►
From YouTube: Planning Committee – October 8, 2020
Description
Planning Committee
Agenda and background materials can be found at http://www.ottawa.ca/agendas.
A
B
A
Here
we
are
we're
at
9,
30.,
okay,
good
morning,
everyone.
This
is
a
public
meeting
to
consider
the
proposed
comprehensive
official
plan
and
zoning
bylaw
amendments
listed
as
items
one
two
and
three
on
today's
agenda
for
the
items
just
mentioned.
Only
those
who
make
oral
submissions
today
or
written
submissions
before
the
amendments
are
adopted
may
appeal
the
matter
to
the
local
planning
appeal
tribunal.
In
addition,
the
applicant
may
appeal
the
matter
to
the
local
planning
appeal
tribunal.
A
If
anybody
has
any
motions
that
they
want
to
move
that
they
haven't
shared
with
us,
appreciate
you
doing
so
as
quickly
as
possible,
so
that
the
delegations,
the
applicant
and
all
of
us,
have
a
chance
to
review
it.
So
any
declarations
of
interest,
but
my
I'm
seeing
everybody
shaking
their
heads
what's
wrong.
I've
got
a
new
setup
today,
everybody,
so
I
I'm
not
going
to
be
able
to
see
the
hang
on
see
the
waving
of
hands.
A
C
A
Kerry.
Thank
you
communications.
We
have
a
response
to
inquiries
on
the
rezoning
and
development
charges.
Okay,
okay.
We
have
two
additional
walk-ons
that
vice
chair
gower
has
got
motions
for.
Let's
deal
with
those
right
now
as
far
as
getting
them
on
or
not
onto
the
agenda.
The
first
one
has
to
do
it's
quite
technical
and
it's
getting
us
ready
for
the
vote
at
council
on
next
wednesday,
on
infill
and
r4
bystar
gower.
B
B
This
is
on
bill
197,
so,
whereas
at
its
august
27
2020
meeting,
the
planning
committee
received
an
information
report,
titled
briefing
on
planning
and
development
charges,
aspects
of
bill,
nye,
197,
coven,
19,
economic
recovery
act
2020
and
whereas
staff
committed
to
provide
a
briefing
to
committee
at
such
time
as
further
information
was
available
on
the
pending
legislation
and
whereas
relevant
provisions
came
into
force
on
september.
18Th
2020,
therefore
be
it
resolved
that
the
planning
committee
approved
that
the
following
item
be
added
to
the
agenda
for
consideration.
A
Perfect
and
we'll
deal
with
both
of
these
when
we
get
to
other
business,
so
on
the
on
the
bill.
197
motion
to
add
it
to
the
agenda.
Is
that
carried?
Thank
you.
Okay.
The
first
item
up
is
zoning
bylaw
amendment
1131
and
1151
taran
road,
it's
in
canada,
north
and
councillor,
suds
ward,
and
we
do
have
neil
thompson-
is
here
to
speak.
So
we're
going
to
hold
that
item.
A
A
A
B
A
Great,
thank
you.
The
next
one
is
motions
of
which
notice
has
previously
been
given,
which
we'll
just
deal
with
this
anyways
because
it
was
formally
before
us,
and
this
has
to
do
with
the
centertown
community
design
plan
and
the
secondary
plan
and
what
we
agreed
to
there.
I
think
it
was
introduced
the
notice
of
motion
by
councillor
leeper
on
behalf
of
councillor
mckinney.
A
A
A
D
D
D
One
of
the
key
things
that
we
have
always
known
in
canada
is
that
70
of
the
people
who
work
here
live
here
only
7
percent
pre-covet
work
downtown,
so
the
overwhelming
need
for
transit
is
in
community
not
to
get
to
and
from
downtown
now.
Having
said
that,
we
also
know
that
there's
an
increasing
number
of
people
who
are
transiting
out
to
the
canada
north
business
park.
So
you
know,
transit
from
downtown
to
canada
is
certainly
a
priority.
D
I'd
like
to
point
out
a
couple
of
partial
failures
that
we've
seen
here.
One
is
that
there's
a
series
of
apartments
put
in
what
is
the
former
canada
town
center,
most
notably
williams
court,
six,
multiple
mid-rise
to
high-rise
apartment
buildings,
we're
all
predicated
on
the
basis
of
the
town
center,
which
was
supposed
to
be
a
wholesale
live
work
play
community
center,
high
density.
