none?
So
thank
you
very
much
for
your
presentation
today
liam
and
to
all
the
delegations
who
made
a
presentation
this
morning
we're
going
to
go
back
to
the
applicant,
we'll
just
give
our
clerk's
office
team
a
chance
to
bring
them
back
into
the
into
the
meeting
room
here.
So
this
is
the
opportunity
for
committee
members
or
counselors
to
ask
a
question
for
the
applicant.
A
We
have
again
representatives
from
foten
from
uniform
and
barry
hoban
from
hoban
architecture.
Here
I
think
they're
still
coming
in
the
room
here
so.
A
H
H
So
I
was
wrong.
I
wanted
to
make
sure
I
said
that
I
was
wrong
because
I
didn't
want
that
to
stand.
So
I
just
have
a
question.
Barry
didn't
get
a
chance
to
present,
but
I
was
here
when
this
came
forward
years
ago.
I
was
one
of
only
two
people
here,
shockingly
that's
that
were
here
when
this
file
originally
came
to
us
back.
H
In
my
first
term
I
I
voted
in
favor
of
the
original
plan
so
and
and
similar
to
other
files
that
I've
had,
where
you
have
a
density
target
and
a
height
limit.
H
I've
voted
in
favor
of
of
taller,
more
slender
designs,
looking
at
design
perspective
than
than
maybe
the
overall
height
that
might
be
in
a
secondary
plant.
A
nine
hour.
900
rings
a
bell,
a
similar
one
on
preston.
I
remember
voting
against
a
reduction
in
height
from
35
stories
to
30
stories,
because
one
unit
count
was
was
compromised
as
well
as
design.
The
building
at
30
stories
was
a
much
lesser
design
than
the
35
stories.
H
Ironically,
we
approved
a
50-story
tower
right
next
to
it
a
few
years
later,
but
nonetheless
so
question
on
that.
You
know
we.
I
don't
think
that
what
was
presented
is
misleading.
When
you
talk
about
the
the
eight
story
impact
when
because
we
do
have
density
targets
and
we
should
have
density
targets
when
it
comes
to
near
lrt
this,
as
mentioned
by
by
the
first
speaker,
this
is
an
area
that
has
no
transfers,
so
your
ridership
is
going
to
come
from
the
area
around
the
station.
H
So
we
should
be
looking
at
trying
to
maximize
that.
Nonetheless,
you
can
find
the
same
density
in
eight
stories
as
12
stories.
So
that's
not
necessarily
a
density
conversation,
but
the
design
is
and
how
the
building
interacts
and
you
want
people
to
live
in
this
building
when
people
want
to
live
in
this
building,
so
the
amenities
space
and
these
things
matter.
So
I'd
like
to
get
just
a
bit
more
detail
on
what
it
would
mean,
the
same
density,
eight
stories
versus
twelve
stories
and
I
figured
barry-
might
be
the
best
to
respond
to
that.
Q
If,
if
we
pull
up
our
slides
a
little
bit,
I
could
actually
speak
because
there's
been
a
fair
amount
of
discussion
around
form,
as
opposed
to
just
height.
People
are
just
seeing
fixated
on
a
number
as
opposed
to
what
the
mass
actually
does
and
what
it.
What
what's
required
in
order
to
modify
mass,
and
so
when
people
talk,
for
instance,
if
I
can
pull
up
the
screen
here,
if
we
flip
through
to.
Q
Right
sure
we
can
start
here,
I
you
know
yeah,
a
certain
density
is
is
developed
as
a
result
of
the
top
diagram,
and
I
I
you
know
simplistically
someone's
saying:
oh
wait.
What
you
should
do
is
just
simply
build
two
smaller
footprint
buildings
and
just
make
them
eight
stories.
Well,
it's
a
little
bit
underwhelming
and
to
tell
you
the
truth,
I
think,
if
you
flip
to
the
next
slide,
you
start
to
look
at
how
we
play
with
mass
and
they
keep
going
to
the
next.
Q
Q
It
starts
from
a
building
that
is
at
the
west
end,
which
is
seven
stories
night,
and
you
know
it
really
is
about
how
you
manipulate
mass,
both
in
plane
in
a
floor
plane,
because
it's
a
staggered
building
as
well
as
in
height
by
a
lot
of
discussion
around
that
that
part
of
the
part
of
the
argument
and
in
the
end,
honestly,
if
height,
is
not
where
we're
going.
Q
What
we're
actually
doing
in
12
stories
is
pretty
pretty
unusual
for
what
you're,
seeing
around
transit
stations
we're
actually
creating
a
form
which
is
more
friendly
to
the
mid
and
low
rise
than
the
high
rises.
And
if
you
flip
ahead
a
couple
slides,
we
never
even
talked
at
all
really
about
the
missing
middle
because
one
of
the
pieces
that
so
this
is
showing
the
stepping
in
the
building
and
plan
and
in
height,
starting
at
seven
stories-
and
you
can
see
the
very
top
part-
is
the
12-story
building.
Q
So
everybody
focuses
on
12-story
buildings,
but
in
actual
fact,
the
way
the
building
is
broken
down.
It's
actually
modifying
the
impact
of
of
of
the
building,
so
it
feels
up
to
this
the
south
side.
No
one.
