audio test one for the meeting stream. audio test two for the meeting stream. Check. Check. Check. And if folks want to take their seats, we'll get going. Um, probably about 30 seconds or so. Good morning everyone. Welcome to our 72nd Oh, I got to mute my computer. 72nd and finals uh planning and housing committee meeting. I think it's a take your kids to work day. So, for those of you who are with your parents, welcome to Planning and Housing Committee, the most kick-ass awesome committee there is at city hall. >> Oh, they're coming up later. Amazing. Um, okay. So, after 72 of these, you'd think I'd be fairly good at it, but I'm not. Uh, what order am I going to go in? First, I would like to acknowledge that Ottawa is located on the unseated territory of the Algangquin Anesab nation, whose culture and presence have nurtured and continue to nurture this land. Set. May I get a roll call, please? >> Councelor Brochington >> here. >> Councelor Curry >> here. >> Councelor Dudes >> here. >> Councelor Johnson >> here. >> Councelor Kavanaaugh >> present. >> Councelor Kelly >> present. >> Councelor Kits here. >> Councelor Low >> present. Councelor Tierney >> present. >> Councelor Trustster >> here. Vice Chair Gower >> here. >> Chair UFO. >> Thank you very much. If folks will indulge me, this is our last minute uh meeting. I'd like to take uh four or five minutes uh just to pass on some thanks before we get underway if that's okay with the committee. Uh so first of all, thank you to uh you the committee members. Um most of the files that cross our desk at this committee are going to change communities in ways that residents sometimes don't feel comfortable with. Um I believe that you have fulfilled your responsibility in assessing those applications with dedication with uh commitment to a better city uh and certainly with integrity. Thank you for making it easy to work with you. And uh I want to say thanks to our honorary committee member uh Kelly Kelly Groer. Thank you very much for uh making this job such a a pleasant and um uh easy thing to do. Uh Marcia, I want to say thank you uh to you and to your team. Uh you are all consumate professionals. You put in very long hours. I don't believe you have the resources you need to do everything that you're doing and I'm amazed that you can do it. Um, we created the zoning over the course of this term of council for tens of thousands of homes. You have worked hard to create a department that says yes to housing. You've been responsible uh responsive to counselors uh probably to a fault. I know that we are not the easiest people to work with. I want to thank you and all of your team members for your dedication to public service and to your dedication to a better Ottawa. Um, I want to say a special thanks to Carol Ready. I don't know if Carol's in the room. Carol, Carol, you took very even-handed stewardship of a very difficult file in the comprehensive zoning bylaw. You were absolutely committed to a great consultation. You were also responsive to us, probably to a fault. You were responsive to residents in a in a a really heartwarming way. uh you have made a huge contribution to building a better Ottawa uh for all the generations to come. So, thank you very much for that. Um thank you very much staff and uh and committee. So, I'll just say that when people uh live within walking distance of an LRT station, their doctor, their library, groceries, a record store, uh not only does the planet benefit from reduced greenhouse gas emissions, the city benefits from a more sustainable cost structure, but residents themselves are healthier, they're happier, and they're more connected. This term of council, we've created the zoning that will allow that. Uh I would be remiss not to note though that the flip side of intensification is gentrification. Uh those great neighborhoods that we have created and that we will create are going to be accessible to fewer and fewer people. Uh fewer and fewer people in Ottawa are going to be able to afford to live in them. And the market is not going to deliver housing that's affordable to everyone in 15minute communities. I have really admired and felt strongly about this committee's heartfelt commitment to getting more affordable notfor-profit housing built. And I'm just going to conclude these remarks by asking uh that those of you who are returning uh all of our staff, all of our stakeholders in the gallery today to recommmit in the next term of council to making sure that the great neighborhoods that we're building through zoning are accessible to everyone. So, thank you very much to everyone for all that. Chair, I think uh we should also recognize you for chairing this committee for the last four years. It's the end of an era today. Thank you. >> Thank you, Catherine. >> All right. So, this is a public meeting to consider the proposed comprehensive official plan and zoning bylaw amendments listed as items 51, 71 to 73, and 75 to 78 on today's agenda. For the items just mentioned, only those who are specifically identified in the planning act who make oral submissions today or written submissions before the amendments are adopted may appeal the matter to the Ontario Land Tribunal. In addition, the applicant may appeal the matter to the Ontario Land Tribunal if council does not adopt an amendment within 90 days of receipt of the application for a zoning bylaw amendment and 120 days for an official plan amendment. To submit written comments on these amendments prior to their consideration by city council on November 12th, 2026, please email or call the committee or council coordinator. Are there any declarations of interest? >> Sure. Get my screen back up. Beautiful. Uh, none. Are the minutes of our meeting 71, October 7th, 2026 confirmed? Amazing. Uh, responses to inquiries. Uh, I know, uh, councelor Carr does have, uh, some questions on the Habitat for Humanity item. Uh, is it okay if we hold that one? >> Thank you. Postponements and deferrals. Uh, we have the item before us, 1740, 1754, 1760 Boulevard, etc. Uh, I don't see that there are any but the proponents who wish to speak to that one. Uh, that's an altista word. Did you want us to hold that one? >> I just want to say one thing. >> Do you want to say one thing? Go ahead. We can let those planners go. >> I just want to express my appreciation um to the folks involved to the developer and uh the consultant I think was Fen. This there was a it accidentally didn't get circulated previously. So it came up in an election blackout period when I was unable to have a consultation with the community um to organize one myself. They met with my community associations. The community associations were uh not pleased that there was exemptions to the bike the bike parking and um they quickly amended their application uh and um now it's compliant with the the bike parking bylaw. So I just I really appreciated the the fact that they listened to the community members and that that was amended. And uh I'll just note that the community did not have an issue with the increase in height. Um the concern was with the bike parking. So very happy to see that passed and um yeah just wanted to express my gratitude there. >> Amazing. Thanks for that councelor Carr. Um we don't have any uh public delegations. There is correspondence on the file. Uh did any members wish to have that one held besides councelor Carr for a quick question? No. Uh to the applicants if the committee is prepared to carry this. Do you still wish to speak? Thank you very much. Uh so is that item carried? Thank you. The next item. >> Yeah, we have delegations. Okay. So, um there is the Build Ottawa 2025 annual report. Uh did anyone anticipate asking for that one to be held for a presentation or questions? >> Okay, we'll hold that one. And there is a technical amendment that Vice Chair Gower will put forward. We'll get to that when we get to the item. We have the S4 Literum West of Bank future neighborhood um file there. Staff are prepared to make a presentation. There are no public delegations on it. The applicants are here. Did members anticipate asking for that one to be held for questions? No. I'll take a look see if uh councelor D. Ro is here. No. Um to the app or did any members wish to have that one held? Oh, Steve's in the corner. I don't see him. No worries. Hi, Steve. Uh, so to the applicants, if the committee is prepared to carry this, do you still wish uh to speak? >> No. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. Uh, colleagues, is that item carried? >> I'm starting to remember how to do this. There is the lifting of part control on Smite Road. We're going to deal with that as soon as we come back to the start of the agenda. So, we can let councelor Carr get out for a commitment. There is a presentation on that one. And we do have public delegations, so we'll hold that. There is the zoning bylaw amendment for 1345 uh Baseline Road. Staff are prepared to make a presentation if required. We don't have any delegates signed up to speak to that one. Do members have um a desire for a presentation? >> A quick comment. Go for it. >> You chair. So, um I just want to thank staff and the public for all the work to date on this um application. I am supportive of the application. This is the former Scouts Canada site or the current Scouts Canada site that will likely become a residential development. Um, two main points that are really site plan issues that I just want to put on the record because their main concerns within the community are um when the HVAC system is built on the rooftop that it be uh protected with respect to uh emanating noise and impacting the abuing residential community. There have been some towers recently built in River Ward and Capital Ward where this has become an issue. There's also a pathway that connects the northern residential community of Central Park to the Smart Centers Mall and Baseline Road itself. And we want to ensure that that pathway connection for pedestrians and cyclists is not compromised. So, we don't think it will be, but I just want to raise this as we work on the site plan that we uh in particular put these two items at the top of the priority list. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much uh councelor Brockington to the applicants if uh committee is prepared to carry this. Did you still wish to speak? >> Thank you. Uh colleagues is that item carried. >> Thank you. The zoning of 3930 Riverside Drive. Uh the repeal of bylaw 2025 258. There is a presentation that can be done on this one. Had anyone anticipated holding the item? Nope. Um to the applicants. Um I think Jeff Parks is uh if committee is prepared to carry this. Did you still wish to speak? Thank you. Excellent. Uh thanks to everyone's work for uh getting uh getting to this point. Glad to see something will move forward there. Moving on, we have the zoning bylaw amendment for 3971 Greenbank Road. We do have um public delegations to speak to this one. So, we'll hold the item. >> Do we not carry it? I was making assumptions. >> 7.4. Is the item carried as recommendation carried? >> Thank you. >> Oh, okay. The uh public delegations who were signed up were in support of the application. Um so they apparently don't need to speak. Um on 3971 we do have a presentation if anyone wants to receive that. Did anyone anticipate asking for the presentation? No. Uh so to the um consultants if the committee is prepared to carry this. Do you still wish to speak? >> Thank you. Um is that recommendation carried? >> Oh yeah. Mrs. Green Bank. Oh, you do have questions. Okay, so we'll hold that one. 7.6 is the zoning bylaw amendment for 343428 Woodruff Avenue. Uh I believe we're going to be holding that. We have public delegations. We'll get a presentation at 475 Terry Fox Drive zoning bylaw. Um we have a number of delegations on that one. So we'll hold the item. And 7.8 is the OOLT settlement uh for the OPA and zoning bylaw amendment at 2175 Prince of Wales Drive. We have um public delegations. We'll get a presentation on that one. So we'll hold that item. See if there's anything on the back end we can carry. uh the status update on planning and housing committee inquiries and motions for the period ending October 23rd. Does anyone have any desire to receive presentation or questions? Is that item carried? Thank you. Uh and then we have the motion of which notice has been previously given. Uh councelor Gower had the motion with respect to the CIP. I know councelor Johnson has got a direction that she wants to provide on that one. Uh do you think this uh does anyone have questions on that? We'll hold the item. Amazing. >> Okay, let's go back to the top and I'm going to go to the first Alta Vista item >> which is the lifting of part lock control at 230 Smith Road. Uh we have a presentation on that one. Yeah. Yeah. We just want to get Marty out. >> I have to go. >> Oh, you've never done I don't know. Good morning, sole. Whenever you're ready, we are in your hands. Uh, >> thank you so much. I should I just wait for the slides to go up? Should I wait for the slides to go up or can I go ahead? >> Um, go ahead and start. >> All right. Uh, good morning, uh, chair and members of the committee. Um the item before you today is the lifting of parlot control application for 230 Smite Road. Next slide please. The subject site is located um to the south side of Smite Road between Altavista Drive and Furbank Avenue. It has an area of approximately 845 square meters and a frontage of 25 m. The property is currently occupied by a single detached dwelling. The surrounding properties are similar single detached dwellings and there is a lowrise office building with surface parking directly across the street uh north of Smite Road. Next slide please. Uh the subject site is within the outer urban transit and is designated corridor main street as you can see on this slide. Section 5.3 notes that more diverse housing forms are encouraged to meet the need of an evolving demographic. Development of main street corridors within the outer urban transit is contemplated as miss highrise. And furthermore, section 5.314 speaks to the provision of a range of dwelling unit sizes in multiple dwelling units on corridors. Next slide, please. The site is also within the Alta Vista Fairrest Riverview Park secondary plan. The secondary plan contemplates low-rise neighborhood development for the south side of Smi Road. As you can see that yellow band at the top. Each lot will accommodate a three-story apartment dwelling which is consistent with secondary plan designation of lowrise neighborhood. Next slide please. The new zoning bot amen uh zoning bo um zones the site as main street zone one maximum building height 20 m. A range of mixed use development within a more uh compact lock fabric is contemplated on the main street zone in accordance with official plan policies to encourage pedestrian oriented development and create continuous frontage that will animate the public realm. Uh [snorts] the proposed apartment dwelling is a permitted use in the zone. Next slide please. Uh application summary. So a parl control is an alternative form of land division to plan of subdivision or consult consent application which allows division of land within a plan of subdivision. The proposal will subdivide the land into two parcels to contra construct an 8-unit three-story apartment building including three parking spaces on each lot. The site control application is not required as each building is less than 13 units. The devel the development complies with official plan policies in the zoning bylaw. [snorts] Um staff typically have delegated authority to approve the application as and as part of the review process, conditions of approval have been imposed prior to registration of the bylaw to address um any concerns such as joint use maintenance of the driveway separation services, water capacity, storm water management, noise entry planting. Uh next slide please. Thank you. Thank you very much, Miss Soyak. Excellent presentation. Thank you. Well done. Um, okay. We do have a public delegation on this. Before we uh come back, I would just ask the applicants. Um, Miguel, did you want to uh or um sorry, Scott, did you want to uh go after the public delegation or before? >> After just answer any questions. So, in that case, we'll go to Judy Cari. She was online. Sorry, just give me one second trying to figure out this new uh new format of Zoom. Uh good morning everyone and thank you for for giving me this time. Um I am the president of the Faircraft Heights Community Association and I would like to primarily primarily object to this alternative partlock control process. Um there are problems with the process um in this instance and we thank the developer that they did reach out and and do some consultations but this process typically does not involve a public consultation and there's an important role that residents play because we're on the ground. Certainly we can't expect um planning department to know the nuances of every road nor can we expect counselors to. So as an example sole in her wonderful presentation mentioned that there's uh parking on the north side of Smith. Indeed, there is, but that's not public parking. That's not a nuance that she would know unless she was able to drive out there and become familiar. Um, the other challenge that we we have is is that in this park lot control process, counselors are put into an awkward position to make a decision on which they don't have expertise. They're not planners themselves. I would also point out that the optics are off. Um, from a planning department perspective, there could be a perception of circumvention of established process, which is the committee of adjustment process for a fee. [gasps] Um, and for counselors, I would think that this puts elected officials into a very awkward position of having to make a decision that directly impacts neighbors, which could have an impact on their property value, their enjoyment of their property as well. And how we got into this situation is that the language of the planning act is vague. There's a reference to being able to use this part lock control process uh for lots of land that are subject to a plan of subdivision. And having spent 25 years in the federal government working on legislation, regulations, and policy, [gasps] I would say that when you have vague legislation, you can interpret it broadly, which means all plots of land that are part of a subdivision, which effectively draws in pretty well every lot of land um uh in Ontario um that has been created since the 1860s. Or you can take a more narrow interpretation where the plans of subdivision reference really relates to lots that are being developed or proposed for development. And you'll see that other jurisdictions like Missaga have taken that more narrow approach. Um I would posit from the rules of statutory interpretation that a narrow approach um for this interpretation of plans of subdivision for the potlock control should be taken. Um and again I would suggest that uh the city review the process as a whole from a legal and policy perspective including benchmarking with other Ontario jurisdictions and hopefully revert back to the original committee of adjustment process which involves the appropriate parties using their appropriate expertise. In terms of the application itself um we recognize that what is being proposed in terms of number of units is allowed in the new zoning bylaw. Um, do we think that it will fit with the the the lot pattern of the neighborhood, the lot fabric? No. Um, do we have a question of what uh the the mayor has said about um uh preserving to a certain extent uh community uh culture? We're not sure how that fits in, but we know that the new zoning bylaw does allow for um the number of units um as well as for for potential severances. Uh but I think more importantly the concern is is that this neighborhood like a lot of others in uh Ottawa are not necessarily built for the number of proposed units under the zoning bylaw. And that's why it's really important that communities are consulted so they can point out the challenges that might exist. If you've had the opportunity to read the comments from others, you could see there's a request for a traffic study. You saw the picture. There is a sharp right turn off of Alta Vista onto Smith. The placement of this particular lot from a traffic perspective is very problematic. Um there have also been other uh comments made about storm water. Yes, thank you. Um and we do recognize that planning department has put in uh additional provisions on storm water. We find that very encouraging, but that might not be enough. And I would point out that there have been instances of flooding in Alta Vista as other wards. uh specific severance on the corner of Altist and Mount Batton in 2020 to build two new houses has resulted in flooding on neighbors properties um to the point where both of the neighbors are considering paying out of pocket to regrade their backyards. And so I'd like to take this opportunity to plant a seed um with this committee that consideration should be given to the creation of a fund of victims of infill because really residents should not be paying to address the bad outcomes of of um a development or infill that's happened right next to them. Lastly, I'd like to say there's another little challenge, the disconnect between cutting trees and tearing down and building. Sometimes there are time gaps. this particular block. There have been three developers who've looked at and walked away. Um, and we've had trees raised and nothing's happened on a particular lot. Um, we've had other instances of houses being torn down and they sit uh the lot sits vacant for years because it isn't developed. So, just if this committee and council could look at finding some kind of a way to connect those two so that we don't have those >> cut off there. Um, but thank you very much for the comments. Uh, any questions? Councelor Carr. >> Hi Judy. Thanks very much for coming out today and I know I've had discussions with you and the neighbors on this development. Uh I think for today my questions to staff will focus on um uh the the specific process. Um but I take your points on the trees, the storm waters, the infill, the impacts. We've discussed those. I just want to ask you one question. Um when the sign was put up uh for this particular property, did you have any conversations with the developer? Did you or the neighbors have any conversations about this development and the process? Um, I have not had any conversations with the the developer myself. I believe some of the neighbors have introduced themselves to the developer, but I don't know that there have been in-depth discussions. >> Okay, perfect. You mean introduced by when they've been on the lot sort of thing. >> Yes. >> Okay, perfect. Thank you very much. Thank you for coming out today. >> And thanks, >> Judy. I don't see any further questions from you. Thank you very much for your delegation today. Uh Scott, that was the uh last public delegation. So, you've got uh 5 minutes to make a presentation or respond to anything you've heard. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Scott Al. I'm a senior planner at Foten Consultants, 420 O' Conor Street. I'm joined today by Miguel Trombllay, a partner at Foten, and um Jeremy Silbert, director of planning and acquisitions at um Tarish Homes, who are the land owner and the applicant in this case. Uh so um given Miss Soyak's detailed presentation, I'll try to stick to, you know, um some of the more precient points rather than the planning background, but we'll go through a bit of both because as we all know, they interlace. So um if I could get the next slide, please. Um, and so this is the site. We already saw this diagram. It's uh characteristic of the lots you have along Alta Vista Road and Smite Road, which is to say a large single family uh lot. Um uh um referring back to uh the era of development that it was uh established. Uh next slide, please. This is the existing home. Uh you'll see it has a basically a curved layby driveway with two accesses and it has a large mature tree in the front yard. Um the intent is to retain the mature tree. You'll see um when we touch on the site plan that the building frontage is well set back from that tree and that's a benefit because of the angle of the overall right of way relative to the lot. Uh next slide please. So, uh, we, uh, maybe I'll dwell on this slide for one second, which is to note two things. Um, firstly, Smith Road is a main street corridor. This is where some of the highest densities aside from hubs are permitted within the city of Ottawa. Um, in this case, we are proposing a three-story two-story apartment building. So, uh, well within a scale that's complementaryary to the existing Smith Road development. You'll also see to the northwest um, the rapid transit corridor. Smith Road is obviously a rapid transit station that is within 600 meters of the site. So, we're talking about um development on a mainstream corridor that is within uh comfortable walking distance to transit. Uh next slide, please. Uh, and here's the zoning, which Miss Soyak already had pointed out, but again, just to reiterate, the main street one zoning part of the new zoning bylaw, which is really trying to sponsor forms of infill that are more manageable by builders and less um complex to navigate as far as the intricacies of a given site. Um, the maximum permitted height here is 30 m. We are uh well below half of that. Um, next slide, please. Uh so proposed development yes we are using lifting lot part lock lot control um in order to subdivide the site. Uh as was pointed out by some of the remarks this is a planning act mechanism that is permitted where you have an established plan of subdivision and uh the intent is to make changes within that plan of subdivision. Um uh we went to the city um to work with them to um gain their support in order to proceed with this process. Um it is staff delegated meaning that staff bears an opinion on whether it can proceed. One of the elements of discussion was will you pay to provide a sign on site to provide public notice uh which the applicant agreed to do so. Um beyond that the buildings themselves so in case this wasn't clear they are fully zoning compliant. The proposed lots are fully zoning compliant in terms of scale. There's no minor variances needed for this. There's no site plan control needed for this either. um it falls below those triggers. Uh it is simply the mechanism we have selected for um subdividing lots. Um and we could get into the why of that if uh if uh the committee would like to understand that in more detail. Um next slide please. So uh this is the last thing I just want to illustrate about um the approach being taken. So when you propose a part lock control application, you do not necessarily need to provide a a concept or a site plan because the applicant is being transparent in the fact that this will be going through building permit in the short term should this be approved. It is a modular housing format that will um basically um allow for efficient uh housing starts on these sites. We're removing uh the two access approach off of um Smite and uh implementing a one access approach here between the two buildings. Both buildings have a frontage and public realm presence on Smite Road. All the parking is to the rear. Um as you know, parking isn't required here, but just um under the new zoning, but just with consideration to um expected tenants, uh parking is proposed for some of the buildings. Um three spaces per building. And of course, bike parking is proposed in accordance with the requirement of the bylaw. No relief is um sought from that. So um that goes over the the gerine points of the um proposal here, but we are available to answer any questions. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Do any members of the committee have uh questions? No, I know I do. Why this process? I've been through like a ton of infill in my ward. No one has done a severance. >> May maybe if I I have some remarks, Mr. Chair, but I believe um so does Mr. Trombllay. But uh so that uh firstly I'll start by saying um when when you conduct infill um the most um the most financially appropriate or the most affordable application fee is consent, right? So and it's also the most time effective. So the question is why would someone seek part lock control? The nature for that is that it's a more predictable process that is worth essentially the extra investment. And so um contrary to some of the remarks provided earlier it's not as if going through parl control removes the planning aspect as we've all reviewed there was a staff report prepared by a planner who we worked with there was conditions assigned. It is a predictable process in that way. Um uh and again your committee has done as you as you just implied many applications of these kinds and you are familiar with the planning process. That is not out of question either. Um sympathetic to the concerns about the public notice point of it is why the sign was posted again which is not required for the process but a reasonable element to it here. But again it comes down to predictability. um when these developments take place obviously there's a lot of um risk being borne by the developer so this is one mitigation of risk thanks and I asked the question deliberately the uh we have seen developers who have brought things that should be minor variances to this committee for reasonzoning because they can't count on the committee of adjustment uh pursuing its its mandate um we and this is coming from the other side a staff delegated process should have been relatively predictable Um but in this case the uh the counselor did choose to lift delegation and you know I know for the development community out there you'll be you'll be looking twice at doing this or at least making sure that the counselor is on board before pursuing this process. Uh but it does speak to the importance I think we did a good job in this term of council of appointing committees of adjustment that uh were going to do their job uh within the the mandate that they have within the statute. Um, some of you will be on the nominating committee for the next committees of adjustment. Uh, please pay special attention to making sure that we're appointing board members um who who understand what the role of the committee of adjustment is. Um, so thank you for that answer. That uh is exactly what I was expecting to hear. Um, and with that, do you have any any other questions? >> I have one question, but I have question I have lots of questions for staff. >> Yeah, we can go straight to staff if you want. >> But can I ask one question? >> Please do. Thanks very much in the council for the area. Um when you talk about the committee of adjustment and the level of predictability, are you referring to the length of the process and the cost? Like have there been examples where for example the committee of adjustment has turned down applications and then you've had to go to the OOLT to get them overturned. Has that happened to you? >> Uh through you Mr. Chair. That's basically the idea. So what I'll reiterate is typically an application for consent is less less cost intensive and less timeline intensive. It's typically um you know uh 2 to 3 months to get through the process. The issue is um what I would call there's a a bit more volatility and one part of that is because of the constrained timeline. So staff have a lot less time to review the applications and a lot less time to communicate the comments. So uh sometimes they come out on the floor and for one reason or another it gets refused and then yes if it goes to the OOLT um it's um as you know an extensive and expensive situation whereas the difference with parl control is um you know Miss Hamlin and Miss Soyak could speak to the fact that we have an iterative dialogue where you know we come in with a a proposal and they say well you know the conditions for this are a great example where they said we have these conditions and we said well for sure we're doing a drainage study or a drainage plan. We're doing a noise control study. We are doing a suite of studies. So there is some predictability but again we were able to work with confidence that by the time we came before this committee we would be uh in a position of staff support where with the consent sometimes you don't have that opportunity and even moreover sometimes you do have support and at the committee you're more likely to be overturned just as our experience. [snorts] >> Okay. Thanks. I have a concern about the number of applications even in my community that were over that were voted down by the committee of adjustment and then the developer had to go to the OOLT to get them overturned. I'd be curious to know from staff. I'm not on this committee so I can't issue a uh inquiry to know how many times that happened and what the if there was a way of calculating the cost to the developers of that. I'll just say that I have lots of questions for staff about the process, but the housing that is needed in this community for people that work at the hospital um staff um there was a shortage of rental housing. Medical students are one of the biggest um groups that come to see me to say that we need more rental units. We've just opened up the new advanced medical research center. You of Ottawa students will want to relocate uh in this area. So, I know that the housing will be used. We I will I have ongoing discussions with the neighbors about their concerns about other development aspects, but um my questions to staff will be about the process, but thank you for coming here today. >> Excuse me. Uh yeah, thank you for your comments. Appreciate it. >> Thank you very much. I don't see my screen over. I don't see any further questions from members. Thank you very much for the presentation. Uh questions of staff. Council car. So just a few quick questions. So in the case of a seance, the city of Ottawa has delegated authority to sever to the committee of adjustment uh because they [clears throat] can under the planning act under section 44. Is that correct? The committee of adjustment is a committee of council. So it's a quasi judicial um committee of of of citizens who are appointed to that. So it's a little bit different than delegated authority. But yes, >> but but we delegated that to we've delegated they they have the authority correct to do it under section 44. And by delegating um the severances uh you know for the purpose of dividing land that ensures that decisions are based strictly on objective planning um statutory tests and the city's official plan as opposed to political pressure. Correct. >> I would argue that is why there is an arms length approach. um and city staff make recommendations, provide comments to the committee of adjustment. It's the same team in this case, my team reviewing this one as provide the comments to committee of adjustment. Um the committee makes their own decision. So the the elected representative is not involved in the committee of adjustment, nor should we be. It's independent quasi judicial tribunal making a decision on a seance. Correct. >> Yep. Correct. But this process that has the exact same outcome requested that I concur on this application. Correct. In order for it to be passed. Yes. Okay. So we have developed a completely separate process to ensure that it's an independent process making these decisions but yet there is a way that the counselor themselves can make the decision and the last few applications for part lock control similar ones have been made by the counselor concurring. Correct. as a result of the council concurring. >> That's how the governance is set up. Yes. >> Okay. So, when you look at partlock control across the province and what it's used for, um Hamilton, [clears throat] Richard, Mhill, Toronto, Milton, Kitner, uh would you say, you know, what I found that it's specifically used um primarily with semi- detached and townhouse developments so that the boundaries between individual units are set. Would you agree that that is how we use part control is probably not in line with best municipal practices. There are several different ways to create lots. You can do a plan of subdivision. You can do parlot control or you can go through consent process at the committee of adjustment and applicants choose which one sort of fits their needs. Um the um the reality of part lock control as was explained in the uh in the presentation is that the criteria for for that to for someone to use that uh tool is that it must be within a plan of subdivision. And I mean as as as Judy the uh the resident even said the the planning act is does not have a lot of u u limitations. I guess it it sets that out as a as an approach to use to create to create lots and other municipalities have chosen to um limit how they use it. Um in the in this I can give you the uh the breakdown I guess of how um public consultation is different between the all three. Um but I think in in the end we have the same team at the city in terms of staff doing the review making recommendations about conditions for part lock control and um and and we arrive at the same um end. there's no like there's no uh shortcutting I guess of the review in terms of the like the um the governance that relates to the delegated authority bylaw which is not you know uni uniquely under you know the planning act that's an Ontario or sorry that's an Ottawa bylaw and does the city of Ottawa I I I believe they stated that they intend to put guidelines forward on part lock control to develop them so that it's clearer. >> Marcia Wallace will take that question. >> Hello through the chair to the councelor. Um so two things on committee of adjustment. There was a housing acceleration plan commitment that was made as one of the recommendations council unanimously passed. When that came forward, it involved us coming back and evaluating how the committee of adjustment functions and whether uh anything uh should be done to streamline that and and several of the comments you've heard um around the table and by the delegate are are sort of feeding into that conversation. So, we are on track to bring that forward sometime in 27, but it is one of the remaining pieces coming under the housing acceleration plan. And that is where incidentally you'll get the numbers you were talking about in terms of how frequently does the um committee overturn things or reject staff advice and and all of that will be there. So no inquiry needed. I'll save someone that step. Um but the other part in terms of part lock control because of this file we have multiple and you know over a dozen examples um that are where we use this with delegated authority and it really attracted no attention at all. This one uh did and because uh you chose to lift it which you have the right to as a counselor. It doesn't happen very often but that's why we're having this conversation. We are going to bring back uh we're working on something with legal because there is very broad authority under the planning act in how you use partlock control. As you pointed out, different municipalities have taken different uh positions on this and so we're going to take a thorough look and I do appreciate the awkwardness of our delegated authority bylaw when this became something that we were doing through a delegated authority. then we come to the counselor for concurrence. We would not have done that in a committee of adjustment and as the staff pointed out, it's the same review. It just goes down two different paths. So, we want to look at we want to support infill. We also want to deal with the issues that the resident pointed out. So, we're also working on an infill guide because bad infill or infill that constructs and creates storm water issues on the neighboring property is not what we want either. So, we're working on a guide to support the industry and residents, and we're working on a report to come back to committee and council that will really look at where and how does part fit into the overall strategy to encourage infill development in Ottawa. >> Okay. Thank you very much for that explanation. And just to explain why I did not concur, we were either in or days before an election blackout. Um and I was being asked to concur on a severance which the committee of adjustment typically approves in a process that completely eliminates the counselor's influence. So I was not comfortable uh doing that and I as you know I asked a lot of questions and some counselors have been approving these but uh I'll leave it to this committee to make that decision. I did not feel that in an election blackout for me to be the one signing off on something that normally goes to a quasi judicial tribunal was something I was comfortable with. As I indicated, um, you know, the neighbors have concerns. You've spoken to what's being done about that, but I do know that, um, this type of housing is is needed, particularly in that community, uh, with hospitals. And I, you know, we we moved it up to six stories. Um, I guess this term a few few years ago because of the province. This is three-story development. Um, you know, could have been a massive land assembly with a much bigger development. Uh, and it's not. Um, so I support the application. I don't support the process. That's if I can say that fairly. >> Councelor, I totally agree and that's why we feel that we have to come back and and talk about the process. It's not a well um used or well understood process, but we feel that it will be increasingly requested of us. So we should really figure this one out. And we also um the reason we did notification even though it was not required was for exactly the same reasons. It was very bad timing in terms of the community and trying to be transparent about what we're doing in a awkward situation. So, I'm I'm glad you brought it forward. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much, Councelor Carr. Thank you to staff. Are there any additional questions on this item? Councelor um Curry, >> I just w like to make a comment. I'm really glad to hear we're going to get more information on this because this is in my opinion the beginning of something pretty significant that's about to change in this city. I think we're seeing little bits and pieces of it, but I think we're going to see more and more. And it's all well and good for us to say we want more housing, but it doesn't fit everywhere. And that's I think what the community is trying to say in so many uh ways to us at this committee, but instead we always have to say well there's no planning rationale. We'll be saying that I'm sure today I will be for sure. Um, and then you know things happen but old lovely neighborhoods are about to change significantly and people are not going to be happy and it doesn't work. And I will just tell you one specific example. My mother's street in Scar Bro used to be this lovely little street and it was all great. It's now a disaster because people have taken these lots and created these monstrosities. They're all quite ugly. I'm sure the people on the street are not listening right now, but they're horrible looking. There's unbelievable traffic mess. There's endless parking on the street. No kids can play hockey. Street hockey is a done thing. Um it's a reality for these small communities. So, I'm glad we're going to get more uh guidance on this because let me tell you, this is our reality going forward and people in old neighborhoods are trying to desperately trying to keep some of that character. And uh it's going to be lost if we don't make some significant uh changes. I think I understand the need for housing. It's that sometimes it doesn't work. >> Thank you, councelor Curry. Are there any additional comments? No. Is the recommendation carried? Thank you. All right, let me figure out where I am now. >> Held that in for me, but now I have to go. >> Okay, >> so can I hold it at counselor? It doesn't come up to council, does it? >> Okay, I'll hold it at council. I'll hold it at coun. >> Thank you very much for accommodating me. >> No, thank you um for >> having us. We'll move on to item 61, the Build Ottawa 2025 annual report. There is no uh presentation that we had anticipated. Uh vice chair, did you want to put the technical motion on the table now? >> Yes. Um whereas the report recommends committee and council receive the audited financial statements of build Ottawa for the year 2025 in the annual report attached as document one. And whereas supporting document one did not originally include the build Ottawa 2025 annual report and only provided the audited cons consolidated financial statements. And whereas a new document one has been provided to staff that includes both the build Ottawa 2025 annual report and the audited consolidated financial statements. And whereas an amendment to the report is required to update the supporting document one. Therefore, be it resolved that planning and housing committee amend the report. Uh item 6.1 Build Ottawa 2025 annual report supporting document one build Ottawa 2025 annual report including audited consolidated financial statements. Thank you. >> That is an amazing motion. Thank you. >> Okay. Um so that item was held. I think someone had questions for it. Uh Vice Chair Gower. Um yeah, I just um I don't remember all the context, but since 2009, Build Ottawa has uh the land sales have resulted in 108 million. 6% of that has been directed affordable housing, but we do have a policy that says 25% should go to affordable housing. Can staff just clarify the 6% versus the 25% target? >> Sure. uh through the chair, not all of our lands that we sell are are residential. So the affordable housing contribution applies only to residential uh sales as well as institutional sales that involve residential uses. So in some instances we we've sold lands for industrial, for commercial, for church uses and a lot of times those lands are are much more valuable than residential lands which skews that percentage. >> Okay. And it looked like in some of the recent examples in recent years that have been residential, you've been pretty much on that 25% target for residential. Is that correct? >> That's correct, Shar. >> Okay. Thank you. Um there always seems to be a tension here in a bit of a dual mandate for Build Ottawa that uh our our finance department counts on money to be generated through land sales, but we've also we also want to see affordable housing. And I feel like there's a tension there and two mandates that don't always match up. And I was wondering if staff could comment on that. >> Sure. So, as you mentioned uh through the chair, as you mentioned at the beginning of your comments, the uh Land Development Corporation has been around since 2009, and it was originally set up with a very long name, Ottawa Community Land Development Corporation. Uh it took me about a year to to remember that. Um but when it was set up, it was primarily set up to to sell land, generate revenue for the city, uh and and provide, you know, just an additional tool where the city can be acting as a property owner as opposed to, you know, the chief planning official. So we can we can act just as a regular property owning through build Ottawa to sell the lands. um in rec in this term of council this that's about to end I guess uh our mandate shifted and and we were geared towards trying to encourage affordable housing when we're selling land and so it it is a challenge to balance uh the revenue and and the mandate to provide affordable housing but it still provides a very important tool for the city not only affordable housing or revenue but we we also look to try and create economic development uh We're trying to uh you know give options even for institutional uses. Uh a great example was our our Longfields project uh in in uh like 2010 to 2015 times uh where we reserve land for institutional uses for churches uh you know that needs to be part of a community too. So it's an important tool. I I think with the new term of council coming forward, there is opportunity to relook at our mandate and see what what should be important for this uh corporation for the city. Should it be revenue generating affordable housing or some of these other uh community benefits that we're always trying to do? >> And can you put into more context 2005 2025 there were no were no sales. Um, how much of an anomaly is that compared to the year before and compared to the trends you're seeing in 2026? >> Well, what I can say is, you know, when you're in the land development corporation business, there's es and flows of revenue, right? And so, in in over a term of council, we might have one year where we don't make any money and then by year four, that term, we we we knocked it out of the park. This term has been very difficult. uh partly with economic conditions and the market conditions. It's it's just hard to sell land. Uh in previous terms, you know, we could advertise a piece of land, not even put a price on it, and we're going to get way over our appraised value because there was a lot of demand. This term of council, you know, the it's it's just a tough market, you know? I mean, let's hope last night's election results south of the border might uh uh spark the economies everywhere and things might start to improve and we can start getting back on track. >> Okay. I I think it is something council have to look at. It is also a a strange tension that the build Ottawa in terms of meeting affordable housing goals does better when there's a healthy market. To me, healthy market is another word for more expensive home prices. So, we're relying on, I guess, the regular market going up as much as possible to fund the affordable. Just seems like we've got all these tensions and conflicting priorities. So, um I guess I'll I'll watch as council wrestles with that in the next term. >> Chair, if I may just make a a quick comment to re-emphasize a point that um my colleague Peter had made. um the Build Ottawa tool, although the mandate has been um prioritizing housing that's more affordable than what the market would otherwise provide, it's a great tool to allow council to achieve a broad range of objectives. So, absolutely generating revenue from sale of properties that are no longer required by the um city organization is one important outcome. However, in doing that, um Build Ottawa has the ability to apply conditions for the use of those lands as well. And those that does not need to be affordable housing. It could be a broad range of public um benefits or public value that could be derived from those lands. So it could be for example um to support health related outcomes, other social outcomes, cultural goals. It could be um I think Peter mentioned economic development. So if there's potential uh needs in the future related to that. So, it's um it's a really flexible tool that allows council to achieve um a broad range of outcomes that it seeks to achieve in a particular period of time. >> Okay. Thank you, chair. >> Thank you very much. And uh I I won't belabor the point, but I think um you're absolutely spot on in in everything you said. Uh vice chair, uh I'll be watching also with interest to see how the mandate for Build Ottawa changes. Um, a lot of that land could be put more productively, I think, into the hands of our not for-profit partners, uh, more quickly in order to get truly affordable housing that would remain, uh, affordable in perpetuity. Uh, I don't see any questions from members. Is the technical motion from Vice Chair Gower carried? >> And is the report as amended, carried? Amazing. Bear with me while I figure out where we are. 7.5. Amazing. All right. This is the zoning bylaw amendment for 3971 Greenbank Road. Um I think we are anticipating No, just going straight to Okay, everybody's going straight to Cer Hill to ask questions. >> Uh perfect. I wanted to thank staff first and foremost uh for the work on this portfolio. I know it's been going on for a number of years. I also note we have uh some uh members of the Baraven Islamic Center board here in the in the audience as well. Thank you very much for the hard work that's gone into this. I just want to address a few questions just to make sure going forward that we're in the right space on this. Would we be even having this discussion on this report today were it not for the restriction of on street parking on Greenbank and Barnesdale roads? Chair, councelor, thank you for the question. I think it it is 6 months ago counselor as you know we were receiving ongoing emails about the concerns out on both Green Bank and Barnesdale whereas today we don't have anybody signed up to talk in opposition to this file. So absolutely staff's recommendation is contingent on these parking restrictions remaining in place. So traffic services did identify a significant safety concern here associated with parking and pedestrian activity and we have lots of video and supporting photographic evidence. So the restrictions really are not simply a a matter of convenience here. They are needed to keep keep this site operationally safe and to mitigate those concerns that come with this temporary use. Thank you. >> The current speed limit on Greenbank Road next to the MAC Barhin Islamic Center site is 80 km an hour. Uh does staff have a position regarding the option of reducing the speed limit uh south of Kapamore as it pertains to pedestrian and community safety? So, generally speaking, we do know that that lowering speeds can generally help with reducing collision risk, but we have not done that assessment for this area as of yet, counselor. So, this is something that we could take back and engage our traffic services team in. I don't have an answer for you on that today. I wouldn't want to speculate what would come out of that assessment. It depends a lot on the design of the road and other um area measures in terms of in terms of whether those safe th uh limiting traffic would result in those impacts we want to see. So let's take that back and have a look at it and I can uh can do that with our traffic services team. >> No, thank you very much. Um, can staff speak to the need for compliance with building code and parking restrictions as the center operates within this temporary resoning and how compliance links to options to evolve to a permanent resoning. >> So, I think what we know when we're dealing with temporary resoning is that permanent resoning is not automatic. Any decision that is going to be made around temporary or around permanent zoning rather will require council approval once again. So being you know showing a record of compliance during this temporary period which can last as long as 3 years and has to come back and ask for those permissions to be extended if they're not actually in a position to redevelop the site which is what they are working toward here on this site. Um they you know they absolutely have to remain compliant with those provisions in order to demonstrate to the community and to council that that this use is appropriate here and and can work. So, >> uh, that's all, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much for bringing this, uh, resoning forward. I appreciate it, and I would ask my council colleagues to, uh, support this. Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much, chair. First of all, I'm going to say I'm entirely supportive. This is great. And this is really just a comment because I know councelor Low faced similar situation in his ward. And in my ward, the wonderful Centertown Mosque took over a former church and now we have a mosque on Kent Street, which is fantastic. But I think as our city grows and as we welcome more Muslim communities um to Ottawa, which again is a great thing, this is another example where planning and transportation tend to be quite siloed. And the needs of a mosque are very different than the needs of a church, for example, because if you're having prayer services 5, six, seven times a day or, you know, many times the transportation needs coming in and out, parking, leaving, they're just different. And so I just wanted to flag this is maybe something that we have to have a conversation about as a city. How do we make this work for everyone because I'm really excited about Centertown Mosque in my community. It's been really really wonderful. Uh but it's also kind of grandfathered in to a street where there's not a lot of parking and I hear a lot of concerns because people get tickets. So I just think it's I don't know what that conversation would look like and how we would bring people together. But as we have new faith communities with different needs expanding, it's really worthy of a conversation because um some of our regulations were not built in a way that work well for the people um who attend these services and for the surrounding communities. So I don't know what that looks like, but I just in classic Katherine Kits uh format um I just want to say this this constant dovetailing of planning versus transportation and how to figure out how to make them work together. I don't know what that structure looks like, but maybe as we go into governance review, it's it's a conversation we need to have about how we desiloize transportation and planning from from planning committee. Thank you very much. >> One committee to rule them all. >> Committee. >> I want to chair that committee. >> Thank you very much. Um >> I got one week. Yeah. I don't see any further questions. Nope. So, is that item care? Sorry. Oh, the applicant. Shoot. Got my language. Uh, do the applicants, if the committee's prepared to carry this, wish to speak. >> Thank you. Is this item carried as recommended? Thank you. Thank you very much, Councelor Hill, for your engagement on that one. Next held item is 7.6, I think. the zoning bylaw amendment for 3400 and 3428 Woodruff Avenue. Let me get up to speed. Right. So, we have anticipated the presentation for this one. We'll move into public delegations. Um after the presentation, councelor uh Low, did you want to put your directions on the table? Okay. So, we'll get staff presentation. Councelor Loe's got some uh direction. We'll move into the public delegations and then have an opportunity to ask questions of staff. And whenever you're ready. >> Oh, good morning, chair, committee members, and members of the public. This presentation is for a zoning bylaw amendment for 3400 and 3428 Woodruff Avenue. Next slide, please. The site is shown by the red star and is located on the west side of Woodruff Avenue and south of Palmativia Drive. The Heart's Desire community is located immediately to the west and south and is separated from the development site by a 10-meter landscaped buffer. The Heart's Desire community is comprised of large lots with low-rise residential development and is on private wells and subject systems. A church property and low-rise residential developments are located to the north and across Woodruff Avenue to the east. Next slide, please. The site is located in the suburban transact designated minor corridor with an evolving neighborhood overlay. A range of housing types are permitted up to a maximum of seven stories in height. The goal is to support the evolution of the suburban transct towards 15-minute neighborhoods while retaining while relating well to the neighboring properties. Minor corridors are designated due to their direct north south and east west orientations, the existing or planned frequency of transit, their connection to multiple amenities and communities, and the opportunities for the road to be widened to accommodate cycling and pedestrian infrastructure over time. Over half of the subject site is located within a 600 meter radius or a 9-minute walk of the Chapman Mills Transitway, as shown by the green arrow. Clearbrook and Nepianwood stations are shown in the green text to the north. The nearest bus stop is a four-minute walk to Paul Mativier Drive. Next slide, please. In zoning bylaw 2008 250, the site is zoned R1 VV exception 636, which permits detached dwellings with a maximum height of 8 m and a maximum of 25 dwelling units. Surrounding zones are R1E to the west and south which permit maximum heights of 8 m, I1B for the church to the north which permits a maximum height of 18 m and R3Z to the northwest and east across Woodruff Avenue with maximum heights between 10 and 11 m. In zoning bylaw 2026-50, the site is zone N1B636, which permits detached dwellings with a maximum height of 8 m and a maximum of 25 dwelling units. The lots to the west and a portion to the south in the heart's desire community are zoned neighborhood unserviced NU, which permits a maximum height of 11 m. The properties to the northwest and across Woodruff are zoned N3B which permit a maximum height of 11 meters. And the remaining nearby properties are zoned institutional N1D and minor corridor which permit a range of uses with maximum heights between 11 and 15 m. Next slide, please. The proposal is for a low-rise development consisting of a private road with 16 low-rise residential buildings for a total of between 160 and 172 dwelling units. The heights are the tallest along Woodruff Avenue and within the interior of the site and decrease to the west. Area A is proposed to be mostly three-story residential buildings with a maximum height of 14.5 m. Area B would permit two-story buildings with walkout basements up to a maximum of 10 m in height for the street town houses. Area C represents the rear yards of the proposed townhouse dwellings. The maximum height would be 3.6 m which would only allow for a backyard shed but would not permit a livable structure. Area D abuing the heart's desire community is an existing 10meter wide landscaped buffer where no buildings or structures will be permitted. Over half of the existing trees within the buffer are being retained and the trees that are being removed will be replaced at a 2:1 ratio. Next slide please. Many engineering issues were reviewed for this zoning amendment application. The summary is is as follows. With regards to storm water management, only one sixth of the site will continue to drain west while the rest of the storm water will be managed on site. This will greatly reduce the amount of storm water that flows to the abuing properties. In terms of groundwater impact assessment, the city's senior engineer has reviewed the groundwater impact assessment and has agreed with the findings that the radius of influence from the proposed development does not extend beyond the property boundary. However, out of an abundance of caution and on behalf of the heart's desire community, a baseline water quality sampling program will be established in order to monitor if there are any changes that occur after construction. In terms of servicing, the capacity in the city's infrastructure has been reviewed and it is noted that there is capacity available for the proposed development. Next slide, please. The proposed um zoning amendment for bylaw 2008250 is to permit the residential typologies to reduce the interior sideyard setback for an accessory building and to permit a maximum of 172 dwelling units. Next slide, please. The zoning amendment for bylaw 2026-50 is to permit the low-rise residential typologies to permit a maximum of 172 dwelling units, the same as per bylaw 2008250. However, there are additional reliefs required from the new bylaw seeking relief from the bicycle parking and landscaping provisions as detailed in the report. The last three zoning amendments from bylaw 2026 will provide guarantees for the abuing property owners that the 10-meter landscaped buffer along the west and the south will remain. It will ensure that there is an additional building setback from the buffer of 6 m and that there will be a maximum height of 10 m at the western edge of the development. These provisions will be implemented through a zoning schedule. Next slide, please. The recommendation is that planning and housing committee recommend council approve the amendment for 3400 and 3428 Woodruff Avenue to permit the proposed low-rise residential development. Next slide, please. Thank you. If there's any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. >> Thank you very much for that. Um, so what we'll do is I'm going to ask Councelor Low to put a couple of directions that uh he has on the table. I won't ask staff to undertake them just yet. I'll let them percolate for um the uh questions to uh to delegates and staff, but go ahead council. >> Thank you, chair. Um I don't know in which order they have them in this in the um system here, but the first one is uh that staff request developer to consider adding units to the water sampling program as follows. 