That
was
always
bill,
taran's
plan
and
that
was
going
to
include
office
related
businesses,
main
street
kind
of
retail
and
restaurant
and
everything
else
well.
D
The
net
result
with
the
delay
of
lrt
is
the
only
thing
that's
been
built.
There
are
the
apartment
buildings
and
I
know
from
our
working
with
a
person
who
actually
does
marketing
for
my
software
company,
who
was
pulled
in
by
that
very
same
apartment,
company
and
said:
look
we're
really
having
trouble
attracting
and
keeping
renters
here,
because
the
promised
infrastructure
and
live
work
play
just
never
materialized
and
at
this
point,
there's
no
prospect
that
we're
seeing
carrying
forward
the
second
one
is
to
the
parkway,
which
of
to
the
parkway
at
11.
D
31
has
occupied
a
lot
of
my
time
over
the
last
several
years.
This
was
at
the
site
of
a
former
post
office
where
they
got
approval
to
put
up
a
seven
story,
85
unit
building
on
a
postage
stamp
size
lot.
The
demand
was
so
low
that
they
came
back
and
asked
for
an
adjustment
to
that
to
two
seven
story:
towers
of
approximately
40
plus
units.
D
Only
one
was
ever
built
and
the
remaining
part
of
the
property
has
a
construction
fence
around
it
and
has
for
three
years
and
no
resolution
of
where
it's
going
to
go,
and
we
understand
from
the
residents
that
it
took
us
an
extremely
long
time
for
that
to
sell
out.
So
the
the
assumption
that
there
is
a
demand
for
high-rise
in
the
community
and
seniors
moving
in
there
has
not
carried
through
in
both
cases.
D
The
other
thing
is
that
this
property
is
going
to
be
built
on
lita
clay,
lida
clay
caused
a
building
which
is,
at
the
other
end
of
turin,
which
is
the
atriums
a
construction
period
of
no
less
than
10
years
because
of
the
construction
difficulties
and
cost
overruns
that
happen,
and
this
is
being
built
in
the
same
thing.
So
this
is
going
to
be
an
expensive
property
to
develop
it's
a
very
isolated
piece
of
property.
D
So
these
are
some
lessons
that
need
to
be
understood
that
things
that
may
have
worked
in
westboro
when
translated
and
put
into
a
suburb,
such
as
beaver
brook,
may
not
work,
and
we
don't
want
to
see
projects
going
ahead
here
that
are
going
to
be
kind
of
marginal
or
not
somewhere.
People
want
to
live
or
that
include
degrading
the
rest
of
the
community
in
terms
of
increased
intensification
privacy
overlook.
D
The
developer
has
worked
with
the
community
to
try
and
attenuate
that.
But
the
fact
remains
is
that
the
setbacks
and
elevation
changes
are
not
compatible
with
the
as
built
community.
It's
compatible
with
the
general
urban
area
definition,
which
you
know
I,
where
we
would
not
be
the
first
community
association
to
say
that
that's
not
terribly
respectful
of
our
community.
A
E
D
That's
a
study.
That's
been
been
around
for
about
10
years.
I
can't
remember
exactly
the
site.
I
can
certainly
pull
that
statistic
up,
but
that
was
basically
analysis
and
and
part
parcel.
It
was
showing
you
know
what
is
the
in
community
transit
for
work
across
the
city.
It's
it's
a
it's
a
fairly
common
study
which
it
can
pull
up
and
the
analysis
of
that
was.
Seventy
percent
is
in
community
and
of
the
identified
other
destinations.
Only
seven
percent
were
them
downtown.
D
I
would
you
know,
get
given
the
extreme
growth
of
the
canada
high
tech
sector.
I
would
I
would
no,
I
would
tend
to
say
it's
it's
going
the
other
way,
so
I
don't
know
that
I
would
agree
with
the
statement
of
the
10
year
old
study
and
in
fact
the
one
thing
that
the
study
did
show
is
that
from
1965
two
four
five
six
years
ago-
and
this
is
a
study
that
is
updated
on
a
regular
basis-
that
that
trend
has
not
changed.
E
And
I
I
believe
the
bia
when
counselor
suds
was
there.
I
thought
there
was
a
study
that
came
out.
That
said
something
like
30
or
35.
000
people
a
day
are
coming
to
work
in
canada,
either
from
canada
or
outside
of
canada.
I
see
you
shaking
your
head,
so
I
guess
I'm
remembering
that
number
right
so,
prior
to
what
this
proposal
may
be.