We
didn't
talk
at
all
about
the
notion
that-
and
everyone
wants
to
refer
back
to
the
the
2014
omb
decision
and
stamped
her
feet
as
if
so,
why
isn't
you
just
doing
this?
Q
I
mean
those
are
significant
changes
to
the
to
the
overall
piece.
So
if
you
keep
going
back
and
saying
it's
got
to
be
the
same
as
well,
things
have
changed
substantially
in
terms
of
the
land
holdings,
and
so
when
we
talk
about
40
or
50
open
space,
it's
while
we're
actually
providing
the
low
rise
components
which
are
about
transition,
so
I
maybe
have
gone
off
script
there
a
bit
but
I'll
stop
there,
and
I
can
respond
to
other
questions.
Oh
there
was
one
other
comment.
The
last
speaker.
Q
Q
You
know
if
you
you
want
to
use
december
21st
as
the
shadow
thing,
the
nine
story,
the
taga
building,
besides
probably
cast
as
much
as
shadow
as
anything
else
does
on
the
properties
letter
to
the
north,
but
in
most
cases
during
the
during
the
more
the
rest
of
the
year,
there
really
are
minimal
impacts.
H
I
appreciate
that
I
mean
for
me
it's
probably
not
a
surprise
to
residents
in
the
area
that
I
have
generally
favored
a
taller,
more
slender
design
than
a
lower
boxier
design.
From
just
a
I
mean
these,
are
these
aren't
buildings
that
are
for
just
today?
These
are
buildings
that
are
for
the
next
20
30
40
50
years,
so
their
impact,
how
they
respond
and
again
like
when
it
comes
to
the
preston,
one
30
or
35
on
the
ground.
H
It
doesn't
matter
you
look
up
at
35
stories
makes
no
difference
the
design
of
the
building
on
the
ground,
as
as
it
interfaces
with
with
the
community
and
with
the
people
that
are
going
to
live
there
and
how
they
can
use
the
space.
You
talk
about
footprint,
60
max
footprint,
where
you're
coming
in
at
under
50.
H
Obviously,
an
assumption
would
be
that
at
eight
stories,
you're
going
to
maximize
the
footprint
of
the
building
and
reduce
the
amenity
space,
reduce
the
public
realm
space.
I
think
these
things
all
matter,
but
thanks
for
for
taking
that
extra
time
to
to
to
walk
through
that
part
appreciate
that.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Counselor
brockington,.
N
I'll
be
brief,
because
I
no
longer
have
a
question:
counselor
moffett
touched
upon
what
I
wanted
to
give
the
proponent
an
opportunity
to
do,
and
that
was
to
talk
about.
There
were
some
options
here.
How
to
in
an
architectural
format,
show
us
how
the
number
of
units
could
be
built.
There
are
different
ways,
and
I
think
this
is
actually
a
way
to
blend
in
with
the
community
when
you
design
the
way.
N
I've
had
a
height
challenge
with
this
proposal
since
day,
one
in
the
fact
that
it's
too
short,
it's
not
enough.
It's
beside
transit.
We
should
be
building
big
beside
transit,
that's
where
we're
going,
and
in
40
or
50
years.
This
building
might
be
an
outlier
because
it's
so
short
beside
a
major
transit
system,
because
there's
not
enough
people
in
the
future
will
say
why
didn't
they
build
bigger
when
they
just
put
five
billion
dollars
into
their
lrt
system,
and
they
want
to
bring
as
many
people
as
close
to
the
lrt
as
possible.
N
G
Thank
you
very
much,
and
you
know
I've
had
my
opportunity
to
ask
lots
of
questions
of
the
developer
for
for
quite
some
time.
One
of
the
concerns
that
I
have
with
the
justification-
that's
in
the
staff
report
with
respect
to
approving
a
high
rise
here
as
opposed
to
mid-rise,
is
that
it
is
on
what
staff
have
characterized
as
two
major
pieces
of
transportation
infrastructure.
G
So
it's
it's
next
to
the
lrt
station
and
it's
next
to
cycling
facilities
and
those
cycling
facilities
tie
in
to
what
is
becoming
increasingly,
you
know
one
of
our
most
robust
pieces
of
cycling
infrastructure
going
east-west
the
cycling.
The
zoning
would
allow
for
a
minimum
one-to-one
cycling
parking,
you're,
proposing
254
vehicle
parking
spots,
which
is
gobsmackingly
high
for
a
building
that
justifies
its
shift
from
mid
to
high
rise
in
terms
of
being
next
to
non-vehicular
arterial
infrastructure.
Q
I
mean
it's,
it's
a
it's
an
out.
There
question.
I
guess
the
first
of
all
in
the
design
of
these
buildings,
storage,
spaces,
personal
storage
spaces
are
actually
used
for
upscale
bikes,
they're,
not
just
put
bikes
in
into
what
we
call
a
a
regular
bike,
storage
area,
but
you
know
we're
in
the
process
of
rending
up
a
building,
and
you
know
you're
talking
about
the
actual
potential
of
of
a
parking
space
below
grade
in
many
of
our
buildings.
