Check check check. Check. Sound check. One, two, three, four, five. Check. Check. All right, we'll uh we'll get underway. Thank you very much for everyone to uh for joining us uh for this 71st meeting of the planning and housing committee. Um Um, I'll ask for a roll call. My understanding is councelor Kelly has extended his regrets. >> Councelor Brockington >> here. >> Councelor Curry >> here. >> Councelor Dudes. >> Councelor Johnson >> here. >> Councelor Kavanagh >> present. >> Kelly. Councelor Kits >> here. Councelor Low >> here. >> Councelor Tierney >> present. >> Councelor Truster >> here. Vice Chair Gower >> here. >> Cherry of quorum. >> Thank you very much. This is a public meeting to consider the proposed comprehensive official plan and zoning bylaw amendments listed as items 41 to 46 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 October the 8th, 2026, please email or call the committee or council coordinator. Are there any declarations of interest? None. are the minutes of our 70th meeting, September 2nd. Confirmed. >> Confirmed. >> Thank you. >> All right, moving to the agenda. There is the first item which is the uh OPA for 1052 etc boulevard. Uh we are anticipating a presentation today. There are four delegations speak to that one in addition to the applicant. So we'll hold that one. The second item is 342 Roosevelt Avenue. Uh there are three public delegations in addition to a presentation today. So we'll hold that one. Excuse me. Uh with respect to the zoning bylaw amendment for 1740 etc. St. Lauron Boulevard and 700 Mountaineer. My understanding is that there is a deferral motion to come. Vice chair. >> Thank you chair. Whereas the report recommends reszoning the lands municipally known as 1740, 1754, 1760 San Boulevard and 700 Mountaineer Private. And whereas revisions to the proposed development were submitted during the application review process, including an increase to the proposed building heights. And whereas the city of Ottawa wants to ensure transparency and meaningful opportunities for public participation in the planning process. Therefore, be it resolved that consideration of the report be deferred to the November 4th planning and housing committee meeting to provide additional opportunity for public review and feedback on the proposed resoning. >> Thank you very much. There's a deferral motion on the table. Did anyone want to speak to that >> um >> yeah I guess just the question is so the applicant is fine with this. Does this have impacts? I'm not sure if we have the applicant here. >> Chair, my understanding is the it's not going to directly delay any construction elements or or projects like that. >> Okay, great. That's always my concern. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh, anyone else speaking to the deferral on that one? I don't see any. Is the deferral motion carry? >> Thank you very much. >> For the item 2701 PE road in Orleans South Nav, we hadn't anticipated the presentation. There are no delegations to sign up and no correspondence. Uh did any members wish to receive the presentation on this one? No. Um to Connor Joy and Mark Rebe. Um if the committee is prepared to carry this, do you still wish to speak? >> No chair, we don't need to speak. >> Thank you. Uh in that case, is the item carried as recommended? >> Carried. >> Thank you. There is the zoning bylaw amendment for 1767 and 1773 Baseline Road in College Ward. We hadn't anticipated the presentation. There are no delegations signed up to speak. Hadn't received any correspondence. Uh did any members wish to have this one held? I do not see that. Uh Matt at uh on behalf of the applicant if the committee is prepared to carry this, do you still wish to speak? >> Thank you, Matt. Uh, in that case, uh, is this item carried? >> Carried. Thank you. With respect to the zoning bylaw amendment at 560 Hazeline Road, um, we hadn't anticipated the presentation. There is some correspondence. The only delegations are signed up on behalf of the applicant. Did members wish to receive the presentation? I do not see that interest. Um Stephanie and uh Robert and Greg uh if the committee is prepared to carry this, did you still wish to speak? >> No, we do not, Mr. Chair. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh in that cases, the item carried as recommended. >> Carried. >> Carried. Thank you. And finally, there are the technical amendments to the permanent signs on private property. Um 26326. Uh this item was also considered by the agriculture and rural affairs committee. Uh there is a technical motion on this one. I think we can uh do that and let those staff go. Vice chair. >> Yeah, it's a technical amendment on the technical amendments. Uh whereas the report recommends several amendments to the permanent signs on private property bylaw to comply with the new zoning bylaw and to make other minor amendments of an administrative nature. And whereas the report does not contain the language necessary to add the clarity sought and contains several technical errors. Therefore, be resolved that the following changes be made to document one amended to the permanent signs on private property bylaw of the report and it's being scrolled through on the screen because they are very uh technical in nature. So, I will not read all of those out. >> Thank you very much. Did anyone wish to speak to the uh technical motion? >> I do not see that. Is the technical motion carried? >> Carried. >> And are the report uh recommendations as amended? Carrie >> Carrie >> thank you very much. So in that case we'll uh just let me double check here. Yeah there is nothing else on the agenda besides those. So we'll go back to the start of the agenda and the first held item uh we'll get the presentation uh for the OPA and zoning bylaw at 1052 1060 1064 Santa Boulevard in beautiful Rita Rockliff Ford. Good morning, chair, vice chair, and committee members. My name is Margot Linker, and I'm a planner with Development Review Central. This morning, I will be providing an overview of the proposed official plan zoning bylaw amendment for 1052, 1060, and 1064 St. Laurent Boulevard. Next slide, please. The site is located east of downtown in the Overbrook neighborhood and is 900 meters walking distance from the St. Laurent O train station. The site consolidates three properties to form an interior lot with 80 m of frontage on St. Laurent Boulevard in an area of approximately 3560 m. Next slide, please. >> The subject site is located within the inner urban transct and the southern portion of the site is located within the major transit station area due to the proximity to St. Laur train station. Next slide, please. The northern part of the site is designated as main street corridor and the southern half of the site is designated as hub. Both of these designations generally permit up to 40 stories dependent on road width and transition. Next slide, please. The southern portion of the site falls within the inner east lines one and three station secondary plan which contemplates a maximum building height of 20 stories on the subject site. Next slide, please. The northern half of the subject site is zoned main street zone 2 exception 2199 and the southern half of the site is zoned hub zone 2 maximum building height of 61.5 m and to the immediate west the lots are within the neighborhood zones. Next slide please. The applicant intends to demolish the existing buildings on the site which will include a automobile body shop, a restaurant and a commercial building. This will facilitate the construction of the proposed 30-story mixeduse building which will contain 401 residential units, 231 vehicle parking spaces, 447 bicycle parking spaces and atgrade retail units. A covered outdoor passageway provides access to the site with rightin ride out vehicle access. Next slide please. The rendering on the left shows the front of the building from St. Laurent Boulevard and on the right is a rendering showing the back of the building which abuts the low-rise residential neighborhood. In response to feedback received, the applicant removed rear-facing balconies from the tower and increase the tower setback from the neighborhood to 20 m. Next slide, please. A transportation impact assessment was submitted in support of the subject applications. Due to the traffic median in St. Laurent Boulevard, there's a ride in right out vehicle access to the site. The biggest public concern received was traffic issues resulting from this, such as U-turns on St. Laurent Boulevard and Donald Street, as well as traffic on Alistister Street. In response to the public feedback, the applicant prepared an area traffic review memo to discuss these public concerns and some traffic calming options on Alistister Street. The counselor and applicant conducted a transportation focused public meeting to discuss these concerns and these traffic calming ideas and recommendations. Staff have heard these concerns raised by the public and this topic will continue to be discussed and addressed through the site plan application with an updated TIA. Next slide, please. The subject site is well supported by transit, walking, and cycling options. The site is within walking distance of the O train station and bus hub, as well as services and amenities, and it's also located along a transit priority corridor. It's worth noting that the proposal overs supplies long-term bicycle parking spaces to encourage active transportation as the sites in close proximity to cycling infrastructure as well. The se this section of St. Lawrence Boulevard is part of a cross town bikeway which means that it will be prioritized for cycling improvements as opportunities arise. Next slide, please. The proposed official plan amendment requests to change the site's height category and the secondary plan to 30 stories. Next slide, please. The proposed zoning bylaw amendment will retain the existing par parent main street and hub zones and will add project specific exception and schedules across the site to facilitate the proposed 30story mixeduse building. Next slide please. The zoning exception and schedule will have the effect of regulating height setbacks and stepbacks, permitting underground parking garage while ensuring sufficient soil volume for trees in the rear yard and to regulate bicycle parking requirements. As mentioned earlier, rearfacing balconies and tower setback from the neighborhood are regulated through the proposed zoning. Next slide, please. Staff recommend approval of the official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment as indicated in the report as the proposed development will provide an increase of housing stock and mix of uses in proximity to major transit and abuing the corridor as well as to improve the public realm. The proposal is consistent with the city's official plan, secondary plan, and applicable design guidelines. Thank you. >> Thank you very much, Miss Linker. Um we have four delegates from the public and the applicant uh team is also available to the applicant team. Uh did you want to um go first uh keeping in mind or just respond to whatever you hear at the end? >> Perfect. So in that case we're going to go to the uh public delegations. The first of whom will be Pat Baldick followed by Rob McCalpine and then Francine Landre and Steve Marcellis uh will round us out. So Pat Bulock, we'll just see if they're online. Okay. Okay. We'll uh move through to Rob McCalpine and uh if Pat is able to join us, we'll get them later. Rob. Yeah, we'll get you at the end seat there. Uh there's a button on the microphone and uh to press and when it's on it will uh turn red and then when you want to start you've got five minutes to make a presentation to the committee following which if members have any questions for you they will pose those. We're in your hands just hit that red but hit the button. >> Okay. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak. Um as you said my name is Rob Mccelpine. My family and I live at uh 597 Wolfdale Crescent. So just sort of one street over from where the development is being proposed. Um in speaking with the community and and certainly for for my family and I, we have concerns about the height of the building and maybe it's just cuz we're new to this and this sort of um development hasn't come into our area before. Um the on on our side of St. It's, you know, residential buildings, bungalows, twotory, threetory family homes. There's maybe a few low-rise buildings up to to five stories, but nothing of this scale. So, we have concerns about the height for sure. Um, and, you know, I'm not even backing right against it, but some of my neighbors are, and it's going to be a big change for for them. However, it sounds like it's being um suggested to be approved. So, perhaps we just have to accept that. But I wanted to to voice my concerns all the same. Um, as for the traffic, uh, we have had concerns about this previously and and I know, uh, councelor King mentioned it in his remarks and I appreciate that and so I was going to speak to that a little bit more. So parking, I think, is one part. Oh, thank you for putting my slide up there. That so, so parking is one thing. Um, you know, there's 400 units, I think, in 200 and some parking spots. So from my perspective, I see a lot of people probably parking on on our side streets, which is not an issue we have now. So there's concerns around that. And then just the traffic flow as it is now is a bit of an issue for us. So I I'll apologize for my artwork. It's not great. But U-turns are are a problem for us um now. And a lot of it is people trying to get into the plaza, which will be just adjacent to this development because I don't know if you're how familiar are with St. the wrong, but there's the median sort of in between that divides the two lanes. And so if someone wants to go into the cl the plaza just north of this, they they can't turn left. So they either do a a U-turn at the the lights at St. Lauron and Donald there, and as the person behind them, I'm trying to guess what they're doing, or if I'm I'm uh you know, waiting with my kids to cross, I have to sort of guess. They don't do it there, then they go to Donald and Alistister, and they'll try there. And in both of those spots, there's signs saying you can't do U-turns, but those are ignored. And then if those two don't work, then they come down Alistister and then they'll pull into a neighbor's driveway or they'll they'll pull into the first Wolfdale Crescent. That's not where I live. I'm on the next corner and then they sort of block the street trying to do a U-turn there. So, it's a problem for us and unfortunately I wasn't able to attend when when councelor King came with people from the city, but I think there was examples of that at that time. So, we hope something will be done to address those concerns um because we we feel it's a real problem. Um, and so I'd just like to know how I can follow up on that. I did see it mentioned in the in the previous presentation that there there is going to be continued work on that. Um, so I'm just curious how I can sort of keep up with that. And I think the other thing that that councelor King mentioned that I think is important is um money going back into the community. So, in the original proposal, there was really no mention of Alistister Wolfdale and and all the side streets around it, and councelor King mentioned um improvements to the the Lawson Park there. And I I think that would be good. I used to um there's a school, Queen Mary, just adjacent where I used to go with my kids a lot. Unfortunately, in the last couple years, they put fences around and locked all the gates, so we're not really able to go in anymore. For me, it's maybe not a problem. My kids aren't as interested, but I know there's lots of other young families who who don't have the opportunity to use that. So, some sort of equipment in that Lawson Park um area would be appreciated. And I think those are it for my notes. So, thank you for the opportunity. >> Thank you very much for that. Uh councelor King, >> not a question, but I really want to thank you for your participation in in this process. I think that this is how a transparent planning process should uh really operate ensuring that we have maximal imp uh input from uh residents who will be uh maximally impacted uh by any proposed development. So I just wanted to thank you for coming down uh to city hall and uh providing uh your comments. >> Yeah, no problem. I felt I should do it and and I know some of my neighbors are as well. So we appreciate the opportunity. Thank you. Uh just before you leave, I just want to say you got a very strong representative and councelor King. I actually have the other side of Salaron and we work together on a regular basis and uh he's we've already been talking as chair of public works with a lot of the traffic patterns. Uh so that has definitely been a focus of his. We've had many conversations about this. So stay tuned. I think we all know where uh development and infill are happening and uh now we're just working for the best outcome for the communities and and that guy right there is doing that for you right now. Yeah, I was Thank you. I appreciate that and I was happy to see the the comments that that the councelor King put in in um in the document that was shared related to this. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Uh Rob, I'm sorry I don't see any other questions for you. Thank you very much for your presentation today. Um we'll go to Fransen and Steve who are joining us online. Uh we haven't heard from Pat for those um who want that. We have received correspondence from Pat Bulock who's with the community association. So we'll turn it over to uh Steve. >> All right. Am I you can you hear me? >> Excellent. >> Hello. >> My name is Francen Ladri and this is a tag team presentation with my husband. The Landri family has been residing in Overbrook since 1960. We are long-standing members of the community and have enjoyed a quiet suburban neighborhood so far. But all this is about to change because of intensification. Our area is soon going to look like downtown Ottawa because of all the current and future high-rise buildings being built or planned. All in all, we are talking about 14 highrises to our knowledge, all located within 1 to 1 and a half kilometer radius of each other. Does that make sense to anyone? We feel that is excessive for our area. But let's talk about the proposed 20story building on San Lauran. This would be the 15th highrise for our area. So why do we need this additional building? I'd like to focus on the impacts of all of this. So major impact number one would and the obvious one is traffic. There will be greater gridlock on San Boulevard and area streets. It will become a nightmare. I wonder has a real realistic traffic study been done to assess the impact of 15 new highrises in this area before proceeding? I don't know. Now, let's talk specifically about the building proposed on Senor in our own backyard. Salor Boulevard has median, so there's no easy way to change directions when you're driving northbound or southbound. So, the second major impact that we see if the Salur building is erected, is that traffic will soar on our local street, which is situated west of and parallel to San Laurent. Rob mentioned it, Alistister Street. This will compromise everyone's safety in a neighborhood where there's a lot of new families that have moved in with children. Third major impact is street parking. We feel that will be problematic. And I'd like to explain this one in detail. City of Ottawa seems to think that to get around everyone should use the unreliable transit system or ride a bike, which would be a lot of fun in the winter, or walk. Are these even practical expectations? I've racked my brain trying to think of people that I know that do not own a vehicle. And you know, I can't come up with one person. Can you? Because of these erroneous assumptions, the construction companies involved in these projects will not provide parking to their tenants. So, the tenants without parking spots will park on our streets. I just saw on the news last night that the Kissippi ward is experiencing major parking problems because of intensification. And let me share another real-time example with you that is happening right now in Overbrook on Glenn Avenue. This is not speculation. This is a realtime problem and it's occurring. As you are aware, there have been many smaller intensification projects already constructed in the Glenn area which have resulted, we figure, in approximately maybe 15 dwellings or so that have no parking spots. Friend of mine lives on Glenn. She says there are parked cars on her street now constantly and some of her visitors sometimes cannot find parking, but that's not the biggest problem so far. It's the biggest one arises in the winter when there's after a snowstorm. Uh these cars are still there even with the parking ban in effect. So the snow plow has a hard time getting by, cannot clean the street properly and the the residents have to take to the street and clean it with their own snowblowers. Now I don't you know do you find this acceptable? Well, I find this totally unacceptable. And I know what you're thinking now. Why don't they call bylaw? Well, they do call bylaw, but bylaw doesn't always show up. We surmise that they are overwhelmed during those snow events because intensification has been enacted in many places all over the city of Ottawa, and it's only going to get worse. So, let's transpose that parking and snowbunk problem to the proposed Santa highrise. The Sandler project builder proposes to offer a parking spot to only 50% of the tenants. So if he gets this 30story amendment, there'll be 401 apartments total. And we're talking about 200 apartments without parking spots. Builder says that they'll advise the people as they move in. Will any of them listen? Will any of them pay attention to that? So, these 200 orphan vehicles will flood our streets and cause all of the problems that I've just mentioned. So, it looks like, yep, my time is up. So, I'm going to pass the baton over to my husband who will speak to other issues. Thank you. >> Thank you for that. >> Morning all. My name is Marcellis and my wife and I live right beside Rob McCalpin on 591 Wolfdale Crescent. 5 minutes is nearly not enough time to impart the impact of a lifealtering a possible lifealtering event. The construction of this skyscraper has been the topic of many conversations with neighbors and friends. Everyone says that once the pre the proposal signage goes up, it's basically a done deal and there's nothing anyone can do about that. Some people even suggested that we move out of the neighborhood. That's not going to happen. We're not doing that and we choose to believe that our voice and our neighbors voices matter. Official notification was only sent to households, in other words, voters situated within 120 m 20 sorry 120 m of the tower. We live 125 meters away from this building site and we can definitely tell you that this project will affect a heck of a lot more voters than that. Also, the sign for 1052, 1060, and 1064 San Boulevard was erected in early 2026. The one at 500 Coventry was erected in May 2025. There has been no apparent movement on this file. So, why does this application feel like it's being fasttracked? The 500 Comventry proposal was closer than is closer to the San Station and yet is calling for more parking spaces than than units. There are different studies that have been referenced in the documentation, namely environmental impact, traffic flow, and sun shading. These studies are all conducted by the applicant who has a vested interest in approval. Is it naive to accept the results as face value? We have not found any studies on con construction noise pollution levels and light pollution levels. In addition, there is no TIA for the intersection of Donald and Alistister as well as Alistister and Queen Mary. I bring this up because an informal review was done with Rson and concerned citizens this past August as shown in Rob's uh schematic that within a 45minute window midafter afternoon on a weekday at least 12 vehicles performed a U-turn on Alistister and at the insection of Donald and Alistister. The applicant recorded 20 Uturns in an 8 hour period. Both of these are pre-construction figures, so there's no way that this building will not impact more U-turns in our neighborhood. Since egress is only southbound, cars will have to find an alternate route to proceed northbound on Santa. The only alternate available route is Alistister Street. With regards to tenant parking, the applicant has reduced the amount provided from 59% which was referenced at the June community consultation to 50%. As Francine has mentioned, where are tenants without an assigned parking space going to park? And are they willing to spend the money that will be charged to them by the by the applicant for parking spots? If they say no, what happens? In adjacent lowly residential neighborhood to the west of the proposed building, right on that's where everyone's going to park right on our streets. On the same top topic, where are the construction crews going to park? What route will all the construction vehicles, dump trucks, back hackles, etc. take during the construction phase if it happens? This information was not provided. Now, my wife and I have been very critical of this proposal so far, but we do want to make some suggestions. Some of them are out of the box. Reduce the number of highrises planned in our area. Erect shorter buildings, for example, at the center location, 20 stories as per staff reference, but we residents are asking for less. Modify the center of median to allow easy directional change. Put a no right turn sign at the corner of Queen Mary and Alistister. Transform Alistister Street into a southbound one-way road. And much like the downtown core, install no parking signs or permit parking only on car or side streets for residents of these streets. have the builder provide a parking spot for all their tenants like the good old days or and increase the amount of bylaw officers. In summary, the proposed project will negatively impact the current neighborhood residents with regard to traffic volume and speed, safety, privacy, parking overflow, snow plowing issues, emergency access, and sheer volume of people living in the same neighborhood. The city of Ottawa needs to do a better job of mitigating the impacts of their intensification projects because Ottawa will no longer be the city with a small town feel that we all love. We entreat you to do right by your current residents. Thank you very much, >> Steve. Thank you very much. >> Uh I think you might have YouTube running in the background with the stream. If you can silence that, that would be awesome. I don't know if Councelor Kane has any questions for you. Okay. Uh, I don't see any questions for you. Sorry, just gonna double check that. Steve, thank you very much today. >> Thank you. >> All right. Uh, so this is the opportunity for members. >> Where the is Pat? >> Yeah, somebody's got your speaker on >> here. Let me sit here. >> An opportunity to ask questions. Uh, oh, sorry. Um, uh, the to the uh to the applicants. You've got your opportunity for your five minutes now. >> Good morning, Mr. Chair, uh members of the committee. My name is Scott. I'm a senior planner at Foten Consultants, Inc. Uh we are the agent for the uh application. And I'm joined today by Miguel Trombllay who's a partner at Foten as well. Um we do have uh a presentation. If I could have it up for reference, I don't think we'll need to go into detail about it. Um the staff presentation was quite wholesome. Uh but um thank you. Uh and if uh if I may, can you just um uh proceed? I think it's about slide 10, I would like. So, as as we cycle through these, you'll you'll see um that uh keep going, please. Uh next one. Next one. Uh yeah, keep going. Next one. That perfect. Okay. Yeah, this is great. Okay. So, um, as we heard from staff, this, uh, development is located in in two nexuses of, uh, where the city in their official plan and secondary plans have proposed high density. Part of it is in a PMTSA, which is a protected major transit station area where, um, in location to rapid transit such as the LRT. The there's a high encouragement for density. The um other aspect is it's also on a main street, St. a boulevard as we heard which also is noted as a location for highrises up to 40 stories subject to an appropriate transition. So the secondary plan is the inner east lines 1 and three secondary plan. Uh it um calls for uh in this case a 20story building. The amendment before you is for a 30story building. There are couple reasons why um we propose this increase. Part of it is lot assembly. So we actually have put together a larger lot than the secondary plan anticipated. Part of it is um this secondary plan was prepared uh over a decade ago and since then uh density uh density requirements and needs have changed and um uh lastly we've been able to accomplish a significant transition. The the slide you have above uh shows some of the changes which uh I'll just go over on a high level that we've made to the proposal. Um, as noted, we we did meet with um, Councelor King and we did have a public consultation with his community. As you've heard from the delegates today, a lot of the comments are around traffic. Um, to that end, we did prepare a uh, traffic memo um, for councelor King's office that went above and beyond what's required for a TIA. And what it proposes is some traffic calming solutions for the ward. Um, when you do a TIA for a a site like this, you're usually constrained to the the specific location of the site. So, in this case, St. Laurent Boulevard. What you've heard here are area concerns about the the the neighborhood surrounding, which we considered important. Therefore, we propose some traffic calming measures. How are these funded? So, this application because of its uplift is subject to the community benefits charge, which uh uh is a 5% um contribution to uh councelor King's ward. And what that means is that there will actually be some capital that could be assigned to trafficcoming or to park improvements as King made uh clear in his remarks. Um and then of course this traffic memo and trafficcoming suggestions could be applied with uh subject to King's direction, councelor King's direction in uh other formats as well. So um lastly, what I'll touch on is uh to accomplish a better transition and uh the the staff presentation touched on this a bit. We increase the separation. There's a 20 m separation to uh the rear lot line which is substantial. uh the the requirement typically can be 11 and a half um and others depending on uh a number of factors. We also removed all the balconies to the rear of the building to avoid overlook into people's yards as well. Um and beyond that um we also uh uh put soil cells in the rear the rear of the um development plan to allow for mature trees to actually be planted rather than um smaller landscape elements. uh which should help as well with the buffer. So um there's there's been an extensive dialogue in my view with both staff and with the counselor's office to improve this proposal and uh make the 10story heights uh a little bit more sensitively dealt with um than uh than um when the proposal was first made. Miguel, do you have any additional remarks? Well, if we have 45 seconds. >> Well, only uh thank you, Scott. only to um continue to encourage the city. If you remember from the housing task force, one of the recommendations was to revise some of these older secondary plans. This one was carried over into the new OP was previously the Herdman Blair Salon TOD study from 2014 and um it is considerably out ofd and out of reach with your policy direction from your new official plan. And I would encourage staff to continue to look at those because there was a burden of a $40,000 application to clean up a secondary plan issue uh that um could be addressed internally. So, thank you. >> Thank you very much uh both. I'm just checking to see if there are any questions for you. >> Uh councelor Curry. >> Yeah. Uh so, thank you for that and I'm glad to see all the work councelor King's done. That sounds to me like you're getting closer to what the community might be okay with. Uh there still is the concept of the parking and um I I hear you that you're going to say to every person who wants to rent uh that there will be no parking if there if you run out of the 200. But at the end of the day, do you ever go back and find out or do the owners ever go back and find out what happened with that? Because this is an endless problem where you know the building will be there forever and if there are is a demand for people and and you know you've heard me say 10 times just to store their car somewhere you got to