►
From YouTube: Planning Committee - July 9, 2020
Description
Planning Committee meeting –July 9, 2020 – Audio Stream
Agenda and background materials can be found at http://www.ottawa.ca/agendas.
A
Coolness
and
I'm
glad
we're
opening
another
cooling
station
today
or
that.
But
you
know
what
I'm
hearing
now,
because
that
we
do
have
to
wrap
this
conversation
up,
but
I'm
also
hearing
that
there's
people
especially
seniors
and
that
it's
not
just
the
cooling
station.
It's
the
lack
of
access
to
community
and
people
that
they're
really
missing,
though
we.
B
A
A
It's
too
long,
it's
it's
long
and
I
know
a
lot
of
them
have
like
giving
up
the
they're
not
staying
away
for
their
grandchildren.
You
know
they're,
just
not!
So
how
are
we
doing
perform?
You
have
a
quorum
great?
Is
it
9:30?
Yes,
it
is
awesome,
perfect
timing,
yeah.
We
are
way
through
that
one
Jeff,
okay,
so
good
morning,
everyone.
A
This
is
a
public
meeting
to
consider
the
proposed
comprehensive
official
plan
in
zoning
bylaw
amendments
listed
as
items
2
to
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
me
until
the
matter
to
the
local
planning
appeal
tribunal.
In
addition,
the
applicant
may
appeal
the
matter
to
the
local
planning
appealed
tribunal.
A
If
council
does
not
adopt
an
amendment
within
90
days
of
receipt
of
the
application
for
zoning
and
120
days
for
an
official
plan
amendment
to
submit
written
comments
on
these
amendments
prior
to
their
consideration
by
City
Council
on
July
15,
please
email
or
call
the
committee
coordinator,
who
is
melody
Bethany
and
now,
if
you're
on
the
line,
and
then
you
got
here
with
because
Melanie
helped
you
to
do
so
so
easy
to
find
that
information.
Now
yesterday,
late-breaking
news
for
us
that
really
am
all
of
you
will
be
interested
in.
A
As
you
may
be
aware,
the
province
announced
its
open
19
economic
recovery
act.
2020
I
made
an
interior
plan
with
a
goal
to
help
boost
the
provinces.
Economic
recovery
create
thousands
of
jobs,
but
more
opportune.
Reach
of
businesses
get
infrastructure
projects
go
faster
and
improve
the
quality
of
life
in
every
community
across
the
province,
and
it
affects
what
we
do
here
is
a
committee,
which
is
why
I'm
bothering
to
to
mention
it
because
I'm
sure
that
each
of
you
have
seen
bits
and
pieces
of
it
well.
A
It
includes
everything
from
the
building
code
Act
to
the
drainage
Act,
which
I'm
sure
that
aren't
councillor
Moffat
is
like
extremely
excited
to
get
into
the
weeds
on
reducing
delays
for
environmental
infrastructure
projects
modernizing
and
streamlining
the
environmental
assessment
Act
and
changes
to
the
Planning
Act
and
development
charges,
Act,
which
includes
discussions
around
inclusionary
zoning
community
benefits
charge
and
the
transit
oriented
communities
act.
Those
are
we've
had
much
discussion
about
and-
and
you
know,
I'm
really
glad
that
they
have
gone
in
the
direction
that
they
have.
But
mr.
A
Willis
advised
me
this
morning
that
he
and
legal
staff
will
be
happy
to
appear
at
the
next
planning
committee
meeting
to
answer
questions
on
it
and
which
is
August
the
27th.
Since
the
legislation
was
just
released
yesterday,
we
didn't
have
enough
time
for
them
to
do
the
analysis.
That's
necessary,
but
they've
already
begun
that
analysis
to
determine
what
this
is
going
to
mean
for
the
City
of
Ottawa
and
will
bring
forward
that
IPD
on
the
changes
prior
to
our
meeting
in
August.
A
A
C
D
E
A
G
A
A
I
was
I,
got
lost
in
that
other
conversation
about
IP,
DS
and
stuff.
Sorry
go
ahead
better
to
be
safe
than
sorry
and
and
to
answer
your
question.
Counsel
Brogdon
after
we
go
through
the
agenda,
then
we'll
put
that
motion
forward
that
you're
moving
on
behalf
of
counselor
Dean's
okay
front
any
report
over
sizing
of
the
road
and
sewer
on
Cambrian
Road
from
old
Green
Bank
Roche
in
a
green
Bank
world
of
alignment.
We
have
nobody
at
all
to
speak.
A
A
J
A
E
A
F
G
A
Okay,
the
next
one
is
the
zoning
bylaw
amendment
35
hi
Barry,
Park
Drive.
This
has
been
going
on,
so
this
is
in
my
ward.
It's
been
going
on
so
long
that
the
first
meeting
I
had
it
was
at
least
19
years
ago,
and
one
of
the
people
coming
to
see
me
was
from
peel
and
he
was
very
white
for
this
church
I'm.
So
happy,
that's
when
I'm
like.
Why
is
nobody
here
to
speak
to
it,
but
I'm
really
happy
to
see
this?
A
B
A
You
know
two
cents
perfect.
All
right.
Next
item
is
the
official
plan
amendment
and
zoning
bylaw
amendment
for
450
Rochester,
Street,
367,
369
and
371
Preston
Street.
So
we
have
no
one
speaking
no
delegation.
Speaking
in
opposition,
this
is
in
councilor,
McKinney's
ward.
We
do
have
a
bunch
of
people
here
that
are
prepared
to
speak
if
necessary,
councillor
McKenney.
Are
you
on
today?
A
No
well,
that
I
think
that
you
know
councillor
McKenna
is
always
here.
If
something
is
of
concern
to
her,
so
we
have
prepared
to
speak
near
Hume,
John,
Moser,
Mike,
AC,
etc.
Barry
Hoban
a
whole
bunch
of
other
people.
Do
any
of
you
need
to
speak
just
for
confirmation,
just
Peter
if
you're
there?
If,
if
you
could
speak
Jeff,
do
you
have
a
question?
No.
B
I
know
councillor
McKinney
is
not
here
and
I
just
wanted
to
reiterate
that
she
is
supportive
of
the
proposal.
I
note
that
they
made
a
comment
with
respect
to
the
amount
of
parking
that
is
in
this
and
I'm
sure
that
they'll
be
trying
to
work
with
staff
as
we
go
through
the
site
plans
under
various
different
developments
that
will
result
from
this
secondary
plan
in
an
effort
to
bring
those
down.
This
is
very
close
to
the
Gladstone,
Station
and
I
know.
B
A
A
Dissent,
great,
thank
you.
Everyone.
The
next
item
up
is
the
zoning
bylaw
amendment
67
58
and
67
66
Rock
Street.
This
one
is
in
the
or
Liam,
and
we
have
only
the
applicant
is
here:
Chris
Shaw
clock,
speed
planning
by
people
city
villages.
He
only.
He
says
he
only
needs
to
speak
if
necessary.
Does
anyone
have
any
questions
on
this
item?
A
A
A
G
Madam
chair,
yes
on
behalf
of
councilor
deans
as
the
acting
councilor
for
her
award
during
her
absence,
I'm
moving
an
edition
of
1770
Hetherington
road
to
the
omnibus
report
in
order
to
provide
staff
adequate
time
to
respond
to
requests
from
councillor
deans.
Regarding
the
preparation
of
the
next
omnibus
zoning
bylaw
amendments
report,
planning
committees
asked
to
prove
that
this
item
be
added
to
the
agenda
for
consideration
at
its
meeting
today.
G
It's
just
to
ensure
that
if
a
community
facility
is
added
to
the
Hetherington
community
right
now,
there's
only
the
zoning
only
permits
a
building,
no
greater
than
300
square
metres.
It's
likely
a
community
facility
would
be
larger
than
300
square
metres,
and
so
this
direction
would
be
to
go
to
staff,
to
amend,
to
ensure
that
this
property
is
added
to
their
omnibus
report.
A
Does
anyone
have
any
questions,
or
are
you
prepared
to
carry
this
addition
to
the
omnibus
motion?
Any
questions,
let
me
just
see:
I,
don't
I,
don't
have
my
hands
waving,
nope!
Okay,
so
is
this
item
carry
carry,
carry,
aren't
notice.
Sense,
perfect,
all
right!
Thank
you.
Everybody
thanks,
council,
rockin,
tenant
council
deeds,
I'm
sure
you're
listening
in
hello,
nice
to
see
something
coming
from
the
VBR
in
work
that
we
did
in
particular
in
this
case
on
Hetherington.
A
So
we'll
go
back
to
our
first
health
item,
which
is
our
only
held
item,
and
that
is
item
number
7,
which
is
a
zoning
bylaw
amendment
from
one
in
nine
canfield
growth
in
13,
15,
17,
Park,
Precint,
and
we're
going
to
have
a
presentation
on
this
and
we
are
going
to
have
a
presentation
from
Mary
Dickinson.
Who
is
the
planner
Mary?
Are
you
there.
N
N
Good
morning
my
name
is
Mary
Dickinson
I'm
the
staff
file
lead
for
this
item,
which
is
for
zoning
bylaw
amendment
at
1a,
9,
Canfield,
Road
and
13
15
and
17
Park
Mount
Crescent.
The
purpose
of
this
rezoning
is
to
facilitate
the
expansion
of
the
existing
st.
Mary's
Coptic
Orthodox
Orthodox
Church,
which
is
located
at
one
Canfield
and
is
to
accommodate
a
new
community
building
on
site
next
slide,
please.
N
The
subject
site
is
located
in
the
trend:
Arlington
neighborhood
of
Ward
9
at
the
northwest
corner
of
Green
Bank
Road,
which
is
an
arterial
road
at
Canfield
Drive,
which
is
a
collector
Road.
The
site
is
surrounded
to
the
north
west
and
south
by
a
low-density
neighborhood
made
of
up
of
detached
dwellings
to
the
East
beyond
Dream
Bank
Road
is
a
five-story
residential
apartment
and
to
medical
office.
N
Buildings
with
associated
surface
parking
immediately
across
the
street
from
the
church
is
two
Canfield
Road
on
the
corner
there
at
camp
field
and
Green
Bank,
which
is
a
daycare
that
is
owned
and
operated
by
the
st.
Mary's
Coptic
Church
next
slide.
Please,
the
subject:
lands
are
identified
with
the
red
outline.
N
The
site
is
made
up
of
five
parcels,
including
one
Canfield,
which
is
the
site
of
the
existing
church
and
nine
Canfield
13
15
and
17
Park
Mount
Crescent,
which
are
residentially
zoned
properties
that
are
currently
occupied
by
detached
dwellings,
the
homes
at
nine
Canfield
and
fifteen
and
seventeen
Park
Mount
are
proposed
to
for
removal
as
part
of
the
redevelopment
plan
and
the
home
at
13.
Park
Mount
is
proposed
to
remain
and
is
intended
to
be
used
exclusively
for
as
a
detached
dwelling.
N
The
expanded
church
property
results
in
the
site
having
new
street
frontage
on
Park
Mount
Crescent
next
slide,
please,
the
subject
site
is
designated
general
urban
area.
According
to
the
Official
Plan,
the
staff
recommendation
is
for
the
zoning
of
the
residentially
zoned
portion
of
the
subject
site
to
minor
institutional
zone
to
match
the
zoning
of
the
existing
Church
property
so
area
a
is
the
residential
zone
portion
which
is
to
go
to
an
institutional
zone
area
B,
is,
is
to
have
a
slight
amendment
to
the
zoning
but
will
remain
under
the
institutional
zoning.
N
Specific
amendments
to
the
institutional
zoning
include
a
parking
rate
reduction
to
the
new
community
center
building.
From
3.4
parking
spaces
per
100
square
metres
of
Rose
floor
area
to
three
point:
three
parking
spaces
per
hundred
square
meters
of
gross
floor
area.
Also
relief
is
required
for
a
landscape
buffer
adjacent
to
Canfield
Road,
rewording
of
the
existing
site,
specific
exception
that
allows
the
associated
daycare
across
the
street
to
park.
All
the
church
site
is
proposed.
N
N
The
proposed
church
redevelopment
plans
that
include
the
retention
of
the
home
at
13
part
mount
Crescent.
As
I
mentioned,
a
schedule
is
proposed
to
be
applied
to
the
site
to
ensure
this
portion
of
the
subject.
Property
is
limited
to
being
used
as
a
detached
dwelling,
and
no
parking
lot
is
allowed
within
this
area.
As
shown
on
the
on
the
map
on
the
screen
next
slide.
Please.
N
The
to
concept
plans
shown
here
illustrate
the
evolution
of
the
project
from
the
time
of
initial
consultation
in
2017
/
2018
to
the
2019
concept
plan
presented
to
the
city.
The
initial
plan,
which
is
on
the
left-hand
side,
contemplated
a
larger
property
expansion
and
removal
of
six
homes
and
redevelopment
of
both
the
church
building
and
a
new
community
building.
N
The
2019
concept
plan
on
the
right
shows
the
evolution
of
the
proposal
to
how
it
is
it's
very
similar
to
how
it
is
today,
which
sees
the
removal
of
three
residential
homes
and
the
retention
of
the
existing
church
building
next
slide.
Please,
the
right-hand
image
is
the
current
site
plan
for
the
proposed
Church
expansion
and
the
left
image
are
the
elevation
plans
provided
by
the
applicant
the
on
the
site
plan
that
the
community
building
is
the
larger
dark
gray
building
with
the
existing
Church.
N
The
light
gray
building
immediately
to
the
south,
access
to
the
site
is
exclusively
from
Canfield
Road.
The
bottom
elevation
on
the
Left
shows
the
proposed
community
building
and
the
existing
Church.
The
top
of
the
existing
arched
roof
line
of
the
church
is
at
the
approximate
height
of
the
new
building,
which
is
at
a
maximum
height
of
11
meters,
quality
materials,
glazing
and
articulation
of
the
height
and
facade
of
the
community,
building
all
contribute
to
appropriately
integrating
the
building
within
a
surroundings.
Next
slide,
please.
N
This
is
a
street
level
visualization
of
the
that
the
applicant
has
provided
here,
we're
looking
east
from
Park
mount
Crescent
towards
the
church,
property
retention
of
mature
trees,
landscaping
and
screen
fence
are
proposed
to
mitigate
the
institutional
use
and
the
surrounding
residential
from
the
surrounding
residential
neighborhood.
No
access
is
proposed
from
Park
now
present,
as
the
intention
is
to
isolate
the
traffic
and
parking
or
the
site
to
the
arterial
of
collector
roadways
to
the
property
from
Canfield
Crescent
next
slide,
please.
N
This
is
a
street
level
of
visualization.
Looking
at
the
subject
site
from
Canfield
Road
with
the
existing
church
in
the
foreground
and
the
proposed
community
building
behind
this
proposal
is
consistent
with
the
Official
Plan
and
the
provincial
policy
statement.
The
zoning
amendment
facilitates
the
growth
of
a
community
serving
youth
within
the
city
and
that's
the
end
of
the
presentation.
A
B
L
L
Expanding
its
footprint
but
I
make
they'll
make
that
clear
in
their
presentations,
but
they
are
very
concerned
about
the
taking
away
and
the
removal
and
demolition
of
perfectly
good
residential
homes
in
the
middle
of
their
residential
street
when
parking
abounds
in
various
options
around
the
proposed.
The
proposed
building.
So
I
want
to
thank
as
well
Jeff
Paul
when
I
reached
out
to
him
the
other
day
we
did
have
a
chat.
L
We
kicked
back
and
forth
a
few
ideas
and
while
I
can't
stand
in
front
of
me
today
and
say,
we've
resolved
this
because
we
haven't
it
was.