Q
G
I
I
don't
think
that
the
commitment
to
ensuring
that
people
who
have
you
know
four
bikes
a
winter
and
a
summer
bike
are
are
actually
being
thought
through
at
this
point,
so
I
know
you
continue
to
have
work
to
do
on
the
site
plan
and
I'll
I'll
certainly
be
encouraging
you
to
look
at
some
of
that
underground
or
some
of
that
car
parking
as
secure
bike
storage,
because
I
I
just
don't
believe
that
the
commitment
is
there
today
to
to
actually
take
full
advantage
of
that
infrastructure
that
we
have.
G
I
guess
one
of
the
other
things
that
I
would
be
looking
for
you
to
do
and
dan.
Maybe
this
is
a
question
for
you.
If
this
building
gets
approved,
will
you
buy
your
tenants
or
purchasers?
Bus
passes.
L
Yeah
I'll
take
that
we
are,
we
are
definitely
considering
well
first
off,
I
want
to
say
well
we're
encouraging
people
to
take
public
transportation
without
a
doubt,
and
we
see
those
car
parking
spots,
it's
really
storage
units
and
through
bikes
and
through
the
lrt
we
will
encourage
members
residents
to
take
transit.
We
we
will
offer
a
parking
pass
up
front
and
that
was
established
in
the
transportation
report
that
we
put
forth.
L
G
Good,
it's
encouraging
people
is
different
than
than
in
sending
people
by
actually
buying
them
that
bus
pass
and
getting
them
on
to
the
lrt.
So
that's
that's
important
to
me
the
units
when
I,
when
I
take
a
look,
I
can't
imagine
that
these
are
going
to
be
even
market
affordable.
G
These
are
going
to
be
in
one
of
the
nicest
neighborhoods
in
the
city,
steps
from
westboro
beach
steps
to
an
lrt
station
steps
to
the
shopping
on
on
scott
street
and
and
richmond
road.
This
is
obviously
going
to
be
an
extremely
attractive,
neighborhood
you're,
going
to
be
able
to
get
some
very
significant
rents
or
purchase
prices
depending
what
you
do
with
this.
Finally,
what
what
kind
of
commitments
are
you
making
to
affordability?
G
So
that
the
you
know
we?
We
don't
continue
to
exacerbate
that
gentrification
of
westboro,
and
so
it
continues
to
be
a
neighborhood
that
people,
people
like
dean
will
be
able
to
afford.
L
So
we
we
see
we
can
really
hit
a
number
of
different
target
markets
in
terms
of
the
family,
oriented
design,
those
three-story
buildings.
At
the
front
we
would
have
larger
units
to
attract
families,
but
this
overall
is
a
market-based
project.
At
this
time
we
are
open
to
listening
and
quantifying
some
other.
You
know
through
cmhc
or
or
one
of
those
other
avenues.
L
But
at
this
point
it
is
a
market
base
with
a
range
of
products
make
a
maybe
jacob
can
jump
in
and
fill
in.
The
details.
K
I'm
happy
to
just
to
build
on
dan's
point:
we
did
discuss
housing,
affordability
in
this
neighborhood.
Obviously,
like
you
mentioned
counselor,
it's
a
very
desirable
neighborhood
to
live
in
there's
a
lot
of
people
who
are
attracted
to
this
area
for
the
amenities
and
the
space
provided
you're
going
to
have
larger
units
within
the
major
or
within
the
212
story
buildings.
But
in
those
low-rise
buildings
which
I
believe
we're
currently
at
about
17
units.
K
I
know
that's
kind
of
a
shifting
definition
and
we
need
to
nail
it
down
at
the
city
level,
but
but
this
is
a
market
project,
but
we
are
including
low-rise
wood
frame
construction
buildings
with
larger
units
that,
depending
on
financing
initiatives
and-
and
you
know,
labor
costs
and
material
costs,
as
things
evolve,
it's
kind
of
a
weird
time
right
now.
We
believe
those
units
could
be
more
affordable
than
you
know.
Putting
larger
units
in
high-rise
buildings,
where
construction
costs
are
a
little
higher.
G
Yeah,
you
know
I'll
wrap
up
in
a
little
bit,
obviously,
but
the
I
think
this
could
have
been
a
different
discussion
that
could
even
have
had
my
support.
Had
there
been
that
real
effort
to
make
sure
that
you
know
people
other
than
the
most
affluent
in
ottawa
would
be
able
to
afford
to
be
able
to
live
in
a
in
a
place
like
this.
G
Once
again,
we
have
a
transit
station
in
westborough
next,
to
which
you
know
only
the
most
affluent
are
are
going
to
be
able
to
afford
to
live,
and
I
think
that's
a
shame.
You
know
the
the
gentrification
of
westboro
is
is
something
that
you
know
absolutely
keeps
me
up
at
night.
It's
it's
such
a
wonderful
neighborhood
and
it's
becoming
more
and
more
exclusive.
All
the
time-
and
you
know
there
could
have
been
a
it-
could
have
been
a
different
discussion
with
with
that
nod,
to
affordable
housing.
G
I
I
just
sorry
I'll
wrap
up
later.
I
please
make
sure
that
everything
that
that
your
tenants
do
is
is
geared
toward
getting
them
onto
bikes,
and
that
means
having
the
appropriate
storage
for
those
and
the
longest
possible
period
of
incenting
them
to
use
transit
by
buying
them.
A
bus
pass.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
council
leaper.
I
did
see
emily
myers
and
go
up
in
response
to
one
of
your
questions.