8121618 Newand Drive, 2026 Howard Court, and 3440 3448 Woodruff Avenue. The second direction is that staff request the developer consider increasing the on-site storm water retention capacity above 100-year totals such as by increasing the size and quantity of the storage chambers or other means. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. We'll uh get some staff commentary on those when we get to questions to staff. So, we'll move now into the public delegations. Uh Brent Evans is online. Hi, you guys hear me? >> Hi Brent, we can hear you. Can Oh, now we can see you. Whenever you're ready, you have five minutes to make a presentation to the committee. >> Thank you. Uh, good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Brent Evans, and I'm speaking today on behalf of the collective Arwin land owners uh in W 24 immediately abuing the proposed development on Woodruff Avenue. I want to preface this talk with the fact that the real community of hearts desire does not oppose the development of the Woodruff property at the current R1 zoning density. Our community is not an urban subdivision. We are an unservice rural residential residential enclave of 3/4 to 1.5 acre lots that rely entirely on private well and individual septic systems to survive. We are here today because this application proposes an aggressive 172 unit ultra highdensity development placed on an elevated lob jammed against directly against our fragile subsurface infrastructure. A development that represents a eight-fold increase in the original R1 density. Um, by packing 16 multi-story buildings and and a private ashevalt road network onto this property, developer will strip away the land's ability to absorb rainwater, uh, replace permeable soil with a footprint of hard concrete and ashalt surfaces. The developer claims they can mitigate this massive influx of imperous uh, subsurface runoff by trapping it on site using an underground storm water system designed for a standard 100-year storm. I'm here to tell you that this planning for a 100-year storm in the current climate is dangerous, outdated fantasy. Uh that ignores the recent urban flooding events throughout Ontario and particularly Ottawa. Uh look what actually happened in in the city of Padawa this past summer alone. Uh we just lived through the absolute rainiest summer on record in Ottawa's history. On Canada Day, our immediate southwest sector was pulverized by a catastrophic, record- shattering 200-year weather event. In just 5 hours, a staggering 167 millimeters of rain felt right here in our corner of the city. It completely overwhelmed local neighborhood drainage systems, flooded 7,000 basements, and drove nearly half a billion dollars worth of storm insurance claim across the city. Later the same summer, we were hit again by a second historic rainfall that shattered daily threshold thresholds. Uh if this proposed 172 unit development had been active this summer, its engineered 100-year sistn system would have utterly been utterly overwhelmed twice because this site sits on a higher elevation than our properties. That failed overflowing containment system would have washed over our lots and hydraulically destroyed our private septic fields, backing up sewage into our homes and permanently contaminating our drinking wells. If you don't believe me, I urge you to look at the development plan with a developer's brilliant plan for emergency runoff. They have emergency arrows pointing at our properties and a plan to use the ditches on Nuland Drive to handle their flooding. The city cannot continue to approve highdensity infill based on obsolete historical models. We know for a fact that historic Chicago summer storm water data used to plan our city's multi-billion dollar west end traffic infend transit infrastructure was completely overwhelmed nearly destroyed and nearly destroyed by the exact these exact rains. Those studies are fundamentally out of step with climate change. If the city's primary transit terminals cannot handle this new climate reality, why are we gambling the drinking water and established of established residents on a private development subsurface box? Furthermore, let's talk about the reality of underground system holding stagnant water. Uh it requires intense perpetual high-cost maintenance. If it is not cleared of sediment and debris by annually, it will fail. With stagnant water comes a massive underground breeding ground for mosquitoes and a structural harbor for rats and mice directly adjacent to our rear yards. Worse yet, the specific materials being proposed to construct this massive subterranean unit carry a meager one-year manufacturer warranty. This plastic and synthetic underground containment kits are absolutely not built for long-term municipal structural utility. Once the developer finished selling these units and turns the property over to the condo board, our neighborhood will be left holding the bag when this unmaintainable infrastructure inevitably collapses. To justify jumping straight from low density R1 ultra high dens to ultra highdensity R4Z zoning, the applicant relies heavily on the site's proximity to Nepian Woods transit station. This argument is geographically facious. The developer is playing a game with two entirely different planning metrics. The city uses a straight 600 meter radius map buffer as a crow flies to define transit oriented development areas. I'm running out of time. Uh I'll just sum up to say that we are not opposed to to development of this property, nor are we asking you to halt Ottawa's growth. We are asking you to commit to leaving the zoning of this property at its current RO1 level to protect our homes and properties and septic systems and wells from inevitable flooding. And the the not the less than half of this property falls within within the 600 meter radius of the transitway system which is uh the which Kelly Croer stated incorrectly. >> I'll need to ask you to wrap up and cut off there. >> Yeah. So, thanks for your time today. >> Okay. >> Thank you, uh, Councelor Low. >> Thank you. Uh, thank you, Chair. Thanks, Brent, for coming out to committee. Um, well, you didn't come out, but thanks. Thanks for participating in committee. Um, I um I appreciate the the comments that you shared. They're not they're not any different from from the comments uh that uh that that you and your neighbors have uh shared uh with me previously. I I do think that there you know I I do have questions uh later and and currently about um the the context of this section of Woodruff Avenue which is something that you brought up right at the end of your presentation there about about its you know for me it's the the minor minor corridor designation. It doesn't doesn't really make sense for this section of Woodruff and I I can elaborate on that a little later during questions to staff. Um but uh the within um within what uh what the developer had uh proposed um you know you had mentioned that there were uh you had mentioned and the plan shows that there are some uh underground um um storage chambers as as the plan calls them. Um and and and I do agree with I do agree with some some of your comments about the 100red-year total because that is based on historical data. um it is it is an average um based on historical data that I think um does that does fluctuate right and and will fluctuate and likely likely probably has fluctuated if we if we go back and measure it based on this summer and and the >> sorry councelor do you have a question for the delegate >> three other times no I I don't actually have a question it is a comment thank you for coming out but but I do agree with some of your comments and that they will be brought up in questions of staff thank you >> thank you very much councelor Low Councelor Curry do you have a question for the delegate >> thank you chair I have a question for the delegate Uh Brent, thank you for coming out. I'm the city council for Canada North where we had 600 uh almost 600 homes flood uh and water and storm water are us. >> So I want to ask you, did you do any research about any other areas, you know, [clears throat] in Ontario or anywhere that has looked at this system because uh that I haven't heard a lot about this. I I've heard talk about it, but have you actually found any other uh neighborhoods that had this and how it worked? You seem to know a lot about it, but I'm wondering if you have specific examples. I I looked and I couldn't find specific examples. I'm not an expert in urban planning and I don't I wouldn't even know where to search for a lot of that stuff. I just did, you know, a regular a standard search as best I could. Um, but I did research the actual materials and the that they were proposing to use for this sister system. If they are not installed exactly correctly, they will fail. And there's only a one-year warranty on these. These are not meant for long term long-term urban use. It's a It's the developers uh it's the developer solution to a problem they can't solve. Right? They have they have this massive property uh with no permeable soil on a hill overlooking, you know, four neighborhoods effectively. Um and they plan to use our ditches as their as their scapegoat. If you look at the plan itself, they have emergency runoff going onto our properties. That's their solution. When this system fails, their solution is to dump the flood water onto our properties. And we our properties can barely our my property barely handled the rain. I mean I and that's because it's been prepared over the last 40 years for such an event. Any additional runoff would have overwhelmed my my property. I I guarantee it. >> Thank you. I'll have definitely questions for staff on this and specifically to our engineers. Thanks a lot. >> You're welcome. Thank you, Brent. I don't see any further questions for you. Thank you very much for your uh intervention today and we'll move on to Jeff Dawson who is online. >> Yes. Hello. Uh thank you. My name is Jeff Dawson. I'm the president of the Hearts Desire Community Association and um yeah, as a as a wider group within the community, just wanted to uh comment on this. Um our community association is very concerned about this development. We raised a number of items with uh with city staff which they addressed. We don't necessarily agree with everything they did, but uh there are a couple of further items um that I would like to uh get on record with with the committee. Heart's Desire is a community immediately adjacent to the proposed development on its southern and western boundaries. The homes are serviced by private wells and septic systems which are vulnerable to environmental conditions and major climate events. Regarding the baseline water sampling program that uh that the developer has proposed, the hearts desire community association supports the uh the following statement from councelor Low on water. Residents in Hart's desire have expressed concerns about the development's impact to groundwater and storm water as the neighborhood is privately serviced by private well and septic systems. I'm encouraged by the groundwater impact assessments results and recommended a baseline baseline water sampling program for 91 131 1921 Newland and 3436 Woodruff and suggest including all the properties on Collie Howard and Newand plus 19 and 25 Brenor as well given the importance of the groundwater to the residents we agree that is important to have a reasonable baseline sample should any further issues related to the state or condition of the groundwater water um come up that applies to the that supply our residents gr the expanded baseline water sampling program will help to alleviate that situation regarding storm water management. Uh the following is a statement from the applicant's service design brief related to storm water management. The areas draining to western property limits on Newland Drive runoff from the 10-meter landscape buffer provided along the westerns and south property line will not be altered and continue direct flowing onto existing grass swales to the to the Newand drive roadside ditch. Flows will be significantly reduced under post-development conditions, decreasing from an area of 1.268 hectares under pre-development conditions to 0.204 hectares under post-development conditions. While the community association agrees with this statement, we feel that is incomplete. What is not addressed is the outcome of any event exceeding a 100red-year storm event. As uh Councelor Low and uh Brent just brought up, the developer postdevelopment storm water drainage plan shows emergency flows of water from the control drainage area of the development on the 10-meter landscape buffer on the west side of the development which could result in additional concentrated flows towards the private lots in heart's desire. We could not find any explanation on what would cause an emergency overflow of the system as the or any attempt to quantify the volume of the runoff. The storm water system as designed appears to be built to manage storms up to a 100red-year event. Anything beyond this will apparently overwhelm the storm management system as designed and potentially trigger an emergency flow of storm water towards Hart's desire properties. A 2020 report by the city of Ottawa and the NCC predicts increases in both the quantity and intensity of precipitation in the area in the coming years. The prediction seems to be in line with actual climate events as 100 years as 100-year events have been recorded in Ottawa three times in the last 22 years in addition to the 200-year event in May of 2026. Property damage due to altered drainage from neighboring properties can lead to legal liabilities for the land owners responsible for the release of the water. Our community association residents would like to minimize the risk of potential future property damage and the associated litigation related to storm water flows between properties. One potential risk reduction strategy would be to improve the storm water system for from how it is presently designed to a system better capable of managing the increasingly frequent major storm events that are impacting our city. Thank you, >> Jeff. Thank you very much for that. Bear with me just one moment. Uh councelor Low. >> Thanks, Chair. Thanks for coming out, Jeff. Um uh some of those concerns like the ones that Brent had raised will be brought up during questions to staff. Um, I do have a question this time um for for you. Um, in the second direction that I had put out there um requests uh direct staff to request the developer to consider increasing the on-site storm water retention. [clears throat] I know that um excuse me, I know that I specifically mentioned uh such as the quantity of storage chambers and but I also added and other means. Um do you uh just just sort of broadly do you do you believe um that would be sufficient to address at least some of of the concerns that you've raised with the with the runoff? >> Um I I'm I'm not a I'm not an expert but I mean as as as Brent pointed out as I pointed out the existing system see you know it's it's built to deal with hundredyear events. um we have no guarantees that you know any particular event will be limited to 100 year, 200 year, 500 year, 500 year whatever. So anything that I believe would uh um expand the existing systems capacity to manage the the storm water would be helpful. Uh having said that the the develop the the plans the sistns only hold water up for a to a two-year event. So the as designed the the sistns are actually quite quite small and the difference between a 2-year event and a 100-year event is is managed by water ponding on the surface. So increasing the size of the sistns might help a little bit. Obviously it depends on how much you increase them by but um I mean it'd have to be huge to manage you know significant events. Um so it might be a partial solution. I'm not sure it's the entire solution and I'm not an expert either. >> Okay, appreciate that. Thanks, Noel. I'll bring that up with um during questions to staff and I think at least one other counselor will as well. Thanks. >> Thank you very much, Councelor Low. I don't see any other questions for you uh from the committee members. Jeeoff, thank you very much for your uh presentation today. Uh the applicants are also in here and invite them to make a presentation or answer questions or however they want to choose or five minutes. Thank you, chair. Um, we also have uh a few folks from our team joining us virtually. We should have Mark Bet, uh, Mike Laflam and Xavian Buchanan on um, virtual, which uh, I think we just want to wait a moment for them to get promoted to speaker if that's okay. We also have Mike Buchet, the client, um, online as well. Apparently, everyone is online, so >> Okay, perfect. Thank you. Okay, great. Um, yeah. Um, thanks everyone. My name is Tamar Nahal. I'm a planner at Foten. I'm joined by my colleague Matt Mceliot. He's a principal at Foten. Um, we do have a slide deck. We don't necessarily need to run through it, but we did want to respond to um some of the concerns we heard today. Um, if we could please flip to slide two. Um we do have um so I'll I'll speak quickly to this and then also ask um that our team perhaps respond to comments and questions as well because they are of course the experts. Um but I have pulled some of the expert excerpts from our um reports and materials. Um so one of the things that our groundwater impact assessment does note is that the wells um were anticipated to be have relatively low impact um due to the construction deatering. That's the water that's removed during the construction activities. Um, and if we flip to slide three, the groundwater impact assessment did propose to uh study um to have a baseline watering water sampling pro program. As we've heard today, there have been requests to expand this. The current um properties that are proposed to be part of the program are shown on the screen. Um there are presently 1 2 3 4 five addresses and the re the request that we've heard from um councelor Loe's motion is to expand this. Um we do have our team online to speak to whether this is necessary. However um we we have spoken with them and their their response has been that the they stand by their report and the um expanse is sufficient. However, um we have spoken with our client um and we don't have concerns with this motion as requested to to consider adding units. So that will be explored. Um and that is certainly something that is going to be explored during the site plan process. Um similarly, the other direction that was requested to explore opportunities to increase the on on-site storm water retention will be explored as well during site plan. um as as the current application before us as a zoning bylaw amendment. Um if we can please please flip to slide eight. Um I do want to mention that because this is a zoning bylaw amendment and we're not um here to speak to site plan. The the issue before us is looking at the reszoning from the the current existing zoning um to really bring it into conformity with this minor corridor designation. Um the proposed development is for predominantly two and threetory buildings which is considered low-rise. So the recommended um reasonzoning having assessed it we feel is reasonable for the minor corridor in a suburban transct. As we heard from Tracy during her presentation um [snorts] it does permit up to five or seven stories. Um so we're not seeing a a an incredible increase in um in density being proposed. It's quite consistent with the neighborhood. Um, we also in addition to proposing a low-rise development, we still provide transition. Typically, we don't provide transition between houses in the same height band. So, although we are proposing um low-rise, we're still locating the um obviously the shortest buildings to the west. Um, which will provide a transition, although we don't typically see that. Um, and if we could flip to slide seven please. Um there's been a lot of discussion on the uh impacts of of storm water runoff. I I also wanted to highlight that there highlight the expansive landscaping proposed that's not only been proposed as new but also to be maintained. Um so we will see a net gain of 110 trees although 24 do have to be remain removed to facilitate the development. Um a good portion um are dead, four four are dead, eight are poor. Um, so we will see that this soft landscaping is able to absorb the storm water runoff. Um, and before I see we have about a minute left, so perhaps I will ask um our our our um subconsultant team who's online if they could please speak to the questions that have been raised um Mark Betett's online if he could speak to the the storm water runoff concerns related to um the Sistern and these emergency ditches that were raised by um Mr. Dawson and um Mr. Evans. Thank you. >> Yeah, just check. Can everybody hear audio working? >> Yep, we can hear you. >> Okay. So, I guess a lot of a lot of issues were raised, a lot going on. Try to distill in a minute. Um going to Mr. Evans's point, he was concerned about the imperousness of the site. He's he is absolutely correct. As part of land development, you create additional imperousness. Um we take that into consideration when we do the design. Uh we we apply design standards and look at a variety of storms. Uh typically refer to them as like a two, a five or a 100redyear design storm. You're looking at uh light frequent storms and that's what the tanks are intended to serve. You're trying to minimize the frequency of nuisance events that will lead to ponding. And we designed all the way up to a 100year event. That's the the criteria that we currently design to I completely hear and understand what he's saying when he's looking at the the recent heavy rainfall we had on July 1st and that leads to there was some concern about >> Yeah, you're you're not going to be able to finish that thought. I'm sorry. That's the end of the five minutes. I imagine councelor Low might be able to formulate a question that would allow you to pursue that a little bit. Uh are there any questions uh from the committee? And I'm sorry I just need to go back to the start of my screen. Councelor Low. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, hi Mark. Yep, exactly it. So, my question for you is, um, you know, how do we I know that you've designed the site for the 100red-year uh, uh, rainfall event total. Um, I'm sure that you're also familiar with the fact that it is based on historical averages and it can fluctuate as as time goes on. Um, recent trends of course have shown that shown that it will probably fluctuate upwards. Um so, um yeah, I would appreciate some some additional information on how how uh the the site addresses storm water and uh retention and and also runoff. Um as well as the question that that Brent uh Mr. Evans uh and maybe Jeff as well had raised about the the emergency arrows that are on the the emergency runoff arrows rather that are on the west side of the site. >> Absolutely. So, as I was saying, we design up to a 100redyear design storm. That's that's the threshold and the criteria that we design to currently. That's the city standard. What the other thing we do is we look at we we stress test the event. We say what if we get something even worse than a 100year. What we do is we add another 20% onto that 100year design storm. Is that right? Is that wrong? That's what we do right now. And what our intent with this is let's make sure under that 100 plus 20% event that the houses and the occupants remain safe that people aren't flooded. We will accept nuisance ponding in the roads. We'll accept overland conveyance. What we're trying to do is get the water away from the dwellings, keep them out of basement. So, this is when you look at what we what I've identified as the emergency flow that the community is concerned about. If we exceed the 100red-year design storm, there's a pocket area at the at the rear yard of the town homes that would flow and exceed would not be captured. So, flow that would go to the heart's desired community would include runoff from the buffer strip area. That's the natural green space, the treed area, and it would potentially include runoff from the rear yard of the town houses. So whereas right now you've got about half the site draining to the Harts community and the other half draining to Woodruff uh under postdevelopment conditions once we've built the development about 85% of the development will be captured and drained and routed to the Woodruff storm sewer. Does that answer your question? Uh yeah actually. So um I believe would I am I correct that in the site plan um there are some additional catch basins uh just behind the rear yards of the more traditional town homes in the left side of the property. >> Correct. At at on the western edge of the development behind the towns there's uh a rear drainage system that captures and conveys flow back to the Woodruff storm sewer. Although what we've identified is if we exceed the design the 100red-year storm if we get walloped you would have potentially overland flow going to the buffer strip which would then go through to the uh the community to the west. >> Okay. Thank you. Um two two-part last question two-part question is um the uh first part is how much um you know in within the landscape buffer how much of that uh overland flow can a landscape buffer um well I guess ground how much of that can the ground absorb um before it has to continue flowing off site. And then the second part of that question is um um if we were to increase the design of the if we were to increase the design of the storm water retention to you know above the hundred 100redyear uh events like like I mentioned in the direction um realistically um what do you think you can achieve? >> Tricky questions. Um, so the green space buffer, uh, it's going to, under most rainfall events, it's going to absorb the runoff. It's just going to sponge up and be absorbed into the ground. But as obviously you get heavier and heavier rainfall events, at some point you will have what's called overland flow. It's just water is trickling off and and uh, in this case flowing to the west. uh my analysis looks at the project development. I have not analyzed where it's going to the west. It's going there currently under existing conditions. We're sending less there under future, but exactly where and how much we have not analyzed. We could look at it. >> Sorry, you had a second question >> uh to do with the the the storm tanks, right? uh it's something >> mentioned as an example because because it just says uh it's it's kind of broad and and deliberately so to uh to consider increasing the retention capacity above the 100 years >> right so I guess the question then becomes you know what specifically would we be designing for to what criteria what are we trying to achieve I mean obviously I'm hearing the concerns of the community um it could be explored right? You know, the more storage you put, the more you're throttling the flow back. Most of the flow in this case is actually going to Woodruff. So, just a point of clarification, make sure uh Hearts Desire Community is clear. Overland flow, even under emergency conditions exceeding the 100year, 85% of the site goes to Woodruff. So you're you're having less flow routed to the heart's desire community under postdevelopment conditions. Okay. And this is uh I know the hearts desire community will continue to be engaged with this process uh when when we get to the site plan. Um this is uh staff know as much um and so uh and so I hope that those conversations are fruitful. Um what I've done here is within the limits of what I can do. So uh thanks uh thank you for your time and thanks uh thanks for the presentation as well. You're You're welcome. >> All right. Thank you for those answers. Um I have a bunch of different questions. Number one, the baseline water assessment for those wells, um will there be blasting for this project? >> No. No. There >> there's no blasting at all. >> Any blasting? >> No. >> Okay. So, uh that's better because blasting often can create cracks and then you have problems with wells. But if there are problems with wells as you go along, basically my standard question, and then what? [clears throat] >> So, sorry, I'm dealing with a voice issue today. Um, so the basic premise of the baseline program is we work collaboratively with the city to decide on the number and extent of homes included in the program. We take the baseline samples before construction starts. If during construction um anyone involved in the program has an issue uh we would collect a follow-up sample to compare the new results against the baseline. Uh that's why the baseline's taken in the first place. If there is a change in water quality then we take the next step to investigate the cause. Um again to your point um on certain sites if there's blasting involved then we'd have to look at what the changes to water quality are. if it's related to sediment load in the water or if there's new parameters whether it's iron or sulfur whatever we'd have to look at what is the difference and what could be causing it. But it it basically if someone has a complaint during construction the the first step is to take a follow-up sample and compare it against uh the baseline results. >> Yeah. I just ask committee members to think about the rigomearroll for a resident that has problems with their well. Like you when you live on a well like it's pretty much your whole life and you have problems with your well in the middle of a project beside you and all of a sudden your well your water's all filled with iron or rust or you have no water uh that's a problem. So I mean I just would say whatever happens with this file there needs to be a real plan for those residents. I if I was living beside this I would be very worried um because of how much everything depends on your well. So I'll make that comment. Uh the second thing is the 100red years plus 20%. you know, can't I can't tell you how many times I've heard this. Uh 100 years plus 20% is seen as like terrible now today. Like we talk 300 in Canada all the time. Um and it is so risky to go with 100 uh year flood plus 20%. Um I just I guess I would ask what engineer is going to sign off on this? Is this the that the final sign off? Which engineer is it going to be? One from the developer or the city of Ottawa? Guess that's the question for me. So I mean I I'm I'm an engine professional engineer. I'm the design consultant on behalf of Phoenix. We design to the standard design criteria which as I said is is the 100year but we assess what if things go worse and it's like anything you have to quantify that how much worse and what we do is the 100 plus 20. Is that right? Is that wrong? That's an open question, right? >> Yeah. I I I think it's wrong. I can answer that for you. Uh because 100 is nothing nowadays. You you talk to the counselors around this table who've dealt with the floods uh again and again. 