put it somewhere. Um the the impact on the neighbors and the whole city really when there's you do traffic calming and then you can't actually park on certain sections because of where the traffic calming is. So there's even less parking. Do you ever follow up to find out what actually happened? Uh thank you for your question, councelor Curry through you, Mr. Chair. Um so with the parking um subject to the direction of the applicant when we went to actually um uh design this building and design the framework, we conducted a study of basically all of our projects and what parking rates we've proposed. Um, and we found that the average parking rate for a building of this scale is between 0.5 and 67 spaces per unit. So, we're actually on the lower side of that. Um, uh, as you know, when when you do a underground parking garage, each level of parking is a substantial increase in cost. So, the intent to provide the parking at at this rate is really based on the determination that that's going to be appropriate for the building. Um we're we're kind of in a a tight situation relative to the fact that we are close to the LRT and we are trying to induce transit use. Um but there's also the essential um factor that people um need a place to store their vehicles whether they use them every day or whether they just need need them for you know errands, sports, things like that. Um parking is an essential need for uh locating families in buildings like this because again families need vehicles. Um but yeah, the parking the parking rate is one that we found that was appropriate just relative to balancing the fact that we are near transit and we want to induce transit. Um as you would see in the um the zoning amendment itself, we're proposing uh we're required to provide I should say 440 bicycle parking spaces um which we've allocated for in our um underground parking garage to basically again offset that need. So these are the factors that are at play that that we considered. I hope that answers your question, but if not, let me know. >> I mean, it's just, you know, long-term. I mean, I understand you're saying you think that's about what's demanded. But if if that fills up, so the 200 spaces, then you're not really out there studying what happens then to the streets and what happens the chaos that ensues afterwards, you know, for, you know, 5 year, 10 year, 15s. Um, anyway, I I I just and and I don't live in this area, but and you know, in Canada, we have a lot more parking in all of our buildings, but I just I always just think this is not enough for people to store their cars, and I don't know what the future will bring. Just one other comment on the I know if you go deeper, it's more expensive, but we've talked about in Canada having levels up above that are parking, but they look like apartments, so from the outside it looks great, and I'm not seeing that. Are you you're not seeing that either as an option? It's a little late on this file, but I just I wonder why we're not seeing more of that. >> Couple of additional thoughts. Um, so the the statistical analysis that that Scott referenced, so we've been doing this increasingly now for our clients where we are looking at um building precedents in the area. So we our our analysis probably looked at around 30 buildings in the general area. It's very specific to the area and it found that it like that those were the ranges of parking that was being provided. So we could assume that because developers have been consistently providing that level of parking, it's what works well. The worst case scenario for a developer is they overprovide for parking and make the building unaffordable for for improper reasons. But um you know, we looked at it. We've been doing these all over the city now because the city has a requirement of zero parking as you're aware. And I know this committee has recently been uncomfortable on some Orleans applications, but um previously developers could just rely on the 0.5 and say it's.5. That's what the current bylaw requires. But now developers are having to be maybe a little bit more sophisticated and that they're having to do a little bit more homework to figure out what the bylaw despite what the bylaw says, zero, what is the right rate. So we've been doing these these studies quite frequently and we've we've done one here that confirms that all of the new buildings like Luxo and all of the stuff because this area in councelor Tierney's ward and councelor Kings ward has been experiencing a fair amount of high-rise development and that's the range that everybody is seems to be doing. So you should assume that there is a certain amount of success related to that. Canada's a little different. Like this site has excellent proximity to a transit station, an LRT functioning LRT station and a transit priority corridor. Not all sites in Canada benefit from that. So, I could see why in suburban locations, it's a little different than the inner urban transact. This is this is ground zero for density and transit. >> Thanks, Michelle. And like we do have a transit station in Canada. It's just no train there. >> Yeah. Thank you, Councelor Curry. I don't see any further questions uh for you. Thank you very much for the presentation today. Thank you. We can move on to questions by members of staff. Councelor King. Oh, actually, I do want to wrap up. I'll go to councelor vice chair Gower first. >> Uh thanks, chair. Just two quick questions for staff. I I think Mr. Trombllay referenced 2014 as the year that the secondary plan was established. Is that correct? It's about that uh time frame. >> Thank you for the question through you, Mr. Chair. Um that rings a bell. I can double check that for you right now if you'd like. Uh but that sounds about accurate. >> Yeah, I just wanted to make sure. 12 years a lot has changed in the market and the uh planning context, housing context. I think that's important. Um and then the other this is which transact is this inner urban transct. >> Thank you for the question. Yes, that's correct. This is the inner urban transact. >> And would staff happen to know going back to the origin destination, we had some data transct by transect on car ownership in apartments. Would staff happen to know where that's at? Because I think it's relevant like when we're talking about what are the parking requirements. Um, I think the data would show that there's probably a lot of people who don't own cars living in apartments in this area. >> Yeah, thank you. That's an excellent question. Um, chair, I don't have that specific number in front of me, but based on my experience of other highrises in a similar context, like on a a main street corridor with good access to transit, the the numbers that uh Scotland did provide is is consistent with what I'm seeing in applications. that sort of range of 0.5 to 7 is is sort of what developers are proposing in response to what is anticipated as the market demand despite um in new zoning bylaw terms where there's not that requirement. The whole intent was to kind of open that up to make sure that the right balance is being provided and and that is a number that I'm seeing as as being quite consistent in those contexts. >> Okay. And then the uh bus priority lanes on St. Lauron, do we have a time frame for when that's planned? >> I don't know that the dates confirmed, but that EA process is is active right now. So, the important thing here to to mention as well is this application right now is only in for a zoning amendment. The site plan has not been submitted. So, we don't know if the site plan will be submitted soon, a couple years from now. But the intent is if that is on the earlier side of things that there would be coordination with that sailor EA study. >> Okay. >> And can can you say is it this like a five years out before those priority lanes 10 years beyond 10 years under the current plan? >> I don't know. >> Yeah. >> Might have to get back to you on that one. I don't think the funding's been confirmed. of the timeline will have to be can we can get back to you. >> Okay. All right. Um, I guess my last thought is just there we're getting a lot of these files where the secondary plan is far out of sync with the OP and I hope that over the next couple of years as soon as possible staff can have a look at these and harmonize them because it is incredibly difficult for counselors and for staff and for applicants to have a discussion about what's appropriate development when our planning documents say very different things depending on the year they came out. to the chair. Maybe I like to take that question. Um for those listening, I'm the general manager of planning, development, and building services. So, our new comprehensive zoning bylaw, as much as possible, took um a lens to heights and setbacks as they relate to reflect um more recent secondary plans and incorporate that. But we still do have quite a disconnect in terms of the older plans. We have uh waited on um making those adjustments because the province has indicated uh through some consultation that they want to remove secondary plans entirely. So we are waiting um maybe next spring. It's expected there'll be legislation get some more clarity on what cities are allowed to do in uh so we don't waste any work. Uh so I expect that to be a project that we get underway uh sometime late in 27. >> Thank you. Uh thank you so much chair and if you uh permit me I'll make some uh comments and then uh also pose some questions to staff. Uh but uh let me begin by being clear. I'm not here to oppose intensification and we'll support uh the report at council uh tomorrow. Uh this is a site where growth makes sense. St. St. Laura Boulevard is a major arterial corridor surrounded by major shopping areas within a protected major transit uh station area. And while the plans might be dated, we're hearing about the secondary plans and other area plans. Since 2012, the St. Lauron transit oriented uh development plan has set out the expectation for a vision for compact mixeduse growth within walking distance of rapid transit. And this application fits within that vision. Uh that vision is also in accord with the province's current intensification directives to accelerate housing supply and optimize existing infrastructure to facilitate growth. Big buildings belong on big priority transit corridors beside our biggest transit investment. My concern however mirrors uh those concerns that we've heard from residents. It how does that growth happen? Uh the scale and form of this development must fit with the established neighborhood to the west and existing residents should not carry a disproportionate share of the impacts. I want to acknowledge the applicant's work since the public consultation session that my office conducted with concerned residents. increased rear tower separation, a narrower floor plate, uh the removal of rearfacing balconies, and additional landscaping are real improvements, and they reflect meaningful input from the community and from staff. Uh my most significant outstanding concern mirrors those of residents, which is traffic. Uh during a site visit, residents showed my office and city staff U-turns, irregular turning movements, and vehicles cutting through residential streets instead of staying on the arterial network. Uh these concerns are not hypothetical. The applicant's own area traffic review prepared after consultation with my office and residents confirms U-turns and other turning movements at Queen Mary Street and Alistair Street, as well as cut through traffic on Alistister and Wolfdale Crescent. Uh so I would like to pose uh some questions to to staff. Um are staff satis satisfied that the transportation analysis adequately captures those existing conditions including movements that may not cap be captured through standard intersection counts. >> Uh Mr. Chair, thank you. Uh in terms of the uh transportation impact assessment for the purpose of the zoning uh requirements, we are satisfied and as we approach the site plan control, we will revise and refine the study as necessary. >> Okay. Well, I share residents concerns and I'm not fully satisfied with the assessment. I mean, that's not really news I'm supposing to staff or the applicant. So, uh I am satisfied though that there's going to be continued uh focus on uh traffic intervention uh um in these communities in this neighborhood uh to really uh address the the impacts. Um at that site visit, we uh physically saw the U-turns that were occurring on Alter. Uh we've heard consistently from residents about U-turns and other movements that may occur outside uh the locations captured by standard intersection counts. Have those movements been accounted for in staff's assessment of this application? >> Mr. Chair, can you repeat the question? I I didn't hear. So residents have been complaining about uh U-turns as a historic issue and uh we actually saw that on site uh with staff. Um so I'm wondering how have those movements been accounted for in staff's assessment of the application? uh those movements on Alistister are not accounted for in this train station impact assessment but they can be looked at as we move into the site plan control. Uh typically when we have a site on an arterial road uh in a major protected transit area, we use very low vehicle mode shares and we keep the study areas to uh a relatively confined uh radius. So uh a local road that runs parallel to the arterial is usually not part of that assessment. This is a unique circumstance because of the median on sale on Salon which causes Alistister to be become part of the actual uh network and the traffic uh pattern. Uh so I think uh I think there's some uh yeah I think there's some validity to to adding Alistister uh to a further analysis. But I I want to stress that the applicant is not is not responsible to address existing issues on this road. So uh I want everyone to you know temper your expectations in terms of uh any possible infrastructure improvements or trafficcoming improvements. Uh it's likely outside the scope of this applicant. Well, of course, uh residents expectations are higher than that and so are mine as being their their representative. And of course, uh the uh community will continue to uh seek uh those types of investments, especially if challenges, traffic challenges are compounded by this development. Uh so I want to really go on record. Uh I think that we are uh going in the right direction in terms of the conversations that we're having with staff and the potential uh for modifications to to Alistister. Uh but that is definitely a strong expectation of residents and a strong expectation of myself and my office. Uh the last question I have is if this application proceeds, uh what mechanisms are available through the site plan or construction process to keep construction vehicles and construction related parking off of Alistister, Queen Mary, Donald, and Wolfdale uh to the greatest extent possible. I got that. >> Uh so uh in terms of construction uh my colleagues in public works uh typically review a traffic management plan for the site and will uh comment and provide feedback on any sort of detours, construction accesses, lane closures, uh and things of that nature entirely related to the construction. Uh it's outside the scope of the traffic impact assessment. Uh but most certainly there will be a uh a detour plan, a traffic management plan submitted uh prior to construction and if if the council's office wants to uh you know provide input in into that plan that is absolutely acceptable and we can we can definitely make sure that that occurs uh prior to construction. >> Well, I appreciate that answer and there will definitely be continued input. You know, I respect the analysis that's been undertaken uh by the city, but trip generation numbers alone do not answer the community's concerns. Uh so a problem that already exists or that the project did not create on its own still matters uh when we add 401 new homes and 201 parking spaces to the same street. I would also note that standard intersection counts do not always capture midblock turning movements uh which uh we observed on site and that limitation uh should be and that that limitation should be weighed against what residents consistently report. uh you know we support and I support transit, cycling and sustainable transportation but we must also ensure that construction traffic circulation and parking pressures especially from visitors uh do not spill onto local streets. So as this file continues to move forward and I I would acknowledge that if it is approved at uh a committee uh today and at council tomorrow uh that it moves over to site plan. Uh but I'll continue to uh continue to ask staff to keep a particular focus on five things. Uh first, the cumitive traffic impacts on Alistair Street, Queen Mary Street, Donald Street, and Wolfdale Crescent. Uh second, turning movements that standard counts may miss. Third, the risk of development and construction traffic using local residential streets. Fourth, coordination with the St. Lauron Transit Priority Environmental Assessment. And fifth, pedestrian and cycling safety, especially given the nearby schools. I also ask that the traffic calming work transportation staff have already begun continue in parallel with this application uh so that permanent traffic control measures can be put in place on Alistister before new residents arrive. Uh so I know that's what I was hearing clearly uh from residents and that's what uh I'll continue to pursue. Consideration must also be given to controlling where visitors to the proposed park uh building will park so that visitor parking does not overwhelm local streets. Finally, a development of the scale should leave a lasting benefit for uh the community around it. Uh so as noted in my comments, uh Lawson Park is a vital green space for this neighborhood and I would ask staff uh respectfully and the applicant to give serious consideration to Lawson Park as a priority for community benefit charge funding whether through improved amenities, expanded green spaces or upgraded facilities. That investment would serve both the residents who live here today and those uh who will call uh this building home. Thank you so much, Chair Thank you very much, councelor King. I don't see any further questions from members. I don't think there's any amendments on this one. So, is the item carried as uh as presented as recommended? Thank you. That is that item. Thank you very much to staff for their work on that. Which brings us to the last substantive item on the agenda, which is 342 Roosevelt Avenue in beautiful Kitches Ward. We have um a staff presentation on this one. And whenever you're ready, we're in your hands. Thank you. >> Okay. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um and good morning, members of Planning and Housing Committee. My name is Jean Shaenu. giving you a brief presentation today about 342 Roosevelt. Next slide, please. The property is located at within the Westboroough neighborhood at the terminus of Roosevelt Avenue adjacent to the O train corridor and within 200 meters of the planned Kit CB station. Next slide, please. Properties located within the inner urban transct policy area of the official plan where transportive intensification is promoted. property is also located within the Richmond Richmond Road Westboro secondary plan area where a maximum height of six stories is permitted for this particular property. The property was zoned R5B under zoning bylaw 2008250 and is zone N5C under zoning bylaw 2026 uh50 both having heights of 19 m. Next slide please. The zoning bylaw amendment was originally submitted in 2017 alongside a site plan control application proposing the construction of a six-story mid-rise apartment building containing 26 dwelling units. Earlier this year, the applicant opted to terminate the site plan control application and to proceed with zoning bylaw amendment. The site plan control application was accompanied by a tree conservation report recommending the removal of the oak tree located within the Roosevelt Avenue rightway. With the site plan control application now terminated, the tree is not proposed to be removed at this time. While city forestry staff approved tree conservation reports submitted within the former development application which recommended removal of the tree, any future site plan control application or build building permit application would be subject to a new review of the proposed tree removal based on the details of the proposed proposal submitted at that time. As future development plans may differ from the original proposal, the outcome of that review cannot be determined in advanced. Next slide, please. The requested zoning relief includes provisions related to height, front, rear, sideyard setbacks, parking requirements to a rooftop amenity projection, and to the width of a walkway. Although the maximum height limit is sought to be increased from 19 m to 21 m, the ultimate height will remain consistent with the secondary plan at six stories. Next slide, please. Although the site plan control application was terminated, here we see a site plan and a rendering showing what the zoning bylaw amendment amendment originally sought to permit. Note the generous sideyard setback to the north of the property which was required in order to provide a 4 and 1/2 meter wide buffer from the existing trunk sewer and high transmission water main located along the transit corridor. This infrastructure will be further protected via the implementation of an easement at the time of a future site control application. Next slide, please. Staff are supportive of the zoning bylaw amendment as it demonstrates the possibility of a transit supportive intensification project promoting livability on site while securing a necessary setback to an important piece of city infrastructure. Thank you. >> Thank you very much, JC. Uh so we do have some public delegations on this one as well as a representative from the applicant. Uh to the applicant, did you want to present sort of uh to go off the top? Usually those presentations already cover the ground of uh or do you want to present at the end to respond to what you've heard? >> Okay. In that case, we'll move on to our public delegations. Uh Nick Cheeseman is here, who will be followed by Tim Gray, who is here, who will be followed by Sharon Katz, who is here. Good morning, Mr. Chieman. Um, whenever you're ready, uh, just hit the button and you'll have five minutes to prove. >> Can I just ask a quick point of order question? Maybe two. So, what he just said is different than what's in front of us regarding the tree. >> Okay. >> So, I'm not sure how that plays into this. I am not a planner or immersed in the intricacies of how this all works. I'm just a local resident. Um, so everything that we've seen suggests removal of the tree and I can get into that more but just like to come back to that after. >> Y I think the the question is the the timing. So no tree permit is going to be issued as a result of uh a resoning today. >> Uh Mr. Mr. Chair, that's your no tree permit uh is to be issued until a site plan control is approved. And at this time, the site plan control application was terminated. >> And then when a site plan comes forward and and building permits issued, uh then there would be an application for a tree permit, >> an application for tree permit as uh in support of a uh revised uh tree conservation report uh regarding the the next or new proposal. and then that would be evaluated uh on the merits at the time. But I think we could probably anticipate that the the general manager would sign off on that if the building proceeds as proposed. That that that's correct. It would be evaluated on its own merits. U but as as stipulated in the report, the uh forestry staff did approve u removal of the tree in principle based on the previous uh design that has now been terminated. >> Okay. So the um I appreciate the the committee's indulgence here, but the uh the zoning is moving ahead with forestry's recognizing with forestry recognizing that if it were built as proposed under the the new zoning that that would probably result in the result of the uh removal of the tree. >> Uh that is correct, Mr. Chair. >> Is that the clarification? >> Yes. Thank you. >> And uh so that's uh that's not out of your time obviously. Whenever you're ready, we'll have minutes. So, uh, thank you for taking the time, um, to listen to me. As I said, I'm here as a member of the community. Um, and I think as is evident, and I think you've received multiple, um, written submissions from the community. I, along with a lot of the community are opposed to the proposed exemptions uh, for 342 Roosevelt. Um, I want to be clear, I support intensification, I support infill development, and I support transit oriented growth. In fact, my family and I live in a recently constructed infill uh a semi- detached um on this very street about 5 mters away from the subject property being 349 Roosevelt instead of 342. I understand both the need for additional housing and the importance of creating walkable complete communities. I do not support the idea that intensification should come at the expense of every other objective in our planning framework. The city of Ottawa's planning policies were written to balance competing interests. housing supply, neighborhood livability, environmental protection, urban design, housing diversity, and community character. My concern is that this proposal achieves only one objecting objective while significantly compromising all of the others. Let me be clear. I am not opposed to intensification on this site. The secondary plan permits six stories. As we've heard, the site is closest to Kiti Station, and provincial and municipal policies strongly support intensification in locations like this. However, that does not mean that every design proposed for every site should automatically be approved, especially if they do not fit within the rules. Rules that have been developed and agreed upon through a long and thorough process. This application requires numerous exceptions to existing planning rules in order to fit this particular building onto this particular lot. It seeks relief for lot area requirements, building height, front yard setbacks, sideyard setbacks, rooftop projections, and most notably, a reduction in their rear setback from 7 1/2 m to 1.2. These are not minor deviations. Yet throughout the staff report, these exceptions are repeatedly described as producing appropriate setbacks, appropriate transitions, and appropriate massing without adequately demonstrating how those conclusions were reached. The staff report asks us to accept that the resulting building fits appropriately within its context, but offers little evidence to support that assertion. And context matters. The report argues that the proposed height is appropriate for the surrounding area, yet the surrounding blocks consist predominantly of two-story homes. At the same time, the produc proposal reduces setbacks that would otherwise provide separation between the six-story building and neighboring properties. It is difficult to understand how reducing those separation distances constitute an appropriate transition. Staff also justify the extraordinary reduction in the rear setback, partly because the adjacent city-owned parcel is described as vacant land with no sensitive uses. But this characterization is not accurate. The property has been designated as parkland. It is not merely an empty lot. It is a public green space. And we have lost a lot of green space within a few small blocks. LRT construction removed a large green space and hundreds of trees. Realignment of the Kitabi Mikan Parkway removed several large mature trees. And the temporary quote unquote transit detour well into its fifth year removes significant green space as well. This parkland also has a very large maple tree quite close to the subject property with no consideration giving on the impact on the significant tree, its root zone or the appropriate transition in the staff report. Surely the interface between a six-story residential building and public parkland deserves greater consideration before reducing the setback from 7.5 to just over a meter. The proposal also calls for the removal, as we've just discussed, the significant burr oak tree. Staff acknowledge that the proposed excavation will result in the loss of the significant city-owned tree on the right ofway that is more than 150 years old. I accept the evidence that the tree cannot survive the current design, but it's not the same thing as demonstrating that development could be achieved while preserving the tree. The report references discussions regarding alternative layouts, but no meaningful analysis of different options have been proposed and they matter because this is not an ordinary tree. More than 750 residents have signed a petition seeking its preservation. I think other deputants will speak more about that. I will also note there are other significant trees on this property, not to mention a 10-meter Norway map Maple amongst others which I'm sure will be destroyed as well. We should also be honest about the type of housing that is being delivered. This proposal includes 26 units, 14 one-bedroom and 12 two-bedroom, there are no three-bedroom, there are no affordable units. When concerns are raised about housing diversity, staff responded that several one-bedroom units contain dens. With respect, I find that response unconvincing. A one-bedroom unit with a den is not the same thing as family-sized housing. The city's own planning framework calls for a diversity of housing types and units capable of accommodating larger households. Later, uh I also want to call attention to I think a critical error in the report. In the executive summary, it states that four individuals submitted correspondence regarding the application with three in support on page five. Later in the report, the consultation section states that in fact 44 individuals submitted correspondence with only three expressing support. That's a change of 75% in support to 7% in support. There um at a minimum, this discrepancy should be explained and corrected before the committee relies on the report. I also can't help but feel that the current process has been rushed. We are here in front of committee on October 7th. residents and only those that had previously submitted comments back in 2025 received an email notification only on October 1st. There was no physical mail out and there was very little time to discuss the staff report. In my experience, city planners did not respond to my request to discuss the issue. Ultimately, I asked that we do not accept the premise that supporting intensification requires accepting this particular design, this collection of zoning exceptions, the loss of a city-owned oak, a 1.2 2 meter interface of public parkland and a housing mix that does little to advance affordability or family housing. >> And Nick, I need I'm sorry. It's you're significantly over time. I need to cut you off there. >> Okay. Sorry. I'm happy to address other questions. There are other concerns as well. >> Thank you. Do members have questions of the delegation? Thank you very much. That was well thought through presentation. Um, Tim Grace, >> Tim, it's been a while. Good to see you. You know, >> yeah, I've been trying not to bother you too much, Jeff. I know you're busy these days. Okay. Um, so, uh, I'm with the Westboro Community Association and, uh, basically what happened is, uh, after the planning report came out, Jeff kind of threw the gauntlet down to us to come up with planning rationale to oppose the project. So I think um uh Christian uh Nature from our association sent a prepared a I I think a pretty good detailed uh analysis of you know why why there's some concerns here and the rationale. So really what I'm here today to do is talk about the tree and the rationale to save that tree. And because in the planning report there's there's really there's nothing. It doesn't talk about you know 4.8.2 two of the official plan and you know line by line how that that that the removal of that tree works against that that policy that uh so really um what I want to say is that there's three three real important elements here. The first one is the tree protection bylaw. It's uh and what that what that bylaw does is because the tree straddles the property line in that tree protection. It's clear that tree becomes the municipal property that is theirs to deal with however they they they wish. The next one naturally is um is 4.8.2 two of the uh OP and it's there's very clear uh uh guidelines in that how the conservation of trees are to be dealt with in um the the uh process of development. And the the last one is um something I'm pretty familiar with and that's the forestry act of Ontario. And