►
From YouTube: Planning Committee August 25, 2022 (Part 3)
Description
Planning Committee meeting of August 25, 2022
Agenda and supporting documents available at www.ottawa.ca/agendas
B
A
C
Yeah,
I
I
I
think,
I'd
post
most
of
it,
I
I
just
was
wondering
council
flurry
referred
to
sort
of
a
back
door
approvals
process
and
I'm
just
trying
to
figure
out
what
that
is,
because
it
looks
like
they're
doing
renovations
to
the
existing
building
without
making
any
major
modifications
to
footprint
or
height
or
the
structure
or
anything
under
building
permit.
And
then
you
know
we
are
they're
being
very
transparent
with
building
the
the
second
building
here.
D
They're,
no
glad
to
give
you
the
context
and-
and
I'm
not
certainly
not
insinuating-
that
they're
not
following
building
permits.
I'm
saying
we're
I've
heard
from
their
planning
consultants
and
I've
heard
from
planning
staff
that
by
the
fact
they
go
into
a
building,
getting
a
building
permit
doing
work
there,
and
then
they
come
with
additions.
These
are
one
of
multiple
sites
that
are
happening
currently
in
sandy
hill.
From
this
owner's
group
there
there
are
a
lot
of
things
that
we
can
discuss,
including
garbage
indoors.
D
That
is
then
shut
down,
because
they've
invested
new
fight
new
dollars
into
an
older
building,
and
I
would
note
to
you
that
these
buildings
really
live
separately
as
as
they've
mentioned.
Yet
if
they
live
separately,
they
should
have
a
separate
municipal
address,
with
the
proper
setbacks
between
the
property
so
feels,
like
you
know.
If
they
came
in
through
pre-consult
shared
the
full
plan.
Look
at
all
the
options,
including
on
all
these
measures.
D
There
could
be
better
options
presented,
certainly
not
against
against
the
the
and
I'm
not
even
speaking
about
the
number
of
bedrooms
or
the
unit,
but
the
impacts
of
the
approach
they
take
creates
these
loopholes,
which
you
know
we.
We
have
garbage
pressures
in
sandy
hill
at
that
site.
There's
a
lot
of
garbage
pressures
already
and
what
they're
proposing
is
again
the
same
impacts
on
city
enforcement
and
management.
D
C
A
Thanks
counselor
leaper,
I
I
think
I
understand
what
counselor
flurry
is
trying
to
raise
and
achieve
with
this
motion.
I
want
to
ask
staff
if
this
is
actually
something
we
can
legally
do
through
the
amendment
to
the
document
that
counselor
fleury
is
proposing
in
the
motion.
Can
someone
from
staff
comment
on.
E
The
city
can
provide
mr
chair
in
a
zoning
bylaw
that
the
waste
storage
is
to
be
internal
to
the
primary
building.
That
is
a
matter
that,
as
a
legal
technical
matter
can
be
included
in
zoning
by
law.
Whether
it's
appropriate
from
a
pla
on
a
planning
basis
is,
of
course,
for
planets
to
provide
their
opinion
on.
A
C
A
C
G
A
A
Okay
and
then
on
the
the
report
as
amended,
is
the
report?
Are
the
report
recommendations
carried
all
right?
Okay,
okay,
thank
you.
I
believe
we're
moving
on
to
our
last
held
item,
which
is
5.13
community
benefits,
charge
strategy
and
bylaw
councillor
fleury
has
a
couple
of
emotions:
let's
introduce
those
before
we
go
with
that.
I
think.
D
D
I
had
worked
under
the
same
provisions
that
we
all
had
to
develop
a
list
under
five
themes,
none
of
which
were
none
of
the
items
that
were
raised
were
costed,
which
creates
the
issue
that,
although
priority,
although
meeting
the
themes-
they're
not
costed,
so
you
can't
add
them
to
the
list.
Although
the
list
means
nothing,
I'm
just
doing
the
the
next
step,
which
is
making
sure
items
are
costed,
and
then
it
will
be
up
to
next
council
to
decide
decide
if
they
are
their
appropriate
cbc
elements.