100 is nothing. Anyway, I just wonder what engineer has to sign off on it finally at the end of the day because I would not ever want to be that engineer. Um the other I want to ask is this group ever done this sistern project before that they have some uh examples that we've already done this it's great works perfectly any experience with this >> so I have done it it's it's currently it's installed uh over nearfield in Cedarview it's another project it was for Phoenix coincidentally uh it's been operate in operation for a few years I would also like what what we've prepared is a preliminary design in support of the zoning application. So, it's conceivable we could provide a different storage system. We're not bound to provide this specific tank, right? There will be a site plan application, right? I don't think there's any concern with the tank. Um, I I hear what the community resident has said, but I mean, a one-year warranty is fairly typical on many commercial products. I don't think there's anything unusual there. >> Okay. You have one example of this. I I would be concerned about that, but you know, everybody's got to try something first and second time, I guess. Um, I guess I would say, is there a chance that this would not go forward if there are too many issues during site plan? Is that our understanding? Maybe that's a question for staff, but that is the reality. This could stop at site plan. >> I I just like to clarify. So, I have one case where I personally have a project. I could dig up I'm sure I could dig up many cases or examples throughout citywide where the product is implemented. >> I think there there might likely be a productive discussion to be had with staff about where we go from the zoning into site plan. >> Perfect. Thank you. Okay, I'm all done. Thank you. >> Thank you very much, Katherine. Sorry, councelor Kitz. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, I'm gonna pull on the same thread that my colleagues have been. Um, so a question for Mr. Bette. Is there any discussion in the industry that designing to the 100 year standard acknowledging plus 20% is not enough? Like I appreciate and I I'll have the same question for staff because it's our it's our guideline. Um, but in the industry, is there any concern that that is no longer sufficient given what we've been seeing? >> There there's certainly chatter and people have their opinions. Um, I I I think at core, right, what we do is we design to the city standard. I know I'm evading your question, but it's it's it's not for me to dictate what the standard is. >> No, I I I appreciate that and that as I said, I will ask staff the same question, but I was just, you know, as professional engineers, you're in this world. I was curious as to whether there was a sentiment that yeah, this is the standard that we are required to build to, but perhaps it's worth revisiting. So, I guess I would answer by saying it was a few years ago that the push went on to say, "Okay, let's let's analyze the 100 plus 20." For for years, all we did was analyze to the 100. That was it. It's like anything. You have you have a you have a defined end point, right? We said, "Let's just stress test it a little bit." And that's what we're doing right now. I I personally have comfort and confidence in what we're designing in a modern we're analyzing the hydrarology and the hydraulics and I'm comfortable with what we're doing. Now I know staff are investigating. I think it's important with the flooding events. There's complexity and nuance in where and how did the failures occur. And here we've got a modern brand new development. I personally am comfortable they would be safeguarded if that same rainfall occurred today. >> Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that answer. >> Okay. >> Thank councelor >> Divine. Thank you chair. Uh I'm just going to follow up uh just on the questions that uh my two colleagues uh just posed on the 100. Um and I very much appreciate uh how you described there that you are adhering to an industry standard um and that you you know you applied what you said a stress test. For many years it was one in 100 and then you apply the stress test. In your response to council kits you said and I completely understand it's not for me to dictate uh what the standard is just for the clarity of everyone uh engaged in this conversation. I am certainly invested in this conversation. Um who is it uh whose authority is it to dictate that standard? >> I think that's a question for staff is yeah >> thank you. Um and I also appreciate what you're saying on that. um you have a a degree of confidence in this because as you apply your stress test and as you apply uh sound engineering, you're looking at other modern methods on how to mitigate against all that runoff uh beyond what may have been just uh established norms on how to handle that. So um anyways, thanks for the clarity on that and I'll I'll direct that question to staff when we get to them. Thank you. >> Thank you, chair. I'm back. Um, I was hoping to actually save uh save some of the questions uh for staff, but uh but because we're pulling on that thread. So, my my first question just so just so the community can be prepared is do you um do you or or does anyone here from Phoenix Homes have an expected um timeline for this uh for the for the site plan application? I know I know concurrently all the documents have been uploaded with the resoning, but I'm curious if you uh you have an expected timeline of the actual um um uh site plan control going ahead. Um or let me know if that's a better question to post for staff >> through you chair. Um the question is just in terms of approval timeline, we hope to have this approved in uh in short order uh within the next few months. But to your point, I think uh you've provided us with good direction to further investigate some of the issues brought up today. I'm glad we had our expert here given the flavor of the conversations. >> Yeah. No, I I I think so too. And I'm glad that uh I'm glad that my colleagues with more more recent experiences with flooding have uh have have chimed in here um because uh because it is an important topic um like like councelor Curry said the the well and septic systems that the residents and hearts desire depend on are can actually be life or death and uh and and you know I I do think that uh that safeguarding them um whether it's through uh whether it's through monitoring whether it's through uh something that can come after the fact or whether it's through um you know expanding or improving the on-site storm water retention is is is something that's uh you know like it's imperative to to safeguard that. So um I have more questions for staff later on. Um and uh so yeah, thanks. >> Thank you very much. I don't see any further questions for the delegate. So thank you very much for the intervention and we will move on to questions of staff. >> Councelor Kelly. Thank you very much, chair. And uh I will leave the um overland water discussion to my other colleagues. Uh but I would do want to drill down, no pun intended, on wells uh because that is an issue that comes up a lot in rural areas. And so I was um you know um noticed that it's an issue here as well. And so there was a question asked and I don't necessarily um believe that the applicant's consultant is responsible for answering this particular question but they were asked um and were unable to answer it and I believe we've we've asked this question before and not received a very clear answer on some rural files but it's an important one. So if there is issues with a well when something does happen um for from an adjacent property or a project that's happening there whether it's blasting or whatever dewatering for construction um who would be responsible in the event that a uh city approved project negatively affects someone's ability um to draw water uh from their well. Who's who's responsible for fixing that >> chair through you? It would be we would create requirements through the site plan control agreement that would you know require the developer to be on notice should there be any kind of so we have a we have a number of tools we could we could draw we could take securities we could look at opportunities for temporary systems again I'm I'm speaking in generalizations because the risk of this is is deemed to be abundantly low in this situation but we would be using the site planning process to come up with safeguards, if you will, that in the event that something were that there were to be impacts to wells that that temporary source of water would come through the developer. So, >> you're on mute. >> Thank you very much. Um that leads me to uh another question andor comment that I I didn't come into to this meeting um planning to talk about but so many conversations we've had around this table particularly well and I mean I remember the ones from my ward very clearly and I'm sure there's been many across the city where residents or the people that we represent are very concerned about particular aspects of the conversation whether it's water well safety fires for a battery energy storage system where we're being asked to approve zoning ahead of the answers to many of the questions that residents are really seeking answers to and for which we would be much more equipped to answer these questions and and make these decisions if those questions were answered ahead of time. So, is there any potential future solution to that where and I know we've now lost control over the um we we cannot revoke delegated authority when it comes to site plans. So, once we approve zoning, we've pretty much lost all control over what occurs on these sites. Um so, I was just wondering if you could comment or if there's anything any mechanisms at our disposal to to fix that. um whether it's conversations with the province, are these things baked into the planning act? Like could you comment on on that aspect of this conversation? >> And I would uh I'll just ask um to to be brief and colleagues, we have two more files after this one that have relatively lengthy delegations list. So uh I'll rein this in a little bit and just ask folks to focus on the zoning merits of this file to the extent that we can. And I know everyone is very sensitive about the flooding implications in light of this summer's event. But uh just something to keep in mind, a number of people are waiting for us to get to the next files. >> And chair, what I will say is we did ask for the hydro geological a groundwater impact assessment to be done with zoning. So we made that a requirement here whereas that maybe technically isn't a requirement, we did want to have that information and we wanted to have those asurances ahead of time. So that's why we are able to have this discussion here. Great to hear. Thank you, Chair. >> Thank you, Councelor Low. >> Thanks, Chair. Um, thanks for uh thanks for all the work uh and time that you've put into this and and all the phone calls and stuff that you've taken from me over the last little while. Um, I um in in terms of the I'm I'm going to talk about something uh different from from the storm water first. Um then I'll go back to it. Um but uh but in terms of the uh zoning application um the one of the one of the things that one of the documents in the sorry the traffic impact assessment noted that uh there's a certain number of I think it's like 40ome or 50 something vehicle trips uh sort of person trips generated um oh no that is vehicle trips vehicle trips generated during the peak hours um it it assumes a um it assumes a I think transit usership of about 25 to 30% um during those peak hours. So, um my my concern there is that one that that's an assumption, but also two um the there's a nearby intersection at Woodruff and um Crest Haven Palativier where you know routinely we've gotten um really close to to warrants for signalization and roundabouts. There actually used to be a signal there and it was removed in 2015. But um but what can we do within the zoning process to um to address that intersection? Is there anything we can do within the zoning process to address that intersection? >> Councelor, we rely on the information in the TIA and in this case, we haven't met those warrants that are required and I think overall the TIA does consider the traffic from this development to be quite modest. So, as you mentioned, it's an additional some 40 uh vehicle trips. So, uh here we know the driveways, you know, meet the design and the sighteline standards. We have new pedestrian infrastructure going in here that's going to improve area connections. So from our perspective the you know the the development actually improves active transportation and I think the existing network can accommodate the extra traffic but we do hear those concerns and we know we are close. So I know my general manager Marcia and I have talked about this and we're going to go back and we're going to take a look at this intersection and see what kind of opportunities there are. Um but it requires a broader conversation outside of this zoning application. >> Yeah. >> Yes. Through the chair, I would just sort of add to that that uh we are with our traffic colleagues uh constantly looking at uh road safety and so perhaps this can be revisited when we talk about the update to the road safety plan and how those criteria and choices get made. But we're we're right now looking at the traffic impact assessment and based on that report, we feel that it does meet uh the current scenarios with these um pedestrian improvements will be enough to support the traffic. But we always monitor in these new situations and we can have this conversation again when we talk about road safety and priorities. >> Thank you. Um no, I appreciate and look forward to that conversation. I think I think we're going to do that between now and council as well. um the uh on on the storm water. So the the geote the hydrogeeology report rather is is typically not required but but you had agreed to require it as part of the reasoning uh process. Um first of all I am grateful I am grateful that you did. Um and second um how what kind of it's a similar question as a as the intersection like what kind of an impact can can the hydro geology report have on on site plan? Um and and also uh does it have any pull at all on the resoning process? like let's say let's say um the it's not satisfactory and I know I know you had indicated that it is but if it's not satisfactory what kind of an impact can it have on the success or not of uh the city at the for example if we were to refuse this >> chair through you I think if we had found a situation where we had deemed that some wells could be impacted by the development occurring that we would have had to come up with zoning measures to protect for that so maybe that looked like alternate se setbacks maybe the design had to be done differently. So, so certainly zoning allows us to set those parameters around setbacks early on in a process. We're not prevented from doing that through site plan as well where technical safety health provisions come up as a concern. So just because we're setting zoning setbacks here today, if we were to find something fundamentally different at the site planning process where human health, where wells, what have you were impacted, we would be able to make those recommendations through site plan. So >> okay, thank you very much. I'll have some comments at the end there. Um but uh appreciate the answers for now. Thanks. >> Thanks, Chair. Just the one question that I noted before this time for staff. Are we um looking at revisiting whether the 100year standard is sufficient today through the chair? Okay, I'll take that. Um [laughter] so to answer that question, um I've been in contact with our colleagues on the infrastructure side who are also paying attention to this file and others. Um, I would say that uh we're looking at whether or not the industry standards as were discussed by the consultants really are adequate in Ottawa's circumstance and I would argue that many municipalities are doing that given the impacts of climate change and while we never know uh we're always continuously looking at things. So, you know, it's um meanwhile development and land um deals continue to happen. So, we have to work with the information we have and I I believe the site plan is a robust process that really as uh um the planners have identified really gives us that health and safety lens in order to make those decisions. And storm water is a major part of what site plan does. And so, you know, is the ditch and the ponding adequate to deal with storm water? That's exactly what we're going to be looking at. And it will be um our our own engineers that review that and and help make those recommendations for site plan. But the infrastructure side is looking at our standards whether or not the 100redyear level is still what the city should be standing uh behind whether or not we need to change any of our guidelines. That is coming forward in the report that uh council is expecting to see as a result of the July 1st floods. So that is we are working cooperatively and we expect that to occur and in the meantime sight by sight we use our tools around site plan to make sure that we are mitigating risk as much as possible on any given location. >> Okay, thank you. Uh thank you for that response and I'm glad that it's going to be coming back to us sooner than later because development is coming fast and furious. So thank you. >> Thank you councelor Curry. Yeah, thank you. So, the question that the resident had about who's monitoring these sistns and uh the maintenance, you think about, you know, my colleagues here right beside me. What what we heard from residents over and over again was that catch basins weren't cleared and, you know, there was all, you know, leaves and debris and who was responsible for that? Was that us? Some of it grass had grown over. In this situation, would this be that the private uh owners would be responsible for maint maintaining this or would this in the end be the city? Uh this is something through you chair. Um this is something that can be included as a condition for the site plan approval and uh it will be maintained by the I guess owner of the property. So it's this development. >> All right. Well, that's fascinating to me, you know, because that I don't know who monitors that or how that all works, especially if this is relatively new. I did a quick search and there's a couple of uh parts of Ontario, cities that have had this type of technology, but it would be important maybe for you to look at what they've done, I gather, in Whitby is one of them. Um because that can be part of the reason why we end up with flooding when people are not maintaining this and and uh there aren't some strict rules around that. Um the other question I'll ask to staff is the same one I had. At the very end of the day, after everything is done, which engineer signs off as a final approval? Is it a city engineer or a developers engineer? uh chair, the developers engineer puts their stamp and credentials on those reports that the city then receives and also approves. >> I asked this question another time like a reasonable person would think there's bias there. These things happen all the time. I mean the reality is the engineers wear that ring. You know 1907 I think it was a Quebec bridge fell, St. Lawrence Bridge fell and people were killed and that iron ring uh guarantees that you know their stamp means that they believe that the public is safe. So the reality is there's that and then there's the but we will also lose billions of dollars if this doesn't go ahead and so when will I get hired again if I don't approve these types of things and that's a human element to this right and and we are all sitting here just watching it happen but I just think that there's a lot of risk here I understand I think uh GM Wallace's answer there in terms of site plan and and the powers the city has are real um I just I'm hoping that this discussion indicates to staff that this is I'm certainly quite concerned about this if if and I I think other people are as well. So that that would be a clear message you're getting from this committee right now. >> And councelor if I may have an opportunity to add to that when we do an engineering review internally it is very comprehensive. So it is more than one engineer reviewing this file. So we have a development review engineer that then circulates to a myriad of engineers across multiple departments including those that work in storm water and modeling. So this is very much a team effort across the city that engages, you know, anywhere from five to 10 engineers who are evaluating consistently against best practices against all of our guidelines to ensure that these things are safe and will work. So just wanted to add that. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much, Councelor Curry. Councelor Low. >> Well, mine's kind of a comment, too. I just wanted to give councelor Lo the last word. Um, you know, I think that the quiet part that no one's saying out loud is obviously if we change our standard, it's going to cost more and we're trying to keep housing affordable. But I think given the gravity of what the consequence could be, we have to weigh that. And as you're hearing, counselors are worried about this. We've seen instances of overland flooding. So, I just wanted to sort of put that out there. We know that it's going to cost more if we require developers to do more and that is going to have an impact but we have to weigh all these things uh in the decisions that we're making. Thanks. >> Thank you. No, I appreciate the discussion that's uh that's been going on around the table here. The you know, thank you to staff. Thank you to uh to to um Foten for for the answers. I almost said Novatech um for for the answers. And and you know, these are to to give you some context. Hearts Desire is a rural hamlet that was developed and subdivided in the 50s and 60s that was became surrounded by the suburban development in in the 2000s. And when that suburban development happened, these same concerns came up about wellwater, about the impact to uh the safety of the wellwater because it really is it can really be life and death, right? We, you know, we we hold um the reason why councils across Ontario are are personally responsible for the quality of our municipal drinking water systems is because of past uh past issues. So this can be life or death for for people uh for um people with the well and septic systems in this community. Um where we are kind of stuck is the fact that this is a reasonzoning application and a lot of everything else that we've talked about goes into site plans. So you know this is a perfect application under the old rules um because we can do a lot under the old rules but under the current rules I'm uh you know it's it's a bit of a reluctant support for the reasonzoning for me. Um but uh but within the context of the official plan, within the um yeah, within the context of the official plan and everything that's sort of um that that governs us in the planning act, uh this this there's no path to success for us as a city at the OOLT. Um I do implore um you know, I would I would really like to stress the fact and the reason why I had these directions is because I want to stress the fact that it is important, right? The the storm water, the runoff, the the impact to well qualities. I think we've established that the the impact from construction will be low, but it is the ongoing impact um post development that that that is a legitimate concern for for for my residents and and by extension for me. Um and and so uh I really hope that uh you do you do engage with the community as the site plan process comes up. And I really hope that Jeff uh Jeff Brent and others uh in Hearts Desire um engage with this closely uh and and that uh and that uh you know staff sorry and that the developer also uh participates in this closely. They've been responsive to to a lot of feedback so far. So I'll give them that. Um but but I'm hoping that it's not for show, right? Um because these are these are uh legitimate concerns. The last thing I'll bring up is uh within within the minor corridor designation. Um it is this section of Woodruff is um questionable in terms of his designation because the name Woodruff Avenue does not invoke a residential street, but this section of Woodruff is a residential street. And this is something that I'll bring up uh in the future um as as a as something that I think we need to correct um in terms of how how we designate this section of Woodruff because it really is not it really is very different from everything north of Crest Haven and Pomativ. So um yeah, thank you. >> Thank you very much councelor Low. Uh two staff uh councelor Low has asked you to uh undertake two things. Are you willing to undertake those as direction? >> Yes, we can accept the directions. >> Okay. Thank you. Um I don't think there were any amending motions put on the table. There's a good discussion. Uh so are the recommendations carried? >> Descent. Okay. Uh carried with a descent from councelor Curry. Thank you. On we go. Item 77 is the zoning bylaw amendment for 475 Terry Fox Drive. There are four public delegations on this one. Um, so we'll get a presentation from Amanda Davidson. Hi, Amanda. I'm not sure if you've presented to the committee before. Is this your first one? Second. Okay, we're looking forward to it. Whenever you're ready. >> Good morning, chair, members of committee. My name is Amanda Davidson and I'm here to present the staff recommendation for a zoning bylaw amendment application for 475 Terry Fox Drive for the development of three six-story residential apartment buildings. Next slide, please. The site is located on the north side of Terry Fox Drive and east side of Canada Avenue. The site is a regular in shape and approximately 1.2 hectares in size. The site is a former untraveled city rightway and generally sits at a lower grade compared to adjacent lands. Next slide, please. Uh, the subject site is located within Ward 4, Canada North. Surrounding land uses consist of low-rise residential to the northeast and northwest, low-rise commercial to the west, a park to the southeast, and Karp River to the south. Further east of the site are additional smallcale and large-scale commercial developments. Next slide, please. Within the city's official plan, the site is located within the suburban transct and is designated minor corridor with a small portion of the north of the site designated neighborhood. Uh it is noted that the minor corridor designation is applied to a depth of 120 m from the center line of the corridor which is Terry Fox Drive and the proposed development is within the area of the site designated as minor corridor. Next slide please. The proposal is for three mid-rise six-story residential apartment buildings with a total of 182 dwelling units. Uh, two buildings are proposed along Terry Fox Drive and one along Canada Avenue. And site access is proposed in the northwest corner of the site from Canada Avenue. The proposal includes, excuse me, uh, 173 resident parking spaces and 37 visitor parking spaces with 90 spaces provided in in an underground parking garage and 120 within a surface parking lot. The proposal is also subject to a concurrent site plan control application to deal with matters relating to the site design. Next slide, please. Uh, the images before you are the building elevations which illustrate the proposed built form. The buildings feature a peaked roof design and include a half floor at the sixthstory to provide a step back at the rear of the buildings which face towards the adjacent low-rise residential development. Next slide, please. Uh the zoning bylaw amendment application responds to both the city's former zoning bylaw 2008250 and the new zoning bylaw 202650. Under zoning bylaw 2008250, the applicant's request is to reszone from local commercial urban exception 1706, maximum height 11 meters to residential fifth density subzone AA urban exception 1706 with a maximum height of 20.5 m. The proposed reszoning is generally to permit the the mid-rise apartment building with a reduced parking requirement and to allow the increase in height. Next slide, please. Under zoning bylaw 202650, the current zoning is minor corridor zone 2, urban exception 1706, maximum height 11 meters, and the proposed zoning is minor corridor 2, urban exception 1706 with a maximum height of 20.5 m. The request is for the increased height, reduced bicycle parking requirements, a reduced landscape buffer around the parking lot, and to remove the requirement for active entrances. Uh it is noted that there is an existing urban exception applicable to the site which was established through a 2009 zoning bylaw amendment. The current resoning will amend the urban exception to remove some of the pre-existing zoning provisions and establish new sight specific provisions. Next slide please. Staff recommend approval of the application as the proposed use and built form is in conformity with the official plan policies. Uh the official plan notes that mid-rise building heights between five and seven stories may be considered through a zoning bylaw amendment for minor corridors in the suburban transct. The official plan is generally supportive of intensification and increased density along corridors and intends to support a range of dwelling unit sizes in the suburban transct including multi-unit dwellings on corridors. The official plan notes that transition is to be provided to abuing designations by locating the maximum permitted building height and density closest to the corridor with stepbacks as appropriate. The official plan notes that parking requirements may be reduced along corridors. Staff are of the opinion the transition has been adequately achieved through the provision of large setbacks, a step back at the fifth story and through the site layout. The proposal maintains a landscape buffer with sufficient room for new tr new tree planting and tree retention to provide screening to the adjacent residential uses and staff are of the opinion that the provided parking rate of 0.9 spaces per unit is appropriate. As noted, the site is also subject to a concurrent site plan application and the design details continue to be reviewed through that concurrent process. And that concludes the um staff presentation. [snorts] We're available to answer any questions. >> Thank you very much for that. uh very helpful. There are four public delegations. Uh Terresa O'Neal and Rory Bax are here with Ironclad Developments. Um I'll give you the option. You can present uh your five minutes now or you can um do it at the end of the public delegations to respond. So it looks like you're going to do it now. So >> uh thank you chair. We'll take the opportunity to do our presentation and then make ourselves available to answer as many questions as uh committee may like. Uh good morning. My name is Rory Bash and uh my colleague Theresa O'Neal will uh provide today's presentation. Uh she's there on the screen and uh we're just getting the slides up on uh the screen as well. So Teresa, over to you. >> Excellent. Hello chair and committee. Um, as noted, I'm Teresa with Dylan Consulting, joined by Rory Partner with Dylan Consulting, and I believe we're also here with Michael from Ironclad Developments today. And we've been working on behalf of Ironclad Developments uh in support of the zoning bylaw amendment for their proposed development at 475 Terry Fox Drive in Ottawa. Next slide, please. The subject property is located within the city's builtup urban area. It has frontage on both Terry Fox Drive and Canada Avenue. The subject property is currently vacant and consists of an uh undeveloped open field. The property's location supports active transportation and transit connectivity. Future residents will have direct access to the city's sidewalks and the Innill uh park trail network, cycling routes uh as well as bus stops with frequent service. Next slide, please. And thank you. Ironclad is proposing a six-story residential development consisting of three multi-unit buildings with a total of 182 residential units. The proposed buildings will frame Terry Fox Drive and Canada Avenue, adding an adding an urban form um at a prominent intersection. Notably, 35% of the units are designed to be accessible, supporting a more inclusive and diverse range of housing options. The courtyard is proposed on the interior of the site, keeping the functional elements of the site, such as loading spaces and utilities internal and screened from the public right of way. as well. Expansive landscaping is proposed along the property lines to create a positive relationship between the existing and proposed built forms. In summary, the design of the development integrates with the public realm, includes a mid-riseu built form as permitted by the city's official plan, enhances pedestrian and cyclist connectivity, and provides high quality uh amenity spaces including a dog park, uh outdoor amenity areas for people to enjoy, um an indoor amenity area, as well as individual balconies. Next slide, please. Uh the underground parade is depicted on this slide. In terms of parking, there's a total of 210 vehicular parking spaces. 