It
was
positive
that
that
he
took
the
call
on
behalf
of
the
church
and
that
we
were
able
to
have
a
discussion
and
I'd
like
that
discussion
to
continue
with
more
involvement
from
community
members
who
have
organized
around
this
issue
and
actual
church
board
members.
L
L
A
Does
to
be
clear,
we're
not
having
a
discussion
about
either
of
these
motions.
Right
now
we
haven't
had
the
delegations
either
for
against.
So
this
is
just
so
if
you
could
just
keep
it
very
simple
Jeff.
This
is
just
to
get
it
on
the
table
so
that
people
are
aware
of
what's
coming
and
then
I'm
sure
that
some
people
will
want
to
ask
for
clarification
from
the
perspective
of
the
community
with
regard
to
the
men
and
the
motions,
and
so
that
yeah
thank
you.
Phil
Turley
/
thanks.
B
Think
one
of
our
critical
principles
moving
forward
is
that
we
don't
replace
housing
with
parking,
and
the
motion
that
I
am
putting
on
the
table
would
take
the
properties
at
15,
Park,
Mount,
17,
Park,
Mountain
9
can
feel
rode
off
the
table
of
a
rezoning
so
that
the
only
matter
that
we
would
be
rezoning
today
is
the
church
and
the
the
new
community
center,
which
I
think
enjoys
fairly
widespread
support,
but
it
doesn't
replace
residential
properties
with
parking.
Charrids
want
me
to
read
the
whole
thing
or
do
you
want
me
to
get
into
it?.
A
Later
I
think
yeah
we'll
do
that
later,
because
I
think
that's
enough
of
an
introduction.
I
should
have
said
that,
in
addition
to
the
community,
the
applicant
I
also
will
want
comments
when
we
get
to
it
from
Miss,
Dickinson
and
mr.
mark
all
right.
So
let's
go
to
our
first
allegation
in
our
first
delegation
is
devin
harris
and
just
to
remind
everybody
or
just
to
tell
you,
because
this
may
be
your
first
time
visiting
us
the
rules
that
we
have
give
you
five
minutes
to
present.
A
O
O
With
you
know,
low
traffic
and
and
really
old
homes
and
beautiful,
beautiful
old
homes
and
I
know
that
we
are
currently
seeing
bidding
years,
and
people
can't
buy
and
I
think
that
it
would
be
a
real,
a
real
issue
to
have
these
houses
just
turn
into
a
parking
lot
and
not
be
able
to
see
them.
People
become
part
of
a
community
and
become
rid
of
the
city.
Another
big
reason,
which
I
guess
is
kind
of
being
addressed
differently
at
the
the
things
came
to
seem
to
be
changing.
O
But
is
this
whole
idea
that
this
community
center
is
it's
very
needed
in
this
community
to
provide
a
space
for
people
to
do?
You
know
community
things
of
library
and
do
that
sort
of
stuff?
And
you
know
there's
lots
of
other
community
centers.
In
turn,
village.
There
is
a
community
center
that
we
know
may
be
used
for
city
meetings
and
also
multiple
other
schools
as
another
church.
O
O
It's
not
an
artillery
Road,
it's
not
a
it,
doesn't
gather
commuter
traffic,
it's
the
Crescent
and
everyone
who
drives
down
there
drives
down
there
for
a
purpose.
You
know
to
go
home
to
go
to
their
families
and
I
think
that
it's
really
important
to
keep
that
as
part
of
the
community
to
keep
it
the
way
it
is,
and
you
know,
and
to
keep
these
homes
there
to
house
families
into
house
people.
A
You
very
much
well
thank
you
very
much
for
for
coming
today
and
for
speaking
about
the
history
of
the
community.
I,
don't
give
me
any
one
waving
at
me,
which
is
what
we
say
in
general,
so
thank
you
again
and
in
the
next
personnel
call
is
Tom
Cordelia
or
Tom
heard
Tom.
You
know
who
you
are.
How
do
I?
How
should
I
be
saying
your
last
name.
A
K
Basically
I'm
the
resident
at
two
Park
Mount,
which
is
at
the
corner
of
Park
Mountain
banner
I'm,
a
retired
minister
in
the
United
Church
of
Canada,
that
in
nineteen,
in
into
good
heavens
in
well
in
2015,
I,
moved
into
the
neighborhood
and
was
quite
taken
aback
by
its
quiet
little
nature
alongside
a
major
artery
like
green
bank
and
not
really
appealed
to
me.
I.
K
Consider
myself
moving
into
a
phase
of
life
that
I
consider
to
be
retired
and
truly
embracing
that
responsibility
of
being
retired
and
I
found
the
community
and
the
place
so
attractive,
and
so
appealing
in
that
you
walk
on
to
a
crescent
after
you
step
off,
Green
Bank
and
you
just
go
deeper
and
deeper
into
a
pleasant
quiet,
neighborhood
residents
that
has
lots
of
green
and
a
lot
of
family
activity.
People
walking
dogs.
That
kind
of
thing
so
I
considered
myself
to
be
a
happiest
sort
of
suburban
recluse.
K
We
did
something
kind
of
radical
back,
then
we
did
something
quite
out
of
precedent
that
neither
city
nor
United
Church
of
Canada
ever
had
to
deal
with
before
we
basically
turned
over
our
church
and
the
vast
property
that
it
sat
on
to
the
town
for
$1,
and
you
can
well
imagine
the
objection.
People
within
church
circles
involved
in
finance
and
administration
had
to
say
about
something
as
wild
as
that,
but
the
project
came
through
and
it
came
through
as
a
result
of
people
really
working
together.
K
Basically
almost
like
came
out
of
the
blue,
really
struck
me
for
what
was
so
lacking
in
this
process
of
giving
and
taking,
and
not
a
really
working
and
talking
together.
I.
Don't
envy
your
responsibility
of
having
to
adjudicate
this
situation
and
striving
to
find
some
sort
of
compromise
and-
and
it
sort
of
looks
like
the
proposal
that
doesn't
see
the
demolition.
It
was
up
as
many
homes,
as
was
originally
conceived
as
being
a
reasonable
compromise.
But
quite
frankly,
in
my
honest
opinion
and
deflation.
K
A
compromise
here
does
not
really
do
justice
for
all
the
parties
involved.
When
you
look
at
the
original
plan
that
the
applicant
had
and
the
size
of
the
facility,
they
wanted
and
needed
for
their
own
future
and
growth,
and
when
you
look
at
what
this
is
I
can't.
Imagine
them
being
terribly
satisfied
with
this
compromise
either.
Nor
does
it
really
sad
by
the
residents
who
see
a
dramatic
change
in
their
neighborhood.
K
Yes,
three
homes,
instead
of
maybe
five
or
six,
but
it
it
just
doesn't
do
justice
I
think
frankly,
if
the
parties
and
I
would
also
challenge
the
community
of
Ottawa
the
municipality
itself,
to
really
get
involved
in
this
process.
To
to
think
wider,
I
mean
there
is
a
vision
here
that
was
reflected
when
this
community
was
developed
many
years
ago.
Where
does
that
change?
How
does
that
change
and
who'd
really
changes?
K
It
I
think
a
lot
of
cards
need
to
be
put
on
the
table
and
I,
certainly
as
a
resident,
would
certainly
welcome
the
participation
of
Ottawa
directly.
How
do
we
shape
up
the
zoning
of
Green
Bank
and
all
the
hopes
we
have
for
the
future
when
you
consider
the
amount
of
traffic
that's
likely
to
be
going
on
Green
Bank,
once
Amazon
builds
their
facility
in
bar
Haven?
K
This
is
going
to
be
a
very
busy
neighborhood,
a
very
busy
thoroughfare,
and
it
really
requires
visioning
to
do
justice
to
all
the
parties
involved
and
that's
what
I
find
so
frustrating
here
is
that
yes,
I've
been
talking
with
residents
and
involved
with
residents
trying
to
put
an
end
to
the
proposal.
But
it's
really
a
hope
of
building
something
together.
I'm
sort
of
sad
that
you
don't
have
my
photo
in
in
the
interview
who
I
mean
I
I
wore
my
clerical
collar
during-
and
this
was
totally
nuts
to
do
that
today.
K
But
I
have
a
little
emblem.
That
was
given
to
me
by
a
McMath
native
who
died
some
years
ago,
but
who
had
been
a
victim
of
the
residential
school
system
and
it
basically
has
a
hand
with
the
classic
symbol
of
the
red
white,
yellow
and
black
quadrants
in
it
of
symbolizing.
How
we
need
you
to
work
together
and
I
would
like
to
just
basically
end
by
saying
that
I
hope
that
indeed
we
can
work
together
here
and
we.
L
You
very
much
ma'am,
chair
and,
and
and
thank
you
Tom
I,
just
have
one
quick
question
for
you.
If,
if
the
committee
decided
to
in
fact
defer
this
project
until
the
next
committee
meeting,
for
example,
which
would
be
in
late
August
I,
believe,
would
you
be
prepared
not
only
as
a
community
member
but
someone
who
has
experience
and
expertise
in
a
project
such
as
this
to
be
part
of
a
working
group
with
your
community
and
and
and
with
the
church
board
in
its
community
I.
A
K
D
Having
to
follow
up
from
Tom
is
is
a
big
task,
but
I'm
gonna
do
my
best.
Good
morning,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
Clark
Kraus
I
live
on
Park
mell,
Crescent
I.
Imagine
on
this
committee.
You'll
encounter
scenarios
that
often
pit
the
interests
of
developers
against
residents
who
are
opposed
to
any
change
to
their
communities.
Let
me
just
start
off
by
saying,
as
Tom
already
said,
we're
not
that
what's
the
term
bananas
build
absolutely
nothing
anywhere
near
anything.
We
are
not
opposed
to
smart
development.
D
We
want
the
church
to
thrive
in
our
community
and
we
want
to
preserve
our
homes
on
our
quiet
residential
street.
Scapes
we've
tirelessly
worked
to
propose
solutions
that
achieve
both.
All
that's
lacking
is
a
willingness
from
the
church
to
dialogue
with
us
its
neighbors.
My
remarks
today
will
focus
on
the
history
with
the
proponent
highlight
solutions
as
well
as
inconsistencies
between
the
planning
document
or
the
planning
document,
the
city's
official
plan.
Let
me
briefly
back
up
a
little
bit
my
wife
and
I
moved
to
trend
Arlington
in
2008.
D
A
few
weeks
later,
we
welcome
the
birth
of
our
son
Gabriel.
We
moved
to
Trent
Darlington
because
it
is
quiet,
safe
and
a
diverse
community,
where
residents
include
other
young
families
like
us
and
retirees
st.
Mary's,
Coptic
Church
hasn't
just
been
a
part
of
our
community.
It's
a
part
of
our
lives.
My
son
was
registered
in
their
daycare
for
years
and
my
wife
and
I
regularly
attended
events
the
church,
while
her
son
was
enrolled
there.
It
was
a
positive
relationship
since
then.
D
We've
seen
another
side
of
the
church
and
its
interactions
with
its
neighbors
that
stand
in
stark
contrast
with
what
I
would
call
a
good
neighbor
unbeknownst
to
those
of
us
in
the
community.
Many
years
ago,
the
church
began
to
secretly
gobble
up
residential
properties
on
Park,
Mel
crescent
and
creme,
and
camp
you'll
drive
that
were
adjacent
to
its
property
line.
Most
homeowners
save
one
bow
to
pressure
and
sold
their
homes
to
the
well
financed
applicant.
D
Think
about
that.
The
public
interest
in
preserving
housing
and
communities
isn't
worth
35
parking
spaces.
We
believe
this
is
unacceptable,
because
the
church
is
surrounded
by
an
ocean
of
parking
all
within
a
one
minute,
walk
of
the
church
and
community
center.
Furthermore,
it
owns
a
large
parcel
of
land
at
173
to
175
Green
Bay
that
have
sat
undeveloped
and
often
in
a
dilapidated
state.
Near
steps
away
set
aside
the
fact
that
there's
a
abundant
parking
nearby,
the
community
center
is
on
a
scale
that
is
too
large
for
its
current
or
potentially
expanded
site.
D
It's
over
seven
times
as
large
as
the
main
church
building
tightly
compressed
and
wood
tower
over
its
neighboring
properties
casting
them
in
shadow.
It
needs
to
be
scaled
back
to
respect
the
environment
in
which
it
exists.
Other
concerns,
I
called
the
Churchill
and
Baron
earlier
on.
An
applicant
owns
other
properties
on
partner
Crescent
that
are
not
a
part
of
this
proposal.
As
part
of
our
efforts
to
fully
understand
the
cumulative
impact
of
the
purchase
ambitions,
we've
sought
clarity.
What
they
don't
have
visions
to
build
bigger
monuments
to
parking.
D
E
D
It
doesn't
align
with
the
official
plan.
The
report
claims
that
the
impact
of
the
proposed
community
building
and
adjacent
neighborhood
is
considered
minimal
and
it's
compatible.
We
disagree
demolishing
homes
and
replacing
it
with
soft
landscaping.
An
offense
to
conceal
a
parking
lot
is
not
compatible.
It
creates
a
gap
and
is
contrary
to
good
Street
design.
The.
J
D
Under
the
heading
term
of
council,
priorities
fits
this.
Woman's
dress
is
thriving
communities,
excellence
or
innovation
and
sustainable
infrastructure.
Clearly,
the
report
provides
no
rationale
to
defend
this
claim.
Fout
is
unnecessarily
demolishing
homes,
converting
them
to
parking
cutting
down
on
14
mature
trees,
including
a
massive
overbuilt
structure,
achieves
thriving
communities
or
innovation.
We'd
like
to
know
as
it
stands,
there's
the
lack
of
rationale
and
the
report
breeds
some
disillusionment.
D
My
comments
have
been
to
the
committee,
but
as
I
wrap
up
I'm
speaking
to
our
neighbor,
the
church
and
its
delegation
of
paid
advocates,
its
lobbyists,
its
lawyers,
it's
designed
for,
we
can
go
forward
and
build
intelligently.
It
requires
a
reset.
It
requires
openness
to
love
your
neighbor
and
listen
to
the
solutions
that
we
are
presenting
to
the
members
of
this
committee.
D
F
D
One
of
the
homes
that
they
had
sought
to
demolish
has
not
sold
I.
Think
you're
going
to
hear
from
that
owner
and
they've
scaled
back.
The
proposal
as
I
understand
there.
There
is
at
least
one
other
property
that
I
know
of
I.
Think
it's
a
dress
that
my
colleagues
will
correct
me.
It's
at
9,
Park,
Mount,
that
the
church
also
owns.
That's
not
a
part
of
this
proposal
and
that's
what
we've
wanted
to
understand.
Well,
we
have
the
application
in
front
of
us
that
we
already
have
some
fundamental
disagreement.
F
F
F
F
D
The
the
only
change
that
we've
been
able
to
see
like
I
say
is
the
reduction
in
the
proposal
from
the
2017
version
to
the
current
version,
but
again
they
hold
other
properties.
We
have.
We
wanted
to
speak
with
them
about
ways
to
preserve
the
homes
by
tapping
into
this
abundance
of
parking
that
is
well
within
its
walking
distance
of
the
church.
We
wanted
to
tap
into
other
solutions
like
developing
their
major
parcel
of
land
on
173
175.
D
It
allows
them
to
meet
their
parking
these
needs,
but
it
allows
us
to
preserve
the
aesthetics
the
community
and
make
it
livable.
Unfortunately,
and
I
know
that
councilor
egg
ly
has
has
really
tried
to
bring
folks
to
the
table.
When
we've
offered
to
have
these
discussions,
it's
been
made
clear
to
us
that
they
will
not,
as
part
of
the
agenda,
discuss
anything
that
would
propose
to
preserve
the
homes,
which
is
our
key
objection
and
I.
