[00:00:04]
          >> GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US TODAY. 
          >> MADAM MAYOR, THE WEBCAST IS READY TO GO AS IS THE ZOOM. 
          >> I WILL CALL OUR SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING FOR SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 27TH, 2021 TO ORDER, AND I WILL ASK COUNCIL MUFINDIZER TO PLEASE READ THE OPENING STATEMENT. 
          >> THANK YOU, YOUR LORDSHIP. 
          THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT WE ARE LOCATED IN CHIEF DRAGHI'S TERRITORY. 
          FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL, IT HAS BEEN 
          [2. Does any Member have a pecuniary interest in any matter before Council tonight?]
THE TRADITIONAL LAND OF THE YELLOWKNIFE THE FIRST NATION. 
          WE RESPECT THE HISTORIES, LANGUAGES, AND CULTURE OF ALL OTHER INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, INCLUDING THE NORTH SLAVE METIS, AND ALL FIRST NATIONS, 
          [3. Statutory Public Hearing regarding By‐law No. 5045, a by‐law to repeal and replace Zoning By‐law No. 4404, as amended.]
METIS, AND INUIT, WHOSE PRESENCE CONTINUES TO ENRICH OUR VIBRANT COMMUNITY. THANK YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU. NEXT, WE HAVE DISCLOSURE, PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF. 
          DOES ANY MEMBER HAVE A PECUNIARY INTEREST IN ANY MATTER BEFORE COUNCIL TODAY? SEEING NONE. NEXT, WE HAVE THE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING. 
          STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING BY-LAW NUMBER 5045, A BY-LAW TO REPEAL AND REPLACE ZONING BY-LAW NUMBER 4404 AS AMENDED. 
          FIRST OFF, IT'S A BIG DAY A DAY THAT CONCLUDES THE PUBLIC PROCESS FOR PROVIDING FEEDBACK, COMMENTS, AND CONCERNS TO COUNCIL BEFORE WE DELIBERATE, POTENTIALLY AMEND, AND VOTE ON THE ZONING BY-LAW. 
          A FEW HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS IN CASE OF AN EMERGENCY WILL HEAD OUT EITHER THE DOORS THAT YOU CAME THROUGH OR THERE'S DOORS JUST THERE TO THE LEFT. 
          THE WASHROOMS ARE IN THE LOBBY THERE AT THE BACK OF THE LOBBY ON THE LEFT AND RIGHT, WOMEN'S ON THE LEFT, MEN'S ON THE RIGHT. 
          AS PER COUNCIL PROCEDURES, EVERY 90 MINUTES WE TAKE A 10 MINUTE BREAK. 
          IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET UP, HAVE A QUICK BATHROOM BREAK, AND COME BACK. 
          AT THE THREE-HOUR MARK. 
          WE HAVE SOME SANDWICHES COMING IN, AND WE'LL TAKE A 30 MINUTE BREAK THEN TO FUEL UP. 
          FOLKS ARE ENCOURAGED TO KEEP THEIR MASKS ON WHEN THEY'RE NOT SPEAKING, AND WHEN YOU'RE OUT OF YOUR SEAT, YOU DO HAVE TO WEAR A MASK. 
          FOR THOSE ON ZOOM, YOU MUST MUTE YOURSELF WHEN YOU'RE NOT SPEAKING, AND WE DID DO A FEW HOUSEKEEPING ZOOM ITEMS BEFORE WE STARTED. 
          TODAY IS A DAY ABOUT HEARING FROM RESIDENTS AND I'LL EXPLAIN THE PROCESS MOMENTARILY. 
          TO BE CLEAR, DELIBERATIONS AND ANY AMENDMENTS WILL HAPPEN AT SECOND READING, WHICH WILL BE AT A FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING. 
          FIRST, LET ME PROVIDE A LITTLE BACKGROUND CONTEXT ON THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT THAT COUNCIL IS UNDERTAKING TODAY. 
          [4. A presentation from Tom Hall, a representative on behalf of 50A Avenue residents, in opposition to proposed Zoning By‐law No. 5045.]