120 of those are located on the surface at grade with 90 located within this underground park. There's seven accessible spaces and 37 dedicated visitor parking spaces. The proposed bicycle parking is for a total of 137 spaces. 37 being short-term spaces located outside the building and 98 being long-term secure spaces located within the parade along with two inclusive bike parking spaces. Next slide, please. The elevations of the buildings facing Terry Fox Drive and Canada Avenue feature balconies and windows creating a favorable interface with the public with the public realm. Next slide, please. Perfect. As shown, the massing of the proposed buildings is oriented towards Terry Fox Drive, providing generous back generous setbacks from the rear lot line and providing space for landscaping to improve the sense of privacy and improving the sense of privacy for adjacent uh low-rise properties. And further you can see the sixth floor of each building is designed as a half floor, creating the visual effect of a fivestory building when looking from the adjacent lowerrise neighborhood. And this design feature was implemented to address the community's back on views and privacy. As well, the proposed development includes a peaked roof design uh which compared with the typical flat roof design used for mid-rise buildings. The proposed peak roof uh design is more cohesive with the existing neighborhood. Next slide. All right. For over two years, Ironclad Developments Incorporated has been working with the city to advance and refine the proposal for this development and a timeline of this is shown on the slide. They have completed pre-conultation and worked through various iterations of both the zoning bylaw amendment and site plan control applications. Ironclad has taken feedback from the community and the city, incorporating it into the site design. For example, limiting the building height to a maximum of 17.5 m within 10 m of adjacent properties. Overall, we're very appreciative of the feedback and the time and attention on this application. This development represents good planning and it is it is in my independent professional opinion as a registered professional planner in Ontario that it be approved um as outlined in the city's report. Okay, last slide. Perfect. Thank you. This concludes our presentation and we are available for uh questions from committee. Thank you so much. >> Thank you very much uh Miss O'Neal. Thank you very much Mr. Bach. Um there are four public delegations. We'll start with uh Yan Mingao who has a slide uh deck and I believe um they're online. I'm sorry. Uh does anyone have questions of the applicant? Uh no. So uh they chose to go first with the their presentation. So, uh, now's your opportunity to ask questions of the, uh, the applicant. Uh, councelor Curry, >> thank you for that. Um, and on the, um, amount of consultation here prior to even putting in an application and then coming back again after making a lot of changes uh, is really appreciated. The absolutely the community is upset. you know, there are petitions, but I want to make sure this committee is aware of how uh generous you were in terms of your time and attention to the need for communities to have consultation and the need for changes to for them to feel as if they are listened to and changes made. Um, so a couple things I just want to ask. If this is approved, um what we've seen in Canada in the past is where a developer will designate a person who will then lies with the community during the site plan uh time. Is that a possibility? >> Um I I believe so. In fact, uh the vice president of development um Michael Kubishi, which uh from Ironclad, which is actually headquartered in Winnipeg, um made the trip personally to be here in Ottawa for today. and it demonstrates the level of commitment uh that Michael uh is bringing to the file and he will continue to be involved uh in subsequent steps. So, you know, he's been the point person from the very beginning and will continue to be involved. >> Okay, that would be very helpful. We've found that that works really well in Canada where you they have someone that they can go to. Um the other thing I would ask is if this is approved, do you anticipate going to construction fairly soon? >> Uh yes. Uh right now the architectural team is working as quickly as they can to uh get themselves positioned into building permits so they can get foundation permitting uh and move forward to construction. Um this is not a application where the developer intends to just get a zoning and sit on it for any number of years. There's momentum behind getting this thing built. Uh and there's a huge amount of impetus uh for that to happen. And one of the reasons why we're here at this particular juncture is because there is a transaction that needs to happen and one of those conditions is that the reasonzoning be in place. So there is uh quite substantial pressure on the developer to move this forward and get this built. Um, the other thing I was going to say is that there have been and I will ask staff some questions about the Terry Fox the exit out and the way the road works there, but um there was concerns by the community that the developer had not done a particular study other than looking at it on Google. Um I don't know if you saw that um email that email train back and forth trail back and forth but would there be any further uh transportation studies or um additional studies done to look at how the traffic will flow around that area? >> Uh generally from what I understand in terms of the process that has been undertaken thus far is that the traffic study was prepared by the traffic engineer and provided to city staff. Uh and as you actually heard on some other files, city staff do a very thorough and diligent review of the technical materials that are provided. So the same was done for uh this proposed development. Uh and city staff do not have any concerns in regards to traffic volume uh circulation patterns any of those types of things. So, you know, I really do put my faith in city staff that uh if they agree with the um proponents traffic engineer that the site will function and traffic will function uh uh you know as those engineers understand. >> Okay, great. I'll have further questions for staff. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Uh does anyone else have any questions for the applicant? No. Thank you very much for your presentation today. So, now we'll go to our public delegations. Yan Minga. Uh Rory, you can leave the seat. Thank you. >> Hello. >> Hi. And may we can uh hear you. Your camera's not on, but that's entirely up to you. But we can hear you. So, whenever you want to go and we have your presentation ready to go as well. >> I didn't see the slide yet. >> Yep. So, we got the slide deck up on screen. Whenever you're ready, you have five minutes to make a presentation to the committee. >> Okay. So, good morning chairman and the member of the committee. My name is Yaminga and I live in Inio Crescent and just in the neighborhood of the site. Uh my this is a new house building in the canal north but my main concern is about safety. I this side has a 182 units. They were using only one driveway just one driveway under avenue. So had the driveway been this driveway I didn't see that they have been safe. The TI analysis only unless the capacity does not show anything related to the safety review needed to answer to answer this question. Next slide please. this side we can see clearly and I also I marked the inlay on this and the the building propose on the on the map so we can see every car every visitor every delivery use use this oneway driveway it use this one driveway it at north tip of the site it about 18 158 meter from the Terapox signal. Southbound traffic coming down a hill. The hill start at the Hville Drive about the 400 meters back. There's a curve just before the driveway and the speed is 60. Between the drive and the signal, there's a sh station. It's open 24 hours. It has a car wash and also there's a bus bus stop there. SH station has two driveway. One is in Terry Fox not only let you drive right go west. So if you want to go east, you have to leave the can avenue and then have to move the left turn lane and have you have a 88 m before the signal. And here also behind the queue that can be 38 m long according to study. And then at the near the near the uh in intersection the traffic report the the analysis report said that there's 34 collision collisions at this intersection in in five years. 11 of this wellended collision is on the same southbound approach on can avenue. Next slide please. So this place here is the same stretch draw scale the elevation is come from the applicant's own data. The orange part is the steepest about the 4% is sitting right between site driveway and the SH driveway and also in local that about 50% of the new res trip they will head to south they go they meet at same place so they will join they will join the the semi traffic at the territory for folks. None of these is in the traffic study. The SH station is not mentioned not once. Next slide. So city owned TI guidelines call for that three tracks. First document every driveway within 200 m on both side of the road. The SH is a 70 m away but it's not there. Second reveal the access in the field that's include the driveway across the street and the grade here. Access section line were checked by Google maps. Nobody mention the grade. Nobody mention the measure the speed. Third, if there are more than five collision of one type in five years, review them in the field. Here there's 11 collisions at the same direction, but there's no field review. Please ask staff whether this review were done where they do where they where they are document. Next slide please. So my major concern about this this chart traffic. So my first request basically I wanted this amendment makement refused >> if you could wrap up you're just at your time but I'll let you finish your your sentence. >> Yeah I I I I request city just refill this amendment at the current prop purpose. If you can then if cannot then just approve with the holding provision and until all the safety issue is resolved. That's all. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you very much for your delegation. Are there any questions from committee members? Councelor Curry. >> Thank you and thank you Yaming for coming today and for presenting and such a great PowerPoint to help people understand uh what the challenge is. Um so I you heard that I asked the question of the developer. I'm going to ask a similar question for staff uh next. But my question to you is well I have two questions. Number one, when you looked at that collision data, >> where did you I didn't I think I missed it. What was the source uh that you used to get those collision uh numbers? >> The the collision number is at the at the epics TIA application TI form. They collect data from from 20 2018 to 2022. That's the extend data. They don't have data. It's it's out obslate but they show they show up the problem. >> Okay, great. I want to just make sure the committee understood that it's official data. It's not just, you know, an observation by the community or something. This is official data. Um, the second question I have is if this is approved, and you heard the question I asked, I'm hoping of the developer that they would appoint someone to work with the community as we go through site plan. Would you be willing to still stay connected to this and be involved at that time? >> I think so. But but but I don't think this should go to site plan because right now we are talking talking about the amendment. I think I want this tied to the amendment because when good side plan everything they can change or easy to change or out of public control. >> Absolutely. I'll ask those questions of staff what can be done with that. I just wanted to make sure in case it does pass because these are difficult ones to vote against I find on this committee but uh we want to make sure that during site plan some of these things are addressed if that's what happens at this committee uh at the end of this when we take a vote. But thank you very much very much for coming and presenting today. >> Yeah. Sorry I I just last one last comment in this side we have this 182 units there. There are a lot of car movement right now. I don't think this this safety is actually addressed. The TI is basically incomplete. >> Thank you and main I'll uh wrap it up there. I appreciate the intervention today and we're going to move on to Katherine Moore. >> Thank you. We're just checking to see if Katherine's online. Okay, it doesn't look like Katherine's online. If Katherine uh if you do uh join, please let us know. Uh and then Zed Chen will be our third delegate. It'll just be a moment or two to get uh zoomed into the discussion. >> Hello, I'm here. Can you hear me? >> Hi there, David. Uh whenever you're ready, you'll have five minutes to make a presentation to the committee. Your camera is off so we can't see you but we can hear you. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Good morning chair and a member of the planning and housing committee. My name is Yuda Chen. I'm speaking on behalf of uh more than 100 petition signer who are all residents local residents of Canada North 4 in opposition to the staff recommendation and the proposed application for 475 T Fox Drive. Our community is not against the housing. >> Is the start video there? >> Sorry, some interruption. But uh good planning require care sound adjustment and respectful for binding commitment. This application is not a minor technical tweak. It is a severe de overdevelopment data task that ask for sight specific relief across six core planning plan uh pillars by selectively cherrypicking rule between current bylaw 2008-250 and the future bylaw 2026-50. We urge you to reject this application based on four fundamental concerns. First, failing to honor municipal commitment. In 2009, when the city sold this public land, it established a sight specific 11 meter twotory height limit under exception 1706 to protect surrounding low-rise homes. The developer is now asking 20.5 m. this up to 9.5 m above the existing site limit and even by 5.5 meter above the general suburban CM2 ceiling under the bylaw 2026-50 permission to consider materrise building on a minor corridor is not an entitlement to exceeding the maximum height. limit in meters on a constrained triangular parcel. Second, severe technical uh non-compliance. The applicant is cutting corners on essential standards. They are sort vehicle parking space under current rules. They are slashing long-term biking parking from 137 to 98 spaces. They are shrinking the monetary 5meter landscape buffer to 3.5 m. Most alarmingly, they are removing active street facing pedestrian entries along Ty Fox Drive, replacing them with locked emergency exit, creating a dead hostile streetcape. Third, traffic safety hazard. The applicant traffic uh impact assessment relies on outdated data aign this deep 4.3% grade at the proposed entry. A slope historically linked to severe winter collision near the already congested Ty Fox Drive and the Canada Avenue intersection for zero community benefit. The proposal is a single use residential complex that taxes our already strained infrastructure, doctors and daycarees without offer anything in return. Commercial developer are ready to build the uh medical clinics and daycare space our community need on this site under current journey. As councelor Kury mentioned earlier on another item and cited her mother's resation street situation housing project should not be allowed to create disasters instead of fixing a mass of disaster in the future. Just don't start it now. Joning rule exists to protect communities not to maximize maximize developer yield. Please reject this application and the staff recommendation. Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much today. Uh Kathy, sorry. [laughter] I got like a week left. >> You can call me Kathy. >> Exactly. Counselor Curry, please. >> Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much for coming and presenting today. And Katherine, we'll get to you as soon as we uh finish this delegation. Um thank you. >> So um one of the things you mentioned was that that you're representing this community um and many others who put in a who signed a petition. So there was a petition after our first consultation that had 471 names on it and then there was a second consultation and event and presentation and the second petition came in and it only had 106 signatures after the developer made a number of changes. So, I'm just wondering if you have any kind of uh explanation for that, why there was a reduction in the number of signatures. Still a lot of signatures. I'm just wondering if any of your points uh were covered that you could imagine uh affected the number of signatures in the second petition. >> Yeah, I think you know everyone uh residents here we are all uh mostly uh working full-timely and also during the summer uh vacation time. So many people was absetting when we doing uh the another round the partition and even our uh uh the member of partition the the group was on vacation the other one after another. So we just came back in October uh starting back October but even now the our original organizer of our group now is visiting already departure overseas visiting so that's you know everything is u during the summer vacation is sifting a lot >> okay but the concern from the community become even even um uh bigger because uh the the new Monday mandate application by the developer didn't address the issue at all from beginning. >> Okay. And I'll have some questions on that for sure. The second question I would have is um I understand that the community largely believed in 2009 that this would always be a commercial development and I believe the councelor at the time worked hard to ensure that that would be the case. Do you think it's understood by the community that zoning and provisions like that are not something that could be permanent or is it uh do you think there's an understanding that once something is zoned something it stays forever? Um I think we understand that but the principle of bilo exist is to protect community citing expectation and limitation but those limitations should be respected under currenting by law even further uh the future foring by law there are limitation there are specifically set there if we allow every developer Just cutting corner up exceeding the height. Uh cutting the space required for parking. Cutting space for the uh bike uh uh space uh cutting uh the buffers uh zone from 5 m to 3.5 whatever the number but you know all this the cutting corner corner corner and then the essensor standard are not me at all. So the bylaw is is nothing. >> Okay. Yeah, I I understand. I know it's very frustrating for a community. My last question is just if this happens to pass at planning committee, would you be willing to be involved as we go further with site plan? >> Yeah, I would like to be involved with site plan, but first the juning the current site plan application clearly does not meet the juning requirement. even for their applied new zoning for CM2. It still does not meet in six pillars. >> Okay, thank you very much and thank you so much for coming to to present to us so that our my colleagues can understand your frustration. >> So can I just add one sentence? So >> I Z I'm sorry I'm gonna have to cut you off there. Counselor has asked the last question. We're going to move on to our next delegation who will be uh Katherine uh Moore. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank >> Thank you. I can you hear me? >> We can hear you whenever you're ready. I have five minutes to make a presentation to the committee. >> I would like to ask this committee to continue to honor the verbal contract that they made with the Canada residents by not reszoning 475 Terry Fox Drive. The city of Ottawa's decision to realign Terry Fox resulted in the creation of this very small, oddly shaped parcel of land. And at that time and in good faith, the Canada residents worked with the city of Ottawa to have this property appropriately zoned to ensure a win-win for both the city of Ottawa and Canada residents. The result was the area was zoned commercial low-rise with a height not to exceed 11 meters. Now, let's fast forward to the present. Your committee has just been asked to approve zoning and development plans that would allow three sixstory buildings 22 1/2 mters high with 182 families to be crammed onto this small site. And to do so will not only require reszoning but also sightsp specific relief on a number of issues including reduced green space and landscape buffers, reduced bicycle spaces, increased building height, exceptions for refu collection and reduced parking amongst others. And with so many many required exceptions, this proposal is clearly wrong for this site. Now, the city of Ottawa's strategic plan states, "Over the next decade, the city of Ottawa's goals are to be a place where residents experience a good quality of life." Well, signitories to the petition against reszoning this area are telling the city that resoning will negatively impact their quality of life. In fact, Canada residential development has moved at such a highly accelerated pace that the October data shows this market has experienced a significant slowdown. Intense housing development is also creating a serious strain on infrastructure and creating safety concerns and I cannot state strongly enough that the safety issues cannot be glossed over. Canada and the broader Ottawa area are currently experiencing a historic surge in severe traffic collisions, marking a 10-year high and a 40% increase in collisions. Rapid increased density at this intersection will create a dangerous situation known to traffic engineers as a strode. And a strode is an extremely dangerous and inefficient hybrid of a street and a road which fails at both. Further, the rising traffic congestion, pedestrian and cyclist conflicts, and intersection strain must all be seriously considered. Now, the city of Ottawa and his and this committee have kept their promise to Canada residents over the year and maintain current zoning. And at the time of this agreement, our city councelor, Maryanne Wilkinson, to her great credit, listened to our concerns. She found a mutually acceptable agreement for development and zoned this land appropriately. For safety and a host of other concerns, we are asking that this committee continue to respect this agreement and vote no to reszoning 475. Terry Fox Drive because honoring commitments ensures the maintenance and integrity of relationships. Thank you, >> Katherine. Thank you very much for that. I'm just looking around to see if there um Councelor Curry. >> Yes. Thank you, Katherine. Uh I really appreciate you uh being here. I I'm going to ask you the same question because I've got I'm going to ask a lot of the questions you uh referred to in your delegation, but if this passes, uh would you be willing to work with the developer on site plan and me uh if it does go forward? >> Well, Kathy, thank you. But I do not believe that the reszoning should be approved and therefore I don't believe that there's any, you know, cooperation with the developer on developing this monstrosity. This was seen years ago and we know that this is going to create safety concerns. The Terry Fox Drive is a corridor. It's it's considered a road. It's not a street where, you know, um residents can slowly at 40 kilometers an hour go in and out of their dwelling. Traffic will be slowed because they're going to have to make active entrances. And if they don't, then that's just yet another exception because they know that this will create safety issues. Thank you. >> Thank you very much, Katherine. You'll hear a lot of questions I'll have as we ask questions of staff. Thank you for coming today. >> Thank you, Kathy. >> Thank you very much. Uh, Miss Moore, I don't see any further questions from you for from committee members. So, thank you for the intervention and we'll move on to questions of staff. Uh, a celebrate delegation. Say the other one didn't show up. Yeah. Okay. So, uh, councelor Curry, >> thank you very much. And first of all, I just would like to say a huge thanks to Amanda. You, you know, your diligence in answering every single email and we've had many. You know, we had the petitions and tons and tons of questions on this. Uh, so thank you very much for how quickly you got back to residents on this. Now, you know that people are very upset about this. So, let's I I haven't got an order of operations, but number one, I guess I want to ask you about the possibility of a holding provision because that the community doesn't feel this traffic study was done properly uh regarding Terry Fox. So, you heard the delegation. Uh what do you think about that? >> Mr. Chair, um thank you for the question. So the site plan has been running parallel with the zoning application and we have reviewed the TIA and we're comfortable with findings of the TIA and moving forward with the site as it's designed. So we wouldn't be in support of a holding provision. >> So you've already done that because the comment about only sight lines were looked at by Google. Can you explain where there more was there more to it than that because there were they're saying there are so many collisions at that intersection. >> Yeah, that's correct. There is a TIA that was submitted. So, a full TIA was submitted and reviewed by staff. We looked at it uh diligently. We looked at the sight lines to the intersection. We looked at the um there's actually a left in coming down Canada Avenue. It'll be a protected left. So, that'll bring cars coming into the site uh going towards Terry Fox off of the um the main through fair to the intersection. And we've looked at the the intersection design at uh Terry Fox and Canada Avenue to understand how that's operating. inclion data does incorporate into the the TIA. So we feel that the the intersection where or the the access where it's located on Canada Avenue is actually ideal away from the intersection and away from Terry Fox itself. >> Okay. So there will be changes as well though with a dedicated left. So currently, yes, there you if you look at the street today, there is a painted there is a space for a left and through the site plan application, we're