D
F
Thank
you
cloud
for
databases,
other
than
comes
to
Riley,
Brockington
and
myself
have
the
experience
with
the
new
Canadian
church,
which
is
I.
Think
before
Kovac
19
council
brought
into
will
tell
you
how
much
space
Park
in
those
church
requires.
So
even
my
church
on
Donald
Street,
if
I
don't
attend
half
an
hour
before
mass,
most
likely
I
will
never
find
a
parking
spot
and
they
have
a
huge
area.
So
most
people
drive
to
those
churches
from
all
over
the
city,
but
thank.
D
You
actually
think
that's.
That's
that's
a
good
point,
though
counselor,
because
there
is
there's
a
lot
of
parking.
I
think
that
we
mentioned
in
future
presentations.
I
would
add,
though,
you've
highlighted
the
fact
that
people
are
driving
to
the
church
and
it's
an
interesting
juxtaposition
because,
of
course,
there's
the
church
community
and
then
there's
the
community
of
those
of
us
who
live
within
the
community
who
are
here
permanently
I,
don't
envy
the
position
you're
in,
but
it
for
those
of
us
who
live
here.
This
is
this
is
permanent.
L
Sorry,
Justin
self-care
will
get
that
eventually,
just
just
one
quick
question
to
sort
of
put
context.
Clark,
you
talked
about
other
pieces
of
property
being
held
by
the
church
that
are
not
part
of
this
particular
application,
and
you
also
referenced
an
earlier
version
of
this
proposal,
which
involved
some
of
those
properties
and
also
some
property.
They
they
didn't
know
and
still
don't
own
is.
Is
it
I,
don't
want
to
put
words
in
your
mouth,
but
so
the
committee
can
understand.
Is
it?
D
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
question.
That
is
a
legitimate
concern
because
they
continue
to
hold
those
those
properties
that
are
not
a
part
of
the
new
current
proposal.
We're
wondering
what
their
intentions
are
for
that,
as
I
mentioned,
as
I
mentioned
in
my
presentation,
I
guess:
I,
look
at
it
this
way
in
many
ways.
I
wonder.
D
Is
this
a
strategic
move
on
the
part
of
the
applicant
realizing
that
perhaps
proposing
the
demolition
of
additional
homes,
as
one
proposal
may
not
be
a
bridge
too
far
and
they're
gonna
try
to
eat
this
elephant
in
a
bunch
of
little
bites,
I
just
threw
in
two
metaphors
there
in
one
sentence
there
must
be
some
sort
of
award
for
that,
but
I
mean
the
thing
is
we
would
love
to
know
what
they
want
to
do
with
it?
There's
been
no
assurances
that
they
don't
have
these
grander
ambitions.
I
mentioned
cumulative
impacts.
D
D
It
doesn't
instill
a
great
deal
of
trust
that
there
is
still
a
grander
vision
here
and
that
the
impact
to
the
community
is
just
going
to
get
worse.
And
if
the
planning
committee
approves
this,
then
I
raise
the
question.
Well
what's
next
and
if
they
come
back
with
the
Phase
two
and
again
I'm
speaking
of
possible
scenarios
here,
you
know
I
can
only
imagine
the
application
might
be
well.
D
You
approve
this
rezoning
and
demolition
once
and
now
we're
here
to
ask
for
just
a
little
more
just
a
little
more
at
what
point
do
do
we
establish
some
limits
between
the
interests
of
the
residents
and
the
interests
of
the
church
and
I'm?
Saying
also
going
back
to
my
original
point?
I,
don't
think
we
actually
have
to
choose,
because
I
think
that
there
is
a
solution
that
allows
everyone
to
win.
A
A
H
Or
Sean
yes,
madam
chair,
thank
you
and
thank
you
to
the
planning
committee
members
for
hearing
us
today.
I'm,
my
name
is
Christy
Allen
and
my
husband
is
Sean
Doherty
he's
here
with
me
as
well,
and
we
are
the
owners
of
11
Park,
Mount
Crescent,
so
we're
the
owners
of
the
one
property
long
Park
Crescent
that
was
referenced
earlier.
H
We
are
adjacent
to
13,
Park,
Mount
Crescent,
which
is
currently
owned
by
the
church
and
we're
also
adjacent
to
nine
Park
Mount
Crescent,
which
is
also
owned
by
the
church,
so
we're
the
one
property
along
this
stretch
of
properties
that
are
owned
by
the
church
that
is
not
owned
by
the
church.
Obviously,
so
we
have
some
specific
concerns
that
are
sort
of
unique
to
our
property.
We
share
the
concerns
of
our
community
members
and
we
share
all
of
those
concerns
and
I
wish.
H
H
So
I
wanted
to
note
at
the
its
that
we
have
provided
written
submissions
that
I'm
hoping
all
of
the
committee
members
have
received
and
I'm
hoping
that
you
will
read
those
and
consider
those
when
you're
making
your
decision
at
the
outset.
I
did
want
to
note
that,
as
has
been
expressed
by
my
fellow
community
members,
one
of
our
main
concerns
is
that
the
churches
are
not
consulted
with
us
at
all.
H
So,
notwithstanding
the
significant
development
that's
going
up
both
behind
us
and
next
to
us,
there's
been
no
consultation
with
us
in
terms
of
what
our
concerns
might
be
or
what
our
interests
might
be.
So
so
far
in
terms
of
the
applicants
proposal.
None
of
it
considers
the
impact
of
this
development
on
our
particular
property,
and
we
also
wanted
to
note
that
the
comments
and
concerns
that
we
had
provided
to
the
Planning
Department
had
not
been
included
in
their
report.
H
So
our
main
concerns
that
I'm
going
to
speak
about
again,
there's
more
no
written
submissions,
but
the
ones
I'm
going
to
speak
about
are
the
massing
and
location
defense
and
then
the
maintenance
of
the
property
that
is
currently
owned
by
the
church
so
with
respect
to
massing
and
location,
is
obviously
a
large
structure
and
it's
going
to
be
located.
7.5
meters
from
our
property
line,
which
is
the
minimum
setback.
As
I
mentioned,
it's
going
to
be
erupted
both
behind
us
and
beside
us,
so
we
are
going
to
be
surrounded
by
this
building.
H
It's
actually
in
a
u-shape.
If
you
look
at
it
so
that
it
can
effectively
surround
our
property.
So
our
biggest
concern
is
that
we
were
literally
going
to
be
in
the
shadow
of
this
building.
That's
going
to
tower
over
a
property
on
a
permanent
basis
that
leads
to
a
concern
that
we've
had
all
along,
which
is
that
there
may
be
some
desire,
obviously
to
have
a
sell
to
the
church
and
I.
H
Think
if
there
was
on
a
large
structure
and
behind
us
that
towered
over
a
property,
it
might
provide
us
with
impetus
to
sell
to
the
church,
which
would
then
mean
they
would
have
both
our
property
Unknowing
Park
Mac
Crescent,
allowing
for
that
sort
of
further
phase
development
that
that
mr.
cross
clerk
cross
spoke
about
just
a
few
moments
ago.
H
So
we
are
concerned
about
that
and
what
we're
asking
the
committee
to
do
is
to
increase
the
setback
requirement
for
this
particular
building
and
to
reduce
the
building
height,
at
least
along
the
northern
face
of
the
building.
That's
the
building
face,
that's
going
to
face
our
property
and
that
we
are
going
to
be
affected
by
in
terms
of
like
what
the
setback
should
be,
or
what
the
reduction
in
height
should
be.
H
What
we
would
have
liked
to
have
seen
what
we
would
have
expected
from
a
good
neighbor
would
have
been
a
sunshade
study
to
show
us
exactly
what
how
what
they're
proposing
would
impact
us
that
was
never
done.
It
hasn't
even
been
considered.
As
I
said,
we've
had
no
dialogue
with
the
church,
so
we
did
request
it
through
the
planning
department,
but
obviously
the
proponent
decided
not
to
go
ahead
with
that.
So
if
this,
if
this
decision
gets
deferred
as
mr.
H
councillor
eglee
has
motioned,
one
thing
that
we
would
ask
is
that
he
be
completed
so
that
we
can
assess
the
impact
on
our
building.
The
other
things
that
I
wanted
to
speak
about.
The
other
thing
is
fencing.
There
is
no
perimeter
fencing,
that's
going
up
around
this
entire
development
site,
so
not
withstanding.
What's
in
the
planning
rationale,
there's
one
small
section
of
new
fencing
that
is
proposed.
The
rest
of
the
fencing
is
presumably
going
to
be
the
fencing.
That's
exhibit
that
exists,
which
is
in
a
complete
state
of
disrepair.
H
The
fences
are
decades
old
and
are
falling
down,
they're
not
safe,
and
they
certainly
don't
provide
security
or
a
proper
buffer.
So
we
are
asking
that
a
proper
buffer
set
fence
be
erected
around
the
entire
perimeter
so
that
we
have
proper
separation
and
our
neighbors
again.
This
is
if
the
proposal
were
to
move
forward.
H
This
leads
to
my
final
concern,
which
is
the
issue
of
maintenance,
and
so
I
did
mention
this
in
my
written
submissions
and
I'll
mention
it
again
that
the
fencing
is
in
a
terrible
state
of
maintenance,
the
properties
all
around
us
are
also
parables
of
maintenance.
So
all
of
the
properties
that
are
owned
by
the
tribute
thank.
A
B
The
first
point
is,
even
though
the
Planning
Department
has
outlined
that
this
building
fits
on
this
particular
site
and
is
technically
allowed.
When
you
look
at
all
of
the
details
that
have
been
provided,
the
current
structure
feels
like
it
is
simply
being
jammed
into
this
particular
site,
causing
a
whole
bunch
of
broader
impacts
related
to
the
community.
When
you
look
at
it
on
that
broader
perspective,
it
doesn't
actually
fit
on
the
site
for
what
they
want.
The
key
issue
here
is
not
that
the
applicant
would
like
to
put
a
community
center
there.
B
There
have
been
no
dialogue
on
it,
even
though
the
community
groups
have
offered
many
times
to
come
to
the
table.
Work
with
them
on
the
proposal
itself,
those
have
been
rejected
time
and
time
again,
including
this
last
proposal
that
is
before
you.
So
there
has
was
pre
distance.
There
was
a
bigger
proposal.
There
was
different
things
years
ago.
On
this
specific
item.
We
have
been
unsuccessful
in
having
that
discussion
on
the
building
and
the
mass
singing
itself.
B
This
kind
of
facility
generates
a
lot
of
traffic
on
specific
days,
which
is
a
huge
community
impact
which
councillor
eglee
can
can
articulate
that
there
have
been
issues
in
the
past
related
to
parking
already
on
this
particular
site.
The
issue
here
that
I
would
like
to
call
out
is
the
applicant
actually
owns
aside
from
all
of
the
parking
in
the
neighborhood.
That's
that's
around
the
applicant
owns
a
couple
of
vacant.
Lots
150
metres
south
of
this
particular
site.
B
It
is
really
unclear
why
those
site
those
properties
aren't
being
considered
to
meet
their
parking
needs
if
they
don't
feel
like
engaging
some
of
the
local
communities
or
the
the
local
businesses.
I
understand
that
there's
potentially
a
you
know,
a
vision
for
those
sites
in
some
future
state.
The
reality
is
they've
been
empty
for
over
ten
years,
quite
an
eyesore
to
the
community,
unfortunately,
and
and
there
has
been
no
discussion
or
understanding
about
what
is
the
future
vision
for
for
any
of
this,
as
as
previously
articulated
so
I
guess.
B
In
summary,
from
my
point
of
view
and
the
community
has,
it
has
attempted
to
engage
many
many
times
and
work
collaboratively
with
the
applicant
on
the
impact
to
our
community,
what
with
a
win-win
for
all
stakeholders,
and
even
though
we
have
taken
a
leadership
position
in
that
engagement,
it
has
been
rejected.
We
have
been
unsuccessful
in
securing
even
a
basic
dialogue
with
the
with
the
applicant
to
get
they
to
have
this
facility
into
our
neighborhood
and
just
overall.
The
one
thing
I
can
know
for
sure,
and
you
guys
would
know
this
as
well.
B
G
You,
madam
chair
Thank,
You
mr.
Poole,
just
there's,
there's
a
consistent
message.
I'm
hearing
from
residents
who
are
providing
delegation
today
and
that
is
that
an
inability
to
dialogue
or
a
our
lack
of
desire
by
the
applicant
to
dialogue
has
this
always
been
the
case.
Have
they
on
other
issues,
been
open
with
the
community
to
talk,
or
is
it
just
unique
to
this
application
so.
B
I
will
be
careful
how
I
speak
here.
My
real
involvement
started
a
couple
of
years
ago
specific
to
this
application.
However,
there
were
you
know
they
are.
They
have
been
in
this
in
this
neighborhood
for
quite
some
time
how
they
engage
with
their
local
neighbors.
Their
immediate
neighbors
is
something
others
on
the
call
can
speak
better
for
this
particular
one,
though
there
has
been
very
little
little
engagement
in
reaching
out
through
the
counselor's
office,
a
number
of
times,
also
direct
engagement
or
attempted
direct
engagement
with
them.
B
All
of
that
has
been
rejected
or
accepted
with
a
bunch
of
rules,
as
previously
stated,
which
isn't
really
a
dialogue.
If
you
can't
talk
about
your
issues
openly,
there
is
no
way
you
can
come
to
a
compromise.
If
we
start
a
compromise
with
well
I'm
only
going
to
talk
about
issue
one-
and
you
have
five
other
things
even
to
articulate
whether
we
agree
or
not.
At
the
initial
conversation,
isn't
the
point.
If
I
can't
articulate
my
concern,
I
guarantee
you,
we
will
never
get
a
compromise.
Okay,.
A
Thank
you.
Mr.
Poole
I
see
no
other
hands
and
by
the
way
for
the
applicant,
miss
Milosh
and
mr.
Michaux
out
the
sámi.
We've
heard
repeatedly
that
you're,
not
the
applicant,
is
not
interested
in
having
any
conversations
with
the
community.
So
one
of
you
please
undertake
to
say
why
that
why
that
is
when
it's
your
turn.
Next
up
is
Christy
Ross,
she's,
the
barrister
and
solicitor
on
behalf
of
trend,
Arlington
residents
for
smart
development.
The
residents
group
Christy
I,
see
you
there.
You
have
five
minutes.
Thank
you
very
much.
I
guess.
I.
O
Made
it
myself
good
morning,
I'm
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
Planning
Committee
I
am
hoping
that
a
notice,
the
statements
up
front,
that
a
compromise
can
be
reached
through
future
discussion.
I
have
submitted
a
detailed
letter
to
the
Planning
Committee
with
a
series
of
comments,
but
I'm
focused.
My
submission
is
this
morning
on
parking
solutions,
as
well
as
two
significant
planning
issues
with
the
proposal.
O
The
first
is
a
serious
neighborhood
compatibility
issue,
demolishing
three
homes:
creating
a
36
metre
gap
between
homes,
on
Park,
Mount
and
filling
that
gap
with
the
fence
and
surface
parking
spaces.
We'll
call
us
an
ungenerous
effect
on
the
community
and
change
the
streetscape
forever.
It
should
be
noted
that
the
community
centers
of
products
mainly
eight
times
the
size
of
the
existing
church
and
that
footprint
yeah
results
in
problems
with
respect
to
finding
enough
space
for
parking.
O
Secondly,
a
proposal
results
in
the
intensification
and
the
loss
of
residential
lots,
which
have
the
potential
in
the
future
to
intensify
significantly.
However,
this
rezoning
is
approved.
These
Lots
would
be
sterilized
from
future
development
and
intensification
opportunities
lost
forever,
so
I
submit
that
these
two
planning
issues
result
in
non-compliance
with
a
number
of
policies
in
the
Official
Plan
rental
policy
statement
relating
to
compatibility,
community
character,
undue
adverse
impacts,
intensification
efficient
and
sustainable
development.