Emily.
E
Yeah,
I
guess
I
just
wanted
to
clarify,
or
at
least
make
an
additional
point.
I
hear
councillor
lieber's
last
comments
and
with
great
emphasis
on
how
you
know.
Maybe
this
conversation
could
have
gone
differently.
Had
it
been
one
that
went
down
the
road
of
affordable
housing
or
affordability.
E
You
know
our
argument
is
that
we're
offering
a
diverse
product
range
and
availability.
I
know
that
doesn't
sit
well
all
the
time
in
the
affordable
conversation,
but
until
affordable
or
affordability
is
really
quantified.
It's
a
hard
thing
for
a
developer
to
come
back
and
even
answer,
but
to
be
fair,
the
conversation
with
the
developer.
E
You
know
it
never
really
went
down
that
path.
It
was
so
stuck
on
height.
It
was
so
stuck
on
an
omb
ruling,
and
so
a
constructive
conversation
was
or
an
opportunity
for
one
was
missed.
So
I
just
wanted
to
point
out
that
I
find
it
unfair
at
this
time
in
front
of
this
committee
to
make
that
point
with
you
know
with.
I
just
wanted
to
defend
the
fact
that
I
feel
the
conversation
never
evolved
to
that.
E
To
be
frank,
it
got
really
bogged
down
in
height
and
an
omb
ruling,
and
so
you
know
perhaps
a
lesson
learned
here,
but
I
just
wanted
to
emphasize
that
I
feel
that
you
know
we
didn't
have
the
opportunity
to
sit
down
and
really
have
that
negotiation
or
conversation.
You
know
through
this
process.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
counselor
leap
or
any
other
questions.
A
L
Yeah
just
a
couple
seconds
thanks
for
give
me
a
minute.
I
just
want
to
say
we
let
we
really
listen
to
the
community
here
we,
you
know
we
came
down
from
18
and
21
to
12..
L
You
know
we
spent
a
lot
of
time
and
thought
you
know
very
articulated
the
transition
points
that
that
negates
the
height,
but
maybe
what
you
don't
know
is
that
there
are
a
couple
of
constraints
on
this
site.
Apart
from
that
omb
decision,
one
was
an
easement
that
was
put
on
us
on
the
north
property
line
and
one
of
the
big
things
we
kept
hearing
from
the
the
community.
L
Is
they
wanted
access
through
to
the
mup
right
at
that
intersection
of
winston
and
wilmot
people
have,
you
know,
told
us
many
times
they
want
access
through
there
to
the
mud,
so
we
maintain
that
so
the
footprint
is
somewhat,
you
know
fixed.
We
had
to
go
up
and
we
we
handled
it
as
best
we
could.
L
So
you
may
not
be
aware
that,
but
if
we
did
follow
the
seven
and
a
half
story,
omb
decision,
you
would
have
significantly
less
units
density
on
this
site
right
beside
the
lrc
lrt
station,
and
you
know,
and
and
also
earlier
in
the
presentation
somebody
had
made
a
reference
just
I'll
just
finish.
A
I'm
gonna
actually
stop
you
there
because
at
this
point
you're
not
responding
to
questions
from
counselors
and
just
sort
of
process.
A
committee
I'll
stop
you
there,
but
thank
you
to
everyone
from
your
team
for
the
answers
today.
We're
gonna
move
to
questions
for
staff.
So
I
know
there's
a
few
from
different
committee
members.
So
any
questions
from
staff
or
questions
for
staff
counselor
leeper
lead
us
off.
G
Thanks,
I'm
happy
to
let
any
of
my
colleagues
go
ahead.
No,
so
the
the
the
big
question
I
have
with
staff
is
is
actually,
I
think
it's
site
plan
related
and
it's.
It
relates
to
the
turnaround
at
the
far
west
side
of
the
site,
but
if
the
zoning
is
approved
today
as
proposed,
I
believe
that
that
will
be
locked
in
so
the
end
of
roosevelt's.
G
On
the
west
side
of
the
site
proposes,
I
think,
to
even
add
asphalt
in
proximity
to
the
multi-use
path.
In
order
to
accomplish
a
turnaround
from
the
parking
garage.
G
G
Yeah
so
right
now,
roosevelt
dead
ends
at
the
at
the
property
or
at
the
the
end
of
the
right-of-way.
So
there
is
proposed
now
to
extend
roosevelt
over
to
the
west
or
sorry,
not
roosevelt,
but
to
create
a
turnaround
in
the
right-of-way.
G
Correct
is
that
if
we
approve
the
zoning
today
with
the
garage
entrance
where
it
is
proposed,
does
that
lock
in
that
turnaround.
J
Well,
I
I'm
presently
looking
at
the
site
plan,
I'm
looking
at
the
location
of
the
the
ramp
and
the
the
turnabout
that
you're
referring
and
there's
quite
a
distance
in
between
the
two.
So
I
I
do
see
wiggle
room
there
for
adjustment
at
site
plan.
G
I
I
think
that's
going
to
be
critical
because
again
we're
we're
proposing
to
approve
this
building
on
the
basis
of
the
arterial
equivalent,
if
I
can
put
it
that
way,
transportation
infrastructure
by
having
the
them
up
there
and
and
having
that
turn
around
there
is
is
going
to.