A
A
I'll
read
your
therefore
be.
It
resolved,
therefore,
be
resolved.
With
respect
to
report
to
the
report
that
planning
committee
recommends
council
direct
staff
work
with
the
ward
12
counselor
to
review
and
provide
cost
estimates
for
ward
12's
list
of
projects
for
inclusion
on
the
community
benefits
charge
capital
project
list
as
part
of
the
next
capital
program
list
review
prior
of
the
next
budget
cycle,
and
since
chair
moffett
isn't
in
a
seat,
I
can
move
on
your
behalf.
Okay,
we
have
delegations,
we
also
have
staff
available
for
presentation.
A
I
know
many
committee
members
have
seen
a
presentation
on
this
previously
do
committee
members
want
to
see
a
presentation
as
part
of
this
planning
committee.
Yes
or
no,
I
see
a
no
I'm
thinking,
no
okay.
We
will
skip
the
staff
presentation,
but
thank
you
staff
for
being
ready
to
do
that
and
we'll
go
to
our
delegations.
We
have
two
delegations.
Miranda,
gray
and
jason.
Burgraph
is
miranda
with
us
because
she
is
listed
first.
F
A
A
H
Thanks
chair
I'll
keep
trying
to
keep
my
comments.
A
bit
short
really,
there's
been
an
important
thread
of
conversation
at
planning
committee
over
the
past
number
of
months
and
you've
heard
me
say
it
before
and
I'll
say
it
again
about
the
cumulative
impact
of
city
imposed
costs
on
new
housing
and,
as
we
discussed
through
inclusionary
zoning
through
bill
109
through
discussion
of
the
comprehensive
zoning
bar
law,
parkland
dedication,
the
high
performance
development
standard
and
now
here
at
community
benefits
charges.
H
The
community
benefit
charge
in
particular,
is
actively
working
against
the
city's
housing
affordability,
intensification
goals
as
it's
a
charge
on
a
certain
type
of
high
density
unit
required
for
the
growth
management
study
study,
but
it's
also
been
set
up
as
basically
a
dc
surcharge
on
intensification
units
and
these
units
are
supposed
to
be
encouraged
and
most
desirable.
According
to
the
draft
official
plan,
again,
the
vast
majority
of
the
cost
burden
of
the
cdc
is
going
on
the
type
of
housing.
H
That's
supposed
to
be
the
most
affordable
in
the
city,
going
forward
your
one
two
three
bedroom
apartments
that
are
close
to
transit,
and
so
I
mean
we've
talked
about
the
cumulative
impacts.
A
lot
I
did
want
to
bring
up
three
specific
things
about
the
cbc
that
I
that
I
feel
like
counselors
should
be
aware
of
in
terms
of
its
benefit
and
its
effectiveness.
These
are
also
outlined
in
our
written
submission.
H
First,
the
growth
funding
tool.
The
vast
majority
of
the
cost-
is
actually
going
to
go
on
taxpayers
in
order
to
pay
for
the
list
of
projects
that
you
have
within
the
strategy.
It's
it's.
It
calls
for
a
70
million
contribution
on
cbc
charges,
but
338
million
on
new
rate
taxpayer
money.
That's
your
benefit
to
existing
and
replacement
a
column
on
table
seven
of
the
strategy.
H
So
the
vast
majority
of
the
spending
here
is
just
on
taxpayers
in
general,
the
actual
projection
of
the
projection
of
actual
revenue
on
the
charge
matches
the
annual
revenue
scene
and
under
section
37
agreements,
so
you're
on
the
again
in
the
strategy
and
in
the
staff
report.
They
comment
that
you're
getting
about
the
same
amount
of
money
that
you
did
under
section,
37
you're
not
anticipated
to
get
more
money
than
that.
H
So
when
you
see
that
70
million
dollars
versus
35
million
dollars
of
revenue
that
we've
seen
previously,
don't
think
that
by
enacting
the
cbc
we're
magically
going
to
get
a
higher
number,
the
other
thing
I
really
wanted
to
point
out
and
counselor
fleury's
motion
kind
of
speaks
to
this.