O
The
residents
assert-
and
this
is
probably
their
prime
concern
with
the
proposal
that
homes
should
never
be
demolished
and
destroyed
to
create
a
service
parking
lot,
particularly
when
there
are
other
viable
parking
solutions.
The
committee
has
heard
about
some
of
these
submissions.
Some
of
these
alternatives-
all
try
and
be
brief
here,
but
the
church
property
is
located
within
a
sea
of
parking
lots,
all
of
which
are
essentially
gee
on
weekends
when
the
trivet
requires
parking.
So
we
feel
that
there
are
some
synergies
here.
O
I
have
a
figure
to
you
in
my
letter,
which
I'm
just
sort
of
gonna
briefly
put
up
for
you
to
see,
but
would
refer
you
to
my
letter
and
it
shows
five
potential
shared
parking
lot
locations
all
within
an
easy
walk
of
the
church.
For
example,
the
church
currently
has
an
agreement
in
place
to
use
120
parking
spots
at
the
medical
building
across
the
street
would
submit
that
this
agreement
could
be
extended.
There
are
another
41
spaces
next
door.
O
Oh
thank
you
very
much
for
popping
that
up
and
then
there's
the
site
on
further
down
Green
Bay
at
170
375,
which
is
owned
by
the
same
ers
Coptic
Church,
which
has
been
discussed
on
this
call.
Few
parking
spaces
are
required
to
replace
the
proposed
service
parking
created
through
the
demolition
of
homes
and
permit
for
the
retention
of
these
homes.
There
are
approximately
27
to
35
parking
spaces
associated
with
15
and
17
park,
men
and
31
spaces
associated
with
camp
mechanical
property,
a
second
alternative
to
installing
underground.
O
It
isn't
installing
underground
parking
to
meet
a
portion
of
the
site's
requirements,
because
alternative
parking
solutions
exist
me
feel
and
I
feel
strongly
that
a
renewing
solution
is
possible
here.
This
solution
would
enable
st.
Mary's
Coptic
Church
to
build
the
community
center,
as
proposed,
while
protecting
the
character
of
the
community
and
homes
from
demolition.
For
this
reason,
I
urge
the
committee
members
to
support
the
deferral
motion
and
enable
a
full
exploration
of
all
planning
alternatives.
She
determined
if
any
of
these
solutions
can
be
formalized.
O
This
will
reduce
the
demand
for
on-site
parking
and
could
save
some
or
all
of
columns
from
demolition
with
respect
to
public
participation.
I
know
that
there
has
been
no
public
meeting,
since
the
first
planning
rationale
was
issued
with
respect
to
this
broad
project.
I,
just
I
really
think
that
in
planning
dialogue
can
help
and
creative
solutions
can
be
found.
O
The
second
motion
that
is
on
the
table
today
would
remove
residential
Lots
from
the
rezoning
but
approve
the
remainder
of
the
rezoning
and
once
again,
alternative
parking
arrangements
could
help
with
that
one
minute:
okay,
yes
and
ottawa's
official
clan
provided
the
planning
tools
to
support
these
motions
and
I.
Think
that's
a
really
important
point.
O
Isis
I
suggest
that
is
with
me
intensification
charts
harder
to
reach
in
future
and
therefore
this
would
be
a
perfect
spot.
She
or
include
these
things.
If
a
deferral
or
compromise
can't
be
achieved,
I'd
submit
that
the
rezoning
should
be
rejected
for
the
two
planning
concerns
that
I
have
I'm
hopeful
for
a
win-win
solution
and
a
compromises.
Thank.
B
Thanks
chair,
Christy,
sorry
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
understand.
One
of
the
points
that
you
were
raising.
You
spoke
about
shared
parking
arrangements
being
supported
and
I
think
the
the
provincial
policy
statement
and
the
Official
Plan.
Can
you
unpack
that
a
bit
for
me?
I
was
just
a
bit
unclear
on
that
point.
Certainly.
O
So
I
think
I
mean
if
we,
if
we
take
a
step,
that
both
the
provincial
policy
statement,
which
of
course
sets
the
planning
direction
in
the
province
of
Ontario
and
the
Official
Plan,
which
you
know
focus
is
on
on
Ottawa.
Both
have
intensive
policies
with
respect
to
you,
efficient
use
of
land
and
development
and
I'm
submitting
that,
because
there
is
this
sort
of
ample
amount
of
alternative
parking
that
demolishing
three
homes
which
could
be
intensified
in
the
future,
isn't
perhaps
the
best
planning
decision
or
the
highest
use
of
those
lands.
O
If
you
can
sort
of
retain
one
or
two
or
some
of
those
columns
and
intensify,
you
know
which
could
have
future
intensification
and
locate
parking
elsewhere.
That
would
seem
to
be
a
helpful.
You
know
solution
further.
If
you
go
to
section
two
point:
three
point:
one
policy
32,
it's
in
my
letter,
so
I
you
can
sort
of
reference
it
there
on.
There
are
policies
in
the
Ottawa
Official
Plan
that
encourage
supporting
arrangements
to
share
parking
with.
You
know
multiple
land
users,
as
well
as
providing
underground
parking.
O
This
policy
is
sort
of
specifically
related
to
areas
with
intensification
requirements,
but
I
would
submit
that
in
the
future.
Sort
of
all
along
is
so
judge
intensification
requirements
in
light
of
sort
of
the
intensification
target.
So
it
just
it's
a
it's
a
policy
that
applies
to
more
intense
areas
right
now,
but
I
sort
of
see
that,
as
you
know,
sort
of
the
future
path
that
Ottawa
is
seeking
to
go
down
in
terms
of
their
decisions
with
respect
to
land
use
and
intensification
and
sustainability.
I
know.
B
When
we
voted
on
the
growth
management
strategy
that
we
all
put
hand
on
heart
and
committed
to
ensuring
that
intensification
is
balanced
through
the
city,
so
I
think
we
have
to
look
at
every
area
of
the
city
as
a
potential
intensification
area.
So
you
would
suggest
that
those
Official
Plan
policies
that
take
support
shared
parking
are
really
relevant
everywhere.
Then,
yes,.
A
A
O
No
I
think
that
that's
a
great
question,
so
I
would
suggest
that
the
use
of
the
Green
Bank
property
should
be
sort
of
a
interment
measure
in
and
sort
of
it
could
be
you
until
there
is
a
proposal
in
place
to
you
know
further
development
intensify
those
lands,
so
I
sort
of
see
sort
of
this
shared
parking
solution
or
arrangement.
As
you
know,
perhaps
you
know
boring
from
multiple
locations
and
lots
and
perhaps
evolving
over
time,
because
I
could
certainly
agree
with
you
that
the
Green
Bay
property
should
be
developed
and
intensified
in
the
future.
O
However,
just
like
we
saw
with
the
two
Campbell
property,
which
is
daycare,
there's
historically
been
an
exception
zone
that
permitted
15
parking
spots
for
that
site,
which
didn't
have
adequate
parking
to
be
sort
of
set
aside
and
used
from
the
one
cancelled
Church
site.
So
should
there
be
a
sort
of
a
future
development
of
the
new
main
property?
I
would
argue
that
some
and
we
aren't
talking
a
lot
of
parking
spaces,
could
be
set
aside
once
again
for
use
by
the
church
and
that
can
be
through.
You
know,
service
parking
underground
parking.
P
Think's,
actually,
you
asked
the
question
that
I
was
considering,
which
is
the
173
and
175
Green
Bank
property.
Just
just
on
that,
though
there
we
also
councillors
made
a
decision
in
kitchen
sippy
Ward
not
long
ago,
denying
a
parking
use
on
a
property
for
the
purposes
of
future
intensification.
Is
it
on
that
notion
that
we
don't
want
to
lose
that
property
to
a
future
intensification
use?
It's
a
property,
that's
zoned
for
mid
rise
to
low-rise
development,
which
would
be
a
far
greater
intensification
number
than
what
you
would
likely
see
on
an
existing
residential
lot.
P
A
O
Certainly
so
sort
of
the
idea
of
this
motion
was
that
at
least
two
of
the
properties
on
17
part
meant
precedent
and
9.
Anfield
Road
are
sort
of
far
enough
away
from
the
community
center
property
that
the
community
center
does
not
impinge
on
those
and
parking
is
sort
of
focused
on
both
the
Canfield
Road
property
and
then
the
partner
property.
O
So
if
that
is
the
case
and
I'm
sure,
the
applicants
can
inform
me
of
that
more
clearly,
then
15
percent
precedent
would
not
be
able
to
be
carved
out
and
residential
zoning,
but
certainly
the
other
two
properties
and
the
logic
of
that
is
by
having
those
retain
and
are
like
a
residential
rather
than
a
minor
institutional
zoning
is
those
properties
would
be
able
to
be
intensified
in
the
future
and
a
obviously
you
wouldn't
lose
the
properties
right
now
in
their
current
form
and
I.
Think
that
all
relates
sort
of
to
the
housing
crisis.
O
The
move
to
intensify
the
sort
of
direction
that
City
Council
is
moving
and
then
it
would
then
enable
the
parking
that
one
is
losing,
obviously
and
and
in
having
that
reasoning
carved
out
and
not
part
of
the
what
seem
to
be
approved.
But
then
we
found,
alternatively,
through
shared
parking
arrangements.
I
mean
underground
parking
is
another
option
that
could
be
put
on
the
table
as
well,
but
I
think
sort
of
what
that
does.
O
Is
it
permits
another
way
of
having
a
win-win
situation
and
that
the
church
is,
you
know,
allowed
to
proceed
with
their
rezoning
and
the
size
of
the
community
center,
as
proposed?
13
partner
remains
yeah.
It
gives
there's
something
back
to
the
community
who's
concerned
about
sort
of
the
loss
of
residential
homes.
The
lost
continuity
about
Park
now
I
think
there
would
be
a
desire
in
this
motion
as
well
to
have
the
home
at
15.
Park
man
present
retained,
even
if
it
is
forming
a
portion
of
the
site.
O
So
that's
sort
of
the
thinking
of
that
I
mean
I.
Also
think,
as
I
was
pretty
clear
in
my
presentation
strongly
support
the
deferral
motion
which
is
gives
you
know,
parties
a
chance
to
discuss
and
sort
of
see
if
there
is
common
ground
and
see
what
is
possible
because
I
think
planning
is
about
just
never
know,
what's
possible
and
making
the
best
decision.
O
A
Q
Q
There
are
lots
of
little
kids
that
are
running
around
there
on
Sunday.
So,
what's
going
to
happen
at
that
point,
I
would
suggest
to
you
that
that
they
really
need
to
look
at
a
better
way
of
achieving
what
they're
trying
to
achieve
with
the
properties
that
they
have
in
our
community
and
also
elsewhere,
because
I
do
understand
that
they
hold
properties
outside
of
our
community
and
I.
Would
urge
you
to
allow
us
as
well
to
give
us
a
chance
to
negotiate
with
them
to
find
a
better
option.
Q
There
is
plenty
of
parking
space
that
is
not
used
on
Sundays
at
Knoxville
public
school
at
the
doctor's
office
across
the
street
that
can
easily
be
repurposed
and
there's
also
the
opportunity
for
underground
parking,
so,
instead
of
harming
our
community,
let's
try
to
do
the
intensification
that
that
the
city
is
trying
to
achieve.
Let's
try
to
do
it
in
a
smart
way
that
will
help
preserve
a
community
that
has
been
quite
injured
by
the
tornado
in
2018.
Q
P
Q
I
didn't
say
not
big
enough
to
for
development.
I
do
think
it
would
be
actually
a
better
spot
for
the
community
building,
but
it
wasn't
big
enough
to
put
in
a
retire
at
home
with
ground
level
shopping
and
the
types
of
things
that
they
were
anticipating.
This
was
maybe
eight
years
ago,
seven
eight
years
ago,.
Q
Not
I'm
not
suggesting
it's
not
ripe
for
development.
That's
was
the
whole
intention
of
why
they
removed
the
homes
on
those
properties.
It's
just
that
there
wasn't
big
enough
for
what
they
were
intending
to
do
there,
so
it
would
be
an
option
for
them
to
put
the
community
center
there,
instead
of
where
they're
thinking
of
now
Thanks.
A
I
I'm
here
good
morning,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
planning
committee,
my
name
is
Nancy.
Moynihan
I
live
at
21
Park
Mount
Crescent,
two
houses
run
from
the
proposed
development.
I
lived
here
with
my
husband
Scott
for
almost
38
years
we
got
married,
had
our
children
raise
them
and
are
now
hoping
to
retire
in
place,
both
my
husband
and
I
work
from
home.
So
this
street
has
been
our
refuge.
We
are
invested
in
this
community
through
scouting
guiding
the
Community
Association
various
school
studies
and
whatever
else
needs
input.
I'm.
I
Speaking
on
behalf
of
both
of
us
today,
my
husband
and
myself,
we
became
aware
of
the
proponents
expansion
plans
three
years
ago.
It
disturbed
us
to
see
plans
that
involve
demolishing
homes
on
her
street
and
clear-cutting.
Most
of
the
greenery
as
it
did
my
neighbors.
We
banded
together
to
form
a
grassroots
community
group
trend,
Arlington
residents
for
smart
development,
for
which
I'm
treasurer
we
represent
200
community
members,
all
concerned
enough
to
fund
incorporation
and
the
hiring
of
a
lawyer
and
planner.
We
initiated
conversations
with
the
proponent
through
our
councillor,
Keith
eglee.
I
We
feel
our
concerns
as
homeowners
and
long-standing
residents
of
this
community
have
been
minimized
by
the
proponent
and
the
planning
department
does
little
to
our
lair
concerns.
They
asked
us
to
let
us
know
what
you
think,
but
don't
appear
to
be,
taking
our
thoughts
into
account
or
dismissing
them
without
due
consideration.
I
Part
of
the
Covenant
with
the
city
when
you
invest
your
life
savings
in
a
home
is
that
you
won't
be
constantly
fighting
to
preserve
the
environment
and
quality
of
life
in
the
community.
Where
you
purchased
your
home,
we
know
things
do
not
stand
still.
We
know
the
city
grows
and
changes
over
time,
but
we
chose
our
home
Street
and
community
very
carefully
and
could
never
imagine
that
an
organization
would
purchase
residential
homes
planted
to
demolish
them
and
rezone
the
properties
as
proposed.
I
If
this
can
be
done
once
it
can
be
done
again
and
again
in
communities
in
any
part
of
the
city,
even
where
you
live,
no
community
is
safe.
If
this
project
cuts
into
the
heart
of
a
quiet
residential
street
can
proceed,
homeowners
on
our
street
are
both
neighbors
and
friends.
Some
have
lived
here
since
the
first
homes
were
built
in
the
community
55
plus
years
ago.
I
Others
who
grew
up
here
have
returned
to
raise
their
own
families
and
still
others
have
moved
to
be
within
walking
distance
of
their
extended
families,
grandparents
to
be
close
to
help
with
child
care
and
grown
children
who
returned
to
be
close
to
and
help
care
for
their
aging
parents.
So
we
have
young
families
with
babies
and
children,
retirees
and
everything
in
between.
I
Let
me
show
you
what
our
neighborhood
looks
like
and
what
will
be
lost
if
the
development
proceeds.
The
first
picture
you
see
is
from
my
driveway
looking
towards
the
homes
that
will
be
demolished
next
picture.
Please
Park,
Mount
Crescent
is
a
local
Road,
which
is
narrower
than
most
a
low
traffic
Crescent
with
Springdale
Crescent
attached
to
it.
Homeowners
and
their
visitors
drive
on
these
streets.