I
would
suggest
compromise
our
ability
to
create
a
wider
mop
compromise,
the
the
feeling
of
that
mop.
G
So
that's
a
discussion
I'll
be
very
keen
to
get
into
with
you
at
the
sight
plan
phase
that,
oh
sorry,
the
other
question
I
had
was
language
that
I
saw
in
the
recommendation
to
approve
this.
That
speaks
to
yeah
we're
moving
from
a
mid-rise
to
a
high-rise.
But
it's
a
low
high-rise
is
low
high-rise,
a
category
that
we've
defined
in
the
new
official
plan
or
in
the
previous
one.
I
Thank
you,
co-chair
gower.
I
think
the
answer.
I
guess
the
the
short
answer
would
be.
You
go
from
mid-rise
to
high-rise,
but
just
taking
a
look
at
the
transition,
that's
been
incorporated
into
the
building.
As
you
just
get
into
the
high-rise
area,
it
you
can
say
that
it
sort
of
or
crux
approximates
more
of
a
low
or
mid-rise
type
development
with
that
with
that
transition
to
make
it
more
compatible.
But
I
guess
the
short
answer
is
no
in
terms
of
definitions.
G
Yeah,
so
this
this
low
high-rise.
I
guess
I
just
cautioned
my
colleagues
around
the
table
who
are
going
to
be
in
the
position
of
needing
to
talk
to
their
residents
about
secondary
plans
and
about
what
the
official
plan
means
that
you
know.
There's
this
wriggle
room.
It's
you
know
the
the
plan
may
speak
to
a
mid-rise,
but
staff
may
be
willing
to
contemplate
things
that
are
taller
than
mid-rise
if
it's
mid-life,
if
it's
mid-rise,
like
the
low
high-rise
category,
is
something
that
we're
sort
of
seeing
here.
G
I
think
that's
going
to
create
a
precedent
and
before
you
approve
this
or
before
you
vote
in
favor
of
the
zoning.
Just
keep
that
in
mind
that
you
know
this
is
this
is
opening
the
door
further
and
folks,
I
think
if
we
were
having
do
you
mind
if
I
wrap
up,
I
don't
know
if
anyone
has
any
questions,
staff.
A
I
I
had
one
quick
question:
that's
going
to
ask
you
to
tim
mark
before
you
wrap
up
and
it's
just
around.
There
was
an
omb
ruling.
I
guess
it's
eight
years
ago
now,
it's
just
one
of
the
one
of
the
delegations
sort
of
touched
on.
This
is
what
they're
doing
now.
Is
this
this
coming
to
us
with
a
request
for
an
amendment
to
the
opa
and
the
zoning
bylaw?
A
R
Well,
mr
chair,
we
don't
see
all
the
time
applications
where
there's
been
a
past
omb
ruling,
but
it
is
to
remember
that
in
the
same
way
that
council
has
to
deal
with
applications
as
they
come
before,
and
so,
if
there's
a
council
decision
eight
years
ago,
that
does
not
stop
someone
from
applying.
Today.
The
same
applies
to
mines
and
and
the
example,
the
one
that
comes
to
mind.
R
And
only
mayor,
watson
and
council
deans
would
have
been
around
then
was
the
palladium
the
palladium
decision
in
1991
the
omb
said
there
can't
be
any
expansion
in
that
area
for
25
years
and
the
region
as
it
then
was
says.
We
can't
see
that
one
is
always
entitled
to
reply,
and
that
was
immediately
after
the
omb
had
made
a
decision,
so
in
the
same
way
that
someone
can
apply
reapply
after
the
committee
of
adjustment
or
council
has
made
a
decision.
The
same
is
true.
After
an
olt
decision.
A
A
Would
the
tribunal
today
be
looking
at
the
previous
so-and-be
decision,
our
current
official
plan
and
secondary
plans,
some
mix
of
the
two?
What
what
would
be
relevant
in
terms
of
planning
policy
and
previous
decisions
in
a
tribunal
review.
R
Okay,
so
what
is
relevant
is
the
current
planning
policy
so
that
one
of
the
delegations
noted
that
there
has
been
two
subsequent
parental
policy
statements
since
the
time
of
the
original
decision.
So
is
the
current
provincial
policy,
the
enforce
official
plan
that
the
tribunal
will
primarily
look
to?
G
Thank
you
and
colleagues,
obviously
I'm
the
the
local
counselor
and
I'm
going
to
support
my
residents
in
asking
you
to
reject
this
application.
G
We
wouldn't
be
having
this
discussion
today
if
this
was
constrained
to
the
mid-rise
form,
as
the
omb
decision
asked.
For
you
know,
the
the
developer
could
have
moved
ahead
with
site
plan
and
pulled
the
building
permit.
The
but
they've
they've
chosen,
not
to
the
justification
for
moving
from
a
mid-rise
to
a
high-rise
is
that
this
is
on
two
major
pieces
of
transportation
infrastructure.
G
Putting
it
on
a
mup
and
transit
would
require
that.
We
actually
see
some
sort
of
effort
to
to
indicate
that
that's
going
to
be
the
primary
means
by
which
people
travel
around,
and
you
know
I'm
looking
at
the
the
zoning
amendment,
have
the
the
the
parking
ratio
be
one
per
unit
and
that's
clearly
inadequate
in
order
to
take
care-
and
I
I
don't
have
a
lot
of
confidence
that
you
know
this
is
going
to
be
truly
tied
into
our
our
cycling
infrastructure.