A
little
is
that,
as
we've
been
advised
by
staff,
the
project
list
is
really
illustrative.
H
I
don't
think
again,
if
you're
implementing
the
cdc
that
you're
going
to
get
all
these
wonderful
things
on
this
list.
It's
not
necessarily
any
of
these
items
are
not
necessarily
going
to
go
through.
Certainly
not
all
of
them
are
going
to
come
through
they're,
certainly
contingent
on
the
money
that
is
raised
and
whether
that
money
kind
of
comes
through
at
all.
H
So
beyond
those
concerns,
our
written
submission
details,
number
of
outstanding
items,
more
technical
and
more
legal
in
the
bylaw
and
the
strategy
that
relate
to
interpretation
and
application,
and
that
we
really
want
to
continue
working
on
with
staff
to
resolve.
We've
had
some
good
discussions
over
the
past
couple
of
months
on
these
there
still
are
some
outstanding
items.
You
know
the
project
list.
H
C
Yeah
so
since
we
have
you-
and
I
I
think
it
does
tie
in
I
mean
we
are
interested
in
seeing
more
housing
built
in
the
in
the
city.
We
know
we
need
to
do
a
better
job
of
building
subsidized
housing
and
social
housing
and
housing
that's
deeply
affordable,
but
we
also
need
more
housing
supply
as
well
to
bring
affordability
to
to
a
larger
market.
I
think
you
know
we're
seeing
some
projects
that
are
just
not
going
to
move
ahead
in
the
coming
months.
H
So
you're
you're,
certainly
right
projects,
are
being
slowed
down.
You've
probably
heard
anecdotally
as
much
as
myself
that
some
projects
are
being
pushed
back.
Others
are
being
shelved
completely
I'll
relate.
Of
course,
some
other
members
have
told
me
that
they'll
just
avoid
projects
that
would
fall
under
the
subject
of
a
cbc
charge.
To
begin
with,
so
you
could
conceivably
have
sort
of
you
know
under
development
if
like,
if
I
can
use
that
turn
of
phrase
from
what
the
zoning
may
eventually
allow
certainly
slow
down.
H
I
I
have
to
admit
I
don't
have
particulars
about
for
per
purpose
rental.
What
I,
what
I
will
say
is
certainly
there's
been
a
big
push
on
for
purpose
rental
over
the
past
number
of
years,
but
I
we
don't
really
see
that
we
see
that
moving
forward,
but
sales
overall
for
residential
construction
have
really
dropped
over
the
past
since
really
about
february.
H
I
think
that
has
a
lot
to
do,
obviously,
with
the
interest
rates
a
lot
to
do
with
consumer
confidence
as
well,
and
it's
not
just
a
slight
decline
like
year
over
year
in
june
and
july
sales
have
dropped
to
64,
so
instead
of
over
200,
you
know
over
selling
200
homes
say
in
july
we
sold
less
than
100..
I
think
the
number
was
89.,
so
there's
been,
a
significant
drop
off
of
housing
starts:
er,
sorry,
housing
sales.
H
I
should
say
over
this
over
this
past
six
months
to
the
point
where
year
to
date,
where
10
behind
the
sales
that
we
had
last
year,
so
I
think
you
know
when
you
look
when
you
split
up
construction
activity
in
terms
of
actual
starts,
I
think,
by
the
end
of
this
year
starts,
will
will
still
look
very
healthy.
We
hopefully
will
crest
to
that
9400
number
that
we
had
last
year,
but
you
know
moving
into
the
following
year.
H
If
the
sales
trends
stay
like
this,
as
they
are
say,
you
know
quite
depressed
right
now,
we're
not
going
to
achieve
that
number
come
into.
You
know
20
2023
for
starts
and
actual
kind
of
construction
moving
forward.
So
you
know
there's
a
big
concern.
That
and
again
I
think,
that's
a
lot
to
do
with
consumer
confidence,
and
you
know
the
drum
beat
of
a
recession
that
you
you're
hearing
more
and
more
of
in
the
next
little
bit.
So
that's
making
lender.
You
know
banks
and
lenders
more
skittish
about
lending
to
projects.