FROM AUGUST 24TH, WHEN THE DRAFT ZONING BY-LAW WAS RELEASED FOR PUBLIC REVIEW BY CITY ADMINISTRATION, UP UNTIL OCTOBER 1ST, OUR STAFF ARE SEEKING TO ENGAGE WITH THE PUBLIC ON THE DRAFT DOCUMENT THEY'D PREPARED BEFORE IT CAME TO CITY COUNCIL AS THE LEGISLATIVE LEADERS WHO WILL ULTIMATELY DECIDE WHAT THE FINAL ZONING BY-LAW CONTAINS. 
          BASED ON COMMENTS THEY RECEIVED, CITY ADMINISTRATION MADE SOME MINOR CHANGES TO THE DRAFT WHEN THEY PRESENTED IT TO THE GOVERNANCE AND PRIORITIES COMMITTEE OF COUNSEL ON OCTOBER 25TH. 
          SOME OF THOSE WERE RELATED TO PERMITTED LAND USES IN THE CENTRAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE. 
          DURING THE GPC DELIBERATIONS, THE COMMITTEE AGREED TO REVERT TO A FEW OF THE DRAFT VERSIONS. 
          FEW OF THE RECOMMENDED PERMITTED USES THAT WERE IN THE DRAFT, AND THIS WAS INTENDED TO ENABLE COUNCIL AS THE DECISION-MAKERS TO HEAR DIRECTLY FROM RESIDENTS ON THESE ISSUES FURTHER, INCLUDING TODAY, AND ENSURE WE COULD DISCUSS THE PROS AND CONS. 
          THE PAST MONTH TODAY AND OUR DELIBERATIONS AT SECOND READING WILL PROVIDE FOR THAT. 
          AS FOLKS MAY KNOW, THE DEADLINE FOR WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE BY-LAW WAS THIS PAST WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 24TH AT 4:30 PM. 
          THE PACKAGE OF WRITTEN COMMENTS WAS PUBLISHED ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE YESTERDAY. 
          TODAY IS THE DAY FOR VERBAL COMMENTS. 
          AS PER COUNCIL PROCEDURES BY-LAW, EVERYBODY WHO SIGNED UP TO SPEAK BY NOON YESTERDAY HAS BEEN GROUPED INTO TWO CATEGORIES. 
          THOSE WHO ARE IN FAVOR OF THE BY-LAW AND THOSE WHO ARE AGAINST. 
          IF PEOPLE HAVE JOINED US TODAY AND YOU HAVEN'T SIGNED UP YET TO SPEAK, DON'T WORRY, YOU WILL GET YOUR CHANCE TO SPEAK TODAY TOO. 
          AS PER COUNCIL PROCEDURES BY-LAW, THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURE SHALL BE FOLLOWED TODAY. 
          ONE, THE PRESIDING OFFICER, MYSELF, SHALL INTRODUCE THE PROPOSED BY-LAW. 
          TWO, I SHALL INFORM COUNSEL OF THE NUMBER AND NATURE OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 43 OVER THE BY-LAW. 
          NUMBER 3, NO PERSON SHALL SPEAK FOR MORE THAN 10 MINUTES UNLESS AN EXTENSION IS GRANTED BY RESOLUTION OF COUNCIL. 
          FOUR INDIVIDUALS OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED BY-LAW WHO HAVE GIVEN NOTICE OF THEIR INTENTION TO SPEAK, SHALL BE INVITED TO SPEAK FIRST IN ORDER OF HOW THEY SIGNED UP, FOLLOWED BY THOSE OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED BY-LAW WHO HAVE NOT GIVEN NOTICE PURSUANT TO SECTION 41. 
          INDIVIDUALS IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSED BY-LAW WHO HAVE GIVEN NOTICE OF THEIR INTENTION TO SPEAK, WILL THEN BE INVITED TO SPEAK, 
          [00:05:01]
FOLLOWED BY THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSED BY-LAW WHO HAVE NOT GIVEN NOTICE PURSUANT TO SECTION 41. 
          NUMBER 6, AFTER A PERSON HAS SPOKEN, ANY MEMBER OF COUNCIL MAY ASK THAT PERSON QUESTIONS, FOLLOWED BY ANY PERSON PRESENCE. 
          PROVIDED SUCH QUESTIONS ARE RELEVANT, DIRECTED THROUGH ME AND ARE ASKED IN A COURTEOUS AND RESPECTFUL MANNER. 