G
This
is,
I
have
to
give
you
planning
grounds
upon
which
to
reject
this,
and
I
think
that
this
is
key
planning
grounds
upon
which
to
reject
this.
That
moving
from
the
mid
to
the
high
rise
on
the
basis
of
transportation
infrastructure
is
inadequately
demonstrated
in
this
project,
and
that
we
are.
We
are
diverging
too
far
away
from
our
own
official
plan
policies
with
respect
to
putting
heights
and
density
at
the
edge
of
neighborhoods.
G
I
I
am
sorry
that
we
couldn't
find
a
way
to
make
this
work
at
an
eight
plus
eight.
I
think
that
this
building
could
have
moved
ahead.
Much
sooner
had
they
wanted
to
move
ahead
according
to
what
the
omb
told
them
they
could.
But
here
we
are.
G
The
community
worked
hard
to
win
that
omb
development
when
that
omb
decision
and
I'm
asking
you
to
support
the
work
that
they
did,
the
expense
to
which
they
went
just
a
few
years
ago
on
the
planning
grounds
of
of
where
this
development
is
located
I'll
leave
it
there.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
counselor
any
other
questions
or
comments
before
we
go
to
a
vote.
Okay,
seeing
none
so
we're
gonna
do
a
recorded
vote
for
this
so
kelly.
If
we
get
your
assistance
on
the
official
plan,
amendment
and
zoning
bylaw
amendment
and
report
recommendations
for
335
and
339
roosevelt
avenue,
344
winston
and
379
and
389
wilmont
avenue.
N
H
O
C
L
H
J
A
The
next
item
that
we
held
was
number
four
zoning
bylaw
amendment
for
982
986,
francis
street,
in
rito
rockliffe,
we'll
follow
the
same
process.
We
did
for
the
last
item.
We
have
a
short
presentation
from
kimberly,
baldwin
who's,
the
planner
for
this
file
and
then
we'll
go
to
the
applicants
for
a
short
presentation,
and
then
we
have
two
delegations
registered
as
well
good
morning.
Kimberly
don't
see
kimberly
yet
on
the
screen,
but
I
know
she
is
here.
Oh
hi,
good
morning.
C
Good
morning
chair,
yes,
I
can
bring
a
presentation
up
on
the
screen.
C
If
the
applicant
would
like
to
make
a
presentation,
staff
do
not
need
to,
in
this
instance,.
A
Okay,
well
with
with
committee's
concurrence,
we
can.
We
can
waive
the
staff
presentation
and
go
right
to
the
applicant.
I
see
a
lot
of
nodding
heads
so
yes,
so
for
the
applicant.
We
have
paul
robinson
who's
here
good
morning,
paul.
A
P
So
the
property
is
at
982
and
986
francis,
which
is
outlined
in
green
on
the
image
you
see
about
70
meters
to
the
north
is
donald
street.
The
two
properties
are
single
family
homes.
P
At
the
present
time,
they
are
owned
now
by
an
entity
affiliated
with
the
school,
which
is
immediately
to
the
west,
which
is
to
the
left
of
the
green
outline
images
and
then
to
the
south
of
the
school
is
another
property
that
is
in
an
I-1a
zone
and
that
is
a
a
church
property
to
the
east,
primarily
single
family
homes.
P
So
the
colored
area
is
the
area,
that's
subject
to
the
zoning
application
and
it's
a
site-specific
zoning
application
to
allow
one
additional
permitted
use
for
the
property
and
is
to
allow
a
daycare
facility
for
the
property
and
to
also
allow
for
some
modifications
to
the
parking
arrangements
for
the
daycare
the
school
is
in
below
and
slightly
to
the
left
and
the
daycare
and
the
school
are
going
to
be
connected
and,
as
you
can
see,
there's
some
canopies
that
reach
almost
to
the
property
lines
between
the
two
properties
that
will
allow
the
children
that
are
in
the
daycare
facility
to
go
towards
the
school
facility
and
the
parking
and
drop
off
and
pick
up
will
be
on
the
right
hand,
side
of
the
image
where
you
see
a
drop-off
for
the
school.
P
So
the
the
children
will
be
dropped
off
there
and
then
they
will
walk
along
to
your
left
and
then
they
will
go
into
the
rear
of
the
daycare
facility.
P
The
proposal
calls
for
some
additional
fencing
along
the
property
line
between
this
property
and
the
property
to
the
north,
which
I
believe
is
978
francis
and
as
well
to
close
off
that
driveway
and
to
also
put
some
hedging
along
the
the
street
edge
so
that
that
can't
be
used
as
a
driveway
and
on
the
right
right
hand,
side
of
the
colored
component
of
this
drawing
it
shows
two
cars.
Those
will
be
two
parking
spaces
to
be
used
by
the
the
daycare
employees.
P
Those
are
existing,
it's
a
it's
a
nice
interlocking
driveway
and
then
on
the
remainder
of
the
school
property.
There's
two
parking
spaces
are
assigned
for
the
daycare
facility,
because
the
daycare
facility
requires
four
parking
spaces.