H
So
I
think
you
know
you're
gonna
see
that
overall
slowdown
come
into.
You
know
even
into
ottawa,
come
into
the
next
year.
So
you
know
the
sorry
I'll
just
try
to
wrap
up
my
we.
We
also
talked
about
population
projections
in
part
of
the
annual
development
report
discussion
that
was
earlier
today
as
well,
and
that
number
of
1.5
million
into
into
the
province
over
the
next
10
years,
roughly
in
translating
for
ottawa,
that's
supposed
to
mean
somewhere,
you
know
between
10
and
15.
000
starts
every
year
in
ottawa
for
the
next
decade.
H
In
order
for
us
to
kind
of
do
our
share.
That
number
has
been
verified
by
a
couple
of
different
housing
economists.
Most
recently,
mike
moffatt
had
a
report
a
couple
of
weeks
ago.
That
said,
we
needed
over
10
000
a
a
year,
and
it's
certainly
you
know
it
doesn't
seem
like
we'll
do
over
10
000
next
year,
based
on
the
sales
that
we
have
so
far,
yeah.
H
I
I
think,
especially
you
know,
with
related
to
cbc
the
the
issue
being.
You
have
to
do
pre-sales
if
you
know
of
a
certain
percentage,
usually
it's
about
60
or
70,
or
so
for
building
of
that
size.
So
you're
just
going
to
see
those
projects
being,
you
know
shelved
and
people
sitting
and
waiting
for
more
consumers
to
kind
of
come
back
into
the
market,
because
right
now,
with
the
higher
interest
rates,
it's
not
it's
not
killing
demand.
It's
just
telling.
Everyone
is
kind
of
people
still
need.
H
People
who
need
to
move
into
a
new
home
still
need
to
do
so.
It's
just
preventing
them
from
doing
so.
So
your
pent
up
demand
only
just
builds
in
a
in
a
you
know.
Financial
situation
such
as
we
have
so
what
you'll
see
and
more
likely
is
just
projects
waiting
for
the
opportune
time
that
the
market
kind
of
comes
back
in
those
kinds
of
projects
which
needs
significant
amounts
of.
You
know
we're
talking
hundreds
of
millions
of
dollars
to
build.
C
There
seems
to
be
some
agreement
that
we
can
it's
worth
exploring
whether
we
can
get
things
moving
again
if
the
feds
were
to
add
a
couple
more
points
on
to
say
the
affordable
housing
program
for
the
for
the
rental
market.
If
it's,
if
it's
purpose
but
built
rentals,
that
are
going
to
go
on
pause
because
of
interest
rates,
and
you
know
labor,
challenges
etc,
and
builders
can't
make
their
numbers
work
for
their
lenders.
H
Well-
and
I
I
will
add-
I
mean
cmhc
constantly
and
actually
just
did
a
recent
consultation
on.
Why
don't
more
people
take
up
their
the
funding
that
they
do
offer
because
they
do
leave
money
on
the
table
first
listings
and
it's
some
shy
away
from
it
just
from
the
sheer
amount
of
red
tape
and
and
other
things
that
you
have
to
do
to
kind
of
get
that,
and
I
mean
the
reality,
is
you
know
if
a
project
is
supplemented
by
cmhc
funds
to
the
tune
of
you
know
three
hundred
thousand
dollars
a
unit?
H
H
C
So
thanks
for
for
answering
some
of
those
questions,
we
had
you
here
so
with
respect
to
the
cbc
itself.
I
hope
you're
not
suggesting
that,
while
the
totality
of
the
list
of
eligible
projects
is
something
like
700
million
we're
gonna
or
800
million
we're
going
to
collect
a
seven
point
whatever.
I
hope
you're
not
suggesting
that
if
we
pass
this
cbc
today,
we're
authorized
in
a
capital
spending
program
on
on
the
ratepayers
back
of
hundreds
of
millions
of
dollars.
H
No,
not
not
at
all,
I
just
I
I
just
want
to
you
know,
make
sure
everyone
is
clear
on
that.
The
vast
majority
of
this
again,
you
know
338
million
of
the
500
million.
That's
that's
spending
is
tax.