I
We
can
easily
walk
or
bike
on
paths
from
our
home
to
the
local
park
stores
and
the
ncc
green
space
surrounding
the
Bruce
pit
as
part
of
a
mature
neighborhood
homes
have
well
established.
Hedges,
shrubberies
and
large
trees
pictured
3pls,
we're
close
to
Green
Bank
Road,
a
major
arterial
on
which
the
traffic
has
increased
significantly
in
the
last
three
decades,
but
we
have
been
kept
protected
somewhat
by
this
green
barrier
picture
for
please
trend
village.
I
The
first
part
of
the
trend
Darlington
community
developed,
was
planned
and
built
as
an
electric
community
with
underground
wiring
and
few
streetlights.
The
park
mount
streetscape
consists
of
bungalow
ranch-style
and
two-story
single-family
homes.
60%
of
the
houses
on
this
street
are
bungalows
for
comparison
purposes.
A
bungalow
is
four
point:
four
meters
tall
and
the
proposed
community
building
at
ten
point.
Eight
meters
is
more
than
double
that
height
I
mean
we
are
good.
We
are
concerned
as
to
how
it
will
affect
our
sight
lines
and
privacy.
I
Currently
light
pollution
is
minimal,
as
the
street
is
primarily
illuminated
by
driveway
light
posts.
This
is
a
beautiful
feature
of
our
street,
which
we
will
be
significantly
altered
when
there
is
lighting
spillover
from
the
community
building
and
parking
lot
onto
our
properties.
Spill
over
a
six-foot
fence
will
not
look
demolishing
homes
on
our
street,
along
with
the
trees
that
protectors
separate
them.
Will
essentially
punch
a
hole
in
the
street
to
Green
Bank
Road
and
will
expose
us
to
the
traffic
lights,
noise
and
noise
and
air
pollution
of
this
major
road?
I
We
purposely
chose
a
quiet
street
away
from
the
exits
to
Manor
Road.
This
will
be
lost
and
there
are
no
remedial
actions
that
can
fix
this.
The
proponents
will
use
the
property
primarily
for
weekend
services,
the
home
at
night
to
their
own
communities
and
leave
these
things
for
us
to
live
with,
and
we
find
this
fundamentally
unfair.
We
are
not
opposed
to
the
community
center
being
built
by
the
proponent
on
their
property.
Our
problem
is
that
the
community
buildings,
too
posed
is
too
large
for
the
site.
Thank.
A
A
J
So,
thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
thanks
to
the
Planning
Committee
for
hearing
us
on
behalf
of
the
trend.
Arlington
Community
Association
and
in
my
capacity
as
president
I
do
ask
that
the
Planning
Committee
denied
this
application
in
its
current
state
before
I,
get
to
my
prepared
statement
which
I'm
gonna
try
to
edit
on
the
fly,
because
so
much
has
already
been
said.
J
We
advocate
for
the
residents
of
our
community
and
as
such,
it
is
worth
noting
that
among
our
residents
there
are
certainly
some
who
attend
st.
Mary's,
Coptic
Church
and
who
support
this
expansion.
However,
through
the
dialogues
and
the
consultations
that
we
have
had
with
our
community,
we
have
counted
a
significantly
larger
number
of
residents
who
oppose
this
application.
So
we're
gonna
focus
our
concerns
on
the
grounds
of
insufficient
parking
traffic
and
safety
issues,
which
we
believe
would
greatly
impact
all
of
those
who
use
canfield
roads,
canfield
road
to
access,
Penn
Darlington.
J
Our
concern
with
us
application
is
that
it
would
cause
a
permanent
adverse
impact
on
the
surrounding
community
when,
as
you
now
have
repeatedly
heard,
there
are
alternative,
there
are
alternative
options
that
we
believe
haven't
been
fully
considered.
So
to
just
get
specific.
For
a
moment,
the
applicant
is
requesting
a
reduction
from
the
minimum
overall
sight
requirement
of
113
parking
spaces
down
to
98
spaces.
Now
it
hasn't
been
mentioned
yet.
J
When
you
consider
that,
with
an
application
to
reduce
minimum
parking
requirements,
we
fear
that
this
would
exacerbate
any
parking
and
traffic
concerns
that
already
exist.
I
also
want
to
focus
our
argument
on
one
element
of
the
application
that
I,
don't
believe,
has
been
addressed
yet
so
the
application
includes
a
request
to
amend
the
designation
of
15
existing
parking
spaces
currently
used
by
the
daycare
across
the
street
from
permanently
reserved
to
shares.
J
They
want
to
change
the
designation
from
permanently
reserved
to
share,
as
it
already
is,
our
community
experiences
traffic
interruptions
when
some
parents
who
use
the
daycare
park
illegally
or
idle
on
Canfield
Road,
while
dropping
off
and
picking
up
their
children
from
the
daycare
at
peak
traffic
times.
What
they're
supposed
to
do
is
they're
supposed
to
park
in
one
of
the
15
spaces
at
the
church
cross
the
road
safely
to
the
daycare
and
cross
back
safely
to
their
vehicles.
J
Unfortunately,
there
are
regular
occurrences
of
disregard
for
this
parking
requirement,
and
so
it's
difficult
to
imagine
that
allowing
these
spaces
to
be
shared
with
a
growing
church
and
a
new
community
center
wouldn't
lead
to
a
continuation
of
these
problems.
I'm,
not
gonna
repeat
what
you've
heard
about
the
fact
that
there
are
viable
parking
options
elsewhere,
nor
the
fact
that
the
church
hasn't
yet
been
a
to
secure
long-term
parking
agreements
with
off-site
facilities.
J
I
just
want
to
conclude
by
quoting
the
statement
that
councilor
egg
lies
submitted
to
in
the
city
planners
report,
in
which
he
urges
you
his
colleagues
not
to
support
this
application,
because
if
you
do
there
will
be
no
going
back
and
fixing
it.
The
intrusion
on
our
community
will
be
permanent,
and
so
we
we
sincerely
ask
that
all
alternatives
be
fully
examined
before
allowing
this
application
to
proceed.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank.
G
J
Yes,
there
has
been,
as
has
been
mentioned
in
the
planners
report.
There
has
been
consultation
in
the
past
most
that
consultation
took
place
at
around
the
time
when
the
earlier
plan
had
been
submitted.
So
we
had
reached
out
to
the
church,
the
church
and
its
planners
Nancy
Milosh
reached
out
to
us,
so
we
did
act
as
intermediaries
between
the
church
and
the
community
to
hold
consultations.
However,
I
would
say
that
those
consultations
have
fallen
off
the
map.
I.
J
Imagine
I
suppose
once
it
kind
of
became
clear
that
there
was
there
was
an
impasse
it
does
seem
like
those
consultations
have
diminished,
and
so
there
hasn't
been
as
much
dialogue
recently
and
I
certainly
can
attest
to
the
fact
that
there
hasn't
been
the
appearance
of
a
willingness
to
dialogue
between
all
parties
over
the
last
several
months.
As
we
approach
this
meeting
and.
G
J
It's
the
latter
part
of
what
you
just
said,
that
is,
is
the
situation
of
I've
only
as
compared
with
James
O'grady.
My
predecessor
was
referring
to
how
long
he's
lived
here.
I've
only
lived
here
in
Ottawa
and
in
trend
Arlington
since
2014
and
I've
been
in
my
role
with
the
Community
Association
since
2015.
So
I
only
have
four
to
five
years
of
experience
with
the
community,
but
I
I
can
honestly
say
and
I
don't
mean
this
in
any
way
disparaging
of
the
church.
J
But
in
my
capacity
as
Community
Association,
president
I
have
had
very
little
relationship
with
the
church
that
maybe
just
because
I
don't
live
close
to
the
church
but
I.
My
community
association
has
had
much
more
dialogue
and
much
more
of
a
relationship
with
other
churches
in
our
community
than
we
have
with
st.
Mary's
Coptic
Church,
full
transparency,
one
of
those
churches
that
we
do
have
a
much
stronger
relationship.
They
are
much
closer
to
where
our
Community
Center
is
located.
J
So
proximity
might
be
the
Builder
of
that
relationship,
but
we
also
have
another
relationship
of
very
extensive
relationship
with
another
church.
That
is
certainly
further
from
where
our
Community
Center
is
located,
but
if
I
am
completely
honest,
although
we
certainly
have
had
a
relationship
with
the
church
over
this
issue
we
haven't
had
when
I
say
we
I
want
to
very
specifically
say
my
community
association
has
not
had
much
of
a
relationship
outside
of
this
dialogue.
That
said,
they
may
have
close
relationships
with
with
residents
who
live
nearby.
I
wouldn't
know
as
much
about
that.
Okay,.
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Mr.
Devine,
now
we're
gonna
go
to
Nancy
Milosh
representing
the
applicant
and
and
miss
Dickinson.
Are
you
still
there
so
with
us,
Mary
I,
just
think,
there's
gonna
be
a
lot
of
questions
about
what
we've
heard
potentially
so
I
would
just
ask
that
you
keep
your
keep
keep
what's
going
on.
You
know
in
your
mind
and
be
prepared
for
that
with
whatever
we
hear
now.
Thank
you
very
much,
and
so
one
of
the
one
of
the
bull,
paws
or
I
think
limitations.
A
We
have
when
we
stick
to
the
rules
that
we
usually
go
by
where
we
have
the
delegations.
We
don't
ask
questions
to
snap.
Don't
ask
questions
ahead
of
time.
It's
just
one
of
the
things
I
think
it's
a
little
bit
limiting,
sometimes
so
asking
for
you
two
to
bring
all
that
together
when
necessary,
so
miss
Milosh.
You
have
five
minutes
you're,
followed
by
Bejoy
Alfie
Sammy,
all.
C
C
The
original
plan
was
to
build
a
new
church
for
the
st.
Mary's
congregation
as
well
as
a
community
center.
The
two
buildings
were
proposed
to
be
Allah
physically
linked.
The
original
plan
meant
that
five
houses
on
Park
Mount
and
one
house
on
Canfield
would
be
demolished.
We
did
and
I
just
want
to
be
clear
about
this.
We
did
initial
consultation
with
the
community.
We
had
three
and
it's
documented
in
this
Dickinson's
reports
we
had
the
and
behalf
of
the
applicant.
We
had
three
small
community
committee
meetings.
C
At
least
two
of
them
were
held
at
my
office.
That's
Fanta,
counselor
Eagle
I
attended
these
meetings
and
we
had
at
least
three
small
meetings,
and
that
was
followed
by
one,
a
large
community
meeting
on
March
2019
at
the
at
the
trend.
Arlington
Community
Center
community
building
and
there
were
about
a
100
people
in
a
as
well.
We
had
a
request
from
Sean
divine
who
just
spoke
to
meet
with
the
executive
of
the
Community
Association
I,
believe
that
was
following
the
public
meeting.
C
So
I
think
it
was
in
April
of
2019
and
Bechet
Sami
and
myself
attended
to
meet
with
mr.
Devine
and
his
executive
on
the
Community
Association,
and
that
was
simply
to
answer
questions
and
exchange
information,
and
it
is
my
recollection
that
when
the
revised
plan,
the
2019
concept
plan
that
you
see
there
did
come
out
and
was
ready
for
release
I
contacted
by
email
mr.
Devine
and
suggested
that
we
would
certainly
be
prepared
to
meet
with
him
and
I.
That
meeting
did
not
did
not
occur.
C
So
there
was
opposition
to
the
proposed
the
rijal
proposal
at
the
March
2019
meeting.
Certainly,
there
was
opposition,
so
the
church
went
back
and
revise
their
plans
to
propose
a
new
Community
Center,
which
is
before
you
today
on
the
2019
concept
plan,
and
this
revised
plan
means
the
two
houses
on
Park
Mount,
Crescent,
number,
15
and
17,
which
the
church
owns
will
be
demolished,
as
well
as
one
house
at
nine
can
feel
which
the
church
also
owns
the
other
houses
that
the
church
owns
will
continue
to
be
rented.
C
So
with
respect
to
conformity
with
planning
policy,
the
provincial
policy
statement
and
the
city's
official
plan.
It
is
my
opinion
that
staffs
planning,
staffs
opinion
is
sound
and
correct
and
that
the
proposed
development
is
consistent
with
both
the
PPS
and
the
official
plan
with
respect
to
the
promotion
of
community
serving
uses,
redevelopment
and
compatibility
within
the
general
urban
area.
The
proposed
community
center
is
an
expansion
of
an
existing
and
law
established.
Church,
property
and
I
might
just
say.
C
Madam
sure,
the
church
has
been
in
this
location
for
thirty
years
and
it
is
appropriately
located
at
the
intersection
of
an
arterial
road
and
an
collector
Street
and
in
our
planning
rationale
that
was
prepared
by
my
office
and
under
my
direction.
Certainly,
the
matters
of
intensification
are
satisfied,
in
my
opinion,
I
believe
that
the
impact
on
the
adjacent
residential
area
has
been
mitigated
through
building
design
and
use
of
landscape
screening
and
fencing.
C
So
in
order
to
better
integrate
the
community
center
with
the
adjacent
community,
the
church
undertook
to
I
believe
put
forward
a
number
of
compromises,
one
they
scaled
down
the
initial
plan
to
build
a
new
church
and
community
center.
They
scaled
that
back
and
pretend
they're
proposing
only
the
community
center.
C
So
this
means
that
you've
heard
that
just
two
houses
on
Park
Town
and
one
house
on
Canfield
that
the
church
does
own
will
be
demolished
to
the
site
area
for
the
two
houses
on
Park
Mount
is
needed
to
build
the
community
center
and
without
this
land
the
community
center
would
be
significantly
reduced
in
size
and
the
church's
programs
which
you'll
hear
about
from
mr.
Sami
will
be
compromised.
So
it's
not
just
for
me.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Thank.
C
C
A
Egg,
why
and
then
we
have
one
after
after
mr.
wash
we
have
one
delegation
as
I
mentioned
this
one
other
one,
but
we
do
have
people
on
standby
for
further
explanation
on
whatever
topics
you
may
want
to
bring
up,
but
next
up
is
the
show
Elfi
Sammy,
so
Oh
counselor
Brockington
is
up.
Have
him
go
ahead
of
you?
Okay,
counselor
egg,
like
girls,
are.
G
You,
madam
chair,
and
thank
you
for
your
presentation.
If,
if
the
motion
to
defer
this
item
passes-
and
you
have
about
six
weeks
to
sit
down
with
community
leaders
and
in
Council,
what
do
you,
what
are
you
willing
to
discuss?
Because
it's
not
a
mandatory
requirement,
I
mean
what
what
likely
are
you
willing
to
put
on
the
table.
C
Will
kill,
sir
I
believe
that
question
may
be
more
appropriately
put
to
mr.
Sammy
as
on
next
to
is
representing
the
church,
but
in
my
opinion,
as
their
planner
who's
been
on
this
file
for
two
years
well.
Well,
I
am
always
for
deferral
and
and
working
together.
In
my
opinion,
I
believe
that
the
compromising
that's
been
done
has
been
done
on
the
part
of
the
church
and
they've
worked
very
hard
to
address
community
concerns.
C
I
didn't
get
through
all
of
them,
but
you've
heard
with
respect
to
the
parking
they've
come
to
an
agreement
across
the
street
120
additional
parking
stalls.
In
my
opinion,
there
should
not
be
any
issue
with
respect
to
parking
in
the
area
as
a
result
of
that
parking
supply
as
well.
The
building
height
has
been
reduced
through
the
process
to
just
11
meters.
C
It's
capped
in
the
zoning,
and
we
know
that
a
typical
residential
storey
house
is
nine
meters,
so
11
meters,
so
I
believe
that
the
the
church
has
worked
hard
to
come
forward
with
compromises
and
well
I'd
like
to
say
that
a
deferral
for
six
weeks
will
move
the
the
ledger
along
a
I.