There's
also
at
the
bottom.
Left
of
the
image
is
a
detail
of
the
type
of
fencing
that
is
proposed
along
the
north
property
line.
The
people.
P
P
This
is
a
bird's
eye
view
site
plan
of
what
is
being
proposed
on
982
and
986,
francis
with
982
being
on
the
left-hand
side.
These
are
both
existing
homes
and
then
there's
going
to
be
a
connecting
addition
in
between
to
make
it
one
continuous
building
and
then
a
a
walkway
that's
covered
going
to
the
the
rear
of
the
property,
which
is
the
mutual
property
line
with
the
school
facility.
P
So
it's
going
to
be
total
gross
floor
area
of
about
3,
800
square
feet
and.
P
A
A
S
S
S
For
the
first
addition
to
the
primary
school,
which
stated
that
the
trip
generation
rates
would
be
39
vehicles
at
rush
hour,
with
no
significant
expected
effect
on
the
level
of
service
for
the
france
street
donald
street
intersection
with
these
two
statements
that
I
just
quoted,
allow
me
to
read
three
of
the
eight
comments
that
were
sent
to
the
committee.
Two
days
ago,
surveys
were
conducted
which
determined
that
a
grand
total
of
120
vehicles
accessed
the
north
parking
lot
of
the
church
during
morning
and
after
rush
hours.
S
In
addition,
approximately
20
vehicles
allowed
themselves
daily
access
to
the
south
parking
lot
of
the
church
during
these
periods
waiting
for
children
heading
to
or
returning
from
the
academy
providence.
In
addition
to
the
25
parking
spaces
occupied
by
the
staff
of
the
academy,
it
goes
without
saying
that
the
area
of
these
parking
lots
cannot
be
accommodated.
S
S
The
new
edition
will
welcome
72
additional
children.
It
is
obvious
that
there
will
be
an
increase
in
traffic
which
will
not
improve
the
current
situation,
will
door
that
will
worsen
it.
As
a
matter
of
fact,
in
the
report
prepared
by
the
firm
paige
robinson,
the
issue
of
circulation
in
the
context
of
building
access
has
definitely
not
been
addressed.
S
A
A
A
Paul
is
here,
although
he
won't
be
able
to
address
you
directly.
So
if
you
have
comments,
you
can
make
comments
and
then
our
committee
members
will
have
an
answer.
T
Roughly,
maybe
a
picture
is
better
than
a
lot
of
words.
Can
we
share
our
documents,
or
can
we
have
a
permission
to
share
it.
A
The
site
plan
map,
maybe
if
we
bring
up
the
site
plan
map,
I
think
that's
what
pierre
may
be
looking
at.
T
Yeah,
maybe
kimberly,
can
you
share?
Maybe
the
3d
views
to
show
everybody
what
kind
of.
C
A
A
Could
we.
T
A
T
Other
views,
anyhow,
we
have
a
site
agreement
already
done,
maybe
15
years
ago
with
the
city
and
the
neighbor
regarding
the
circulation
in
the
common
parking
space.
So
there
is
a
loading
area,
drop-off
area
here,
which
is
already
done
and
working
very
well
and
we
have
the
required
parking
spots.
T
So
we
are
confirmed
to
the
requirement
of
the
city
in
regard
of
the
number
of
parking
spots
and
for
sure
if
it's
school,
sometimes
we
have
peak
hours
in
the
morning
and
in
the
afternoon,
but
in
the
rest
of
the
time
the
parking
is
working
very,
very
well
and
even
on
peak
hours
is
completely
under
control.
T
T
On
the
other
side,
the
pedestrian
circulation
is
doing
very
well.
So
we
are,
we
have
a
main
entrance
deserving
both
the
daycare
and
the
existing
school.
We
have
a
lot
of
green
space.
We
have
all
the
required
amenity
areas
for
that
and
we
hope
for
the
need
of
the
community
and
the
school
and
for
everybody
around
to
provide
this
required
service,
because
there
is
a
big
need
for
daycares
in
the
area
and
thank
you
very
much.
G
Thank
you
very
much
and
I
apologize
I
missed.
I
think
kimberly
gave
an
overview
of
this
at
the
very
start,
and
I
had
to
dig
away
from
my
desk
for
a
moment.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
understand
this
properly,
there's
a
property
that
the
school
now
owns,
that
is
going
to
be
converted
into
a
daycare
and
it
has
access
to
the
parking
lot
that
is
associated
with
the
school,
so
that
if
people
are
dropping
off,
there's
the
potential
to
use
that
parking
lot.
G
T
T
T
So
they
they
might
use
the
parking,
but
otherwise
it's
just
the
weekend.
Yeah.
N
Thank
you
chair.
I
just
really
had
a
question
around
traffic
management
and
just
how
that
will
work
during
drop
off
and
pick
up.
That's
just
the
number
one
concern
that
I've
heard
from
from
neighbors.
I
actually
do
applaud
the
applicant
for
their
consultation
with
the
abutting
neighbor
on
the
fence.
N
I
actually
sat
down
more
than
a
year
ago
in
a
backyard
looking
at
that
property,
looking
at
where
the
fence
would
be
put
in
with
those
with
those
neighbors
and
those
neighbors
seem
to
be
satisfied
with
that.