Pay
is
tax
payer
based
for
benefit
to
existing
and
replacement,
and
what
have
you
right
and
that
that's
you
know,
the
vast
majority
of
funds
for
the
projects
that
are
listed
within
table
seven
are
are
being
paid
for
that
way,
not
really
cbs.
You
know
what
people
are
going
to
consider
development
charges
through
the
cbc
portion.
C
I'm
just
worried
that
residents
may
consider
that
if
we
pass
this
cbc
today
that
we're
we're
authorizing
some
new
multi-hundred
million
dollar,
those
are
projects
that,
if
they're
not
funded
by
the
new
cbc
are,
are
not
going
to
move
ahead.
Unless
council
decides,
you
know
what
we're
we're
going
to
collect
those
in
taxes,
but
that's
not
a
decision
that
we're
making
anytime
in
the
near
future.
I
Thank
you,
jason.
I
want
you
to
know
that
I'm
highly
sympathetic
to
what
you're
saying
the
challenge
I
have,
because
I
hear
you
know
we've
added
on
so
many
things
all
at
once.
It's
just
non-stop
these
additional
charges,
but
the
the
challenge
we
have.
You
must
be
able
to
see
the
challenge.
We
have
that
what
we
would
provide
with
community
benefits
are
things
that
are
are
helpful
to
people
in
terms
of
keeping
them
healthy
and
having
them
love
where
they
live
and
they're
all
very
really
important
things.
I
H
Well,
I
mean
substantially
your
community
benefits
should
come
from
the
community
and
you
know
for
the
most
part,
it's
there's
a
lot
of
charges,
especially
on
this
list
within
the
cbc
that
don't
have
almost
all
they
don't
have
any
benefit
to
existing
or
zero
benefit
or
very
little
benefit
to
existing
in
terms
of
its
allocation.
So
I
mean
the
reality:
is
the
compute?
You
know
community
benefits,
be
they
parks
or
infrastructure,
or
what
have
you
should
be
born
by
the
community,
not
just
solely
by
new
development?
H
So
you
know
there's
a
every
one
of
these
items.
We
could
kind
of
pick
apart
and
see
you
know
which
you
know
how
things
will
go
and
as
they
get
approved,
we
probably
certainly
will
have
to
have
those
discussions,
or
certainly
at
least
the
proponent
and
staff
will
have
discussions
about
what
you
know.
What
proportion
goes
where,
but
the
reality
is
as
and
as
as
I
know
you
guys
are
sympathetic
to.
H
Is
we're
really
kind
of
getting
to
the
point
where
again,
the
number
of
the
amount
of
cost
in
the
cumulative
when
you
look
at
it
in
the
aggregate
is
starting
to
impede
the
you
know
development?
It's
if
you
include
all
the
things
that
I
listed
before
and
including
inclusionary
zoning
when
we
consider
it
in
the
next
term
of
council.
You
know:
we've
crept
over
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
per
unit
for
those
again,
you
know
those
apartments
that
are
supposed
to
be
next
to
transit.
I
No,
I
I
understand
that,
and
I
I
guess
I
guess
this
is
our
only
opportunity.
I
feel,
how
do
you
go
back
to
the
community
afterwards
and
say:
oh
guess,
what
all
of
you
have
to
pay
for
this
now,
really,
the
only
way
is
through
increase
in
property
taxes,
and
then
do
we
want
to
do
that.
You
know
I
mean
that's
that
you
know
and
if
we
don't
have
enough
housing,
then
how
good
is
that
for
people's
health?
You
know
it's
all
like
this
is
not
a
simple
conversation.
I
get
that.
B
H
So
there's
a
number
of
changes
in
you
know
tweaks
modifications,
whatever
you
want
to
call
it
within
our
written
submission
on
the
bylaw
itself
and
a
number
of
sort
of
overarching
concerns
we
have
about
what's
included
or
potentially
included
on
the
project
list.
That
would
help
this
situat.
You
know
help
reduce
what
the
overall
project
list
would
be
in
there.