there's it's clear in there that if a tree has shared uh ownership or uh that you cannot just randomly cut the thing down. The city has a right to within the forestry act protect that tree. They can just above and beyond what is uh it's not a planning rationale. It is the forestry act and that prevents and there is a ton of case law that defends that would defend the city's right to prevent that tree from being uh removed whether and and that is not something that would go to the OOT. It would go across this across the uh courtyard here to to uh uh the provincial court. And I'm I'm you know knowing what I know about that I think they would they would certainly have a strong case. Um really uh I you know I just don't have the time to go through the email that I sent you Jeff line by line but I I I I went through that and I what I did was um uh because it's not in the planning report the the um there is no reference at all to this 4.8.2 to. And there's lots of references to the to the um uh official plan and bylaws that support the the project, but it it it doesn't. And the and the other thing that is kind of worried me is that I don't I don't see forestry. I don't see the comments from forestry. it's filtered through the planning and uh because I spend so much time dealing with uh dealing you know at the committee of adjustment you know forestry trees and everything is very important there so I have a lot of contact with forestry and I've got a ton of respect for them but I think that um the the the other thing I want to say is that in all this you know over the past couple of years that this thing has been on the um you know plate there. Not one person, not one community member has said to me this we can't develop this there. Nobody is opposed to the development of this property. what they're opposed to is that the the loss of the tree and they're thinking if we can't you know we have all these these you know tree protection bylaw uh and they and so on. Yeah. and they're worried if we don't if we can't save this tree, how how what what what chance do we have to save any other trees? There is >> on that note, Tim, I got I got to cut you off over time. >> An opportunity the project. >> Thank you, Tim. >> Um so we'll go to we've got a question from councelor. Yes, thanks Tim. Um, so I think councelor Leaper gave you a good piece of advice that you know you have to come up with a planning rationale. So do you believe then that a planning rationale there could be a planning rationale that because the forestry act kicks in here this we should not uh pass this. Is that actually >> you know we we talk about planning rationale all the time this committee but is that one of them? I've never heard that one. >> Well it's you know I'll I'll I'll give you my background. I was a land surveyor. So, you know, uh, in in property lines and things like that, you know, there's always a lot of issues around trees and, you know, one neighbor fighting the other. I don't want I don't like that tree. I you know and I had to educate myself on that because you know I had to say to people hey you can't you can't you know get arburist in and you know take the take the top off that tree or cut everything down on your side. you will be sued because and and that the Forestry Act is there to prevent that and you know put it to uh put it you know into the you know courts for a judge to decide is that a reasonable um uh action and the the the case law is that you cannot just simply uh cut a tree down. You can't even damage a tree without going through that process. Okay. The other thing is that again there's very specific um uh guidelines in the official plan 4.8.2 it it that that clearly um is is not you know being followed here. The one important thing in that is that from the very beginning uh that a project is being um considered tree retention has to be right at the top of the page. And the other thing is that you know in in that context the retention of trees is way above you know the replacement. if that tree uh if that tree was damaged, you know, not, you know, not in good health, uh was on totally on their property, I would say, okay, there's no there's no case here. But because of this specific circumstance, there is a case. And I think that, you know, as part of the Westboro Community Association, we are responding to, you know, what we're hearing from the community, you know, not just on this street, but across Yeah. >> Okay. Great. Thank you. I'll have more questions for staff. Thank you for that. >> Thank you, chair, and thank I've got a question for you, sir, over here. Um, thank you for coming in today. Just can you elaborate a little further for the committee today about your efforts and the association's efforts to um discuss ways to mitigate mitigate the impact on the tree by perhaps relocating the exact location of where the new building will be located. Was that attempted? What were the results of those inquiries? I think you touched upon it as part of your presentation, but I want you to expand on that now. >> Well, my response to that is um it takes two to tango. It really takes two to tango and there's been zero uh other than the um uh the public meeting that that Jeff organized, you know, as part of the uh uh the zero contact They I I know that that um the agents uh know uh of the Westboro Community Association because I've worked with other planners from that company and and and it's been good. I've, you know, I have a good relationship with them and and you know, I'm not a builder. I'm not a planner, but I'm willing to listen uh back and forth. And I really do uh think that there is a uh a project that could save that tree. Sure. We've got to and it and I definitely believe that uh adding some height to that to the building is is a way to do that. and the new zoning uh you know 2026-50 or whatever it is it it it already allows for a greater height. I think it's up to 30 m. So the the the new zoning um it does it's it's saying hey you know we've got to build higher. That's that's and and I think that the residents of Westboro, you know, have accepted that, you know, in instead of two stories, now it's three stories. Instead of, you know, five stories or six stories, it's seven or eight stories. That is that is a real um consideration here. And I, you know, I get it. I get it that that um you know they've got to uh uh have a project that works for them, but we also have to have a project that works for the community and and make the community livable. And you know, um, as I've been going through this, you know, consultation with the with the with the our residents, certainly not the the developer. He's he just like doesn't doesn't acknowledge us at all. They what happened on July 1st is scared the hell out of people. And I'm not saying that, you know, saving this one tree. I mean, that's going to make things, but it's it's tree retention and what trees do for the the the the community and it's it's it's one element just it's part of that and we cannot dismiss uh the that element what the trees and tree retention and soft landscaping, you know, does to mitigate, you know, what happened on the first. It just people are really really scared. They they don't want to see what happened, you know, in Teresa Kavanaaugh's uh ward happened in in in in in Westboro. So, it's it's it's I I truly truly believe that there would and could be a uh a a project that could work for both sides here if they would just sit down and, you know, at least talk to us. Thank you very much, uh, Councelor Brockington. Uh, thank you, Tim. I don't see any further questions for you. I'm good. I've got the emails. Thank you. And so we have Sharon Katz. >> Good morning, Sharon. Whenever you're ready, you'll have five minutes. Uh just hit the uh button on the microphone to turn it on. Good morning. Um, I don't live in the neighborhood. I am a friend of uh the woman who has the petition online that has gathered hundreds of signatures in support of keeping the tree. I am here to express my opinion that the staff report on the proposed project is a shoddy piece of work. They have come up with excuses for almost everything that's wrong with this proposed development. They start off with a statement on page five that is factually incorrect. To be more blunt, that is a lie. And more to the point, a lie that is totally mis a totally misleading description of the uh results of the consultation process. The city staff report states on page five that correspondents were received from approximately approximately four individuals, three of which expressed support. That sounds good. Three out of four express support. That's 75%. But when we get to page 10, we learn that correspond correspondences were received from approximately 44 individuals, three of which express support. That's a totally different story. That's less than 10% or more specifically 7%. It's a difference between a substantial majority and a skimpy minority. Then about some of the specific concerns about the proposal and the excuses the staff report comes up with to address them. one, there's no on-site park parking. The staff says that's okay because the the building will be fairly close to a transit station. Really, we all know that if there's no on-site parking uh provided by the builder, then tenants of the building will be parking on the street. The staff goes further and says that since the builder doesn't provide parking, they therefore don't have to address any concerns regarding traffics, specifically the turning circle at the end of Roosevelt Avenue. Two, there's inadequate bicycle parking. Having decided that nobody in the building will need a car, the builder is proposing to offer bicycle parking at the rate of one to one parking spot per unit. The building will have two-bedroom apartments with multiple occupants, but they will only be allocated one bicycle parking spot per unit. City staff says that's okay. Then there's the big one, the large city on Burr Oak tree. There is an online petition with hundreds of signatures calling on the buro to be safe. The report contains a copy of a submission from the Westboro Community Association that deals with a number of these issues. The city has a tree protection bylaw, but the opponents of this project have chosen to ignore it and city staff has chosen to enable that choice. The Westboro Community Association submission makes a number of constructive suggestions for improving this proposal. I submit that the developer should go back to the drawing board and come up with a better proposal that can be welcomed by the existing neighborhood. And um since I've got time left, um I asked uh uh Nick Cheeseman for some of his his uh closing remarks. Um he uh asked this a number of questions. What alternative building envelopes were actually evaluated to uh determine that substantial sixtory development could not be achieved while preserving the city-owned oak? Can an alternative approach bring both housing growth while respecting the other planning considerations? Second, are the proposed exceptions to the setbacks appropriate given the context, in particular the massive reduction in the rear setback given the adjacent property's designation as parkland rather than simply as vacant land. And third, why is the committee being asked to grant this extensive collection of sightspecific exceptions without a clearer demonstration of how the proposal reconciles the city's intensification objectives with its equally explicit policies on tree preservation, consect sensitive development, housing diversity, and neighborhood livability. Uh I as he says he does not believe that voting against this proposal is the same as voting against housing. The committee has every right to demand better evidence, better justification and a better balance among the objectives the council itself has adopted. Um this proposal as it stands is not good and uh the uh proponent should be uh asked to uh improve it. >> Thank you very much. Those are your comments. Um, I don't see that any members have questions for you. Thank you very much for the delegation today. Uh, Mr. Reid, on behalf of the applicant. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee. Um, my name is Tim Be. I have a presentation today, but I believe a lot of the information has been covered already, and so I'll just stay on the cover page and and I'm able to answer questions after uh some brief words here. Um I'm from Foten. I'm representing uh the applicant on this file. And I'd like to thank staff in the community and the counselor for for their feedback and their work on this file. Specifically, just wanted to note staff's support of the application and the work that we've put in together to uh bring it to planning and housing committee today. As discussed, the zoning bylaw amendment seeks to resone the property in order to establish those sightsp specific zoning exceptions to permit a development of a mid-rise apartment. The sought-after zoning relief is a result of accommodating a very unique and specific servicing requirement from the underground infrastructure to the north on the lands which do limit uh substantially the development uh footprint available to the project. So, as you as you've heard today, the proposal represents the practical application of the official plan and more specifically the secondary plan uh which does permit and promote appropriate and complimentary intensification in this area which is in close proximity to a number of key amenities and services um city parks, schools, the Richmond traditional main street with its services and shops as well as the LRT uh station within only a few hundred meters and the existing multi-use pathway and In that sense, the proposal does represent appropriate intensification within an appropriate height leading to the desired approach and objective of 15-minute communities in in Ottawa. Um from a sightsp specific consideration, the property is well suited to accommodate this proposed uh redevelopment as it is surrounded on the majority of its frontages by city right ofway, city infrastructure easements, the uh currently vacant but proposed um future parkland as well as a vacant lot to the south as well allowing for appropriate transition and massing uh uh compatibility for the site. Um so the future context including the existing as well as planned future context through the secondary plan zoning bylaw and approved development is appropriately appropriate and representative of intensification in the area. There's a 15-story building that has been proposed directly east of the subject site on the other side of Roosevelt. uh as noted in the staff uh presentation and report but important to reiterate although generally the OP in these areas uh permits uh four stories. It specifically notes that um where a secondary plan permits additional height uh that that um policy document would prevail and take precedence which is the case here with the secondary plan allowing for the proposed height as uh as seen today. Um so the proposal today before you represents a practical and modest amendment to the zoning bylaw framework on the lands and fosters that ongoing evolution and progression in the community um which is well suited to accommodate this type of growth. Um there are many constraints on the land as has been noted. Um however the development does facil facilitate an appropriate intensific intensification here. And so I think what I do want to speak to um is the removal of the existing tree which has been an ongoing discussion. We are very aware of the concerns raised. Um there's been a lot of discussion and consideration within our team for potential solutions to this uh to this issue. It is a very constrained site. The tree um due to the proximity of the hydro wires on the pro property's uh eastern boundary is heavily weighted towards the west because of pruning that has occurred. And so therefore any reduction in setback that was explored here uh would be unfeasible in terms of continuing to support any type of development that would um support the city's official plan and secondary plan targets. The majority of the tree including roots and canopy are into the property into the to the west of the property and uh the successful uh retention of the tree would be extremely difficult if not impossible. Uh this is all uh as concluded by the TCR which was submitted as part of this application to assess and provide recommendation on the potential