          NUMBER 7, AFTER ALL PERSONS WHO WISH TO SPEAK, HAVE BEEN HEARD, COUNCIL MEMBERS MAY ASK RELEVANT QUESTIONS OF THE CITY MANAGER THROUGH MYSELF, THE PRESIDING OFFICER, WHO MAY THEN REFER THE QUESTION TO THE APPROPRIATE DIRECTOR OR OTHER MEMBER OF CITY ADMINISTRATION OR ANSWER THE QUESTION ON HER BEHALF OF HERSELF. 
          NUMBER 8, ANY PERSON WHO HAS MADE A SUBMISSION SHALL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO ANY NEW INFORMATION THAT HAS ARISEN DURING THE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING FOR A PERIOD NOT EXCEEDING TWO MINUTES UNLESS AN EXTENSION IS GRANTED BY RESOLUTION OF COUNSEL. 
          FINALLY, ONCE ALL THAT'S BEEN CONCLUDED, I'LL CALL THE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. 
          IN SUMMARY, THOSE WHO ARE AGAINST THE BY-LAW WILL SPEAK FIRST. 
          THEY'LL HAVE 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK, THEN COUNCIL WILL BE ABLE TO ASK THAT PERSON QUESTIONS, FOLLOWED ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE, AND THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT SPEECH SPEAKER. 
          THEN WE'LL MOVE TO THOSE WHO ARE IN FAVOR, SAME PROCESS. 
          AFTER ALL RESIDENTS HAVE SPOKEN, COUNCIL WILL BE ABLE TO ASK CITY ADMIN QUESTIONS ONCE COUNCIL HAS NO FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR IN, WE'LL GO BACK TO RESIDENTS IN THE SAME ORDER THAT THEY PRESENTED AND THEY'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES TO MAKE CONCLUDING COMMENTS. 
          THEN THE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED AND COUNCIL WILL DISCUSS NEXT STEPS. 
          AGAIN, WE WON'T BE DELIBERATING OR MAKING AMENDMENTS TODAY. 
          ONCE I CLOSE THE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING, NO ADDITIONAL SUBMISSION SHALL BE CONSIDERED BY COUNCIL EXCEPT IF COUNCIL CALLS AN ADDITIONAL PUBLIC HEARING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS BY-LAW. 
          THIS MEANS WE CAN TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION FURTHER EMAILS THAT WE MAY RECEIVE OR INFORMATION THAT PEOPLE RAISED WHEN WE'RE GROCERY SHOPPING, ETC. 
          THIS IS IMPORTANT TO ENSURE PUBLIC TRANSPARENCY. 
          ALL OF THE INFORMATION MUST BE ON THE PUBLIC RECORD, EITHER THROUGH A WRITTEN SUBMISSION OR PRESENTED ORALLY TODAY. 
          FOLLOWING THE CLOSE OF A STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING WHERE IN ONE OR MORE SUBMISSIONS IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED BY-LAW ARE RECEIVED OR ANY SUBMISSION RECOMMENDING AN AMENDMENT TO THE PROPOSED BY-LAWS RECEIVED, COUNCIL HAS THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING, WHICH IS THE CASE FOR TODAY, SINCE WE HAVE RECEIVED A FEW IN OPPOSITION. 
          NUMBER 1, WE CAN DIRECT ADMINISTRATION BY RESOLUTION TO PREPARE A SUMMATION OF POINTS RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          TWO, MADE BY RESOLUTION, CONSIDER SUBMISSIONS AND PROCEED WITH SECOND READING. 
          THREE, MADE BY RESOLUTIONS REFER THE BY-LAW TO ADMINISTRATION. 
          FOUR, MADE BY RESOLUTION REFERRED TO BY-LAW BACK TO ADMINISTRATION WITH DIRECTION TO DRAFT AN AMENDMENT TO THE PROPOSED BY-LAW. 
          ONE POTENTIAL MOTION COUNCIL COULD CONSIDER, WHICH WAS THE MOTION THAT WE PRESENTED OR THAT WE APPROVED AFTER THE COMMUNITY PLAN AND STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING WAS THE COUNCIL DIRECT ADMINISTRATION TO PREPARE A SUMMATION OF POINTS RAISED DURING THE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING AND REFER THE BY-LAW BACK TO ADMINISTRATION WITH DIRECTION TO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS TO THE BY-LAW TO GIVE EFFECT TO CONCERNS RAISED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          WHAT'S THE PLAIN LANGUAGE MEANING OF THAT? IT MEANS THAT A MINIMAL CREATE A TABLE OF POINTS THAT WERE RAISED TODAY AND IN THE WRITTEN COMMENTS AND A COLUMN WITH ADMINS RESPONSE TO THE CONCERN, INCLUDING A POTENTIAL RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL ON HOW THE BY-LAW COULD BE AMENDED TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE. 