Really
am
NOT
optimistic
that
that
will
occur
at
this
point
if.
C
Well,
as
I
mentioned
just
in
my
presentation,
the
site
area,
that
the
two
houses
represents
as
part
of
the
overall
site
area
is
needed
for
the
community
center.
It's
not
just
a
matter
of
parking,
but
we've
got
this
site
access
that
we
have
to
accommodate
as
well
as
aisles
for
parking
and
circulation.
So
to
lay
out
the
site
plan,
as
mr.
Panetta
said
put
out
shown
on
the
screen.
We
we
need
the
site
area,
it's
not
just
to
to
provide
for
parking
it's
for
the
overall
program
of
the
site,
so.
G
C
G
C
We,
yes,
we
need.
Definitely
we
need.
We
need
to
site
as
its
laid
out
there.
Now
all
the
elements
are
there
and
if
we
did
not
have
numbers
the
building
said
15
and
17,
the
property
line
would
would
cut.
You
can
see
where
the
property
line
is
at
the
rear
of
number
15.
It
would
cut
across
a
portion
of
the
building
and
and
reduce
the
area
by
that
site.
Daddy.
F
F
I'm,
what
I,
in
conversations
with
the
community
in
the
lead
up
to
today's
meeting,
one
of
the
concerns
they've
also
expressed,
was
you
know
if
this
goes
through
and
the
changes
are
happening
to
the
other
houses
on
parkland?
How
can
they
confirm
that
this
won't
expand?
An
extent
is
13
and
9
after
this
is
done
like
what's
the
what's
the
conversation
about
those
two
properties
going
forward,
then.
C
Well,
they
they
don't.
They
don't
form
part
of
any
program
going
forward.
To
my
knowledge,
the
church,
the
church
acquired
those
properties.
Mr.
Roy
Sammy
can
Rifkin
advised
us
to
win
if
you
like,
but
they've,
acquired
if
they've
owned
those
properties
for
some
time
and
there
they
are
rented
out
if
there
was
another
application
at
some
time
in
the
future,
on
the
current
site,
that
would
I'm
sure
be
planning
approvals
required
and
there
would
be
a
public
process
for
that.
Okay,.
F
C
Right
and
certainly
to
my
knowledge
at
this
point
in
time,
mr.
Sammy
can
confirm
that,
but
there's
no,
there
are
no
plans
for
the
future
other
than
the
community
center
and,
as
he
will
tell
committee
as
well,
this
is
a
very
expensive
undertaking
that
the
community,
the
church
congregation,
is
under,
taking
at
significant
cost,
I
believe
about
eight
million
dollars
and
their
funding
comes
from
the
congregation.
A
L
C
L
So
in
terms
of
deferral,
accounts
are
Brockington,
counselor
dude
has
asked
you
about
about
that
are
in
your
professional
opinion,
but
to
us
you
know,
because
there
was
an
original
pre
consult
on
this
file
that
expired.
There
was
a
bit
of
a
gap
and
then
a
new
pre
consult
and
the
process
started
again.
So
it's
it's
been
around
for
a
few
years.
Are
there
any
planning
obstacles
to
deferring
this
and
till
until
the
next
meeting
in
August.
L
C
L
C
Yes,
certainly
we
have
talked
about
it
and
I
know
that
miss
Dickinson
had
has
had
conversations
with
some.
The
residents
at
number
11,
and,
let
me
be
very
clear-
I
mean
I,
have
have
always
been
very
open
to
meet
with
the
community
to
meet
with
yourself
planning
stuff
is
just
it's
just
my
style
of
working
in
the
city,
and
we
would
certainly
welcome
that
if
we
could
just
put
up
the
the
rendering
for
Park
Mount
alone,
part
mill
Crescent.
C
Thank
you
very
much.
That
shows
really
the
condition
at
the
end
of
this
work
that
people
will
be
looking
at
on
Park
mill
Crescent.
Those
trees
are
absolutely
to
scale.
Nancy
Moynihan
showed
them
on
her
photography
with
her
photography
and
those
trees
will
remain
with
that
solid
fencing
and
so
yes
counts,
are
back
to
your
question.
Certainly,
we
discussed
meeting
with
number
11
and
any
of
the
other
residents
along
Park
mount.
C
As
you
know,
when
we
had
some
of
the
earlier
meetings
residents
said
quite
clearly,
they
did
not
want
any
access,
vehicular
pedestrian
through
from
park
now
to
Green
Bank
Road
and,
of
course
the
our
team
said
right
away.
Absolutely
no,
no
problem
with
that,
so
we're
showing
a
continuous
fence.
So
that
is,
in
my
opinion,
exactly
what
you
will
be
looking
at.
Okay,.
L
L
L
L
C
We
during
that
time,
obviously
we'd
be
looking
and
watching
to
see
what
the
usage
of
these
site
is
in
terms
of
parking
that
is
being
provided.
It's
definitely
very
important
that
we
provide
enough
parking
on
the
subject
property
for
the
community
center
in
the
church,
but,
as
we
all
know,
with
churches,
of
course
the
peaking
is
just
you
know
a
couple
of
times
a
week
particularly
Sunday
morning,
so
a.
L
C
C
I
think
you
know,
I
beg
to
differ.
I,
don't
want
to
get
into
parking
studies
that
have
been
done,
but
we
have
done
our
own
parking
studies
and
certainly
they
demonstrated
that
any
of
the
parking
on
Sunday
morning
was
really
resonant
parking
and
not
particularly
church
parking.
I'm
talking
about
Park
Mount
in
particular,
Canfield's,
probably
had
a
little
more
parking
so.
F
L
L
L
L
M
M
Now
we're
four
Coptic
churches
serving
God
we're
doing
the
East
one
downtown,
and
this
is
a
this-
is
the
West
Coptic
Church
and
now
we're
serving
over
1200
to
1300
multicultural
families
model,
and
the
past
few
years
was
essential
that
you
provide
a
place
for
our
kids
or
youth
or
families
and
seniors,
and
the
community
center
building
was
the
answer.
The
building
will
consist
of
a
Sunday
school
classrooms,
gym
youth,
grads
senior,
lounges,
a
study
room,
a
library,
a
couple
of
meeting
rooms
and
couple
of
offices.
M
We've
been
part
of
this
community
and
coexisting
in
this
neighborhood
for
over
30
years.
As
many
of
you
are
aware,
the
church
on
the
daycare
across
the
street
from
the
church
for
over
13
years
every
year,
60
or
70
kids
are
registered
in
this
daycare.
90%
of
those
kids
are
from
the
community
they're
not
from
the
congregation
and
actually
during
the
Christmas
part
to
the
last
Christmas
party.
We
presented
the
project
to
the
daycare
families
and
we
only
received
positive
comments
and
positive
questions
about
it.
M
Or
for
different
activities,
we
always
try
our
best
to
accommodate,
but
the
space
is
very
limited
in
the
church
we've
hosted
elections.
Our
Church
bazaars
are
visited
by
many
of
our
neighbors
every
year.
When
the
tornado
hit
our
neighborhood.
We
went
right
away
and
we
offered
our
help
and
our
church
to
whoever
needs
it.
We
took
in
them
ganyan
Methodist
Church
after
the
tornado,
because
they
didn't
have
a
place
to
do
their
activities
for
over
six
months
to
use
our
church
at
the
trend.
M
Arlington
Tennis
Club
requested
to
use
our
church
when
they
couldn't
use
the
trend
Arlington
building
because
those
damage
from
attorney
and
we
offer
to
them
for
free
early
in
the
pandemic.
Our
Eastern
Catholic
Diocese
that
involves
our
montreal
churches,
joined
together
and
donated
the
production
of
over
20,000
ear
guards
to
be
distributed
to
the
healthcare
and
frontline
workers
in
Ottawa
and
on
trail.
So
our
church
is
not
only
serving
the
small
community
surrounding
it
serving
Ottawa
community.
M
Overall,
when
the
project
was
discussed
almost
three
years
ago
with
the
community
representatives,
we
really
had
high
hopes
that
the
community
would
be
happy
to
hear
that
you
were
adding
a
building
and
the
community
center
that
will
serve
the
community
overall
and
our
common
issue.
We
believe
the
through
our
discussion
with
the
community
representation
representatives
that
the
church
have
compromised
in
a
lot
of
ways
and
have
acted
in
a
good
faith.
All
along.
We
have
revised
our
plans
multiple
times,
trying
to
accommodate
as
much
as
we
can.
M
We
were
hoping
that
you
could
reach
a
point
that
both
sides
be
happy
about
it,
but
we
came
to
a
point
that
any
more
compromises
from
our
side
will
be
losing
the
benefit
of
the
community
center.
There's
a
Bible
verse
that
says-
and
we
know
that
all
things
work
together
for
good
to
those
who
love
God.
The
church
truly
believes
after
the
long
process
have
been
through
and
even
with
all
the
compromises.
M
It
was
done
that
the
community
center
building
will
be
a
great
asset
and
will
be
an
amazing
addition
for
the
church
and
the
community
and
at
the
end,
as
we
said
since
day,
one
our
aim
is
to
serve
and
the
building
would
be
open
to
everyone.
We're
happy
to
invest
in
our
community
through
this
building
to
help
in
satisfying
its
needs.
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
thank
you
counselors
for
listen.
A
M
It's
been
mixed,
so,
yes,
we
have
been
people
coming
from
outside
of
Ottawa
and
we
have
people
joining
us
from
firm
Auto
itself.
So
we
have
churches
that
are
doing
missionary
work
and
under
helping
get
people
to
know
about
the
church.
So
so
that's
one
one
side,
the
other
side
where
people
coming
off
geographically,
we
have
from
from
all
side
of
Ottawa,
so
we
have
from
Gatineau
from
bar
Haven
from
Canada
from
since
birth
and
from
around
the
community.
We
have
at
least
50
families
living
around
the
church
itself.
M
We
have
in
banner
we
have
in
Vasanth
street,
we
have
in
Craig
Henry,
while
even
the
building
across
the
street,
the
condo
building
across
the
street,
so
we
have
and
McCleod,
and
so
it's
so
they
are
distributed
everywhere,
a
lot
all
over
Ottawa,
but
but
for
our
church.
This
is
mainly
where
people
come
from,
so
it's
a
center
location
for
that
for
our
congregation.
Okay,.
E
You
stated
in
your
comments
that
you
do
consider
yourself
a
committed
member
of
the
community
and
it
sounds
like
you
want
to
continue
that
involvement,
no
matter
what
the
decision
of
Planning
Committee
is
here.
I
want
to
ask
a
couple
questions
on
that
regard.
As
I
understand
it,
you
are
intending
to
make
the
community
center
open
for
use
by
immediate
members
of
the
community.
Can
you
talk
about
how
that
would
work?
Would
it
be?
E
M
Offered-
and
this
will
actually
happened
a
couple
of
days
ago-
we
offered
to
defer
to
make
a
draft
agreement
with
the
community
regarding
their
use
to
the
community
center
and
it
will
be
used
whenever
they
need
it
for
a
nominal
charge.
It's
not
gonna,
be
any
extra
just
to
cover
its
expenses
and
that's
it,
but
but
it's
open
forever.
They
need
it,
and-
and
we
do
that
right-
that
way,
actually
our
church
building
whenever
anybody
needs
a
space
we
offer
to
them.
M
Again,
this
is
something
we
again.
We
offer
a
few
days
ago
and
counsel.
Our
client
knows
about
this
that
we
offer
to
develop
a
committee
between
the
church
and
the
community
to
meet
regularly
to
discuss
all
kind
of
projects.
That's
coming
not
only
about
the
church,
but
in
the
neighborhood,
just
to
make
sure
that
we're
talking
early
and
communicating
more
and
getting
close
to
what
the
neighbors
want
and
what
they
need.
M
E
M
E
M
Is
45
years
by
one
year,
one
year,
it's
being
renewed
automatically
and
in
case
they
want
to
change
their
prices
there,
what
they
charges
but
and
at
the
end
this
is
to
protect
them
in
case
three
years
later
they
come
back
and
they
want
to
change
their
mind
and
stop
the
agreement
they
they
might
do
it.
But
for
us
we
are
committed
for
five
years
with
that
agreement.
We're
not
changing.
M
F
Perfect,
thank
you
and
I'm
chair
mr.
Sami
I'm,
just
curious,
there's
a
motion
that
is
coming
before
us
momentarily
in
respect
to
deferring
for
another
couple
of
weeks
and
respect
to
having
the
community
and
the
councillor
continue
to
work
with
the
church.
But
it
sounds
like
from
what
you're
saying
that
there's
been
many
many
months
and
weeks
and
even
years
of
conversations.
M
It's
a
very
interesting
question
because
all
the
things
I
mentioned
to
councillor
Glen
about
what
we
offer
them
in
terms
of
commitment.
They
refused
it
and
this
just
happened
yesterday.
So
it
seems
that
they
are
not
like.
We
offered
a
lot
of
things.
We
compromise
a
lot,
but
we
haven't
seen
any
positive
steps
from
them.
So
I'm
not
sure
how
those
six
weeks
will
change
in
terms
of
discussions
and
unsurprisingly,
mr.
M
tom
was
one
of
the
people
that
we
met
in
the
past
times,
so
him
being
again
on
the
committee
is
not
changing
like
it's,
not
gonna
change,
anything
in
terms
of
discussion,
so
so
so
for
us
we
have
sat,
we've
discussed
a
lot
of
times,
but
but
it
seems
that
we're
we're
hitting
a
wall-
it's
not
going
through
and
and
the
compromise
that
we
did
anymore
will
just
affect
our
service
building.
So
we're
not
we're
not
we're
trying
to
discuss
site
plans.
F
F
F
M
F
F
You
I
thank
you,
madam
chair
and
Thank
You,
bishop
for
your
presentation
and
I
would
like
to
begin
by
say
thanks
to
your
church,
during
the
tornado,
for
someone
who
faced
the
same
tornadoes
in
my
community,
I
was
keep
an
eye
on
result
in
your
community
and
I
want
to
thank
you
for,
and
opening
up
for
the
church
for
the
community.
My
question
bishop,
as
I
said
it
earlier
in
the
meeting.
I'm,
not
sure
if
you
were
here,
I
belong
to
a
new
Canadian
churches.
F
M
Definitely-
and
we
have
families
with
kids,
we
have
seniors,
we
have
handicapped,
we
need
the
minimum
number
of
parking
spots
on
the
site
for
them
to
accommodate
those
people.
We
can't
expect
they're
gonna,
walk
400
meters
crossing
the
street,
with
their
kids
and
with
their
seniors
during
the
wintertime
or
even
during
the
summertime,
to
attend
the
church.
It's
it's
very
hard.
We
need
at
least
the
minimum
number
of
parking
spots
on-site
to
accommodate
that
and.
F
Obviously
the
church
is
busy,
as
I
heard
from
my
colleague
comes
from
gower
asking
the
question:
how
busy
does
it
get
now
like
I
mean
give
us
an
idea,
because
some
of
us
attend
the
local
church
in
the
rural
area
and
we
see
a
decline
in
as
a
matter
fact.
I
lost
a
church,
this
fear
in
my
community.
So
what
what's
the
number
you're
dealing
with
right
now?
Our
family
I
know
because
object
I'm,
not
talking
about
Covadonga
you
fold,
Kovach.
How
many
family
are
belong
to
the
church.
It
currently
so.
M
M
So
we
met
multiple
times,
not
once
not
twice,
three
or
four
times
and
and
councillor
Eli
attended
those
meetings
and
mrs.
Dickinson
attended
those
meetings
as
well,
so
we've
been
meeting
with
them
and
discussions
with
them.