H
Hence
for
the
the
the
title
or
the
the
impact
on
purina
cost
like
the
city's
staff
and
us
are
a
bit
far,
and
you
know
we
have
different
estimates
of
what
the
impact
will
be
for
on
a
per
unit
basis.
But
it's
not
that
far
off
cities
is
like
something
like
eighteen
hundred
dollars
a
unit,
and
ours
is
like
twenty
seven
hundred
so
somewhere
between
two
thousand
and
three
thousand
dollars
a
unit
for
the
cost
of
the
cbc
you
know
is,
is
going
to
be
put
onto
these
new
homes.
H
So
you
know
that,
that's
again,
you
know
money
that
for
these
types
of
items,
some,
some
of
which
we
would
argue,
should
have
been
in
dc's
in
the
first
place
and
if
they
were
so
essential,
why
weren't
they
included
in
the
dc
background
study.
But
again,
that's
a
yet
another
conversation
which
we'll
have
in
16
months
or
maybe
even
less
than
that
when
we
do
the
dc
bylaw
review
in
the
next
term
of
council
as
well.
I'm
sorry
I
lost
I
lost
where
I
was
going
with
the
with
answering
your
question.
B
H
Yeah,
that's
certainly
the
the
big
one
there's
a
lot
of
va,
there's
also
just
a
lot
of
vagueness.
In
terms
of
just
why
titles,
and
not
specific
projects
like
we
would
see
in
a
dc
background
study
when
it's
very
specific
items,
you
know
itemized
or
itemized
out
by
the
dollar.
You
know,
as
per
councillor,
flurries
motion
right.
F
A
F
I
don't
go
too
far,
because
I
don't
think
I'll
be
very
long.
My
feeling,
with
this
backed
up
by
jason's
comments,
is
that
it's
not
ready
yet
that
there's
still
significant
work
to
be
done
on
this.
My
feeling
is
partially
when
it
came
up
in
the
cycle
of
other
things
going
on
at
city
hall,
but
it
hasn't
baked
long
enough.
J
K
Chair,
yes,
we
didn't
bring
on
section
37
leaving.
This
was
brought
on
by
provincial
legislation,
and
now
we
are
with
the
cbc.
If
the
council
chooses
not
to
have
cbc,
we
will
collect
no
section
37
or
cbc.
The
project
list,
which
I
know
is
under
a
lot
of
scrutiny,
is
an
example.
It's
an
illustrative
example
of
projects
list
that
if
we
met
that
was
part
of
the
legislation
we
had
to
have
a
strategy
in
the
strategy
we
had
to
have
the
project
list
in
the
project
list.
K
It
lists
projects
that
are,
we
had
already
cost
out
so
when
you're
looking
behind,
if
we
had
to
look
at
projects
that
are
already
on
the
books
and
costed
out
going
forward
will
be
a
different
matter
going
forward
as
an
application
comes
in,
we
will
have
we'll
look
and
say
what
projects
are
available,
cost
them
out
and
then
put
them
on
the
list
and
start
having
a
master
list
and
that
master
list.
When
a
project
comes
up,
we
look
there's
a
project
in
in
in
your
ward,
we'll
say:
okay,
does
it
hit
the
list?
K
K
K
Yes,
there
has
been
a
additional
charges.
The
cbc
is
very
modest,
it's
a
very
modest
charge.
It
does
replace
section
37..
There
will
be
funds
available
for
other
warrants.
That
section
37
was
never
triggered,
so
it
will
be
throughout
the
city,
and
so
there
will
be
funds
any
time
we're
out
in
the
community.
The
communities
want
things
that
will
affect
their
community.
K
They
want
it
in
their
wards
when
development
happens,
any
meeting
that
I've
ever
attended
as
the
counselors
have
they're
always
looking
for
community
amenities
that
happen
within
the
community
close
to
the
projects.
So
I
will
the
slowdown
housing.
It's
a
very
small,
modest
funding
tool
that
we
put
into
place.
We
do
have
a
transition
that
any
of
the
in-stream
applications
for
the
that
are
right
now
before
us,
so
when
they
did
all
their
financing,
they
didn't
include
cbc.
K
L
Yes,
actually
charmaine
you're,
probably
the
perfect
person
to
answer
this.