uh retention of the tree. Uh the process has been fully followed as per the protocol and and legislation uh in terms of um communicating with the city. Anytime that a tree needs to be removed if there's shared ownership concerns, there's an ongoing discussion that occurs and this has occurred here. It's important to also note that this is uh truly infill development which is significantly more beneficial to the community in terms of its environmental and canopy goals than green field development which would result in significantly more tree removal likely than you would see here. The other benefit here is that through um this application and future site plan control applications there will be a considered and robust uh tree replanting program. When we see trees removed in other parts of the city for other reasons on private or public property without development, there often isn't this robust and and well-considered replanting plan, which is a huge benefit here. Um, I'm happy to answer any questions and continue this discussion. Thank you so much. >> Thank you, chair. So, just so I'm crystal clear, uh will a future site plan and the eventual development of this site uh guarantee protection of the tree or are you confirming today that it's highly likely that the tree will be coming down? >> Uh through chair and thank you for the question. Um no it wouldn't guarantee production of the tree but it would guarantee that the proper process and protocol is followed to assess the um potential the required removal of the tree based on the proposal the site constraints and the um redevelopment of the site based on the direction of the PPS the official plan the secondary plan the TCR which was previously submitted indicated that even significant red um increases in the setbacks in the front yard would unlike likely be successful in providing a scenario where the tree could be retained due to what I mentioned previously the uh tre's um condition through pruning by hydro and uh where it's left in a situation where the majority of the canopy and a significant portion of the root zone is deep into the property. the uh in the future when a site plan control is resubmitted uh all of the required plans and studies will be submitted including a tree conservation report a landscape plan which will propose replanting and uh mitigation of trees lost and then obviously at a certain point when it comes down to actually considering the removal of the tree um the tree protection bylaw will be considered and a tree permit will be requested and uh deliberated at that time. So, I I'm just trying to get some clear answers to my questions. Are you attempting to save the tree? Like, is your priority to eventually submit a site plan that protects and retains the tree going forward? Or have you already concluded that regardless of what you do on the site, the tree will be impacted to its detriment and will have to be removed >> through you, Mr. Jiren, thanks for the opportunity to clarify. Uh through the assessment that's been conducted to date, it has been determined that it is um would be extremely difficult and not feasible for site redevelopment to retain the tree. Uh and so the intent would be not not today as was mentioned in the in the staff report. Uh future development is um needs to follow that proper process. So site plan control, building permits and and the like. But at that time following the proposal and the zoning amendments that we've requested today, uh the tree would um most likely have to be removed to accommodate that unless uh there was substantial changes which we have determined would likely render the redevelopment of the site to be non feasible given the other constraints most notably the city infrastructure easement to the north which significantly reduces the developable area of the site. >> Okay. So the trees coming down. Um talk to me about uh pushing the entire building to the west to provide a greater buffer between the actual tree the root zone and where the building will actually stand. What's preventing you from pushing it further back? >> Uh through you chair and thank you for the question. The proposal already propose uh requests a reduction in the western setback which is the rear setback to a point that we believe maintains the ability to be compatible and transition to the future well the vacant lands now but potential future parklands. Any further reduction I don't believe would be um well I can't speak for staff but it would be a different discussion and a significantly even more so reduced step. >> So what's the width now in the proposal? What is the the the difference between where the building will stand and the western property line? How many meters? >> Uh thank you, chair. There's 1.2 m setback for the rear yard or the western setback of the proposed building. >> Okay, fair enough. Okay, that's it for me for the applicant. Thank you. >> Thank you, vice chair. Uh following up on my colleagues questions, what about the suggestion from the delegation of increasing your height um as a way to preserve that tree? Was that explored >> and through you chair and thank you for the question uh councelor. Uh there was a number of different iterations explored. Obviously going above the proposed height would require an official plan amendment and would then trigger potentially other uh compatibility issues. Uh further uh the the width of the building and the the uh parameters of the site uh in terms of its its um required setbacks and the infrastructure. If we reduce the front yard setback and went up, it would create quite a narrow and inefficient building. It didn't seem like that would be a feasible approach here. Further, as discussed, the the tree that um is in question, the roots as well as the canopy are heavily weighted to the to the west. Um and the setback that would be required to ensure protection, retention of the tree would be significant um likely uh not achievable in this instance uh without still likely incurring damage, detrimental damage to the tree. >> Okay. I may follow up on that with staff as well. Thank you, Chair. >> Thanks, Councelor Curry. So, one of the things I've been wondering about is when one of the uh speakers indicated there they didn't see any other options, other renditions that the uh developer I'm seeing is Concord has looked at that this the community could have considered. Is that true? Were there no other, you know, we instead we could build a building that was higher or different or were there any other true full options that were presented >> and through you Mr. chair and thank you for the question councelor. Uh there were within the development team we we looked at potential options. Uh it immediately it immediately became quite clear that again given the um requirements of the tree and its root zone and canopy that the setback required even through re reiterative design would be very difficult to achieve and and likely unfeasible from a redevelopment perspective and from a programming perspective on the building. And so nothing was shared um explicitly publicly. We we certainly had the public information meeting. We heard the feedback. Um we we understood that it was an an important consideration and something that the community felt passionate about and to so took that seriously and and re-examining potential options on the site. Um but as discussed given the site's dimensions, the infrastructure to the north and the uh extent to which the tree extends into the property uh there wasn't another feasible option that was available to us. So, and including just having more floors to have more. It's about how many units like you couldn't just go higher instead of wider >> and through you Mr. Chair. Um the first consideration there are obviously a multitude of considerations in terms of redeveloping an infill site in a community. And so bringing the building taller um would obviously uh trigger different considerations which we felt would be um potentially equally as concerning to the community. We felt that the proposed height was appropriate facilitated by the official plan in the second air plan and was able to achieve that community compatibility that is also extremely important. But then bringing the building higher would and also then consequently bringing in the front yard setback because of the extent of the tree wouldn't work from a building design and programming perspective. the the setback required to actually protect the tree like in in um in a guaranteed fashion um would render the actual development very difficult to achieve if not impossible just because of the extent of the treere's roots and and um canopy cover. >> Okay. I I guess I don't I'm not happy that they didn't actually the community didn't actually get to see other versions and have some input. I think that's what they were saying. We would have liked to have seen that and give some suggestions. I mean I just find it difficult to believe. I think other countries do all kinds of different unique architectural designs to save trees and because they have different views. I mean, we have the forestry act as we've heard, but um I I'm sad that that didn't happen for the community to actually see all the various options and they might have come up with a different idea. I know it has to pencil as they say, but even still. Okay. Thanks a lot. >> Thanks, um Councelor Kavanagh. >> Yeah, thank you chair. Um and uh thanks for the presentation. Uh I share the concern um regarding the tree. Um and uh I I feel like things are done backwards where we're you're designing uh a building and then oh the tree has to go rather than the tree must stay. What can we do to design it so that the tree can stay there? That that's seems to be I thought we were getting to that point um when we talked about the tree bylaw. we worked on that so hard. So, um I'm I'm disappointed that uh that that cannot be achieved. Um and uh I and especially in an area like this with some very few old growth trees. So anyway, that's I just wanted to express that. My my other question is um in and I know this is a site plan issue, but in terms of zero parking, what about deliveries etc. because I'm finding that um when there's reduced parking or zero parking um you know people get things delivered and it doesn't even seem like there's a place for you know a vehicle to pull up. Um what if people are getting groceries delivered etc like there it is it all dependent on the street? Are you is there nothing um for the building for uh for delivery vehicles to to pull up >> and through you counselor and thank you uh chair and thank you for the question councelor. Uh in this instance in many other infilty parking wouldn't uh be required whether or not resident parking was proposed and generally they would uh pull up on the on the street to make that delivery. Uh so in front of the street on on the curb at the curb uh the sight specific parking and stopping or loading restrictions would kind of govern how that might work. Um, but in general, even with resident parking provided, delivery would more than likely uh use the street, pull up at the front and and deliver to the front door, as is typically the case. >> Okay. I think that's uh that I think that's problematic um when it happens over and over again. But um I've I've come across this in my own ward and um I think this is something that we have to think about because more and more things are getting delivered and um it's an issue. Um but um again um I think we have to look at for trees we have to look at them first then the planning so that we're not doing things backwards. Thank you. >> Thank you and through you Mr. Chair. Yes. and uh through the future applications that are required on the site. Certainly a landscape plan and a revised TCR will consider um potential tree removal as well as tree uh retention and replacement. Um as said previously throughout the city for various reasons, trees are proposed to be removed and approved to be removed. Um but the unique uh attributes of a site plan control application mean that as a requirement we need to spin a landscape plan uh and a and a tree replacement plan to to proceed with the application. And so um although it uh the mature tree is is proposed to be lost here there will be a significant replanting plan as proposed at a future site plan control application through a landscape plan. >> Okay. Thank you. I don't see any further questions from members. I just want to make sure that I'm uh clear on on some of the discussion that's been happening here. Um there's a a lot and there's a big front tree there. Sorry, there's a big tree in the front yard of the existing dwelling that is there. The uh proposal is for a multi-unit building. Uh, and for obvious reasons, it is uh I can't remember how many meters uh closer to an LRT station. Your client um has moved the building back, you know, to within 1.2 m of the rear lot line. So, there's no uh real setback to speak of there. And what the community would like to see is that you push the front setback back to the point where it would allow the tree to survive. If I understand what you said, your assertion is that if you move that front yard setback so far back that you can't actually develop a building that is x number of meters from one to from the back to the front even if you have extra height is that the assertion thank you Mr. Chair that is the conclusion that we arrived in terms of to in terms of exploring potential alternative options to redevelopment. Yes. So just not enough room from the front wall of the building to the back room of the back wall of the building to build a multi-residentidential to >> to build a multi-residentidential and to ensure that that change that iteration would actually secure the successful retention of the tree. Um as previously mentioned the tree is heavily weighted to the west. uh there's a lot of pruning that has occurred through hydro Ottawa and so the canopy and and the and the root system you know and then it's to the road to the east and so the the this healthy and um existing canopy and root system uh extends to the west um more than more so than to the east and therefore uh the setback that we were required to preserve the tree uh likely would result in a in a building design that didn't couldn't be achieved on the site. So could you build a smaller semi- detached dwelling within that footprint >> and through you Mr. Chair um that iteration of the project wasn't really explored. There's um I mean I think we've seen some small semid attached throughout your ward and others still result in the removal of front yard trees. I think generally uh there's no guarantee that uh redevelopment of a smaller scale would uh necessarily preserve the tree. Also there's a a you know the competing and equally important objective of the province and the city to ensure that uh the majority of our redevelopment and residential intensification occurs within the urban area and previously established and well um well uh provisioned communities like this. Uh certainly there's other options of um growth management could occur where in the urban area of Ottawa only you know semi and single detached buildings are proposed but where does the growth occur elsewhere and otherwise and and you know that would tend to be in Greenfield or or um further out away from existing development which would then lead to significant loss of trees um or of important lands with ecological features as well. And so, uh, it is a balance. Obviously, promoting and providing for residential in intensification is an an extremely important priority for the city of Ottawa. And so, we believe that this is an appropriate and compatible building. We've explored opportunities to protect the tree, which none of which seem to be truly feasible, and are are confident and supportive of of the application that we've brought to you today. If the reasonzoning were refused, what would the developer do with the property? Thank you, chair. Um, I can't really speculate uh as to what they would do with the property. Um, there are uh hypotheticals out there that are unknown to me. Uh, it may sit vacant. um another developer may push purchase it and try to push through a different type of application or request approvals. Um but it is un something that is unknown to me right now what would happen if the developments approved. I mean certainly there's opportunity to go to the OOLT or to explore different approval paths but I'm I'm really not um aware of what you know contingency planning would be here. So, you're in the business of of um uh suggesting building forms that uh fit with artificial plan and and can be uh reszoned if necessary. Do you see options for demolishing the existing building and building something on this property that would retain the tree? From my understanding in terms of discussing with uh the project architect as well as the arbor arborist who was retained to commission the TCR um the extent of the treere's root system and canopy into the yard would uh significantly restrain potential options for future redevelopment. Uh there certainly um there could be options of a much smaller single detach potentially, but I we haven't looked at that and I'm not sure that that's really desirable for um the city's overarching objectives. But from what we've seen, the extent of the um trees uh root zone and can into the site are difficult to work around to successfully return the tree and to redevelop the property in an appropriate manner. Yeah. >> Okay. I don't have any further questions. Any other members last chance? Nope. In that case, we'll move on to questions of staff. Vice chair. >> Thanks, chair. I think I have three. Um, first, the discrepancy that the delegations noted about on page five, it references four uh pieces of feedback from the public. Was that a typo or or what was what's going on there? >> Yes, thank you, Chair, and I do appreciate the the two delegations uh bringing that to the committee's attention. it was simply an oversight on on staff's part. So, it is a typo. Uh, for the record, the number on page 10 is the correct reference. So, approximately 44 public submissions. Um, so again, apologies for that error, but it was indeed a typo. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh, I asked the applicant about whether or not a trade-off, more height perhaps to allow a way to preserve that tree. The applicant mentioned that more height may require an official plan amendment. Is that accurate chair? That is correct. It's in a It's in a location where both the parent OP and the secondary plan limit heights up to six stories. So, anything greater than that would trigger an OPA. So the implication of an OPA would be a higher cost from a planning perspective to submit that uh a longer cons or not consult a longer review process which would directly implicate the uh uh cost and viability of of the project. >> That's accurate and that process similarly if I could add to that chair also runs the risk of having the same challenges with respect to the tree. >> Yeah. Right. It's not an automatic that uh >> yeah, >> it would be a successful application. Okay. And the last thing, there's a piece of land that's city-owned immediately to the rear. I think the address is 341 Berkeley. What is the plan for that piece of land? Is it parkland? Is it future like Yeah. What what's uh the future there? >> So, it is a parcel of land that is owned by the city. So, it's under the control of our real estate team. So, it's not parkland in terms of land that's owned and operated by our parks department. The confusion is probably when you look at the zoning, it carried forward sort of that green zoning that's part of that corridor because it is an open space that is vacant and green. But in terms of a land holding, it's part of real estate's portfolio. I'm not aware of any specific plans for that property, whether it would be remaining in city ownership, looked at parks, up for disposal. Um, to my knowledge, there's no specific plan for that parcel at this time, but it is city-owned. >> Okay, that seems like it could be another opportunity for housing, but there's also a lot of trees on that site, so hopefully there's a way to retain some of those trees in a future development. Um, I guess overall, um, this is a tough one. Like, it's a it's exactly where we want to see missing middle development. Steps from a transit station, it's near the main street on Richmond. Uh it's a short walk to Westboroough Beach. Um really well located. Um but the tree is important. I I think I'm thinking of it similar to how I was thinking about the previous file on St. Lauron. Uh it is a tall building. Uh high density. There will be additional traffic on adjacent streets, but it's a reasonable tradeoff because finding more homes for people is a priority of our council. Uh and same thing here. Um, the priority I think I'm going to weigh on the on finding places for people to live and it's unfortunate that the tree may be affected, but I think it's a a reasonable trade-off given the location of this property. Thanks, Chair. >> Thank you, Vice Chair. Councelor Brockington. >> Thank you. you. I don't know if my question is better suited for uh our planners or our our general manager, but I'm I'm trying to have a better understanding of how trees factor into the final decision making with respect to the staff recommendation. And obviously the staff recommendation is to proceed with the application given the uh uh the tree's existence and and as we heard from the applicant's representative likelihood that this tree will be coming down. Are there cases where a staff recommendation would not be provided because of a tree or set of trees or is the conclusion uh trees can be replanted and we will do our best to facilitate the housing request and replant more trees should it go forward. Can you just describe how trees factor into a final decision? >> Thank you for the question, counselor. U Mr. care planning staff's starting point is never to start removing trees. Uh as as a you know first point uh we we have a discussion with the applicant that in this case was the same and and we asked them to consider uh different options for tree preservation um and you know referencing some of our official plan policies that that direct us to do that. Uh in this case uh what we what we were told was that um concessions uh having to be made given the site constraints led to you know the numbers simply not working and which is then at that point then we we start considering uh tree removal uh more seriously along with the help with of our foresters and we would rely on their professional uh expertise in order to guide us through that process. So, is rejecting an application based on tree retention defendable at the land tribunal? Chair, I will answer this and I don't know if legal wants to weigh in, but the policy framework essentially gives council the decision about whether an application should be approved or refused on the merits of tree retention. I'm not aware of a specific OOLT case that has tested that decision in the context of a refusal, but the policy framework really does speak to that when it comes to a tree permit um where development kind of conforms with the zone or through a zoning amendment does not cannot necessarily be denied. But there's also language that if it's a significant impact and looking at the context, it could be refused. I know that's a complicated answer. I don't know how that would stand up in the OOLT, but this is truly a policy that does put that choice and and burden if you will on on council. As as JC was mentioning, our role in planning when we get an application and I think it's important to note that every site would be uniquely different in in terms of this test and our starting point is to look at what's the as of right development that's permitted on this property. So what's the height and box that can be built in? What relief are they seeking? Where is the tree in question located? And can a development reasonably be altered or revised such that the tree could be retained? That's our starting point. If going through that exercise, the answer generally goes to no, then the conversation shifts to okay, if this is a not a reasonable outcome to develop this site and the ability to retain the tree, then we talk about what's the retention plan. Is it a 2:1 replacement? Is it a 3:1 replacement? How's the site now being designed so that tree replacement is appropriate? Is that happening in the right ofway? Is that happening in the rear yard on the private property? So, sorry, I went a little bit beyond your question, but I hope that helps kind of provide the context of the way we look at these things. So, if I'm allowed to ask a site plan related question, will the site plan request that the property owner as best they can protect the tree with the intent of retaining it? Or will the site plan just give in and say you have a green light to take the tree down? Are we still going to try and fight to save the tree as long and as hard as we can? Chair, it's the same proposal that we've looked at conceptually through this zoning. We've worked very closely with forestry and the reality is that the likelihood of developing this site is that tree retention is probably not possible. That said, when the site plan does come in, it will require a more current TCR, but I don't want to, you know, create the illusion that the goal there would be to say, how are you going to protect the tree if the reality is development is going to result in no scenario where it could be reasonably be protected? I make a point of saying that because there's other unknown factors. We don't know specifically what's going to come in with site plan. um the property south of this is vacant. It's not unreasonable to think that there could be a future scenario where that parcel comes into the conversation. There's a lot of unknowns here. Um but what we know today and what we're dealing with today if it's limited to this site, the likelihood of that tree surviving any development on this property is is not good. >> Okay. And my final question chair is is there a possibility that if the site is prepped for development which includes taking the tree down and then something happens and development does not proceed but the tree has gone that the property owner is held to account for taking this tree down. Do we have a provision in the site plan where there's a financial penalty in that regard? chair, because it's a city-owned tree through the site plan, normally the approach is for the replacement strategy, you can embed in that though a monetary value of what that tree is worth in terms of what's being removed. And I I think in the scenario that the counselor is describing of if for some reason the tree was removed and the retention or the replacement plan didn't go through, there is a monetary value tied to that tree and I believe that's tied into the tree removal permit. Does that answer your question, uh, counselor? >> Yes, sir. >> I think your question was they do a bunch of demolition, they uh prepare the site, and then the developer chooses not to go ahead with the with the development for some reason, the market falls out, um, etc. >> Yeah, we've we've seen this before where a site is cleared, a shock and awe impact, and then nothing happens with the land. Um, so I just want to make sure that if if the property owner goes through that process and the tree comes down that development follows pretty promptly after that. >> We can clarify, but my understanding is the tree removal permit does have a monetary value assigned to the tree in question. >> Thank you, councelor Curry. >> Um, Mr. Mr. Chair, as you can imagine, I have a question for legal staff on whether or not planning rationale would be uh appropriate for the fact that the forestry act would maybe kick in here. >> Sorry, I didn't hear just the end of that. The forestry act, >> the forestry act is a component of this case and if we if we reject this uh the planning rationale being that the forestry act trumps what we are, uh doing here, would that be a planning rationale? Uh, chair, as Andrew alluded to, it's it's kind of a balance of different planning policies. Um, so in terms of determining how successful we would be at the OOLT, I think there are several defensible positions and taking all these things into consideration, I I don't think there's necessarily a trump card here as much as it is a balancing act. >> But there's a defensible position here in terms of us having planning rationale to reject this. I I wouldn't comment on the weight of that planning rationale, but I'll let my colleagues in planning speak to how strong the the rationale is, but it it is a balancing act. >> Uh through the chair, I would I would add so we have official plan policies that say we want to protect trees. We've also said this is an area close to transit. We want to see density. So, the fact that this tree um protection makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to put the density, we're we're asking for two different things on the same site. So, if this, as my legal colleague points out, if this were to go to a tribunal, it's not clear how they would balance the policies, but it uh and I I I support what staff have brought forward here because they're looking at it from the perspective of uh what would be required in order to see the density that that our plan is expecting here. But it is a um I think there are grounds in our official plan that you would um look at the tree protection as well. So it's really up to how the committee is, but we're we're standing behind the staff recommendation. Okay, Mr. Chair, I'm voting against this. I think we have a planning rationale. And the other thing about this is that I don't think it's very fair that the community didn't see any other options and didn't have any ability to sort of say, could we try this or try that or look at the land behind it. I think there were options here that were not looked at and I think there is a planning rationale. Um I have examples in Canada of where entire forests were leveled and 18 years later there's no houses being built. 18 years later hectares and hectares of forests gone and everyone's still wondering what's going on and you know because things weren't thought of ahead of time before they made that decision. So anyway I am for one am voting against it. I think that the forestry act as in the case in a lot of things in Canada too, there are federal acts, there are other acts that need to be considered before you go ahead with something like this. The reason why I think planning uh staff are recommending this is because this is what was presented to them and yes, it fits density, but there could have been a million other applications and many different ways you could have gone on this site, but that's not what they presented. And then because they didn't present a whole bunch of other things that the community could have looked at and given input into, then here we are, right? for this particular design, the trees got to go. I think there were other ways they could have looked at this and you know there are so many examples in Canada where the community has participated and developers have changed things many many times for the benefit of the community and and now what we have is something wonderful that everybody's happy with. That was always the way that councelor Wilkinson did things and the way things worked out people are thrilled with and still we do it and and it's happening in real time, not back in the day. It's happening now. So anyway, I'm voting against it. Thank you, councelor Curry. Councelor Kavanagh. >> Well, trees are certainly an emotional topic and I appreciate the uh the input and questions from my colleagues. Um I have another question and and uh it was raised by one of the delegations and and that was about um the bike parking. Um okay, there's no car parking, but one um bike per unit is not very realistic. How is it that we allow that when um you have two bedroomedroom units um a number of them and um obviously there's going to be more than one person in there. So if this is trying to create a bike culture, it's not very successful. How can that be changed or improved? And I apologize, I forgot to ask this to the applicant. I realized after. So, uh, but, uh, is there some way we can improve that because it's it's inadequate? >> Thank you for the question, councelor. Uh, Mr. Chair, we have to reme remember that this application was submitted in 2017 within the context of the old second uh, the old zoning bylaw uh, 2008 250 which required half a space half a park bike parking space per unit. through uh discussions related to this approval, we were successful in increasing that number to one space uh per unit. So, effectively doubling the the amount of bike parking to be provided