The
the
compromises
we
did
was
based
on
the
discussions
we
had
with
the
community
so
in
terms
of
reducing
in
terms
of
canceling,
the
church
expansion
just
doing
the
community
center.
This
was
a
big
compromise.
For
us.
Reducing
number
of
houses
was
a
compromise
for
us.
M
Reducing
the
cap,
height
of
the
building
from
18
to
11
meter
was
was
a
compromise
from
us
offering
a
buffer.
That's
not
usually
offered
is
a
compromise
from
the
church
and
closing
the
fence
and
not
allowing
cars
or
people
to
pass
from
Park
Mount
was
again
compromise
from
from
the
church
so
been,
and,
and
even
the
hundred
and
twenty
parking
spots
across
the
street
was
a
compromise
from
the
church,
even
though
based
on
the
zoning
bylaws
were
not
required
to
do
any
agreements,
but
we
wanted
to
do
it.
M
G
M
There
is
no
like
a
specific
intent
for
so
the
daycare
was
to
provide
a
service
to
the
community
overall
and
and
and
and
across
the
street
7300
175
Greenbank
would
still
have
a
plan
for
it
to
do
a
retirement
home
race
in
your
home
and
just
to
correct
some
comments
that
was
mentioned
earlier.
We
didn't
go
with
the
process
regarding
their
retirement,
home
or
a
senior
home.
We
just
suggested
the
idea,
but
we
didn't
do
any
pre
consultation.
M
We
didn't
go
with
any
architecture
plans,
nothing,
so
the
idea
of
it's
gonna
fit
or
not
gonna
fit.
We
didn't
reach
that
because
we
didn't
go
through
the
process,
but
the
idea
still
exists
and
we'll
be
happy
when
we
do
that
senior
home
retirement
home
that
again,
it
could
be
offered
for
the
whole
community.
So
again,
when
we
acquire
property,
the
idea
is
to
serve
as
not
just
to
take
it
for
ourselves
and
make
a
business
out
of
it.
It's
a
it's
a
service
that
we
provide
from
the
church.
One.
G
M
G
Okay,
and
and
like
other
options
are,
perhaps
you
don't
retain
the
current
site,
you're
on
maybe
you're,
trying
to
fit
too
much
on
a
parcel
land
where
you
may
be
better
on
another
parcel
of
land,
perhaps
close
by
you
own
a
lot
of
land.
You
have
a
lot
of
equity.
Was
that
an
option
you
considered
know.
M
We
love
our
property,
we
love
our
neighborhood,
we
love
our
community.
We've
been
there
for
over
30
years.
It's
been
a
central
area
for
us
since
the
beginning,
we're
not
planning
to
demolish
our
church
and
go
somewhere
else.
It's
a
lovely
church
and
we
love
it.
If
you've
been
there,
you
would
love
it
the
day.
The
the
time
we
step
in
it
yeah.
A
G
F
L
You
so
I'm,
just
I
have
a
copy.
The
parking
everybody
just
I'm
just
trying
to
clarify
here
the
way
I
read
the
parking
agreement.
It
says
that
it's
renewed
on
an
annual
basis
unless
otherwise
notified
in
writing
by
the
customer,
you
being
the
customer.
So
are
you
saying
on
the
record
that
the
church
has
every
intention
to
leave
it
in
place
for
the
full
five
years?
Yes,.
L
No
no
I'm
asking
from
your
perspective.
The
agreement
says
yeah
unless
notified
by
the
customer
you're
the
customer
you're
committing
and
writing
and
not
writing.
But
today
in
front
of
the
committee
that
you
will
hold
that
parking,
you
will
renew
it
every
year
for
the
neck
minimum
for
the
next
five
years.
Definitely
is.
M
L
A
L
A
L
L
L
Yeah
no
I
think
that's
the
question.
Thank
you.
Okay,
so
you're
you're,
proposing
this
multi-purpose
building
you're
saying
it's
going
to
be
open
to
the
community
again
in
front
of
the
committee.
Are
you
are
you
committing
that
you
will
sit
down
with
the
community,
whether
that
be
the
Community
Association
and/or,
the
organization
for
smart
development
and
and
hammer
out
a
written
agreement
that
will
guarantee
a
minimum
number
of
hours
per
year
that
the
community
can
have
access
to
the
building.
M
L
L
Just
so
we're
clear
on
that,
and
you
will
also
heard
because
I
know
you
were
listening
to
the
meeting
and
I
appreciate
you
were
doing
that
to
whatever,
but
he
had
to
say
that
there's
still
outstanding
issues
around
site
plan,
whether
it
be
fence
or
trees
and
and
and
buffering,
and
that
sort
of
thing
yeah
mismo
wash
indicated
the
chief
she
would
be
prepared.
I
think
it
directed
to
continue
to
work
with
the
immediate
residents
and
the
organization
to
work
on
those
site
plan
issues
going
forward.
M
L
M
L
L
L
F
L
L
He
knows
and
I'm
not
asking
that
question
anymore.
All
right.
The
thought
the
question
was
gonna
follow
up
with
was
partly
a
discussion
that
you
and
I
had.
Madam
chair
is:
whether
will
would
the
church
be
prepared,
mr.
Sami,
to
leave
the
houses
that
that
are
in
play
so
to
speak,
leave
them
in
place
and
and
not
demolish
them
until
the
church
is
ready
to
start
construction,
and
that's.
F
L
A
A
A
M
Important
thing
was:
11
perk
mounts,
so,
yes,
we
had
a
discussion
with
them
earlier
when
we,
the
plan
was
the
bigger
demotion,
all
six
houses,
but
since
we
decided
that
this
is
gonna,
be
our
focus,
the
community
center
building,
there
was
no
discussion
whatsoever
and
there
has
been
emails.
They
sent
us
regarding
that
and
we
just
didn't
reply
back,
because
we
are
not
interested
and
we
don't
want
to
buy,
and
there
was
another
house
actually
that
was
for
sale,
11
Canfield
on
February,
March
2019.
M
We
didn't
approach
it
even
though
it's
just
right
across
beside
the
house.
That's
gonna
be
demolished
nine
Canfield
and
we
didn't
approach
it.
We
didn't
offer.
We
didn't
do
anything
about
it
because
we're
not
interested
or
focus
on
what
we
have,
because
that's
the
most
important
thing
greatness
right
now
for
us:
okay,.
A
Thank
you
very
much,
I
see
no
other
questions
now,
but
questions
of
miss
Dickinson
or
and
wrap-up.
Anyone
who
wants
to
please
start
waving
and
I
will
okay.
Does
anyone
besides
counselor
eglee
wants
you
ask
a
question
of
staff
or
speak
to
Rapala
I,
see
counselor
leapers
waving
in
the
Hollywood
Squares
go
ahead.
Counselor
leaper,
oh
I,
see
counts.
Arguably
after
him.
There,
okay,
so
cows
acutely
put
your
little
a
hand
up
so
counts,
relievers
or
either.
B
Thanks
chair,
I
do
have
one
quick
question
for
staff.
Ms
milosh
mentioned
that
the
minimum
parking
requirements
had
this
been,
for
example,
a
different
development
with
a
different
property
assembly.
Had
the
owner
come
to
staff
seeking
reduced
parking
in
order
to
make
a
development
work
here,
be
it
a
commercial
development
or
otherwise?
Would
staff
have
been
open-minded
to
contemplating
a
reduction
from
what
the
minimum
parking
requirements
would
be.
N
And
we
would
make
that
decision
based
on
the
merits
of
the
application,
so,
for
example-
and
this
applies
to
this
site,
we
looked
very
carefully
at
how
the
church
functions
in
order
to
determine
that
the
fifteen
space
parking
reduction
was
was
logical
because
they
use
the
church
at
one
point
in
during
Sundays,
and
then
everyone
moves
into
the
other
space,
and
so
the
fact
that
both
buildings
are
not
on
a
regular
basis
intended
to
be
used
simultaneously.
That
was
the
basis
for
the
reduction
in
this
case.
N
B
Parking
requirements
are
not
cast
in
stone
and
I
would
suggest
that,
in
fact,
this
City
Council
has
made
a
commitment
to
reducing
and
eliminating
minimum
parking
requirements,
because
I
think
the
planners
have
said.
With
respect
to
our
official
plan.
There
is
no
car
centric
way
in
which
we
can
build
a
sustainable
city.
B
We
have
to
look
at
parking
differently
than
we
did
previously
and
that's
going
to
be
the
case
whether
we're
in
kids,
asipi
ward,
whether
we're
in
knox
dale
ward
or
whether
we're
in
any
other
ward
in
the
city,
and
so
I
just
want
to
come
back
to
ms
Ross's
key
point.
There's
a
lot
of
discussion
here,
obviously
about
the
discussions
that
are
taking
place
between
the
residents
and
I.
Don't
want
to
get
in
the
weeds.
B
I
want
to
come
back
to
the
main
point
that
ms
Ross
made,
which
is
that
it
is
inappropriate
in
an
official
plan
environment
like
we
have
to
replace
housing
with
parking.
I
think
that
we
send
the
wrong
message
to
the
residents
of
Ottawa
and
I
think
we
send
the
wrong
message
to
developers
if
we
approve
replacing
housing
with
parking
that
doesn't
meet
with
the
intent
of
our
official
plan,
it
doesn't
meet
with
the
intent
of
our
emerging
transportation
master
plan.
B
It
is,
it
is
inappropriate
and
I
think
we
heard
you
know
the
the
the
requirement
here
would
be
for
a
redesign
if
they
were
forced
to
work
on
the
property,
the
original
property,
maybe
with
the
the
Canfield
property,
they
would
need
to
do
a
redesign
and
they
would
need
to
find
35
more
spots.
They
have
found.
You
know
over
a
hundred
spots
elsewhere
in
the
community
within
easy
walking
distance
people
who
are
parking
at
some
of
their
temporary
parking
are
having
to
cross
the
road.
B
It
is
not
inappropriate
to
take
a
look
at
the
other
properties
that
they
own
within
close
proximity
and
ask
that
those
we
looked
at
for
parking
in
order
to
avoid
replacing
housing
with
parking,
green
banks,
evolution
is
going
to
be
slow
and,
yes,
councillor
Moffat.
We
have
finally
started
to
say
no,
when
perpetual
requests
for
exemptions
to
surface
parking
lots
are
being
sought,
but
in
general
we
are.
We
have
the
mechanism
for
temporary
exemptions
because
we
are
going
through
that
transition
right
now
and
I.
B
Think
MS
Ross's
point
with
respect
to
pursuing
shared
parking
responsibilities
or
shared
parking
solutions
as
a
way
to
get
us
through
the
transition
to
a
less
car-centric
City
is
is
well
taken.
You
know
we,
we
have
a
housing
crisis,
this
development.
We
all
want
to
support
the
church
we
to
support
its
programming,
but
the
the
balance
between
what
they
can
actually
pragmatically
accomplish
in
terms
of
building
the
community
center.
They
want
finding
offsite
parking
in
order
to
service
it
versus
replacing
housing
with
parking
in
the
midst
of
a
housing
crisis.
I.
B
E
You
chair,
it's
a
quick
question
for
staff,
probably
mr.
James
or
I
guess
miss
Dickinson.
It's
about
parking,
because
I
asked
earlier
to
the
applicant
about
Knox
dialect
school
parking.
Just
for
clarification!
Is
the
school
board
even
allowed
to
lease
or
rent
out
parking
to
a
church
like
this?
What
does
the
zoning
say
on
the
school
board?
Land?
E
R
You,
madam
chair,
the
zoning
for
the
school
board
is
institutional.
It's
an
I
1a,
it's
also
minor
institutional.
It
doesn't
allow
a
parking
lot
as
a
permitted
use
stow
for
parking
not
associated
with
that
school
used
to
be
on
the
school.
It
would
need
a
rezoning
to
allow
an
sister
ancillary
parking
so
without
something
without
the
rezoning
happening,
it
would
be
a
contravention
of
the
zoning
bylaw.
So.
E
R
E
Thank
you,
and
just
you
know
something
as
we're.
Updating
official
plans
are
looking
at
parking
policy.
It's
there
are
a
lot
of
underused
parking
lots
across
our
city
at
different
times
of
the
day,
and
you
know
I
think
it's
something
we
should
start
looking
into
having
a
little
more
flexibility,
so
we
can
share
these
parking
spaces
more
effectively.
Thanks.
A
E
A
Well,
just
we're
gonna
go
to
Scott
Moffatt
next,
but
on
that
when
we
built
the
MA
skin
on
Woodruff
Avenue
in
bar
Haven,
certainly
we
had
an
arrangement
that
benefited
both
ways
with
the
French
public
board.
Michaëlle
Jean
Nicole
mechanical
John,
and
she
was
just
right
beside
it
as
they
did
with
Kelly
funeral
home.
So
you
know
what
at
times
places
institutional
places
need
extra
parking.
Sometimes
you
know
and
specific
ala
days
or
and
the
school
celebration.
So
we
work
it
out
and
it's
this
worked
out
many
times
all
over
the
city.
Councillor
Moffitt,
please.
P
P
F
Karin
in
the
instance
put
by
council
Moffatt,
the
institution
or
whatever
the
use
is,
would
if
it
doesn't
find
a
another
site
for
the
parking
would
be
in
violations
of
its
owning.
So
it
would
be
a
true
concern
for
the
institution
at
the
time
it
would
have
to
find
another
site,
perhaps
construct
underground
parking,
come
to
the
city
for
a
rezoning
or
cease
operation.
Those
would
be
the
four
options.
P
F
R
Just
just
to
say
yet
that
Tim
is
right.
If,
if
you
have
offsite
parking
and
as
you
say
for
certain
a
little
bit
like
a
limited
amount
of
time-
and
it's
not
interested
in
the
zoning
bylaw
and
it's
taken
away,
will
create
a
zoning
problem
with
parking
in
the
area
because
they
will
be
in
violation
of
the
zoning
bylaw.
And
then
how
long
had
the
building
to
park
on
that
site,
which
will
cause
them
to
seek
parking
in,
such
as
on
street
parking
or
as
a
solution?
And.
A
So
how
would
we
deal
with
in
/
'ti
perpetuity
as
well,
when
you
think
about
it
say
somebody
you
know
say
encounter
leapers
area
because
he
certainly
has
enough
applications.
15
pages
I
think
you
have
on
dev
apps
right
now,
but
who's
counting
Jeff,
but
you
know
it.
You
know
parking
is
always
like
a
hot
issue
and
in
catches
sippy
for
sure.
A
So
just
take
that
as
an
example
and
say
somebody
says:
oh
I'm
gonna
have
an
arrangement
with
Tubman's
or
Chapman,
says
I'm
gonna
have
an
arrangement
with
whatever
and
then
tubman
cells
or,
and
then
what
has
happened
to
the
application
that
required
a
certain
number
of
parking.
What
happens
then?
Where
do
we
go
from
there?
Anyways?
Is
that
sort
of
the
thing
you're
you're?
You
would
be
concerned
about
mr.
James.
R
Well,
certainly,
if,
if
you
have
parking
that's
off-site
and
it's
eliminated,
it
does
create
a
problem
that
that
parking
is.
It
has
to
go
somewhere,
for
example,
on
street
parking.
But
that's
like
in
this
case
here.
That's
what
we
like
to
see
the
parking
on
the
subject
property.
That's
why
the
zoning
bylaw
has
parking
rates
that
are
forever
usin
as
members
of
the
community,
no
for
every
use.
R
Why
do
you
have
it
here
and
and
that's
why,
through
the
cycling
control
process
and
if
you
went
there
today
and
they
saw
the
pictures
about
everything
being
nicely
landscaped
and
that's
why,
through
the
site
plan
control
process,
you
can
mitigate
the
impacts
of
that
parking
next
to
residential
developments,
in
this
case,
we're
not
introducing
a
new
situation
where
our
menteng,
the
situation
that
does
exist
where
you
have
parking
that
is
landscaped.