going to be having the applicant do the the line painting work to make sure that that left is is um legal and clearly marked. >> Okay. Um, the other question I had, this is, this is not from today, but people were very concerned about where the garbage was to be located because there are houses right behind these this piece of property and people were asking for that to be changed. I'm wondering if you have a comment on that through you, chair. Thank you for the question. Um, so staff are evaluating the garbage collection area through the parallel site plan process. Um it's noted that uh some of the previous provisions in this the urban exception 1706 do speak specifically to garbage collection but staff have reviewed under the current um zoning framework and it would be in conformity with that. Um it is noted that the uh collection area is about 18 m from the common property line. Um and that is with um the landscape buffer which uh is at 7.5 meters for the majority of the site um plus parking area between um the garbage collection as well. >> Okay, thank you for that. The trees at the back, a lot of the residents were concerned because they back onto this. They wanted to make sure there was still that level of privacy with all that landscaping. Um do you have a comment on that? On the picture it looks like there's a lot of trees. I would say right now a lot of them will be taken down but um do you have a comment on that? >> Uh yes, thank you for the question for you chair. Um so there's a retention of about 13 mature trees along that existing landscape buffer um including a number of red oak and spruce and those trees are designated for retention through the um site plan process. Um and then there is proposal for new tree retention not just throughout the site but also along that landscape buffer to provide that additional screening. Okay, the next section, next stage if this were to pass today, um is site plan. What opportunities will there be for the community to contribute that to that with the city? >> So, Mr. Chair, thank you for the question. The site plan because it's been going parallel, it's quite far along and app uh residents have been engaged uh with city staff on site plan matters, but um so there there still is an opportunity. It's always open until we move to an approval, but I I do want to point out that staff and the applicant are closing in on a on a first conditional approval. >> Thank you. I just wanted to make that point that there is still some time because I've been watching that was my point about Amanda, how many emails she has responded to already and taken into consideration. Um, so a lot of these this feedback has been taken into consideration, but there still is time. Um, I want to hear what the rest of my colleagues have to say if they have comments and then I will have a wrap-up uh comment at the end because I want to talk about what the OOLT might think about if we were to refuse this application. >> Understood and thank you uh councelor Judas. >> That was going to be my question. Um, we we had heard from a number of the delegations about uh you know their opposition to this, how they would ask for us to vote against it. We've seen in the in the correspondence that you know the neighborhood is is had been under the belief that this would not be zoned to residential that they wouldn't see this kind of development at this property. I'm I'm intri interested in legal's opinion on if there is any planning rationale uh that committee could lean on if we were to vote against this application and how we would fare at the OOLT because I I I know that that was something that was brought up by delegations. So I'd like to to know if legal has a a view of that. [clears throat] >> Mr. Chair, thank you for the question. Um if if this were to be um refused by council after a recommendation for the committee to that effect um we would follow the usual process that that occurs when um a refusal occurs contrary to a staff recommendation. We would seek outside um planning expertise to support council's position. Um we would of course to be successful at the OOLT we would have to have that expert witness and um we would then um if we weren't able to find that expert witness we'd have to report back to council on on that result as well. >> So I think and I get that and obviously you couldn't have an expert witness from staff because staff had approved it. So I you know once again that requires outside. I guess my question though is and may maybe it's more of a philosophical question. I I have a similar property in my ward. This was many many years ago. Um and it was very low the low zoning. It was low development. There wasn't any you know intention to change from single family homes. There was two on this very large property. Uh it was through a housekeeping motion in a previous previous council that it was changed to Main Street Arterial and next thing you know residents who thought that this would always be what it was or if it was changed it would be similar to what it was was now looking at a ninestory building that is going to put an immense amount of pressure on the transportation. It's right across from two it's across from two schools. I don't know how we're going to deal with it and we're having to live with this now because that was zoned for that. So I guess what I'm wondering is is there any basis in past president past promises to residents that could give us any legal standing? I feel like I know the answer, but I'd like to hear what your view is >> in terms of a a rationale for for a refusal. Um generally uh to be successful that rationale would have to be based on planning instruments and an agreement between the developer and residents with respect to their intentions for the use of the property which may have been discussed in the past wouldn't be a a policy a planning policy rationale that could be successful at the board. Um, so I if I think am I addressing the question there correctly as to the um the rationale for a refusal? >> Yes. I I mean it's kind of a loaded question. I don't really give you an easy one. I >> Yeah, >> I think it's unfortunate that we are looking at this application. I I think that it's unfortunate that residents had been, you know, under a long-term belief that this would not change from what had been the zoning that was allocated to it. Um I don't I don't believe that we would have a lot of standing at OLT. Um and I wish that we I wish that we uh had some kind of legal format with which we could oppose this, but I I don't know that there's an avenue to that. Um, sorry Kathy, I stole your stole your question, but um, I'll pass it back to you. That was my question. >> Thank you very much, uh, councelor Dudas. Um, I don't see any further questions. I don't have any myself. Councelor Curry on. >> Yeah. Uh, honestly, uh, councelor Dudas made a number of the key points. When I held the first consultation, and as I said, this was even before they put in an application. I said to the community, things have changed dramatically. you know what it's been like at planning committee here like most things we have to pass we always asked is there a planning rationale to vote against this so the community is not happy with a whole bunch of things but I said to the community at that point what we're often doing is trying to make things better or less bad however you want to see it but in terms of having a planning rationale to vote against it alto together there's very little chance the OOLT would vote against it would be a lengthy appeal process that would cost a lot of people a lot of money and probably end up with nothing Even if, as our legal uh advice is telling us, we could find an expert who would uh disagree with city staff's recommendation. This is the reality of it, right? So, I could absolutely vote against this and say to the community, "Yeah, I stood with you. I voted against it." But it's not realistic. The reality is that the OOLT is not going to uh say, "Well, because the community doesn't want it and they understood many years ago it was going to stay the same," that they will uh they will vote against it as well. I I actually did a search of the recent OOLT uh ration for what the OOLT is caring about these days and I mean one of the things was whether it's a natural heritage feature and it functions as natural heritage. That's not the case. Uh that there are natural hazards and flood planes with unstoppable uh slopes. That's not the case here. The flood plane mapping that was just bun done by the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority as Councelor Kelly will tell you was just done and it it did not affect this site. In fact, it moved away from this site. Um the uh compatibility with major facilities and sensitive uses, that's not a reality on this site. It's across from the Karp River flood plane and it's beside a a park. Um there is no cultural heritage and the servicing capacity is not an issue. There's already servicing to this site. The only thing that I thought would even generally apply that we did not hear today was about whether it it um it doesn't protect employment areas. So, this was to be a mall, a strip mall. And the reality is, you know, again, it would be a strip mall. There would be a few businesses, a hairdresser or whatever. It's also right down the road from from Sentrum. It's also right down the road from a little uh strip mall that is besides All Saint beside All Saints High School. It's directly across the road from another strip mall where there are many different businesses. So, uh, while I can appreciate the community would have liked another mall there, the argument at the OOLT that this would be preventing, uh, employment uses, I don't think that would hold up. And and that is what it comes down to. Is there actually a planning rationale? And I don't think there is. So, I know the community will not be happy, but I will be supporting this because I think that is what makes sense to do. And I will be working very hard with the community to see if there's anything else that can be done during site plan to make this better and absolutely looking at what is happening with that with that intersection at Terry Fox and Canada A because the collision data is worrisome. But um that's what I have to say. I appreciate the community's involvement and I really appreciate the help of staff and the developer here to to get us to something that I think is different from what was originally proposed. So uh thank you very much. Thank you very much, councelor Curry. Um I don't think there are any amending motions on that one. Is this item carried? Carried. Thank you. Uh folks, we'll take a 15minute break uh before we come back to the uh OLT settlement on Prince of Wales. I expect that'll engender some discussion. And then there will also be the uh motion on parkland dedication that was brought forward in the last um uh meeting as well where I expect there to be some uh discussion as well. So let's come back uh in 15 minutes. All right, we've got uh two items left. Uh item 78 will come up first, which is the Ontario Land Tribunal Settlement and Official Plan Amendment and Zoning bylaw Amendment for 2175 Prince of Wales Drive. Uh we're anticipating a um relatively abbreviated presentation from staff at which time we will go into one two four public delegations on the item and then uh the applicants will have their five minutes to uh respond to what they hear before we move to questions staff. So with that I will turn it over to you guys. We're in your hands. >> Thank you. Uh good afternoon Mr. Chair and members of committee. I am here before you today to present staff's recommendations for the official plan and zoning bylaw amendment applications for uh 2175 Prince of Wales. The applications have been appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal and staff's recommendations are proposing to settle the appeals. Next slide. In terms of the site location, the site is located northwest of the Ottawa International Airport and at the southeast intersection of Prince of Wales uh drive and West Hunt Club Road. Next, in terms of the site context, uh the RTO River, which is a UNESCO World Heritage site at this location, um runs along the site to the east and to the north there's a uh creek. Um, surrounding land uses include low-rise residential uses to the south along Waterbend Lane and across Prince Wales Drive, there are a mix of institutional, commercial, office, and automotive uses varying in both scale and height. Uh, and at the northwest corner, uh, as you can see on the screen here, there's an existing mid-rise office building. Next slide. Terms of the official plan designation, the site is designated neighborhood within the outer urban transact. Next slide. Also within the official plan, the site is situated along a transit priority corridor and is also at the intersection of two arterial roads and along a scenic entry route. Next slide. The official plan identifies natural heritage features on the lands and the site also falls within the uh airport operating influence zone. Next slide. Just a little bit about the uh application history. So the zoning by amendment was first circulated in 2009 and then more recently when a request to increase the height was made. Um the uh the city had advised the applicant that an official plan amendment application would be also required and uh in July both applications were appealed on the city's failure to make a decision within planning act timelines. Uh on the slide here you can see some of the key changes between the original and current proposals including a reduced height from 12 to nine stories and uh remove some of the auto automobile uses uh uh such as automobile body shop uh gas bar storage yard and also um all um residential uses were removed as they were deemed to be incompatible with the uh airport authority. Next slide please. So staff's recommendation um is uh is to support the area specific policy that will permit building heights up to nine stories that will permit a range of non-residential uses. Um and staff are recommending that any development on the site ensures appropriate transition to the low-rise residential uses to the south and provides appropriate buffering along Prince of Wales Drive at the South property line as well as Crito River. Next slide. Terms of the zoning bylaw amendment, staff are recommending that the site be splitzoned. Area A to be reszoned to a neighborhood mixeduse zone, subzone 2, and area B to be reszoned to an open space facility zone where no development will be permitted along the um water corridor. Slide. Of the 44 uses originally requested, staff are recommending approval for 28 non-residential uses as shown here. Um the eight uses marked with an asterisk are noise sensitive uses that will need to be um advised of nearby airport operations before advancing. Staff are recommending that the properties uh the property have height limits above site sea level to ensure compliance with airport height restrictions. Area B as well will have a three-story height limit within 20 meters of the southern property line to help achieve suitable transition to the lowrise residential uses to the south. Next slide please. Staff are recommending two holding symbols to address sight specific requirements before development may proceed. The first holding symbol will require key technical studies to be submitted and approved as part of a future site plan application. And the second holding symbol will require noise sensitive uses to implement noise mitigation measures and notify future owners of uh nearby airport operations. In summary, staff are recommending uh approval of the applications. Staff are satisfied that the proposed revised policies, the split zoning, the sight specific zone provisions and holding symbols will ensure that future development fits within the surrounding neighborhood and addresses all required airport, environmental, heritage, engineering, and transportation related considerations prior to any construction. Thank you. Happy to take any questions. >> Thank you very much for that. We will move on to public delegations. But first a quick technical question. If uh this committee uh recommends and then it's subsequently adopted by council the OPA and zoning bylaw, then the proponent will drop their appeal uh at the Ontario Land Tribunal. >> That's our understanding. Yes, chair. >> Okay. I'm seeing some shaking heads. So we'll uh we'll explore that a little bit further. Um let's move on to the public delegations then. First of which is Ali Moajer. Who is online? Everyone's online. and we're just waiting to get the delegate into the chat. Okay. So, we don't have Alli with us at the moment. So, we're going to move on to Bill Bza. >> Hi. Can you hear me? >> Bill, we can. Your camera's not on, so we can't see you, but that's okay. Whenever you're ready, you have five minutes to make a presentation to the committee. >> Very good. So, good afternoon, chair, members of the committee. My name is Bill Barzo. Uh, thank you for allowing us to speak today. We are the residents of Waterben Lane and the surrounding neighborhood. We have legitimate fears as it is us who will suffer the potential consequences if the settlement proposal is accepted as is. I want to begin by making something very clear. Uh we are not opposed to the development on the site in question. Uh we recognize that Ottawa is growing and that intensification is necessary. Uh and on that note, I want to start with this very question. How do largercale commercial operations in an established residential neighborhood which exists both to the north as well as the south that bans the rubber fit in with the official uh plans reference for small neighborhoods serving businesses. This is at the heart of our concern about the settlement proposal. We have reviewed the staff report and the responses to the hundred comments submitted by the residents. We see that our concerns are acknowledged, but action to resolve them is deferred post approval. We are essentially being told approve the height now, approve the permitted uses now, and we will then figure out the consequences later. Simply, the settlement proposal appears very premature. Let me first address the building height and neighborhood compatibility. Given that the official plan contemplates neighborhood buildings up to four stories, why is a sevenstory building in an isolated commercial business park being used as justification for a nine-story building in an established residential neighborhood? One that's would be inserted between the north and the south. Why isn't one of the more recent erected buildings just down the street, which was restricted to three stories because of its residential surroundings, a more appropriate comparison? Also, the proposal treats a mere 20 mirror transition strip as an exe as an acceptable step down from the ninestory building to the road. We do not believe this provides meaningful protection for the residents across the street. Imagine for a moment looking out your front window across water waterbend lane at the space occupied by approximately five parked cars on the site in question. And now immediately beyond that, a ninestory concrete wall arises, completely obscuring the view you once enjoyed. This simply can't be right. Yet, that's the leeway that's proposed. Secondly, the proposed zoning permits a range of commercial uses, but many of them are regional in nature and not necessarily small scale. As an example, how does a potential 24-hour warehouse with trucks coming serve a 15-minute neighborhood or improve the lives of the families living across the street? Why should a residential community have to accommodate the traffic, noise, and operating characteristics of businesses that serve a wider regional market? I will repeat myself. We would welcome small-cale daytime businesses such as medical, dental clinics, professional offices, cafes,armacies, the such that serve the surrounding community and reflect the city's own version for 15-minute neighborhoods and other you and use other approved commercial areas for larger scale businesses. Thirdly, Prince of Wales and Huntub Road already experience significant traffic congestion, sometimes brutal. I think people probably know this and certainly some of you must. Residents have overwhelmingly identified concerns involving this intersection, Shefflin Bridge, turning uh uh uh movements, pedestrian cyclist uh safety, and the potential for traffic to enter Waterbend Lane, which is a narrow residential dead-end street. How do we know that if the existing road network can accommodate some of these permitted uses at this location? Why are we being asked to accept the settlement before the transportation impacts have been fully assessed? Moreover, what happens if the completed studies show that the infrastructure cannot support the scale of development post approval? Will the city be prepared to reduce the permitted density or restrict the uses? Or will residents simply be told that the decisions have already been made? Fourth, who will protect residents from commercial flood lights, vehicle headlights, late night deliveries, island trucks, loading bays, and all that jazz? What about the question of unattenuated noise up and down the river that this could introduce? Why are we being asked to trust that these problems can be solved later when the scale and nature of this development are being established today? Shouldn't these matters be properly understood before the city commits to this development as is? Per perhaps their greatest concern is the way the settlement handles public consultation. Let's be realistic. If the ninth store height and incompatible commercial permissions have already been approved, what meaningful decisions would actually remain open to public input? Can residents challenge the scale of the building at that stage? Can they challenge the use that it's already been permitted? Or will it be left to arguing about landscaping, fencing, and so on while the most consequential decisions are already legally established? Why should residents have to pursue a potential OLT appeal to challenge decisions when this could have been properly examined before before approval? That is. So folks, please consider who's being asked to carry the risk here. It is not the planning department. It's not the applicant. It is us. We are the residents who will be looking at this building every day. We are the families who willing. [clears throat] Yes, I know I'm short on time. I'm almost finished just giving you a >> I'm sorry, Bill. I'll need to cut you off there, but uh councelor Divine does have some questions for you. >> Thank you, Chair. Mr. Ne. >> Hello. >> Hello. >> Hello. Hello again. >> Thank you, chair. Um uh hi, Bill. Thank you very much for your delegation. Um, and thank you to all the residents, not just of Waterben Lane, but of of of Pinang Glenn and Countryplace. Uh, you guys are all very very wellversed in uh in the history of this uh file. So, I will have a couple questions for you, but um and I I'll your letter that I read was very detailed. So, I'll just some of your summary concerns are are very very apt. like you brought up the same fact that my colleague councilor Kelly spoke to earlier where because of how we are handcuffed now. Um we are approving ahead of the fact um situations that we then have to just you know act on faith that mitigations will be put in place. Um one question I have for you uh Mr. you made reference. So, as a resident of Waterbend Lane, you made reference to what uh we only saw here in that diagram where zone A is the buffer zone. Um, and I'm not sure if I I want you to try to paint a picture here. So, if you live on Waterbend Lane and that small 20 meter buffer which represents five to six parked cars, that is uh that is the buffer. It's your understanding, and I'll get staff to to confirm this later, but Bill, is it your understanding that within at the end of that 20 m buffer, you would be then faced with the prospect of a nine-story building? >> Precisely. And the reason why is because it's very clear in the diagram that says that I believe it's not area A. that you're you're referring to one of the earlier diagrams, area A versus area B, the the sanctioned area where there's environmental protection versus the area that is actually considered uh more of the zoning, but that doesn't actually include the the buffer zone. There's a a 7.5 meter which is incorporated into a larger 20 meter. And so that 20 m is from the edge of the road of Waterband Lane that then goes to the uh the the location of where a building could be built. So if you think about it, >> when you actually if you were actually doing this, you're not going to use that small thin transition to build a three or four story building to transition the the tower would completely overwhelm. So most likely there would be the likelihood uh or I should say that possibly a parking lot or some other thing that may be there. It really doesn't matter. Even if you did have a 3 meter or threetory building, it still is overwhelmed by that that uh uh that that building. So you have a you have a concrete wall effectively in your front yard. Yeah. And I and I understand from having been through this process before that when we measure uh what can happen at the setbacks um we we just automatically imagine that there will be you know a uniformly concrete block at that point which you know might not be the case but it could be the case. >> And I know that one of what had been described as a concession on this file was the the gradual stepping down to Waterbend Lane. >> Precisely. >> Pardon me. >> Precisely. Yes. >> Yeah. But if it is so, and I'll get staff to confirm this, if it is so that within that narrow 20 meter buffer, you could theor theoretically have a 20 uh ninetory wall right there, um that does not seem uh in line with what was described as a concession. My other question to you, >> I know that the residents have wrestled with what for them would be the ideal uh use of this land, if any. Um and there are, as you know, there are choices before the the owner. um they haven't determined what their ideal land use is. One could be an auto dealership, another could be a retail plaza. And I've heard, I believe in your letter and in letters from other residents, that what residents would prefer, if anything, was a retail plaza because it could offer, as you even said, local shops that could be of use um [snorts] to the residents, i.e. aligned with what the OP designated. However, you know though that if it were to be a retail plaza, that would have far more traffic impact than say a car dealership. So, can I ask you if you had to choose, if you had a preference between uh a retail plaza, which may be of greater benefit to local residents but have bigger traffic impact, or a car dealership, uh even a luxury car dealership that would look lovely but not be of much use to many of you but have less traffic impact. Which would you prefer, if I may ask? >> Well, so the the whole notion of a it's a loaded question because the whole notion of actually uh um considering a a a retail strip mall may not necessarily be the the right answer either. I think it depends very much on the mix of what's actually in there. In my own mind, in the discussions we've had, it's been more along the lines of more professional services. It's been along the lines of of servicing the community. So that way a commercial like let's face it if you take a look at any of the the uh um dealerships that are around you don't see a lot of traffic there. Our bigger concern there happens to be the flood lights and all the light pollution that would cause and the point of a warehouse if it was to actually work 24 hours which wouldn't be unreasonable for trucks to come in come out. I mean, you are actually looking at a lot of noise and and and if there's a warehouse that actually has open bays, that noise of of things could be strickling or or pushing down to the back of the river, you could have noise that's uh not being uh attenuated. There's a whole bunch of concerns here. Some of them vetted more than others, but we're just raising the concerns because we are worried that there is not enough of the assessments that are done on your end. uh that is the planning department to actually say it's okay guys it's safe you don't have to worry about the river you don't have to worry about this because we've got that covered give you another example and let's assume and I'm going to go to your point uh counselor is that let's assume that you know there's a n-story building that does get uh although I would hate to think of it that it actually gets accepted and what then happens is that so mechanics are are then performed and all of a sudden you can't put it anywhere close to the zone B where it's environment environmentally safe and it could only potentially be located close or near Waterb Lane. Maybe that's the soil mechanics dictate that. Assessments to my knowledge have not been done. The traffic assessments have not been done. There's there's very little in the way to support this. It's the cart before the horse. And this is the issue. Hotel is one thing. Not sure the the traffic patterns that would ultimately reside. But if a tri if if if if a if a dealership was the choice I I don't see it as I could I I still see this under the banner of large or larger commercial businesses doesn't belong. We want to see the sort of uh 15minute uh uh um activity or commercial businesses that are considered smallcale and actually are in in line in alignment with the city's own vision of the 15-minute neighborhood. >> Thank you, Bill. Um, we'll see what uh your other fellow residents have to say, but I also just want to appreciate you raising the point that I'll certainly raise later of having used that building across the street, the sevenstory office tower, as a comparator. Not exactly the most relevant comparator. Once you cross Hunt Club, you're in a completely different neighborhood, a completely different world. It's not really apples to apples. Thank you, Bill. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Council Divine. Uh, thank you, Mr. Bza. I don't see any further questions for you. Appreciate the intervention. So we now have Ali Mahajer uh available to make his or his presentation. Okay, I'm sorry. We're still experiencing some issues with Mr. Moajer's tech. So we'll move on to Elizabeth Sorfleet. >> Good morning. Oh, good afternoon counselors and councelor Divine. Thank you for the uh opportunity to comment. >> Uh I oppose the uh the application. It is most regrettable that the deadline was missed which lands the council and the planning committee in a very unfortunate situation but I still oppose it. First the ninetory height. It is totally out of character and uh it contravenes the city's own uh limits on height. Secondly, uh there are a number of uh contraventions. It's not it it appears to present a primmaaccia contravention of the city's strategic plan and of develop Ottawa. It is not at all consistent with Ottawa's older adult plan and um we own a whale. So my question to be left with you and does not need to be addressed today is who would carry the financial liability to make whole to residents that are affected by any negative impact not just about wells but anything else. I also have not seen any environmental assessments or consultations done with the river uh with the Ottawa with the Reto River Conservation Authority or with the authority itself or with NCC which owns the shoreline. So what's the impact on those large institutions? I am a former uh federal government planner and reporter to parliament and I would say to you that if you were ministers, if you were my MP, which is the prime minister, and if you were the Senate that I was presenting to and given policy advice, uh as a planner and reporter on accountability and performance accountability and also as a specialist in legislative and uh regulatory development. I would advise you strongly to oppose this application. So, as I said, we are unwell, so we worry about that. We've been affected by several storms. So, I want to know who is going to be financially liable to make whole uh any impact on us as well owners. And uh we have wildlife along both sides. As Dr. Bereza said uh we already have traffic congestion in that Prince of Wales is a highway Hunt Club especially since the extension to West Hunt Club is very busy and Riverside as probably you all know uh well has been listed as one of Ontario's worst intersections for traffic. So any additional commercial traffic that would bring in higher [snorts] volume of traffic uh would be not good for the community. I don't see any discernable benefits to the local community. I don't see how it will benefit any kind of uh local employment because these are not uh community-based businesses. they may benefit Ottawa if we have something that's health uh and medical services and so on and so forth uh or if it were a public library or uh a recreation center which we badly need here. We have enough problems uh here and there's no benefit whatsoever. Uh I also want to say that um you know the impact on the wildlife uh would also not be good and I understand from my neighbor Mr. Sakul that the last time there was development he's right next door to us there was an infestation of rats on his property which is a public health issue and he I think uh Dennis will speak well to that. Um, so you know, for all these reasons, I see no benefit whatsoever. This is prime real estate property. It's a beautiful property, and the only reason for the planning committee to go along with this application and for the city to go along is revenue. Well, as I said, it's a prime piece of property. There are other ways to raise revenues. That's a multi-million dollar property that's there. there are things that can benefit our community and the larger community. So, um just want to say that uh I think I' I've said I've stated my comment um and I would strongly advise you not to approve. Thank you. >> Thank you very much for your presentation. Councelor Divine has some questions for you. >> Thank you, Chair. I'll be brief. Um Elizabeth, [clears throat] thank you for your presentation. Uh, and I do sympathize with your concerns. Uh, if this was the city's parcel of land, then we would be able to have a completely different conversation, but I do have to respect the fact that we don't own it. Um, it's owned by another organization and that owner, they own the land and they have the right to try to do what they want with it. That said, it's our job to try to make sure that we put something that is suitable. Um um just so you know, I believe, and I'll confirm this with staff, I do believe that the RVCA, the RTO Valley Conservation Authority, was consulted on this. I'll confirm that. I'm not sure if the NCC was. I don't even know where the NCC's ownership starts or begins, but I'll certainly ask that of staff just to make sure that their input from a from a conservation or heritage u um impact has been considered. But thank you for uh presenting. >> May I follow up on that, Councelor Divine? you know, there's another piece of property that has been empty for a long time. >> And I'm I'm sorry, Elizabeth. I didn't hear a question there. So, um, thank you very much for uh for the intervention today. I don't see any further uh questions for you. So, we're going to move on. I believe we have Alli with us now. So, we're going to uh move on to Dennis Sely and we'll see whether we can get Alli in that uh that cleanup spot. >> Good afternoon. Can you hear me? >> Hi, Dennis. We can see and hear you. Whenever you're ready, I have five minutes to make a presentation to the committee. >> Can you hear me everyone? >> We can we can hear you. >> Protocol's been been established. I'm getting a lot of echo. I'll do my best. I just want to establish I didn't just come along. My late father bought the property, a neighboring property in 1946, although I was born much after that. Our family's been in the neighborhood for a long time. In fact, we went to school with Marie Ch's family. So, um my concern is something that came up when there was a previous uh interest in developing and that's about egress and degress or traffic flow. Um, back when another person or group was looking to buy it, there was an agreement that there would be no traffic egress degress onto Waterbended Lane. There would also be no opportunity to turn left onto Prince of Wales Drive from subject property. And there would be no new traffic light installed between Hunt Club and Deacon Street. There's just not enough room. If you sit with me in my front yard on any given afternoon, it's a parking lot. So my concern, like my neighbor Bill said, something is going to go there. And as Elizabeth said, it's valuable property. We all understand that it's about traffic flow. If I own the property, I want to maximize my money because it was eight or nine acres at a good chunk of money per acre. But access is going to be key whether entering or leaving the property. So, I would ask that the committee, whatever comes out of this, um, they they uphold the agreement, whether it was verbal or written years ago, that no traffic on or off Waterbended Lane, no left turning onto Prince of Wales Drive from said property, and uh, no new traffic light. If you look at the Met Church across the street, you can when you're heading south on Prince of Wales Drive, you can turn into the church or you can turn right heading south out. You can't make a left turn. It's the same although it's violated for the ESO gas station on the corner. No left turn onto Prince of Wheels drive. There's enough accidents on that stretch and I joke that the uh the official theme song on that stretch of Prince of Will's Driver, the ambulances coming across the Hunt Club Bridge and we don't need any more of that. We have to use our heads. Our heads have to be used when they're looking at traffic flow on or off the site, whatever decision is made on what will happen with the property. As I said, I've been there all all but 6 months of my life. And my dad bu bought there in 1946. So, we watched it change from two-lane Prescott Highway to uh the freeway. So, thanks for this opportunity. Um, thank you, Chair. Hey, Dennis. Uh, Dennis, thank you for presenting and thank you for getting right down to to pragmatic safety issues. Um, so just so you know, I have had conversations with the proponent and we did speak about uh egress onto or off of Waterbend Lane. Um, and I was given assurance that the only intentions they have for Waterbend Lane is the opportunity for an emergency access should emergency vehicles need to to access the site from that waterbend lane. U, of course, we're back at that catch 22 where we won't have any say on site plan. So, all I can do when we get to questions to staff is is either confirm from the proponent that that is their their plan and ask staff if they'll be able to hold the proponent to that to that offer. Um, as for the concerns you've raised about Prince of Wales in general, you are right, Prince of Wales and West Hunt Club is one of the city's most dangerous intersections. Um, we'll see if that gets addressed this term, but my primary concern is um concerns over this file and its ongoing impact to transportation in that corridor. You asked in the question about whether or not there will be a new traffic light at at this site. Um, I don't think I've heard anything about that. So, I'll I'll see if I can get info on that from staff. Uh, but thank you for presenting. Uh, Dennis, >> thank you very much, Councelor Design. Thank you. Uh, thank you, Dennis. I don't see any further questions for you. I appreciate the uh delegation today. So, we can move to the applicants. Who's going to Oh, oh, I'm sorry, Ally. Uh, we think we might have you back now. Could you try speaking? >> Can you hear me? >> Oh, we can hear you. Excellent. >> Good. Because my computer failed me. My apology. So, I'm right now speaking to you. I can see you well on the computer, but I could not talk to you. So I'll phone given my five minutes long there's a lot said by Mr. Sley and by Mr. So I won't repeat those. My name is Ali Muhajer. I reside at 12 water ben lane and I've been granted to present represent the other four dwellings and families living in this lane. So for those familiar not unfamiliar uh with the area water lane is a narrow residential dead end lane to the south of the subject property with only five dwellings. It was never designed to accommodate any potential increased traffic uh from the development of this nature and magnitude. What I can tell you is I can just go through what has happened since 2006 not go further further in the history. In 2000 March 2020 2026 there was um a plan submitted. We carefully reviewed the that proposal and his numerous supporting documents and submitted our detailed comments and concerns to the city planning committee and the council through Miss Kimberly Baldwin on March 14, 2026. And the second step is now we acknowledge that several of our concerns have been recognized and incorporated into the latest report which unfortunately they pending further assessment and consultation. One of which actually you just raised in terms of the UNESCO uh heritage site redo redo system and we said has uh heritage Canada parks Canada have RVCA redo valley conservation authority have they all of them been consulted the report said they they've been contacted but what's the outcome and who is accountable that for final decision is not clear at So uh we appreciate that uh these things have been considered in the latest report and they have talked about it but three major issues from our point of view the residents of waterb remain. The first one is is as has been brought up traffic ingress and eress while V waterb lane. This uh water lane is simply not suitable for any additional development related traffic. Any vehicular access through this tiny lane would compromise all five resident safety, accessibility, accessibility and quality of life. While we understand the need for further traffic studies uh concerning Prince of W drive, one decision can be made now. Water bin lane must be permanently excluded from all access routes through these developments. Even if they want to put one axis for emergencies as just brought up, it has to be clearly annunciated and uh described the conditions. So they can do what Tiger Development did exactly diagonal from this lot. They introduced uh they introduced a separate access road which is a very practical solution. The natural light the light pollution it is needs to be addressed. The natural vegetation buffer identified in the original application is significantly compromised by the 2020 storm and subsequent major weather events and uh and unfortunate three losses. The existing screening can no longer provide the anticipated level of protection. We therefore request additional clearly defined and enforcable measure to minimize the light pollution and protect privacy of neighboring fire properties. The commitment should be established now and not defer to later studies or speculation. And finally is the noise solution. I'm going to cut it short. certain permitted users under the proposed zoning would generate could generate noise incompatible with the established residential uh character of the neighborhood. We request proper assessment of the impact together with clearly defined noise limits, operating restrictions where necessary and enforcable mitigation measures to protect the nearby residents. We recognize the importance of development and responsible community growth. We are not opposed to the development. We simply believe it must respect the existing residents, their safety, privacy and quality of life. Our three requests are reasonable and achievable. We are asking for clear, definitive, and enforcable commitment on traffic access, light pollution, and noise pollution before the project proceeds. Thank you. for listening and I wish you all a wonderful rest of the day. >> Ali, thank you very much >> for those uh comments. I don't see any questions for you. So, thank you very much for your time today and uh we'll now move on to the applicant. Uh who's going to speak? Mr. Town. >> Thank you, Chair Leaper. I will be making a presentation. And I'll give a few minutes for my colleagues who are in the room with you today to come down to the table and I I'll take a moment if I may to introduce them before the clock starts ticking on my presentation. Um, so in the room with you to assist me in answering questions following my presentation are uh Dave Johnson who is the director of real estate for Meyers Automotive Group. He represents our clients and he represents the owners uh of the land. Uh Mr. Arthur Gordon who is a principal with Castle Glenn Consultants. Um his firm prepared the traffic study uh sub submitted to the city in support of the applications and he will be available to answer any and all questions that the committee may have with respect to traffic and in particular access to the site. Uh Mr. Michael Powan, a partner with Gowling WLG, probably familiar to most members of the committee, who is our legal counsel, Adam Thompson, my colleague from Novatech, who is the file lead, and myself, Murray Ch. I think I'm known to most members of the committee. I'm almost retired, but I am currently a senior planning advisor with Novatech. With those introductions out of the way, Mr. Chair, I'm happy to proceed with the presentation and thank you for staff for putting it up. If we can uh go to the next page, please. If we can go to the next page, please. Mr. Chair, you've heard from staff on what the recommendations are with respect to an area specific policy. Uh I would note for the committee's benefit that we when I say we, I mean the professional planners at Novatech are of the opinion that the area specific provisions with respect to permitted uses are actually not required. It is our opinion that these uses actually conform to the provisions of the neighborhood designation in your official plan and if we go to a hearing, we could take that position at a hearing. Otherwise, uh I can state that we support the staff recommendations with respect to the official plan amendment. Next slide, please. There are a number of area specific provisions in the zoning amendment that staff are recommending to you today. I would highlight that there is a height schedule with which provides for a transi transition to the residential properties on the south side of waterbend lane. I would go on to note that the zoning bylaw protects a 7.5 meter landscape strip along the north side of Waterbend Lane, which will uh facilitate the retention of some of the existing vegetation along Waterbend Lane, but also creates an opportunity for some significant additional planting along Waterbend Lane to buffer the future development from those residential ial properties. And finally, I would highlight that the open space facility zone prohibits any development within 30 meters of the RTO River or the what I would call the gully to the north of the property. Next slide, please. As noted in the staff report, since our initial application was filed many, many years ago, uh, in consultation with staff and with our clients concurrence, we have eliminated a number of uses, including automotive body shop, light industrial uses, and nightclub from the or from the recommendation that is before you today. Next slide, please. Mr. Chair, members of the committee, we've listened carefully to the concerns raised by residents both at a community meeting held a number of years ago, but also their comments that have been provided to city staff. Concerns about lighting and spillover lighting will be addressed through site plan. There's a standard site plan condition that prohibits any spillage of light onto adjacent properties and we will have to produce a lighting plan that demonstrates that at the time of site plan approval. Noise. There are city bylaws regulating noise. An opinion letter has already been provided by gradient wind in support of the current applications and a further detailed noise study will be required for the lifting the holding provision one. With respect to protection of the environment, there's a number of uh safeguards in place. There's the city's sewer connection bylaw and sewer use bylaw. A note for everybody's benefit that all the floor drains in the service bays of a car dealership are connected to the city's sanitary sewer system. Mr. Johnson is here uh to answer any further questions that you may have specifically related to environmental impacts of an automotive use. Next slide, please. Site access has been discussed in the traffic study prepared by Castle Glenn and Mr. Gordon is here to answer any questions that may be related to traffic access or site access and traffic with regards to suggestions earlier that we should be looking at residential uses for this property to make it abundantly clear residential uses are not permitted. even use stronger language that they are prohibited under Transport Canada regulations because of our proximity to the airport. There have been a couple of comments or questions today about the Reto Canal and the UNESCO World Heritage site. We can confirm and staff can confirm that Parks Canada has reviewed the application and in writing have confirmed that they have no objections to the zoing and official plan applications that are before you today. Next slide, please. >> Murray, you're out of time. I'm sorry. Uh do you have uh one or two sentences to conclude? >> I only have two sentences left, Mr. Chair. Uh with respect to height, NAV Canada has uh reviewed the applications to the nail act. No objections. I would ask or we would ask that planning and housing committee accept the professional planning opinion advice from staff supported by the professional planners at Novatech and we'd ask that you carry the report recommendations. Thank you very much. >> That was four, but I'll allow it. All right. Uh, [laughter] Mr. Chair, if I may, there were two questions raised earlier that I'd just like to quickly respond to. >> Um, yes. So, we've been through the public delegations. Um, >> one by you, sir, and one by a public delegation. First, the NCC owns no land in this area. Um, the commenting agency was Parks Canada, and they're good with this. Second, you asked a question about process, sir. um there would not be a withdrawal. This matter is already before the uh tribunal. What this committee and eventually council uh will be asked to approve is a settlement. Um assuming that it is approved, that settlement would go before the tribunal. It would take uh a half a day uh perhaps to uh get that approval. And I've looked over and my friend Mr. Shum is nodding his head agreeing with me. >> Okay. So, uh if we adopt this OPA in resoning, uh then the applicants in the city would skip hand in hand to the tribunal uh and it would be an easy settlement and the matter would be uh ended. >> Yes, sir. Thank you. >> Perfect. >> Thank you. In that case, I'm going to go counc. >> Thank you, Chair. I thought there might be from committee first. Um so, uh thank you colleagues. Uh thank you staff and proponents. Um so yeah this is in my ward and uh so I'll start by recognizing that I recognize that any property owner has the right to develop their land in a suitable manner and in a way that protects even maximizes their investment. Um and I know that it has been a very very long road for this land owner on this parcel. However, my duty and the duty of the committee is to ensure that any and all development advances the communities and the city's best interests and most importantly that we protect against uh the very real impacts that a development of this scale could pose to quality of life not only for my residents but to residents in many wards that use this transportation corridor uh of Prince of Wales. So, I have several questions for staff. I may have questions for um proponents as well. Uh I'll start off on traffic impact and the hold provision which I think I refer to as -H1. So in this file we're looking at a comprehensive >> just uh just for clarity councelor Divine it is time to ask questions of the applicants >> of the applicants. All right thank you. All right. Um so to the applicants then could you confirm as I've had conversations uh with some of you before on this that in the site plan as you envision it. Can you confirm that there will not be any regular use of Waterbend Lane and that the use of Waterbin Lane would be restricted only to emergency access and therefore we should not expect to see any vehicles on Waterbin Lane as singular site unless there's a fire or thereof. >> Mr. Gordon will answer this question. councelor, we're at a point where there is no site plan in front of us right now. We've got five different land uses to look at. You mentioned an emergency access only. I believe it applies. It's a legitimate access in terms of getting trucks and ambulances, fire trucks in and around the site, particularly recognizing the congestion along Prince of Wales Drive if they need to get in there in an emergency. Uh it's it's a it's a it's an issue that should be uh addressed, but for each of these different land uses, the proximity of where that access could potentially be and is an access required or not has to be addressed as we go forward as part of getting resolving this holding issue. >> Thank you. Uh question to the chair. If this is just questions to the applicant, I can have questions to staff later on. Correct. >> Yeah. They're a delegation. We pose good questions to the delegations and then we move on to questions. >> So just to clarify that and I know that you have not solidified what the intended use of the of the site might be. Does that mean that no one here from the proponent can guarantee that the only intended use of waterbend lane would be for emergency access vehicles only? >> I would advise my client that you should know what the land uses are before committing to that. In other words, access to Waterbend Lane for your customers might be something that is on the table because that's different than what I heard yesterday from from owners. >> Um, again, we want to be able to identify what the land uses are. And the opinion that I would give you is wait till we got a plan in front of us >> right then and there is the fault with this whole thing that we are making approvals on things that we don't even know what it's going to be yet. But I heard from the proponent yesterday that the only intended use of water bent lane would be emergency vehicles. You were saying we don't know that until we know what it is. So, I want staff to take close note of that. Um, another question I'm going to be asking staff their understanding of what the lifting of the H1 provision is. Um, is it your understanding that for the H1 provision to be lifted that all you need to do is submit an updated TIA to the satisfaction of the GM or that the actual traffic conditions which currently are level of service F equals failure that those situations have to be improved beyond that. If I can answer that sir. Um the short answer is at site plan the city has the ability um to seek um uh to deal with traffic impact of the proposed development and not the current state of the road. So uh the city cannot ask a proponent to fix a road. That's the city's job. Okay. The only thing at site plan that can be asked for is to address the specific implications of a proposed development. >> Correct. And I'm not expecting the proponent to fix the the road, but is it your understanding that let's say you're at site plan and you are ready to go and bring bulldozers onto the site, but the road itself is still level of service F, i.e. still a failure. Um, is it your expectation that you can proceed with construction or are you thinking, well, we've got to wait until they fix the road? >> So, two things. Um, no one can proceed with construction without a building permit. Um, no one can get a building permit and until, uh, the zoning has been complied with. In order to comply with the zoning, the holding provision needs to be lifted. The uh the issue is that in the holding provision, sorry, in seeking to lift a holding provision, the city can only enforce that which is in the holding provision. So it can't invent other things. >> I I know. And the problem is that the holding provision can be lifted if the resubmitted TIA is to the satisfaction of the general manager, but we don't define what to the satisfaction of general manager means. It could mean that there are plans 5 years down the road. We don't know yet. I'll ask that of staff. Um, can I ask your opinion on um if as we heard that one of the concessions in the negotiation you had with the city is that there will be an appropriate uh transition down to Waterbend Lane, but as we heard from Mr. Berza and as is in that document Y you've got zone A which is a 20 m buffer and if from the property line of waterbend lane to 20 m at that buffer which is only six cars theoretically that's where they could build a nine-story wall. Is that correct? >> Mr. Chair, I'll I'll answer this question. the the you're correct in theory that a ninestory building could be erected 20 mters from the property line, but I would urge you to recall in my presentation that it's not a wide open 20 m with nothing there. There is a requirement to provide a 7.5 meter wide setback from the property line where you can't do anything except provide landscaping. The intention of that 7.5 meter buffer which is increased significantly from what would otherwise be three meters under the underlying zoning bylaw. The intention is a to protect the existing vegetation and b to provide an opportunity to pro significant additional planting which would provide screening of any development of the site whether it's two stories, three stories or nine stories. >> Thank you. Just so I understand then uh Mr. town. When you say there's the property line at Waterbend Lane, then there's zone A, which is a 20 m buffer, and then you said there's a 7.5 m line buffer within that, were you correct in saying that waterbend lane, property line, then 20 m of nothing, and then 7.5 m of of landscaping and then possibly in theory 20 m 9tory wall. It would it would be most helpful if we could put the figure up from a staff presentation and and certainly staff can assist if you direct the question them. But no, the 7.5 meter buffer is immediately adjacent to Waterbend Lane. So, if you can visualize this, having that buffer closer to the Riverbend Lane and closer to the residential properties on the south side of Riverbend Lane provides a far more effective screening than if that seven and a half meters was on the uh opposite side. So, thank you staff for putting this. So, let's walk through this carefully. So area A there's no buildings permitted and it's 7 and a half meters wide and that's where the land existing vegetation will be protected and additional landscaping will be provided as a condition of site plan approval. Area B is where the height limit is limited to approximately a threestory building and and that is and then you get to area C which is 20 meters from the property line and only when you get to area C would you be permitted a ninestory building and at this point in time we can only speculate as to where that building might be located for for marketing reasons and visibility reasons, it's more likely that the taller structures will be in the northwest corner of the property. But theoretically, and to your question, there's a possibility that a ninestory building could be erected 20 meters from the property line, but will be screened by 7 and a half meters of existing and additional uh landscape buffer. >> All right. Thank you. My last comment question, can I hear from uh the proponent because um I heard somebody make reference to the possib Yeah. Mr. Sali, the delegate made uh raised a concern about a a new signalized traffic light in between West Hun Club and I I presume uh Waterbend Lane. I know you don't know what the intended use is yet, but within your various plans, is there the prospect or are you looking at the option of having that new traffic light there? So very early on years ago uh when we were first uh negotiating or discussing the development of this property with the city, we were talking about the possibility of a signalized intersection that would provide access to both the Metropolitan Bible Church on the west side of Prince of Wales Drive and this site. In the report that has been prepared by Castle Glenn in support of these applications, there is no recommendation of a signalized traffic uh intersection between Prince of Wales and Waterbend Lane. >> Good. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. >> Thank you very much, Councelor Divine. I don't see any further questions for the applicants. So, thank you very much for your time today. Uh which leads us into a discussion with staff. And I'm going to guess that it's going to be councelor Divine first. >> Thank you very much. Um so uh to start so uh here we're looking at a comprehensive zoning amendment permitting highintensity use on a corridor where the adjacent intersection west club and Prince of Walos is already designated already operates at what I believe to be a very very abysmal level of service f uh failure. There's no level of service worse than that with peak time traffic cues approaching um stretching over 400 meters. Um furthermore, the city's own transportation master plan explicitly identifies the need to widen Prince of Wales from two to four lanes between Colonade and Hunt Club including the bottleneck at CN uh railbridge. So this is already a massive congestion issue. My question staff note that a detailed transportation impact assessment will be submitted at site plan under this holding provision. Given those pre-existing corridor failures, what absolute legal or engineering threshold does the H1 provision holding provision enforce? >> Mr. Chair, thanks for the question. So through site plan control, the the wording is completed to the satisfaction. we would be looking at a TIA that's approved. So, we would go go through the whole TIA review to see how the land use that the proponent is coming forward with in a site plan, how the TIA supports that. And I acknowledge that there's external factors on Prince of Wales that make it make it uh uh traffic issues, but we would be looking at how where the accesses are. Are they right in right out only? uh and moving forward on any modifications that the applicant needs to do uh whether it be pork chops to make the right in right out and where they are to support that land use that comes forward through site plan. >> So I [clears throat] think um I think that answers part of the question but it doesn't address my concern about we're putting more development uh of an unknown nature onto an already failed corridor. So, can I just get clarity? In order to lift the hold, the new TIA must be quote approved to the satisfaction of general manager. But I don't know what counts as to the satisfaction of GM. So, as bluntly as I can, can this hold be lifted simply by the proponent submitting a new TIA report regardless of whether the traffic problem is actually solved? Or does the city have the legal authority under that provision to refuse to lift the hold until the intersection is actually capable of handling this load? because already it's failing. >> Um, okay. So, through the chair, I'll maybe take that on um as general manager. So, the the provision means it has to be done well. So, we would look and it would be reviewed by several in transportation to make sure that it was a a good quality um report. In that report, it it identifies what additional burdens are being put on the network as a result of this development. And then that gives us the right to ask for improvements as this site interacts with this area as part of the site plan conditions. It doesn't allow us to make as the as the um proponents uh agents have pointed out, it doesn't allow us to make them fix a bad intersection. But um presumably in situations like this, we find some ways that the what is happening on that site could help the city fix the area. So, we would be looking at what the city needs to do and and and I would argue that it would be its uh urgency to fix this area goes up as we start to see more development. So, that's on the city to fix what's going on here, but um it also opens up an opportunity where some of the fixes might be actually using parts of this site or at the expense of the the proponent. So, that's the analysis we would be doing. >> Great. And I know that there's absolutely uh onus on us to uh to catch up. Uh quick little so uh in the uh comments from from proponent we heard that there is no certainty on whether or not they intend to use waterbend lane for anything other than emergency access. Not at all what I heard from the representative of the owner. So I can imagine that we little waterbend lane would be very very concerned about that. The staff have the right to put any kind of holding provision or any kind of limitation pre-sight plan that water bend lane can and should only be used if there's a fire, flood, rabbit dog outbreak, whatever. We should not have 360 customers using waterbend lane. >> Thanks for the question. So staff's recommendation with the H is for the transportation study that we just mentioned. And when we get that transportation study, uh we would go through it and make sure and work with the the community through the site plan application and the developer to to see where accesses should be. Uh so through that review is is how we would determine appropriate accesses and staff have in our authority site design. So site design would include where an access uh could be. So, we' be we' be reviewing that and taking the community's concerns into account as we reviewed their TIA and where they proposed accesses. >> And do I even have the right to bring some kind of direction between now and council that speaks to putting limitations on access to Waterbend Lane? I'm not even sure if I'm allowed to do that because it's site plan control. >> Chair, uh, thank you. I the council doesn't currently have um the ability to dictate terms of a site plan approval. However, this would be um a zoning bylaw amendment to lift the hold um that would be coming either under delegated authority or conceivably back to council. Um so the question of whether or not there would be the ability to limit the access point um it it is conceivably possible that council could do that through a zoning bylaw amendment. However, the holding symbol here today, as as staff have clarified, isn't aimed to wait until the transportation study is in to look at the the best place to access the site. >> Does that mean that I can or cannot between now and council bring a a direction or a motion that speaks to adding something about limiting access there? >> It it would be within the authority, chair, within the authority to direct staff to bring a staff initiated zoning bylaw amendment to change the site. Um that would that would be subject to appeal by the applicant if that was if that was done. >> All right. Thank you. Um a different topic. Um so this file has over 10 years of history. It's been through planning consideration more than once. Um in previous evaluations of this file, city planners concluded that a car dealership was inappropriate and unsuitable for this site, which was the position held by the community. Given that traffic and corridor congestion have only deteriorated over time, given that the community's position has not changed, why have staff altered their prior position to make an auto dealership um permissible appropriate today? >> Thank you, chair, for the question. Uh yes, um staff have uh over time evaluated the application um in the context of uh official plan and and uh policies in effect. um at the time and and currently now we have a new official plan that was established in 2022 uh which set uh the parameters for which this application will be evaluated. And in this case um the larger scaled non-residential uses are per permitted provided they can demonstrate that they're on a major road um on a transit network and can demonstrate compatibility with the neighborhood. in which case staff are comfortable that they have satisfied those three criteria to um to support an official plan and uh zoning by amendment. >> Following up on that, does that mean that through the new official plan with all of its guidelines about neighborhood communities and 50-minute communities that it's in the language of the new official plan that we went from no cars to now cars are acceptable here? >> Automobile dealer. Chair, if I may speak to some of the historical side of this, I I was involved in the application when it came forward uh and was active, you know, 2019 roughly or or the previous application where we took that stance against car dealerships. There was a number of policies that we were looking at at that time, including the scenic entry route policies along Prince of Wales and the nature of the car dealerships that we were seeing at that point in time. Since then, we've seen an evolution in the car industry. We've seen less um you know, car stacking up front and more modern type of of developments with um you know, if you think about the the dealerships that have been built along Hunt Club Road in the last uh 10 or 15 years, they're more indicative of what we think we would see in this situation today than they than the previous ones. and and so that that evolution in the car industry has has led from that being a no to what it is today. >> Following up on that, would that mean that the only kind of uh car dealership usage that would be permitted would be of that nature and not like lose used cars? I I think if you look at the um the language in the report and the zoning details, there's limitations on front yard storage and uh there's there's staff can probably speak to it in greater detail than I can around the protections of of that facade on the Prince of Wales, but I I don't anticipate this site being developed as, you know, I I think you said lose lose lose used cars. I think it's uh something where we especially given who the proponents are uh we would expect uh you know a sizable dealership if that ends up being the ultimate use >> and that is what I have been told by the proponent but it's good to hear that that's the uh the change in policy. Uh my last question on on height. So in granting the right to build up to nine stories staff's report relies on the sevenstory building across the way as a comparator. that building on the other side of Hunt Club in a completely different neighborhood as it were, part of an industrial park. Um, that's not at all really uh a comparator according to what neighborhood we're in. Furthermore, a much more recent comparator directly across the street from 2175 Prince of Wales at 2200 Prince of Wales, the city strictly restricted heights at that building to three stories to protect adjacent homes. So that's a comparator that is, you know, far more gerine to what these residents think is their neighborhood. Why is staff supporting such a stark change away from established local protective precedent that staff set by allowing a ninestory building directly adjacent to residential neighborhoods? >> Uh thank you for the question, chair. Uh in terms of height, staff, uh staff's analysis identified the site um at the edge of the neighborhood. There's also a road uh in between the site um and and the um residential properties being waterbend lane which helps provide that transition between um you know that allows for a transition in space uh to transition uh in height and then as well the zoning parameters set for the site um require uh a low-rise residential nature abuing waterbend lane and then stepping up into a mid-rise uh height uh at the center of the site further away from the residential properties. >> Okay. We've used a sevenstory compar comparator that is like you're in a completely different neighborhood uh to point to that as the comparator. Um it's not exactly an accurate uh reference to what this neighborhood already has established and city staff were pretty explicit in what they permitted which is far lower um a few years ago. So it's it's almost as if staff established one position at one time and then pointed across West Hun Club to use as an indicator for this time. So it's it's not exactly consistent. Uh but I I'll leave it at that. But thank you. >> Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much, Councelor Divine. I'm just checking to see if there are any other questions of staff. There are not. So is this item carried as recommended? >> Carried. >> Carried. All right. Thank you. Thank you much uh councelor Divine. uh advocacy on your behalf of your community is excellent. We will move on to our final item I believe the substantive agenda which is the notice of which we had received uh notice on the previous um meeting. Sorry, it's getting to be a long meeting here. So there was the uh motion that was brought as notice finally at uh last planning committee with respect to the requirement for 15% land delegation. I'll ask the vice chair to reread that motion. Then I'm going to ask staff to just remind us what that is and why that's being brought forward. Uh because it's not councelor Gower's vice chair Gower's motion. Uh at which point we will then move into uh questions for staff and I know councelor Johnson um is um uh looking to ask staff whether they would undertake some direction as part of the discussion. So, Vice Chair Gower, got it. Whereas staff are working with the applicant to finalize conditions of site plan approval for the development at 1500 Marville Road. Whereas the parkland dedication bylaw requires a 15% land dedication or 15% cash in leo parkland or a combination thereof for the purposes of park development within the subject development area. And whereas on October 8, 2025, council approved the housing acceleration plan which capped the requirement for CILP at 10% for development applications within hubs and major corridors for an 18-month period, but did not alter the 15% land dedication requirement. And whereas there should be a consistent application of allocation between land dedication and CILP. Therefore, be it resolved that planning and housing committee recommend that council temporarily wave the requirement for 15% land dedication and reduce the requirement to 10% to align with the CIP cap adopted through the housing acceleration plan for an 18-month period ending April 7th, 2027. >> Thank you very much, Vice Chair. So to uh staff, what are we voting on? [laughter] >> Thank you, chair, and to the committee. I know it's been a long day. Um this got deferred last time. It was a little sloppy with the way we brought it forward, so apologies for that, but I'm glad we could have the conversation. Uh when we brought forward the housing action plan that was approved by council, the report itself talked a lot about parkland and the costs around parkland for overall development. But the motion in or the recommendation that was eventually passed by council specifically said CILP which meant that it was tied to the cash in lie of parkland not the parkland itself. We've since got an internal legal opinion to cl to confirm this but we have inadvertently created an unlevel playing field between uh whether in a project we get land versus money. If you were in a um um hub area or a major quarter like this uh project reference in the whereas clauses is, you were asked to provide 10% if it was going to be it's capped at 10% of the land value for cash if that's what we're taking. But you have to give 15% if it's physical land. So we we have inadvertently created the situation where it is harder if you give us land than if you give us money. And we always ask for land first. We get as much land as we can. And on smaller sites, which is usually what we see in these um hub areas, we are taking cash. So that's probably why the recommendation was drafted as such. So from my perspective, this is uh correcting an imbalance. This just gives parity to whether you get land or whether you get money. And from that perspective, um we're saying let's uh make it fair. Uh this is the first one to come forward that where we were taking land that created this situation. So you can see it's pretty infrequent because we've been um doing this for now uh over a year since that report. But we're saying only until that 18-month period was going to expire, which is the early part of April. And there will be a report coming from um my colleague uh in strategic initiatives to report on the uh all of the initiatives from the housing acceleration plan and um uh with there's there was some motions about coming back with some metrics around um evaluating the impact of the financial incentives approved by council. So at this point, we're just trying to create a level playing field and the bigger conversation about whether this should be done going forward can could be addressed in the in the subsequent report coming at the end of Q1. >> Thank you very much. So colleagues questions to staff. Councelor Low, >> thank you. I think I I believe you said this during your your remarks just now, but to to be clear, this will not retroactively um uh apply to any files before 1500 because I I know the 18month period ends in April, which means that we've kind of burned through a select we burned through a portion of the the 18 months already, but this won't like no one's going to come back and say, "Hey, we we redid this file a year ago and now you're changing this." uh chair through you I don't it's a good question and I don't think that we have considered it so I don't know that but but offh hand I cannot think of any sites that have come through that have given us the issue here is that we would never reach a 10% cap in cash on these sites we're always looking for land so somebody's not going to be given 11 12 13 14% cash which then results in a 10% cash cap so I can't really think of a situation where land would be impacted. Could somebody come back and ask for some cash back if they had exceeded that 10%? So they had provided 10% in land and then 11 12 13 in cash potentially. >> Okay. Okay. Thanks C. >> So Marcia, I really appreciate um you explaining that a little bit better. Um, I know originally when I saw this, I thought this was a huge policy change. Um, but it sounds like by accident it was omitted in the first proposal from staff. Is that that's correct? >> Yes. I think uh when we were drafting the recommendations, you remember there was something like 55 recommendations. I the task force and the conversation that led to this was a lot about cash and ll because that was the most common example. um we we did not intend to make it harder if you were giving us land because that's always our preference. Uh and it was only after this came to light on this example that we realized we have created a double standard whether you give us land or money. So that's why we're recommending uh creating par and moving that forward >> and it's harder to get land than cash, right? It's harder. Uh, absolutely. Because that's the developable space and and we are um keep in mind our our parkland bylaw is currently under appeal which is why so much of the parkland money is uh embargoed and can't be used because we are fighting over how uh it is calculated in the first place. So, we are planning on bringing forward a new parkland bylaw um early in this term of council to see if we can step away from the appeals, unlock the funds, and move forward with um a more modern and compliant with there's been some provincial legislation in the space as well. So, uh it's always a fight when you are trying to deal with parkland and uh and so um trying to get land is our first choice and on large sites it makes a lot of sense because uh we need that parkland um in the city and and when you have a large site it's your best chance to try to secure it. >> I'll be frank. I was going to vote against this um because to your point, you know, we need that green space, right? And once it's gone, it's gone. you're not getting it back. So, it's almost more valuable uh to preserve the 15% in my mind than it is to to um you know reduce it to the 10%. But I now understand that we kind of cornered ourselves. Um do you think this is going to unlock some of that development that this whole the whole intention was to accelerate housing development? Is this going to help them between now and April? So, I'll I'll let my colleagues uh answer with um we don't see a lot of projects moving forward that are um uh at this point that are in this situation. That's why the whereas clause only speaks to one project, but there are a handful that are um pushing to get their project through site plan so they can take advantage of the cap that was put in place. So, I would say generally if you're if your project is close and you could take advantage of any of the financial incentives that were in the housing acceleration plan by creating a time limit of 18 months, we've created this waterfall edge where people are eager to get their project through so they can take advantage of whatever incentives we uh have on the table. So, we're already feeling that pressure because we're getting closer to that. Um but there are not many projects that we know of that are it's um you know a small handful that are in a position where we are talking about a a large portion of land being given to us but um also requiring cash to make up that 15%. There's just not that much big development projects like that in the pipeline. >> Okay. I I really appreciate that. I will support this then knowing that there is as you put it a waterfall edge. I don't know that I would support the continued 10% going forward after that date whether it's on the cash and loo or on the land. I'll be honest with you. We're going to build places for people to live. They should have access to green space so they can enjoy the place they live particularly in very dense parts of our city. So, I really want to make sure that we continue to to think of that as part of the lived experience. When you live in a house or you live in an apartment or you live in a building, you get to have green space attached to it somewhere and within walking distance. So, I see that we've cornered ourselves. I will support this. Um, but I will be watching for when that deadline ends because we'll have to have a frank discussion on whether this becomes a policy going forward. >> Thank you, counselor. Councelor Johnson. Um, thank you very much and uh thanks to the chair for uh four years of of great governance here. Um, I wanted to thank Marcia for taking some time to speak with me about the motion between the last meeting and today. I bocked a little bit just with the presentation of the information at committee given some of the you know comments you know similar to some of my colleagues where it felt like a reduction in community benefit uh sort of brought to the table without you know a good consideration for the local context. Um for me, you know, I was really interested in understanding um further to our conversations, what are the uh perceived or or uh already measured um benefits to housing starts that these financial incentives had promised. Um and so could you comment on um you know with with respect to this motion? Um h has this parkland one been one of the more uh meaningful uh incentives for projects or are you seeing other ones that have been uh more impactful up until this point chair through you with respect to this particular incentive we have not seen a lot of uptake and I think Marcia provided the rationale because there are very few prominent sites over five hectares in hubs and corridors. So, where we're trying to fuel that development, we just don't have a lot of these mega parcels. So, this one has been sitting on the sidelines and we're hoping to to provide a little bit of incentive for that today to get one of these um permitted before year end. Uh in terms of incentives on park, we've seen a lot of uptake on the deferral program. So, developers also have an opportunity to push forward payments right now through some of these incentives. And at last count, I believe I checked in a few weeks ago, there were over $10 million that are being deferred to um building permit occupancy. So that's just so so developers are able to pull permits and not have to worry about that large fee before they start moving people in and collecting some of that money back. So that deferral has been uh there's been a lot of uptake on that. >> Okay, very good. So, you know, certainly, you know, my motion on the housing acceleration plan was to ask for additional uh you know, uh feedback and additional evidence for those financial incentives as they uh come to expiry so that we can make a decision as to whether or not they are in fact giving us the type of development that the city is after. So, the direction that my colleagues will see uh will speak to that uh a little bit more. Um my concern in this particular application was that you know we do have a very large builder um with a margin that I believe frankly I'm I'm not certain whether or not it was I mean the the developer will say that it was contingent on a margin um and we can't argue with that but I might uh suggest that if we're going to be offering financial incentives we might be able to apply them to development that might be a little more challenging for some of our mid-rise or uh uh smaller developers who are looking to build um in intensification uh context. So I'll wait for the chair to uh decide when to put that on, but um I'm very interested in making sure that when we're uh allowing for, you know, public dollars to go towards development that we're going to get the kind of outcome that we see as being most beneficial to the most people. Oh, thank you. So, um yeah, so just to put a little more um uh specifics on what I'm hoping that report in April uh will come back to show us um that staff clarify the reporting on the effectiveness of the financial measures introduced through the housing acceleration plan and consider including where available information on the types of housing benefiting from the measures including low-rise, mid-rise, high-rise developments and the number of housing units associated with each type. The size and type of developer benefiting from the measures, including large-scale development companies, midsize builders, and smaller developers. The geographic distribution of developments benefiting from the measures, including their locations by ward. Whether the measures are incentivating the incentivizing, pardon me, the types of housing and developments needed to achieve the city's housing objectives, whether the benefits are reaching the projects and developers for which the incentives are most needed. Thank you. >> Thank you very much, Councelor Johnson. That all strikes me as very useful information to have and um uh even if I'm not around I'll be very interested to see what it has to say. Our staff willing to take that as direction. >> Uh yes uh most of that would be um from our department. I did confirm with strategic initiatives who will be bringing the report forward and they were also uh comfortable with the direction. >> Thank you very much. We'll look forward to seeing that. Uh anything further council Johnson? Nope. Uh councelor Divine. >> Thank you chair. Um, so as this uh motion does pertain pertain specifically to 1500 Maraveville, which is in my ward, I'll speak to what's happening there. Um, because I have had some productive conversations on that parcel over the past few weeks with staff and the proponent. And while I do have concerns or confusion or how we arrived at the proposal that's before us, I do recognize that my community is getting a tangible benefit here. That said, over the negotiations on this file, we shifted in relatively short order from an anticipated 15% parkland dedication to a mix of 10% land plus 5% cash in L, which was on offer to the proponent to what is before us today, capped 10% contribution. That said, I understand that securing 10% raw land in the center of the Maravel Triangle is a significant opportunity for a central public park right in the middle of what will be thousands of units of development over the next generation. My concern, which I believe has been abated, was that in losing that final 5%, we lost a strip of land that brought that park right out to Maravel Road itself, replacing a streetfacing public realm with another tower. Um, however, that tower represents phase nine, the final phase of this multi-phase project, which is going to be many years down the road. In my discussions with the developer this week, they've agreed to provide the city with temporary use of those phase 9 lands so that those lands can remain as green space contiguous with the 10% park, bringing that green presence all the way down to Maraveville Road in the interim. My question to staff, as we discussed yesterday, will staff be open to incorporating and discussing this temporary use agreement with the proponent as you continue negotiating the site plan agreement on phase two. >> Mr. Chair, thank you for the question. So, I'm going to start the question and maybe I'll hand it over to Garrett in case he wants to add something. But we are happy to I'm hearing that the developer is open to having the city use uh some of their land in the interim. So staff are absolutely happy to work with them on an arrangement. and staff would be looking to understand some of the finer details and report back to your office such as grading, is there tree removal, um how are we programming it and then maybe the costs associated if in fact the developer doesn't go down the path of all these costs. We want to present to you uh what would be needed and then because there's active u site plan and a master plan. I just want to make sure I hear from uh from Garrett and legal services to make sure that what we're doing here is is not a counselor involving themselves in site plan control and put that on the table. >> No, chair. That's achievable through um through a process working with the developer. >> Great. And as this is all brand new, like only discussed like in the last 48 hours. Um, and >> with with apologies, the the the motion that's on the table is whether or not to adjust the uh cash in um ratio. Um, so could I ask you to uh restrain your questions to that topic area? >> Then I'll ask a question. You tell me if it's I'm not even I'm not even sure if I'm about to ask is relevant or not. Um, as those discussions that you're going to have progress over the coming weeks, would staff be willing to work collaboratively with my office on a motion or direction for an upcoming council meeting just to properly formalize the exploration of details for that temporary green space arrangement or is that outside of mine? >> With the greatest possible brevity, please move on. >> Yeah. >> Yes, Mr. Chair. >> That's some really good brevity. Thank you. Anything further, councelor? >> No, thank you, Chair. >> Thank you. Uh, C Vice Chair Gower. Yeah, I guess I wanted to wrap up. Um, we we approved the housing accelerator plan and all of the measures in it last fall, uh, because we wanted to move really quickly because we were not seeing a lot of housing starts of any type. We're still in that situation today. Um but when we move quickly uh we we passed uh this particular cash in the new policy without fully realizing the implications without identifying that there would be a discrepancy between land and cash and new dedication. So we're fixing that now. Um so I think that's all we're doing here. We didn't fully anticipate a year ago what we were doing because we were acting quickly. And the other thing too is I think 10% of land is still way more valuable to a community than 10% equivalent cash value because let's be honest as counselors we are not using our cash and le budgets except for chair leaper to purchase new land. That's pretty rare, right? This is going into amenities, picnic shelters and benches and so on, but rarely land. So even 10% land acquisition along a quarter like this is really significant. Thanks chair. >> Thank you vice chair. And yeah the uh those purchases of land um and and adding even pocket parks into a very dense neighborhood like is extremely helpful. Um okay so staff have uh taken councelor Johnson's direction. Uh is the motion carried? >> Carried. >> Thank you. All right. That's the substantive agenda. Uh we do have the information previously distributed the aforementioned cash of parkland balances. I hadn't had any um uh requests to lift that. We don't have any in camera items. There are no notices of motion for consideration in a subsequent mo meeting. I don't think um any inquiries nope. Uh we don't have any other business. We are adjourned to a next meeting to be determined. Colleagues, this has been the privilege of a lifetime working with you. Thank you very much. Have a great afternoon. Thanks. >> Take care.