E
D
So
it's
not
clear
that
that's
attractive
for
somebody
to
say,
move
from
downtown
to
canada
to
go
into
a
small
apartment
just
to
be
closer
to
work.
So
I
understand
absolutely
and
can't
disagree
at
all
with
the
statement
that
yeah
we're
seeing
increasing
people
coming
from
the
rest
of
the
city
to
canada
north,
but
that
doesn't
make
this
particular
property
any
more
attractive
as
a
place
to.
E
A
A
An
expert,
but
there
actually
are
experts
that
you
know
have
that
like,
for
example,
there
are
experts
in
transportation
that
regularly
come
to
councillor
tierney's
transportation
committee
or
councillor
hubley,
I
mean
it's.
I
I'd
like
to
think
I
know
a
lot
because
I've
been
a
counselor
for
23
years,
but
when
it
comes
to
myself
against
people
who
are
professionals,
whether
they're
engineers,
etc
of
any
kind
or
planners,
etc,
I
mean
it's
it's
an
entirely
different
observations
are
not
fact.
F
F
I
know
this
file
has
been
around
with
the
previous
zoning
appeal.
I
think
it
was
back
in
2014,
and
here
we
are
today
with
with
some
additional
tweaks
to
it
to
cancer
hubley's
point.
There
was
a
study
done
when
I
was
at
the
business
association
that
had
indicated
50
percent
of
folks.
Now
that
was
specific
to
canada
north
to
be
fair
to
councillor
hubley.
So
a
bit
of
a
different
analysis
about
50
were
working
within
the
community
versus
going
elsewhere.
F
I
think
just
a
further
comment
and
I
can't
recall
who
had
made
it
with
respect
to
the
demand
type
of
housing.
I
think
we're
quite
fortunate
in
canada
that
we
do
have
a
variety
of
housing,
but
to
the
point
that
we
do
have
30
000
people
working
in
the
business
park
every
day.
We
know
that
they're
not
all
from
canada
north,
and
we
also
know
that
there
is
a
lack
of
entry-level
housing
and
affordable
housing
in
our
community.
F
Having
said
that,
and
I've
spoken
with
them
with
the
new
owner
and
those
involved
in
this
application,
there
are
definitely
some
concerns
as
it
is
moving
forward
and
I
would
say,
namely
with
respect
to
that,
the
traffic
impact
now.
That,
of
course,
could
be
mitigated
as
we
improve
transit
in
our
community
and
we
get
stage
3
lrt
out
to
canada
and
brt
at
march
road,
but
I
think,
there's
still
some
further
work
and
discussion.
A
G
G
Sounds
like
a
plan
so
with
with
respect
to
the
the
comments
raised
by
by
mr
thompson.
Councillor
suds
already
touched
upon
it
a
little
bit.
The
site
is
located
close
to
transit,
which
will
be
good
for
for
people
who
do
want
to
work
downtown,
but
it
also
is
located
in
very
close
proximity
to
the
canada
north
employment
node.
G
So
this
is
providing
a
different
housing
option
at
a
higher
density
in
close
proximity
to
transit.
It's
important
to
note
as
well
that
we're
not
asking
for
greater
height
here.
The
site
has
already
been
rezoned
to
provide
a
nine-story
building
height,
so
we're
just
looking
for
a
redistribution
of
the
massing
with
respect
to
a
few
other
matters
that
were
raised
by
mr
thompson,
such
as
transportation
impact
privacy,
noise,
light
impact
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
E
B
B
So,
whereas
there
is
a
technical
amendment
required
in
the
zoning
to
provide
additional
flexibility
in
the
placement
of
an
ottawa,
carlton
district
school
board
school
and
whereas
the
ottawa
carlton
district
school
board
made
this
request
on
october.
7
2020,
therefore
be
it
resolved.
That
planning
committee
recommend
council
approve
the
following
amendments
to
the
report.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
So
I'm
going
to
ask
michelle
taggart
michelle.
I
saw
you.
Can
you
speak
to
that
please
and
how
we
got
here
what's
happening
because
you
know
it
was
late
yesterday
that
we
heard
from
the
school
board
and
then
overnight
there
was
another
email
sent.
So
I
think
that
for
the
committee
members
it
would
be
very
helpful
in
lilly,
as
I
said,
if
you
want
to
chime
in
after
michelle
speaks,
go
for
it.
Thank
you.
Go
ahead.
Michelle.
H
H
H
So
city
staff
subsequently
raised
concerns
over
the
depth
of
the
pipes
in
the
design
because
of
some
geotech
issues.