Next
to
residential
and
that's
exactly
what
the
expansion
the
community
center
was
just
allowed
to
continue
to
happen.
R
A
And
is
that
been
one
of
the
benefits
of
when
hydro
Ottawa
sold
their
former
head
office
to
a
mosque
in
the
Hetherington
area?
One
of
the
beauties
was
the
on-site
parking
that
was
available
in
a
large
number,
but
still
the
councillor,
brockington
you'll
recall
the
number
of
people
that
were
very
concerned
about
the
impact
that
that
would
be
on
their
community,
which
is
in
your
ward,
okay,
so
I
think
enough
about
parking
and
stuff.
For
me,
anyways
we
have.
We
have
only
like
the
ward
councillor,
councillor
egg.
Why
left
to
one.
P
No,
it's
all
good
I
just
want
to
say
one
more
thing.
I
know,
just
in
speaking
with
the
community
I
think
this
is
probably
a
valid
point.
It's
not
exactly
relevant
to
this
application,
but
just
done
when
we
go
into
the
official
plan,
a
lot
of
communities
along
Green
Bank
along
roads
like
Woodruff,
don't
necessarily
back
directly
on
to
an
arterial
Park
mount
does
it
might
be
wise
to
consider
how
we
can
look
at
that
in
the
Official
Plan
review.
P
More,
maybe
coughs,
I
glad
have
to
keep
my
eye
on
this,
to
make
sure
that
those
those
properties
that
come
off
of
Park
mount
north
of
this
site,
don't
somehow
gets
get
assembled
and
reversed
for
their
frontage
on
Green
Bank,
because
then
that
would
really
open
up
Park
Mount
to
green
macro.
Do
just
something
to
consider
in
terms
of
how
we,
how
we
look
at
our
official
plan
uses
on
on
areas
like
this,
because
that
does
back
right
down
and
even
north
of
that
as
you
get
toward
baseline
road
as
well.
L
L
That
thank
you
because
my
first
question
is
more
procedural
and
for
mr.
mark
mr.
mark
we've
heard
this
morning
a
number
of
verbal
commitments
from
the
applicant
to
maintain
and
renew
so
that
there's
a
five-year
parking
deal
is
in
place
to
be
committed
not
to
demolish
the
properties
until
they're
there
in
a
position
to
start
the
construction
we've
heard
that
they
are
committed
to
meet
with
the
Community
Association
and
the
residents
Association
for
smart
development
to
work
out
a
deal
around
community
use
of
the
building.
L
And
finally,
we
heard
a
commitment
to
work
with
the
community
members
going
forward
to
refine
the
site
plan
before
before
it's
finalized
and
finished.
Is
there
a
wave
you
to
draft
a
motion
for
this
committee
that
that
codifies
that
so
that
what
has
been
said
in
front
on
the
committee
by
the
applicant
by
mr.
Sami
this
morning
on
behalf
of
the
church?
Is
there
a
way
to
codify
that?
So
it
in
fact
will
happen,
and
there
will
be
something
there
in
case
there's
any
issue
about
whether
it
should
or
shouldn't
happen.
F
Madam
chair,
those
statements
were
heard
by
the
members
of
the
committee
and,
of
course,
will
be
a
permanent
record
of
this
meeting,
but
I
believe
that
all
the
matters
identified
and
the
councillors
just
now
rehearsed
are
all
non
zoning
matters.
And
so
they
are
not
matters
that
the
city
can
direct
under
its
zoning
bylaw,
nor
for
that
matter,
or
they
matters
that
come
under
Section
41
of
the
Planning
Act.
They
are
important
but
they're
not
matters
that
a
subject
to
municipal
regulation
so.
L
F
F
L
L
F
There
is
a
way,
but
it
does
not
involve
the
city
and
that
is
between
and
I'm,
not
familiar
with.
The
legal
status
of
the
community
group
versus
the
I
understand
from
today's
meeting.
This
association
on
the
planning
concern
I
I
believe
that
one
of
those
parties
is
incorporated
and
they
could
certainly
enter
into
an
agreement
with
the
church,
and
that
would
be
an
enforceable
agreement,
and
so
that
can
be
done,
but
it
does
not
involve.
Is
it
so.
L
Thank
you
thanks
for
that,
so
I
hope
the
church
is
listening
and
and
and
and
and
is
heard,
the
concern
and
and
what's
what
the
expectations
are,
a
quick
question
for
Miss
Dickinson
before
I
going
to
wrap
up
miss
Dickinson.
We
we
heard
from
the
owners
of
number
11
that
they
were
interested
in
having
a
sunshade
study
done
and
also
that
they
were
concerned
about
maintenance
standards.
Should
a
fence
or
trees
or
what-have-you
go
in
between
their
property
and
and
the
church.
Can
you
can
you
speak
to
both
of
those
things.
N
N
The
comments
and
responses
in
the
report
is
a
summary
and
did
not
get
into
the
level
of
detail
that
they
had
initially
commented.
So
I'm
glad
that
it's
on
the
record
now
of
the
their
comments
about
sunshades,
we,
the
staff,
asked
for
a
sunshade
study
when
an
application
is
asking
for
additional
height.
In
this
case,
the
institutional
zone
allows
for
18
meters
and
the
proposed
building
is
11,
so
we're
not
in
a
position
to
be
asking
for
that.
N
The
and
then,
in
terms
of
the
screening
of
the
property,
the
that's
something
that
we
continue
to
look
at
through
site
plan
control.
It
is
very
much
a
site
plan,
control
consideration
getting
into
that
level
of
detail,
and
they
have
made
the
commitment
to
to
the
owners
of
the
property
that
that
will
be
further
considered
to
your
sightline
control.
L
Thank
you
appreciate
that
so
I'm
going
to
go
quickly
in
to
wrap
up
madam
chair
and
I
and
I.
Thank
you
for
your
expression.
They
may
have
a
tiny
bit
of
latitude
here,
so
it
goes
throughout
saying
this
has
been
a
very
difficult
file
to
navigate
involves
two
long-standing
institutions.
You
have
a
regional
church
that
has
been
there
for
about
30
years
and
you
have
a
quiet,
residential
neighborhood.
That's
been
there
for
more
than
50
and
complicating
their
overlaying.
L
That,
as
you
have
a
very
limited
planning
toolbox
to
address
the
issues,
as
many
people
said,
and
everybody
has
acknowledged,
there
is
a
panoply
of
parking
options
all
around
this
site,
but
we
have
no
ability
to
to
access
them.
We
have
no
ability
to
to
make
the
applicant
use
them.
It
sounds
even
though
that
would
be
a
more
than
reasonable
compromise
and
and
address
allowing
them
to
have
their
expansion,
which
the
community
doesn't
object
to
and
allow
the
community
to
have
freedom
from
having
a
parking
lot,
which
will
be
used.
L
Maybe
one
two
days
a
week,
but
we'll
sit
there.
Seven
days
a
week,
52
weeks
a
year
forever
and
ever
and
ever
I
won't
even
get
on
to
what
the
environmental
concerns
of
paving
that
over
might
be,
but
or
or
the
intensification
concerns
each
of
those
Lots
could
easily
if
a
house
is
knocked
out
easily
accommodate
two
homes.
L
So
again,
the
the
community
has
never
been
about
not
wanting
this
expansion
to
happen.
They
they're,
okay,
with
the
expansion
happening.
It's
the
manner
in
which
it's
happening,
I'm
not
gonna,
spend
a
lot
of
time
on
who
spoke
to
who
or
who
didn't
speak
to
who
or
who
didn't
want
to
talk.
The
short
answer
is
there
is
a
divide
between
what
the
church
would
how
the
church
would
like
to
do,
what
it
wants
to
do
and
how
the
community
would
like
them
to
do
what
they
want
to
do.
L
There's
no
divided
over
whether
they
should
be
allowed
to
do
what
they
want
to
do.
It's
how
they
achieve
that,
and
it's
especially
frustrating
for
the
community
that
acts
just
as
Green
Bank
Road
on
every
go
to
work,
to
go
to
the
shopping,
whatever
that
there
are
there's
a
there's,
a
parking
lot
right
across
the
street
with
an
office
building
that
mr.
Sami
indicated
they
haven't
even
spoken
to
there
is
there
is
a
school
parking
lot
just
down
the
street
there.
There
is
a
medical
building
parking
lot.
L
There
is
two
Lots
that
the
the
church
owns
that
they're
not
prepared
to
consider
and
I
understand.
You
know
whether
that
may
or
may
not
be
the
best
use
of
that
piece
of
property
on
Green
Bank,
but
it's
a
constant
reminder
to
community
members
that,
while
homes
going
to
be
ripped
out
of
their
street
a
parking
lot
going
to
be
dropped
there,
there's
bacon
all
over
every
weekend
in
that
community
and-
and
so
that's
the
frustrating
piece,
we
have
a
problem
which
really
doesn't
have
a
good
solution.
L
It
doesn't
have
a
good
solution
because
we
don't
necessarily
have
the
right
tools
to
fix.
It.
I
think
that
there's
still
room
to
play
I
think
there's
still
room
where
some
compromise
could
be
reached.
As
I
said,
if
the
community
was
prepared
to
say
we
don't
care
about
the
Campfield
property,
we're
down
at
35
parking
spots,
we
have
to
figure
out
35
spots.
There's
a
lot
of
smart
people
on
this
file
from
from
mismo
wash
has
been
a
planner
for
a
very
long
time
and
does
an
excellent
job,
excellent
planners
in
the
city
they're.
L
There's
one
thing
we
didn't
talk
about
today
and
again:
it's
not
it's
not
the
greatest
option,
but
underground
parking
is
an
option.
And
how
do
you
fund
that
underground
parking
that
the
churches
they
can't
afford?
They
have
these
homes?
You
don't
say
you
don't
have
to
knock
down
the
home.
She
can
sell
the
homes.
You
can
sell
the
homes
to
get
the
money
to
build
the
parking.
L
So
there
are
things
that
the
church
could
consider
doing
could
explain
why
they
don't
want
to
do
to
the
community,
and
these
two
institutions
are
going
to
have
to
coexist
for
a
very
long
time,
and
this
is
I.
Think
approving
today
is
going
to
put
them
on
a
very
shaky
foundation
going
forward
to
to
have
that
to
have
that
sustainability
that
those
two
committees
should
and
want
to
have.
L
We
heard
from
a
former
minister
Tom
how
you
can
do
this
reasonably
responsibly
and
collaboratively
within
the
community
and
within
a
religious
institution
and
come
forward
with
a
product
that
works
and
and
his
willingness
to
take
that
expertise
and
put
it
towards
discussions
over
the
next
four
or
six
weeks.
So
I
think
maybe
I'm
an
eternal
optimist.
L
I
don't
know
I
think
there
are
ways
to
do
it
and
an
alternative
way
to
do
it
to
satisfy
or
alleviate
concerns
that
this
is
not
just
the
beginning
of
a
bigger
piece
is
take
some
of
those
other
properties
that
you
still
own
Church
and
sell
them
back
into
the
community,
and
that
says
between
you,
you're,
not
waiting
for
number
11
to
become
available,
but
that
this
is
it.
This
is
phase
1.
The
only
phase
you've
achieved
what
you
wanted
to
do
and
you
want
to
work
with
the
community.
L
So
there
are
things
that
could
be
done.
There
are
things
that
could
could,
over
the
next
number
of
weeks,
I
think
which
could
lead
to
a
better
product.
Maybe
it's
not
gonna
save
all
the
houses,
probably
not,
but
could
it
build
some
trust,
some
faith
between
the
two
communities?
Could
it
could
it
come
up
with
a
better
product?
That's
more
environmentally
sensitive,
doesn't
just
put
more
asphalt
down,
I
think
it
could
and
I'm
just
gonna
end
with
the
following.
L
If
I'm
a
man
chair
very
quickly
and
I'm
gonna
quote
here,
I
said:
don't
it
always
seem
to
go
that
you?
Don't
you
don't
know
what
you've
got
until
it's
gone,
they've
paid
paradise
and
they
put
up
a
parking
lot.
Well,
the
people
of
Park,
Mount
and
can't
field
know
what
they
got
and
they're
counting
on
you
as
members
of
the
committee,
to
make
sure
that
it's
not
taken
away
so
I
would
urge
you
to
either
vote
for
deferral
today.
L
If
you
can't
vote
for
deferral
to
vote
against
the
application
and
and
give
everybody
an
opportunity
to
try
and
sort
this
out
in
a
reasonable
collaborative
way
nobody's
going
to
lose
anything
over
the
next
six
weeks
we've
heard
there
are
no
planning
impediments,
no
legal
impediments,
no
financial
impediments
nobody's
going
to
lose
anything
over
the
next
six
weeks,
just
sit
down
and
try
and
chat,
and
that's
all
I'm
asking
you
to
approve
today,
give
them
the
opportunity
they
have
that
discussion
and
and
try
and
move
it.
Try
and
move
it
forward.
L
I'll
even
sweeten
the
pot
I'll
paper
out
of
my
office
budget,
if
need
be,
all
pay
for
the
services
of
a
facilitator
or
mediator,
to
try
and
bring
these
two
sides
closer
together
to
try
and
sort
this
out
over.
The
next
six
weeks,
I'm
more
than
happy
to
do
that
and
I
put
that
on
the
table.
If
that's
the
plot
at
all.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank.
A
A
L
L
The
next
planning
meeting,
which
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
madam
chairs,
at
the
end
of
August,
so
it
would,
as
I
indicated
a
few
moments
ago,
it
would
allow
six
weeks
the
parties
to
give
one
last
attempt
at
hammering
something
out
here
and
again,
as
I
said
I'm
more
than
happy
to
sweeten
the
pot
and
I
I
would
pay
for
some
mediator
hours
for
someone
to
sit
in
the
room
with
them
and
try
and
bring
the
sides
closer
together
to
work
it
out.
We
heard
from
the
applicant.
L
They
will
not
suffer
in
any
way
from
this.
There's
no
planning
impediment.
No
financial
impediment.
No
legal
impediment
to
doing
this,
so
they're
not
going
to
suffer.
But
if
you
vote
for
it
today,
the
way
it
is
the
people
who
live
on
Park
fountain
can
feel
they
will
have
a
lasting
negative
impact
on
their
community.
So
I
think
that's
worth
six
weeks
to
give
everybody
one
last
kick
at
the
can,
especially
when
there
will
be
no
negative
impact
to
to
not
grant
it.
You
know
it.
L
F
B
E
A
L
B
Thanks
counselor
I,
the
the
motion
would
remove
1517
Park
mount
and
nine
Canfield
Road
from
the
rezoning
so
that
those
would
continue
to
be
residential.
It
would
eliminate
the
possibility
of
putting
parking
on
there
and
it
would
further
enable
staff
to
move
forward
with
a
would
presumably
be
a
temporary
exemption
to
the
parking
rules
if
they
are
able
to
find
another
spot
in
which
to
party
so
that
doesn't
cost
them
for
the
for
the
temporary
exemption.
And
again
you
know
this
does
not
do
anything
to
the
community
center
to
the
expansion
of
the
church.
F
B
M
E
F
D
A
A
So
with
that
you
go
to
any
in-camera
items,
we
have
none
notices
of
motion
for
a
subsequent
meeting
increase
none
in
the
other
business
other
than
the
information
we'll
wait
for
in
that
IPD.
That's
probably
the
biggest
business
that
we
have
injured
adjournment
with
our
next
meeting
being
a
bit
of
a
break
from
now
August
the
Thursday
August
27th
take
care.
Everyone
will
find
some
cool
shade
there,
counselor
leaper
thank.