I'm
just
you
know
there
was
a
comment
by
one
of
the
delegations
about
you
know
this
isn't
ready
for
prime
time
you
should.
You
should
hold
off
what
happens
if
we
don't
like
I'm
understanding
that
this
is
a
switch
room,
section
37.
This
is
provincially
required,
regulated
expected.
So
what
what
happens?
If
there's
a
delay
in
us
passing
this
and
my
other
question
parts?
That
is,
if
we
do
pass
this,
as
you
said,
we
go
forward
on
september
19th.
K
K
We
have
to
revisit
the
dc
and
so
at
the
same
time
we're
going
to
look
at
the
cbc
lessons
learned,
tweak
it
and
the
dc.
At
the
same
time,
it
is
a
new
legislation,
we're
learning
as
we
go
as
all
of
the
other
misspellings
are
as
well,
and
so
it
will
be
tweaked,
and
I
really
say
that
the
next
18
months
is
a
learning
opportunity
for
us.
So
this
isn't
something
that
we're
have
for
the
next
five
years
or
ten
years,
every
five
years
it
has
to
be
looked
at.
K
L
And
when
you
were
when
this
was
being
worked
on,
I
understand
there's
a
consultant
that
looked
at
this
and
it
came
to
this
report.
You
engaged
I'm
assuming
with
the
various
stakeholders,
including
the
development
community,
received
their
feedback
and
managed
to
incorporate
that
to
some
extent
into
this
report.
K
Thank
you
chair.
Yes,
we
were.
We
had
different
stakeholders.
The
industry
was
one
fca
residents,
counselors
many
different
stakeholders,
the
affordable
housing
group
as
well
as
we
took
all
of
the
feedback.
Of
course,
we
didn't
necessarily
take
everyone's
feedback
into
account,
but
the
strategies
and
all
of
the
policy
and
the
bylaw
was
based
on
balancing
of
the
feedback
that
we
received.
L
Okay
and
then
my
only
other
question
is,
and
maybe
this
is
and
jeremy
feel
free
to
hand
this
off.
If
you
need
to
you
know
once
again
we're
we're
looking
at
this
we're
looking
at
cash
move,
parkland
we've
just
approved
the
the
high
efficiency
standards
like
forget,
the
the
full
acronym,
but
it
was
a
fulsome
one,
but
once
again,
all
of
these
things
it's
adding
to
the
cost
of
developments.
L
Once
again,
all
of
these
things
are
amazing
and
very
helpful
and
impactful
in
a
beneficial
way
for
not
only
municipality
but
in
large
ways
the
environment
and
different
aspects
we're
trying
to
accomplish,
but
are
you
finding
that?
Maybe
this
is
going
to
be
a
bit
much
for
the
development
community?
I
I
am
so
concerned
I'm
growing
concerned
about
how
this
will
impact
buyers
and
if
they
can
afford
these
houses,
or
as
this
will
get,
you
know,
transferred
on
to
buyers
as
they're
purchasing
homes,
properties,
even
rent.
K
M
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
with
respect
to
the
costs
that
are
associated
with
this,
we
have
been
looking
at
this
in
terms
of
the
panoply
of
costs
that
would
be
would
be
attributed
to
a
development
and
how
the
impact
of
this-
and
I
do
concur
with
with
my
colleague,
charmaine
the
the
impact
on
community
benefits
charge-
is
a
small
percentage
of
the
total
cost
and
development.
When
you
equate
that
with
inclusionary
zoning
inclusionary
zoning
is
much
more
significant.
M
We
are
talking
about
something
that
might
be
impacting
four
percent
of
the
project
cost
with
community
benefits
charge.
It
is
more
in
the
range
of
0.2
to
0.5
of
a
project
cost.
So,
yes,
it
is
an
incremental
cost
on
development,
but
in
terms
of
the
overall
monopoly
of
charges
that
a
development
does
have
to
achieve.
This
is
not
in
the
same
ballpark
as
say:
development
charges.