So
tamarack
agreed
to
redesign
the
subdivision
and
raise
everything
up
so
to
do
that,
we
had
to
start
a
new
design
from
scratch
and
when
we
started
the
new
design,
we
were
looking
at
the
site
and
we
decided
that
having
the
school
and
the
park
at
the
center
of
the
community
made
much
better
sense
from
planning
and
design
perspective.
H
Bbss
create
the
best
most
complete
community,
and
so
we,
when
we
did
the
redesign,
we
moved
them
to
the
location.
That's
shown
on
the
on
the
zoning
map
right
there.
So
there
are
sensitive
marine
clay
soils
throughout
the
subdivision
and
the
school
board
is
concerned
that
their
new
location
has
sensitive
marine
clay.
H
So
that's
why
they're
proposing
a
dual
zoning
on
those
two
blocks
so
that
the
parks
people
and
the
school
people
can
work
together
for
what's
the
best
configuration
for
where
the
school
is
and
where
the
park
is,
I
don't
want
to
redesign
the
entire
site
again,
but
having
those
two
blocks,
interchange
is
fine
with
with
tamarack,
and
so
we
support
the
amended
or
the
proposed
motion
and
the
zoning.
As
stated
thank.
I
Thank
you
chair.
One
thing
to
add
is
after
tamarack
proposed,
the
revised
layout
of
the
subdivision
staff
did
follow
the
planning
act,
requirements
and
council's
public
consultation
policies
to
provide
a
notification
to
all
members
and
the
public
to
be
informed
about
the
revision
and
including
the
school
board.
At
that
time
the
support
didn't
raise
any
concerns.
So
that's
how
the
zoning
is
proceeding
until
yesterday
we
were
made
aware
of
the
concern
from
the
school.
That's
why
the
motion
is
created.
J
E
E
I
E
I
Under
the
planning
act,
the
subdivision
land
owner
can
hold
up
the
block
for
the
school
for
seven
years.
So
then,
after
seven
years,
if
the
school
doesn't
take
the
land,
the
landowner
had
the
right
to
use
a
property
for
other
purposes,
such
as
a
residential
for
this
case.
We're
not
aware
that
the
school
ever
indicates
they
absolutely
will,
or
they
absolutely
will
not,
but
the
understanding
is
they
intend
to
put
a
school
here.
This
was
consistent
with
the
original
cdp
for
the
whole
area.
A
E
A
A
Okay,
okay,
so
now
that's
it
for
our
our
main
stuff.
We've
got
the
two
items
on
the
agenda
and
other
business,
so
I'm
just
going
to
move
the
other
business
up
ahead
of
the
notices
of
motion
for
a
subsequent
meeting.
First
of
all,
we'll
deal
with
the
the
technical
motion
staff
initiated
to
add
an
item
to
the
agenda,
so
that
staff
can
enact
the
bylaws
for
infill
and
r4
in
a
concise
way
ahead
of
the
october
14th
council
meeting
david
you're
there
david
wise
did.
You
want
to
say
anything
david
succinctly.
G
G
We
need
to
make
sure
that
there's
a
an
appropriate
process
by
which
these
are
implemented,
and
this
is
just
simply
to
provide
some
transparency,
some
clarity,
but
also
to
make
sure
that
that
our
that
are
staff-
and
everyone
knows
exactly
what
order
they
need
to
happen
in
the
reason
for
that
again
is
because
infill
was
meant
to
come
ahead
of
r4,
but
both
of
them
are
coming
concurrently.
So
there's
certainly
a
degree
of
interchange
that
we
need
to
account
for.
I
A
A
Okay,
and
so
you
order
these
things
sure
and
then
so,
we're
just
going
to
park
that
one
for
a
minute:
okay,
we'll
just
like
garrett
you're
here
to
speak
to
197.,
that's
correct,
madam
chair
and
so
david-
be
ready
for
some
questions
that
counselor
leaper
will
likely
have
yeah.
Well,
you
know
what
inside
out,
so
I'm
sure
you're
going
to
notice
something.
That's
okay!
Go
ahead!
Garrett.
C
C
C
C
Slide
please,
this
is
just
a
timeline
of
the
legislative
amendments
that
have
taken
place.
You'll
recall
that
bill
108
came
into
effect
in
june
of
2019,
and
we
have
had
a
lot
of
legislation
coming
from
the
province
since
then,
bill
197
effectively
is
the
culmination
of
the
process
that
was
started
under
bill
108,
so
the
at
least
with
respect
to
development
charges
and
planning.