But
the
continuing
concern
from
the
residents
that
I've
heard
from
has
been
traffic
congestion,
the
risk
of
traffic
congestion.
So
I'm
just
wondering
what
does
the
management
look
like
of
the
daycare's
drop
off
and
pick
up
once
the
building
is
in
operation.
T
They
will
have
a
person
in
charge
in
the
morning
to
help
receive
the
kids
and
but
on
the
other
side,
the
the
parking
was
managed
and
planned
with
the
city
of
ottawa
to
make
sure
that
the
drop,
a
drop-off
area
and
the
rotation
of
the
cars
are
confirmed
to
the
state
of
the
art
in
regard
of
of
the
planning,
and
so
everything
is
confirmed
to
the
norm.
T
They
can
park
their
car
according
to
all
parking
requirement
and
and
the
dimensions
stated
and
for
sure
in
the
morning
there
is
a
little
bit
trash,
but
it
everything
is
under
control
and
we
will
have
some,
as
I
told
you,
some
persons
to
receive
the
kids
to
make
sure
that
the
car
don't
delay
and
don't
stay
too
long
and
make
a
a
a
kind
of
of
awaiting
waiting
cars
when,
behind
the
other.
N
Well,
I'm
happy
that
there
is
going
to
be
a
commitment
to
that
type
of
traffic
management,
which
would
obviously
be
necessary
for
daycare,
and
you
know
I
I
can
assure
you
that
the
city,
along
with
the
counselor's
office,
will
continue
to
monitor
this
scenario.
If
this,
if
this
application
is
successful,
to
make
a
fine
adjustments
if
necessary
for
for
traffic
management,
because
we've
just
heard
that
very
clearly-
and
that
seems
to
be
a
major
concern.
So
so,
thank
you
so
much
for
your
for
your
answer.
Thank
you,
chair.
T
Thank
you
very
much
and
the
sisters
are
concerned
and
they
are
looking
forward
for
for
new
development,
so
they
have,
they
are
buying
property
around
and
at
the
first
occasion
we
can
release
a
little
bit
the
sparking
we're
gonna.
Do
it.
A
Okay,
thank
you
counselor
and
now
cpr
we
are.
We
have
gotten
a
little
bit
out
of
sequence
here.
Obviously
pierre
and
paul
were
both
representing
the
applicant
in
this
case.
Are
there
any
other
questions
from
committee
members
for
paul
or
pierre,
the
applicant
group,
in
this
case?
A
A
N
Just
wanted
to
assure
the
community
that
I'm
going
to
continue
to
work
with
neighbors
around
traffic
congestion,
we're
going
to
continue
to
work
with
with
the
nuns
and
and
the
school
to
to
ensure
that
if
there
are
any
challenges
that
there
are
interventions,
whether
those
are
from
city-wide
traffic
budgets
or
temporary
traffic,
calming
measures
budgets
for
from
the
ward
counselor's
office
generally.
N
N
Ultimately,
I
think
it
is
a
a
good
example
of
of
adaptive
reuse,
so
those
bungalows
remain
they're
they're
utilized
by
by
the
school,
and
you
know
I
think
that
it's
it's
less
impactful
than
other
applications
that
I'm
sure
come
before
planning
committee
in
a
sense,
so
I
I'm-
I
am
fine
with
the
trajectory
of
this
and
we
will
be
monitoring
the
traffic
situation
very
carefully.
Thank
you.
A
Hey
thanks,
counselor
sounds
like
very
similar
to.
I
think
what
many
of
us
are
experiencing
at
schools
in
every
ward,
which
is
a
lot
more
parents
choosing
to
drive
their
kids
to
schools
for
a
number
of
reasons,
and
probably
exasperated
by
pandemic
and
bus
cancellations,
and
not
a
good
situation
for
for
traffic
safety
in
your
schools.
These
days,
I
don't
think
we
need
a
recorded
vote
for
this
on
the
zoning
bylaw
amendment
for
982
and
1986
francis
street
are
the
report
recommendations
carried.
C
A
Buried
period,
okay,
thank
you
so
moving
on
for
our
agenda,
those
were
all
of
the
held
items.
So
next
is
notices
of
motions
for
consideration
at
a
subsequent
meeting,
and
there
is
one
that
co-chair
moffett
is
going
to
introduce.
H
Yes,
thank
you
would
say
you
notice
the
motion
regarding
a
technical
amendment
for
a
front-ending
report,
a
preliminary
design
of
the
litrum
road
bank
street
intersection
improvements
and
the
bank
street
widening
south
of
leecher
road
to
done
skipper,
drive
done
skipper
is
a
butterfly
for
those
who
didn't
know.
H
So
that's
that's
I'll.
Just
read
the
an
element
of
the
the
resolution
because
it
is
just
a
notice
of
motion.
H
So
it's
it's
deleting
a
reference
to
leach
and
landowners
group
in
recommendations,
one
through
three
inclusive
and
replacing
with
pathways
south
regional
incorporated,
leech
rim,
south
holdings
incorporated
finley,
creek
partnership
comprised
of
philly
crew
properties,
south
and
numbered
company.
Empirical
tenancy.
A
All
right,
thank
you,
co-chair
moffatt,
we'll
consider
that
at
the
next
meeting
are
there
any
other
notices
of
motion.