L
I'm
just
concerned
that
as
we
go
through
with
each
and
every
one
of
this,
it
keeps
adding
that
death
by
a
thousand
cuts
right
and
then
eventually
buyers
like
my
23
year
old
step,
daughter
can't
afford
a
home
in
our
city,
so
I
do
think
this
is
beneficial.
I
do
have
one
last
question.
I'm
curious
in
terms
of
the
motion
that
is
before
us.
What
is
staff's
opinion
of
that?
Does
that
change
the
dynamics
of
the
report
and
what's
being
proposed,
is
I'm
just
curious
as
to
your
thoughts
on
it.
G
I
thought
on
an
average
unit
being
built
development
charges
were
around
40
45
000,
yet
we're
hearing
the
accumulation
of
all
these
new
charges
that
are
coming
out
of
mainly
the
work
in
your
area
are
adding
up
to
almost
a
hundred
thousand
dollars,
so
wouldn't
that
be
on
a
bigger
impact
to
housing
because
we're
not
taking
away
those
forty
thousand
so
we're
still
asking
for
the
forty
thousand.
But
now
the
accumulated
number
we're
hearing
is
a
hundred
thousand.
M
M
G
M
Well,
I
don't
have
the
numbers
for
a
for
a
single
unit
for
with
respect
to
the
community
benefits
charge.
I
have
that
on
a
per
building
basis,
because
a
community
benefits
charge
is
charged
on
a
per
building
basis.
I
appreciate
what
you're
asking,
though,
with
whatever
cost,
but
the
quantum
of
the
of
the
charge
for
community
benefits
charge
is
much
much
much
smaller
than
what
we
charge
for
the
development
charges
or
what
would
be
the
charge
for
inclusionary
zoning.
This
example
they're
they're
different
scales,.
M
G
G
So
why
are
we
making
it
so
expensive
that,
when
we
designate
transit-oriented
development,
for
example,
why,
when
we
add
up
all
these
programs,
we're
now
hearing
that
nobody's
going
to
want
to
build
in
the
transit
area,
which
means
that
has
all
kinds
of
implications
for
us
too?
So
I
just
think
I
I'm
happy
to
leave
it
there.
G
J
All
right,
thank
you.
You
guys
can't
sleep.
We
had
your
hand
up
for
a
second
you're
right,
so
any
further
questions
to
for
staff.
On
this
I
don't
see
any.
We
gotta
be
careful.
We
talk
about
cbc
on
here.
You
know
I
get
a
certain
leadership.
Candidate
will
start
to
call
on
the
city
of
ottawa
to
defund
community
benefits
church.
J
J
J
Any
questions
on
cancer
fluids
motion
no
issues.
We
carry
that
kerry
all
right.
Thank
you.
So
then,
we'll
do
that.
Some
ended
here
reported
that
planning
committee
recommend
council
one
approved
the
community
benefits
charge
strategy
reports,
including
the
prioritization
of
the
capital
program
list.
Within
the
report,
two
adopt
the
community
benefits
charged
by
law
and
three
approved.
The
community
benefits
charge
policy
has
contained
document.
Four.
Is
that
item
carried
as
amended.
F
J
L
All
right,
whereas
in
2014
changes
to
the
zoning,
bylaw
were
approved
by
council
to
implement
official
plan
amendment
150
resulting
properties
along
key
corridors,
including
in
this
road
in
blackburn,
hamlet,
being
rezoned,
innis,
road
zoning
review
area
document
one
and
whereas
these
changes
introduce
arterial,
main
street
am11
subzone
zoning
on
properties
located
along
and
adjacent
to
east
road,
permitting
building
heights
of
up
to
30
meters
and
a
variety
of
land
uses.
Whereas
earlier
this
year,
a
site
plan
control
application
to
permit
a
nine
story.
L
Therefore,
the
result
that
staff
will
be
directed
to
investigate
amending
the
zoning
bylaw
in
the
next
omnibus
amendment,
so
the
setbacks
within
the
industrial
zoning
review
area
document
one
are
applied
to
both
the
rear
and
side
yards
where
development
above
low-rise
residential
zones,
properties,
subject
to
a
planning.
An
active
planning
application
will
be
exempt
from
these
changes.