          FINALLY, I'D LIKE TO TAKE A MOMENT TO ONCE AGAIN, THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR JOINING US TODAY AND BEING SUCH DILIGENT PARTICIPANTS IN THIS BY-LAW REVIEW. 
          IT'S AN IMPORTANT BY-LAW AND I KNOW WE'RE ALL PASSIONATE ABOUT YELLOWKNIFE, THE PLACE WHERE WE LIVE, WORK AND PLAY. 
          I KNOW WE CAN ALL AGREE ON THAT POINT. 
          THAT'S EASY POINT. 
          IT'S THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF THE BY-LAW THAT MAY BE TOUGH TO AGREE ON. 
          AS WE MAY DISAGREE AND POINTS TODAY, LET'S REMEMBER THAT WE'RE ALL APPROACHING THIS BY-LAW WITH THE BEST INTENTIONS. 
          WE HAVE DIFFERENT BACKGROUNDS, LIFE EXPERIENCES, AND WE HAVE DIFFERENT DREAMS FOR A PERSONAL FUTURES. 
          IT'LL BE TOUGH TO REACH UNANIMOUS CONSENT ON THE BY-LAW. 
          LET'S HAVE RESPECT FOR ONE ANOTHER. 
          EVEN WHEN WE DISAGREE AMONGST COUNCIL AND IN OUR COMMUNITY, WE CAN DO SO IN A MANNER THAT SEEKS TO UNDERSTAND OTHER PERSPECTIVES, WHILE ALWAYS BEING RESPECTFUL. 
          AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE ALL WANT A YELLOWKNIFE THAT IS A GREAT PLACE FOR EVERYONE. 
          THANK YOU FOR WORKING WITH US TO ENSURE THE BEST FOR OUR COMMUNITY. 
          WITH THAT IN MIND, I WILL GO QUICKLY THROUGH THE COUNCIL PROCEDURES BY-LAW, THAT RELATES TO DECORUM FOR PRESENTERS. 
          WHEN MAKING A PRESENTATION TO COUNSEL, NO PERSON SHALL ONE SPEAK DISRESPECTFULLY OF THE CROWN, ANY MEMBER OF COUNCIL, THE PUBLIC, OR AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY. 
          TWO, USE OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE. 
          THREE, MAKE PERSONAL REMARKS ABOUT ANY MEMBER OF COUNCIL, THE PUBLIC, OR AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY. 
          FOUR, REFLECT UPON THE MOTIVES OF MEMBERS WHO MAY HAVE VOTED FOR A PARTICULAR MOTION. 
          FIVE, REFLECT UPON THE MOTIVES OF THE ADVICE GIVEN TO CITY COUNCIL BY ADMINISTRATION. 
          SIX, REFUSE TO COMPLY WITH THE DECISION OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, MYSELF REGARDING ANY INTERPRETATION OF THIS BY-LAW. 
          WITH THAT, I AM OFFICIALLY OPENING THE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING FOR ZONING BY-LAW NUMBER 5045, 
          [00:10:04]
WHICH IS A BY-LAW TO REPEAL AND REPLACE ZONING BY-LAW NUMBER 4404. 
          COUNCIL WE'VE RECEIVED 28 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AS YOU'VE SEEN ON THE WEBSITE. 
          SIX IN FAVOR AND 22, OPPOSED OR RECOMMENDING AMENDMENTS. 
          THE SPEAKING ORDER FOR TODAY WE'LL BE STARTING OFF WITH THOSE OPPOSED, ONE, TOM HALL, TWO, LINDA BASSEY, THREE, NANCY ZIMMERMAN, FOUR, JOE KELLY ON ZOOM. 
          FIVE, LEWIS LITTLE ON ZOOM. 
          SIX, SHELLEY BROWN ON ZOOM. 
          SEVEN. MARIE ADAMS ON ZOOM. 
          EIGHT, BRUCE DAVIDSON ON ZOOM. 