on site, which is also consistent with the new zoning bylaw. Um if this ever comes back, there's always opportunities to uh increase those numbers at site plan. Uh, so I wouldn't necessarily close the door on that, but this is how we got to be uh comfortable with the one space per unit number. >> That's crazy that it was uh half a bike per unit. Oh, everybody have unicycles. Um, so I I I think that definitely is an improvement, but not enough. And I think that it it's probably missing the point that previously there was parking and um so there was a mix. So, I I think that does need to be looked at and I hope the applicant will look at that um very carefully. This is right beside a a bike path. Of course, it's right near the the transit as well, but we need both. You need both. Um and I made that point earlier about um you know, just having delivery service, etc. I'm finding that that's completely overlooked. When when people don't have cars, they often have things delivered. And I think that that's something that has been overlooked as well. And I'm I'm finding that in some of the applications. This isn't a huge unit, but still that that's uh that's an issue. And um everything can't be done from the street. Um in terms of the tree, um you know, I support the fact that um this is extremely emotional and problematic that we have, you know, or discarding something that's over a hundred years old. That that is problematic. Um, I've had to see this over and over again with the LRT construction. Heartbreaking and hard to um, you know, not rationalize the fact that it has to go in a straight line and trees have to go. So, any opportunity we can to save a tree is incredibly invaluable. Thank you. >> Thank you very much, councelor. I don't see any other questions from members, so I'll just pose a couple of my own. Um at the in the wake of the the last public consultation that I did for this um uh development, my advocacy with the department was to uh try to find a way to refuse this, leverage um uh leverage whatever planning grounds we have to try to refuse this and get a design that is going to save the tree. the what alternative designs were ultimately considered. Mr. Chair, discussions were had with the applicant team to consider other uh designs um and those included designs that would push the front yard set back further into the site uh at the location where it actually tapers down. uh effectively, you know, rendering the um the site undevelopable uh as as described by the uh the applicant and and staff were comfortable with uh what was presented to us uh in in that rationale. >> Okay. the the site seems because of the the the the pipe to the north, the tree, uh you have accepted uh an assertion that the site is largely undevelopable without uh changes to the setbacks without uh and in a way that would preserve the tree. And so if I I just want to make sure I understand the big picture here. You said the tree is going if we approve these zonings, the tree will come down, but it would be worse if we didn't approve the resoning because then we wouldn't be achieving the pol other policies of our official plan with respect to intensification. Is that sort of the decision that we're making here? I wouldn't go so far as to say that the tree will come down as soon as we >> the tree will if we approve the zoning today. >> Sure. >> Um they will submit a site plan for what we're approving the zoning for that site plan will get approved and then they will essentially have what I think of in my lay terms as an as of right right to the tree permit after that. If if we want to preserve that tree, then this committee has to refuse the reszoning today. That's my assertion to my committee members. >> Chair, I think from staff's perspective and the work we've done with forestry in the context of zoning permissions versus what could be proposed as a development in compliance. Whether this zoning amendment is approved or refused, I think the same challenge remains with respect to the tree. >> Yeah, that's that is what I've uh come to understand even a little bit better through today's discussion. um is if no uh if there are no resonings uh proposed, this site is is likely simply to be sterilized for further further development moving forward other than renovation, addition to the existing structure. Um and I take it that city staff consider that our official plan goals would not be accomplished if that were the outcome that was achieved today. Okay. Um, yeah. And so to colleagues, I'll I'll just wrap that up. Uh, if I I cannot fathom that if city council were to refuse a the zoning changes necessary to accomplish a missing middle development, literally steps from LRT, that the Ontario Land Tribunal would sustain that refusal. Um, so and I I absolutely get and is legitimate that you're you're willing to try. Uh, I just know that sending decisions to the OOLT that um uh are very political in nature um leads to other consequences such as further provincial interference with our ability to plan our own cities. Uh increased taxpayer cost from hiring uh planners and lawyers to fight our staff and lawyers. Uh and the uh the delay in building the housing. So if you believe that the OOLT um that you have good grounds to to send it to them, great. And I I get that. Uh I have urged that we send files to um uh the OOLT frequently. Uh and in four years ago, we we refused the uh Mento application at uh Hamilton. That was the OLT didn't even bother giving us reasons as to why they overturned that one. Uh and the city spent a lot of money on it. So my trust in the OOLT sustaining um uh sustaining our some of our policies is uh is very very low but it's a gamble one way or the other and I certainly appreciate that some members may want to take that gamble. Um so what I will do is I don't believe there are any modifying amendments on this one. In that case we'll ask for yes and please councelor Brackington. Councelor Curry, >> no. >> Councelor Dudes, >> yes. >> Councelor Johnson, >> yes. >> Councelor Kavanagh, >> yes. >> Councelor Kelly, Councelor Kits, >> yes. >> Councelor Low, >> yes. >> Councelor Tierney, >> yes. >> Councelor Trustster, >> no. Vice Chair Gower, >> yes. Chair Liieber. >> Yes. >> Eight nays. Two nays. Okay. >> Sorry guys. >> I do. It's that tree should be preserved. I just don't see a path to getting that accomplished that doesn't result in even worse outcomes. Um, all right. So, those were the main items on our agenda. Uh we do have if it is okay a last minute supported by staff motion. I think it's a cash in the parkland issue on a development at Maravel that has been identified since this meeting began. If it's uh okay with the committee it's um cashing new treatment. I think we're trying to give the developer a bit of a break on the CIL issue that's preventing development from moving forward on Maraveel. Uh it has staff support. What I'll do is just ask if Vice Chair Gower is willing to put that motion forward. >> Well, oh, it's sorry, Maraveville. I think it is Divines. It's Knoxdale Maraveville. Uh whereas staff are working with the applicant to finalize conditions of site plan approval for the development at 1500 Marvale Road. Therefore uh therefore that the rules of procedure be waved to consider the following motion. Whereas the parkland dedication bylaw requires a 15% land dedication or 15% cash in le of 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 cash in LE of parkland 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. I'll just go to staff to uh tell us what we'd be voting on. >> Yeah, thank you um chair and and apologies to the committee for this sort of coming in at the 11th hour. There are about um four maybe five other projects that are in this situation, but in the case of the Mville project, it really became um a go no-go as to whether the project could even move forward. And in this particular case, we have some seniors housing proposed. and we think this was an oversight of the way the housing acceleration plan recommendations were drafted. We were always talking about parkland but the wording of uh and based on a legal opinion we have in house now uh based on the way what you passed as council was referenced it only spoke to capping the the CIP. this only applies to um hubs and major corridors and it was a temporary cap. Uh so we think it's fair that it be applied whether they give us land or money. The vast majority of projects in hubs and corridors like this give us money because the sites are too small in order to allow for that. So this could be why it got missed when the language was originally drafted. >> Thanks Councelor Johnson. >> Uh yeah, thank you chair. And certainly this is a parcel of land that's familiar to me as one of the bordering arterial roads that major corridors is um Maraveville. So just to give people a sense of what it is, it's the triangle between baseline, Maraveail, and Clyde. These are three highways in the middle of a uh outer urban area. And the parcel is an enormous piece of land. So, although I'm appreciative that the applicant uh feels like it's a go no-go over a 5% difference, um I have to say I don't find that that is a I don't think it's an insignificant ask. The likelihood of uh these residents crossing these roads, children, seniors, etc. to use other parklands in the area. Um, contextually might be a little uh um thin uh you know because these are major roadways. Uh so personally I'm already going to vote against it. Sorry. >> Thanks uh councelor Tierney. >> Yeah, I have similar questions on this. I just I always find it interesting. You know, we're in a blackout period. We have 19 days remaining and I find these things popping up all the time. Who's the applicant on this >> chair? Well, the motion does not speak specifically to the site at 1500 Maraveville. That is the one that prompted the discussion. The applicant for 1500 Maraveville is Clarage. And if I can provide just a little bit of additional context to that specific site through the discussions with staff, there has already been agreement that they will provide 10% parkland dedication and the remainder pre prior to the uh housing acceleration cap on the cash and loo. They had agreed to to provide the the rest of it would have been made up through cash and loo. What essentially came to light is that they're still providing 10% parkland dedication, but in addition to that, we're still asking for a 5% cap or 5% contribution in cash inlue over and above the parkland dedication that we had previously agreed to. And so the they they're not benefiting from the cap that was provided. and it identified a discrepancy where, you know, they're providing a 15% contribution because of the combination of land and and parkland and cash and loop. Sorry. >> Yeah. Again, it it's it's I councelor Johnson raises a good point as well. We've worked really hard inside the green belt to make accommodation to encourage housing through a proper process. We took a bath on a lot of our development treasures and CILS. Uh this seems to just be floating in here out of the blue and with not it like 19 days there'll be an opportunity for a more wholesome discussion. I just always see a red flag in these situations. Is this opportunism or not? So at this point I'm not convinced uh on this at all. Maybe maybe staff have a further feedback on this. I just again this is very odd timing. >> So through the chair I from a staff perspective we are trying to retain the um creation of parks that are actual land and not just money. So the developer has the option to come to us and say I want to give you money instead of land. And under our current bylaw and our current framework that council approved with the housing acceleration plan, this developer and there are four other sites that across the city that they could come in and say, "I'll just give you 10% and I'm not giving you any land." And that would be allowed because we have capped parkland. uh in this case the developer and and these few handful of cases the developer is willing to give land not money and they're asking for equal treatment to uh um the way it would uh work if they were just giving cash. So from our perspective this is aligning the intent so that whether you give us land or you give us money you're you're meeting the same standard. So we see this as a parody kind of question and that's why uh it's before you. I appreciate that it the every site has a lot of issues uh and a lot of interest so that we're not asking to approve anything on sites. We're we're talking about how we implement the bylaw that already exists and and we're trying to protect the the giving of land so it's not just about giving us money that we then have to find a place to put a park. >> Yeah. And just as a followup, I I get all that. Um I I I I do have concerns. I like we hear the council is in support or not, but this is a kind of a big deal in my mind. So I I'd rather refer this to council for a vote. Uh because I which is tomorrow uh where we can hear from the counselor himself because there there's something a miss here. I if if we proceed with this vote, I'm voting against it. uh because this just does not smell correct. There's something wrong. We're accused all the time of being in developers pockets and and bending and twisting for them and this arrives with no not a not a single word from the local counselor. I just don't like this at all. >> So is that a referral to tomorrow's council motion? Uh councelor tierney >> or council may sorry to interrupt but we could just downgrade this to notice of motion and talk about it again. Yeah. Notice the motion and have this conversation at the next planning committee. >> Okay. >> So there's no >> So So there's no speed requirement now suddenly. Okay. Okay. Got it. Clearly. Yeah. I I this is exactly what makes me bonkers is because suddenly there was a a real need for this today. Why? And now it's just oh we'll make a notice of motion. So either we have a speed requirement. we refer tomorrow and we vote based on what we're hearing today or now suddenly it's not an important thing. This is this is what makes people suspect of what we do as a city. So I I'll listen to my colleagues how they want to deal with this but it's either we need to deal with this today or we don't. >> So what I'm hearing is that staff have u uh withdrawn the uh not asking for this to move forward today. to notice a motion. In theory, we should not listen to any other counselors. >> I'll allow it quick. >> Thank you so much, chair. Okay, here's my question. This is referring to an arrangement with site plan. When was the zoning approved? Was it before or after we passed the housing acceleration plan? >> Chair, I don't have that at my fingertips. I can probably get it before we adjourn, but I'm happy to uh >> we can even bring it up when we discuss in two weeks. My concern is, and this is why we cut the refund that we were going to give for some development charges and parkline fees, because the whole purpose of the housing accelerator plan is to get projects off the shelf that aren't moving. If this one is already at site plan, I'm not sure why they require further incentive. And that was my concern, and that is why I fought so hard when we introduced the plan because it made no sense just to literally give money back for projects that were already being developed. So, I will just state my objection and I look forward to the conversation in two weeks. Thank you. Okay. So, that's out of other business. Uh staff will uh undertake to make sure that that's listed today as a notice of motion. Um and our next uh meeting is going to be on November the 4th, 2026. That will be our last meeting as this uh uh planning committee. Um so, uh there were no in camera. So, notices motion we just dealt with. Are there any other notices of motion? Nope. Uh I think there is an inquiry couple of inquiries. Just one. um which is going to be read into the record by Vice Chair Gower. Yes. Uh here it is. Would planning staff kindly provide an update on discussions and progress of the working group city of Ottawa National Capital Commission and Agriculture and Agra Food Canada intended to discuss how to balance local development and transit corridor expansion with the protection of the scientific research and work conducted on the farm. Thank you for that. And we are adjourned until our next meeting. Last meeting, November 4th. >> Let's see. I have one more. One more. >> Thanks everyone.