C
The
majority
of
those
changes
are
now
in
effect,
and
we
can
now
speak
to
how
the
transition
will
take
place
next
slide.
Please
so
you'll
recall
that
section,
37,
height
and
density
bonusing
has
been
replaced
under
initially
under
bill
108
and
that's
retained
under
bill.
197,
that's
been
replaced
with
a
community
benefits
charge
which
we'll
address
in
the
next
slide
section
37
bylaws
are
going
to
remain
in
force
unless
and
until
we
enact
a
community
benefits
charged
by
law.
C
My
understanding
is
that
staff
are
looking
at
enacting
or
bringing
forward
a
report
about
enacting
such
bylaw,
but
that's
still
in
the
process
of
being
studied
next
slide.
Please,
the
community
benefits
charge
power
under
section
37.
The
new
section
37
is
retained.
However,
it's
been
narrowed
considerably.
C
Community
benefits
charges
can
be
charged,
but
it
will
not
only
apply
to
relatively
high
medium
to
high
density
residential
development,
specifically
that's
development
of
a
building
with
10
or
more
residential
units
and
five
or
more
stories
both
of
those
things.
Additionally,
there's
a
cap
on
the
amount
of
community
benefits
charges.
We
can
collect
from
any
one
property
and
that's
five.
Sorry,
four
percent
of
the
property
value
and
that's
the
total
community
benefits
charge
is
four
percent
services
that
can
be
charged
as
community
benefits.
C
Charges
are
very
broadly
defined,
similar
to
how
the
development
charges
use
act
used
to
be
drafted.
The
community
benefits
charge
can
be
charged
for
any
facility
or
service
related
to
an
increased
demand
from
new
development,
and
it's
only
with
respect
to
capital
charges
for
that
facility
or
service.
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
F
C
C
at
that
time,
anything
that
wouldn't
have
been
collectible
with
it
in
their
current
by
life.
It's
not
collectible
under
the
new
regime
is
not
enforceable,
but
again
I
don't
think
there's
much
that
wouldn't
be
enforceable
under
our
current
bylaw,
because
the
list
is
quite
broad
next
slide,
please
one
of
the
main
changes
under
bill
197
is
that
it
reverses
the
approach
proposed
under
bill
108.
With
respect
to
parkland.
We
can
continue
to
collect
for
dedication
of
parkland
under
our
parkland
bylaw.
C
B
C
C
To
subdivision
or
site
planner
or
sorry,
zoning
by
law,
approval
and
that's
been
expanded
to
allow
for
site
plan
approval
orders,
so
it
just
allows
the
minister
more
fine-grained
control
if
they
want
to
intervene
in
municipal
decision-making
with
respect
to
planning.
We
haven't
seen
that
to
be
the
case
too
much
in
ottawa.
Although
we
have
seen
in
the
last
year
that
there
have
been
more
ministers,
orders
issued
in
the
gta
area
so
we'll
it
remains
to
be
seen
whether
this
will
be
something
that
will
be
seen
in
ottawa
as
well.
C
A
J
Thanks,
I
just
want
to
understand
the
relationship
between
the
cash
in
eu
and
the
community
benefit
charge
where
the
community
benefit
charge
is
only
going
to
apply
to
higher
density.
We're
seeing
a
fair
bit
of
cil
coming
into
the
ward
as
a
result
of
the
semi-detached
that
are
going
in.
Will
that
continue
to
be
the
case
or
is
cil
now
only
applicable
to
higher
density
as
well?.
J
J
C
So
I
am
I'm
not
entirely
plugged
into
the
discussion
others
may
be
able
to
on.
The
call
may
be
able
to
answer
more
in
depth,
but
my
understanding
is
the
city
is
looking
at
bringing
forward
recommendations
to
council
about
what
would
be
best
for
the
city
to
include
in
the
community
benefits
charge
and
that's
at
a
fairly.
E
A
A
A
A
E
B
E
E
A
A
A
That's
the
good
news.
No,
it
is
because
we
we've
had
some
changes
to
the
legislative
agenda
that
quite
a
large
project
has
been
pushed
off.
It's
not
quite
ready
for
daytime
tv,
so
it's
and
it
was
a
very
sm
smallish
kind
of
agenda
small
for
us.
So
there's
nothing!
That's
pressing
that
can't
be
put
off
until
the
next
meeting,
which
isn't
until
tuesday
november
the
10th
it's
like
summer
holidays
or
something
for
planning.