          NINE, DAVE JONES, 10, N. PETER'S, 11, KENNY RAUPTASH, WHO I KNOW SAID HE WAS NEUTRAL, BUT SINCE YOU'VE SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS TO THE BY-LAW, YOU'LL BE GROUPED INTO THIS CATEGORY, 12 WILL BE TREVOR CASTIEL AND 13 IS OTHERS FROM THE AUDIENCE WHO HAVEN'T SIGNED UP YET. 
          THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO THOSE IN FAVOR WE'LL START OFF WITH NUMBER 1, EMERY PAQUIN, TWO TOM MCCLELLAN, THREE ROB WARBURTON, FOUR ERIC STUPAK, FIVE CAT MCGURK WHO'S ON ZOOM, AND SIX OTHER MEMBERS FROM THE AUDIENCE YOU HAVEN'T SIGNED UP YET THAT ARE IN FAVOR. 
          WITH THAT, MR. HALL, YOU ARE UP FIRST, SO YOU CAN COME UP TO THE FRONT. 
          WE'VE GOT THE TABLE THERE AND YOU'LL HAVE 10 MINUTES TO PRESENT. 
          WHEN YOU'RE READY, JUST CLICK THE LITTLE SPEAK BUTTON AND I WILL TURN IT OVER TO YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR. 
          MORNING, EVERYONE, COUNCILORS. 
          MY NAME IS TOM HALL AND I'M APPEARING ON BEHALF OF A NUMBER OF CONCERNED RESIDENTS IN THE PROPOSED RC1 ZONE, WHICH REPRESENTS APPROXIMATELY 30 RESIDENCES, PRIMARILY FROM 50 A AVENUE, ARE CONSUMER OF THE CURRENT DRAFT OF THE BYLAW IS SEVERAL OF THE PERMITTED USES IN THE PROPOSED RC1 ZONING. 
          NOW, A MUNICIPAL BY-LAW OF THIS SCOPE, COMPLEXITY, AND IMPORTANCE OBVIOUSLY REQUIRES A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF WORK AND MEANINGFUL CONSULTATION IN ORDER TO HAVE A GOOD PRODUCT. 
          A LOT OF GOOD WORK HAS BEEN DONE ON THIS. 
          UNFORTUNATELY, DESPITE REPEATED REQUESTS BY OUR NEIGHBORHOOD COMMITTEE THAT WENT BACK ALMOST A YEAR, WE'RE NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH THE PLANNING TEAM IN ORDER TO DISCUSS THE PROJECT AND EXPRESS THE CONCERNS OF OUR RESIDENTS. 
          WE BELIEVE THAT WOULD HAVE ALLOWED OUR COMMITTEE TO PROVIDE VALUABLE INPUT MUCH EARLIER IN THE PROCESS. 
          ADDITIONALLY, ANOTHER CONCERN IS THAT THE LIMITED CONSULTATION ON THE BY-LAW TOOK PLACE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC, WITH ALL ITS RESULTING RESTRICTIONS AND DEMANDS ON PEOPLE'S TIME. 
          MEANING MANY PEOPLE HAVE SIMPLY BEEN UNABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CONSULTATION. 
          DESPITE OUR COMMITTEE AND MANY OTHER CITIZENS REQUESTING THAT THE CONSULTATION PERIOD BE EXTENDED SO THAT MORE MEANINGFUL CONSULTATION COULD OCCUR, THIS UNFORTUNATELY HASN'T HAPPENED. 
          NOW, HAVING SAID THAT, WE WERE PLEASED THAT AFTER THE INITIAL ROUND OF CONSULTATION SUCH AS THEY WERE, THE PLANNING TEAM DID AMEND THE BY-LAW IN RESPONSE TO THE CLEAR OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL CENTRAL ZONING. 
          THE CREATION OF THE RC1 ZONING AND THE REMOVAL OF THE MOST EGREGIOUS OF THE USES WAS CERTAINLY A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. 
          HOWEVER, AT THE GOVERNANCE AND PRIORITIES COMMITTEE MEETING ON OCTOBER 25TH, THE MAYOR AND SEVERAL COUNCILORS ESSENTIALLY RESTARTED THE CONSULTATION PROCESS BY INTRODUCING LAST MINUTE AMENDMENTS THAT PUT SEVERAL OF THOSE OFFENDING USES BACK INTO THE BY-LAW UNDER THE GUISE THAT WE WANT TO HEAR FROM MORE PEOPLE. 
          THIS EFFECTIVELY RENDERED THE CONSULTATION TO THAT POINT MEANINGLESS AND SENT THE UNFORTUNATE MESSAGE TO CITIZENS THAT THEIR INPUT TO THAT POINT REALLY WASN'T IMPORTANT. 
          NOW, THERE ARE CLEARLY SOME COUNCILORS AND OFFICIALS WHO HAVE THEIR OWN DREAMS AND VISIONS OF WHAT A BY-LAW LIKE THIS SHOULD LOOK LIKE. 
          HOWEVER, IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER IN THIS CONTEXT THAT OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS, OF COURSE, ARE THERE TO LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE THAT ELECTED THEM TO BE THEIR REPRESENTATIVES AND NOT TO INDULGE IN THOSE DREAMS. THE PROPOSED PERMITTED USES OF COMMERCIAL RETAIL SALES AND SERVICES, CONVENIENCE STORE, FOOD AND BEVERAGE SERVICE, AND URBAN AGRICULTURE COMMERCIAL THAT WERE PUT BACK INTO THE RC1 ZONING ARE ALL WHOLLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD AND SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED. 
          HAVING HAD THE BENEFIT OF READING A NUMBER OF THE LETTERS SENT TO THE CITY IN THAT REGARD AS WELL AS LETTERS TO THE EDITOR AND ALSO IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, WE WILL NOT RESTATE THE MANY OBVIOUS REASONS WHY THESE COMMERCIAL USES ARE ALL INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, SUCH AS EXTENDED HOURS OF OPERATION, NOISE, INCREASED TRAFFIC, EXTRA LIGHT, ETC. 
          WE WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT THE SECTION OF THE COMMUNITY PLAN DEALING WITH RESIDENTIAL CENTRAL AREA MAKES NO RECOMMENDATION FOR EXTENSIVE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
          AS FAR AS COMMERCIAL AGRICULTURE, IT SHOULD BE PAINFULLY OBVIOUS TO ANYONE WHY THE KEEPING AND PROCESSING OF LIVESTOCK SUCH AS PIGS AND THE PROCESSING OF FISH IN ANY RESIDENTIAL ZONE IS TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE. 
          AGAIN, WE WOULD NOTE THAT THE COMMUNITY PLAN REFERENCE TO URBAN AGRICULTURE MEANS ACTIVITIES THAT DO NOT CONFLICT WITH RESIDENTIAL USES, 
          [00:15:01]
SUCH AS RAISED GARDEN BEDS, SMALL CHICKEN POOPS, AND DOMESTIC BEEHIVES. 
          IT NEVER INCLUDED LIVESTOCK SUCH AS GOATS AND PIGS. 
          OTHER PROPOSED USES SUCH AS COMMERCIAL RECREATION, RELIGIOUS AND EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS, MEDICAL AND HEALTH SERVICES PLAN DEVELOPMENT, URBAN AGRICULTURE, COMMUNITY AND COMMUNITY RESOURCE CENTERS COULD POSSIBLY BE INCLUDED IN DISCRETIONARY USES, AS THESE SHOULD BE INDIVIDUALLY EVALUATED FOR THEIR COMPATIBILITY WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          NOW, IT'S IMPORTANT THAT YOU UNDERSTAND OUR RESIDENTS ARE NOT AGAINST HOUSING DENSIFICATION. 
          WE AGREE WITH SOME OF THE DWELLING TYPES THAT ARE PROPOSED FOR THE RC1 ZONE IN THE CURRENT BY-LAW SUCH AS DUPLEXES, TRIPLEXES, AND SECONDARY RESIDENCES, WHICH ARE THE SAME AS THOSE PROPOSED FOR OTHER RESIDENTIAL AREAS, NOTABLY R1 AND R2. 
          THESE ARE RESIDENCES WHICH ARE APPROPRIATE IN A UNIQUELY RESIDENTIAL SETTING. 
          COMMERCIAL USES OR NOT. 
          WE WOULD NOTE, HOWEVER, THAT THE INCLUSION OF DWELLINGS SUCH AS TOWNHOUSES AND MULTI-UNIT DWELLINGS AND PERMITTED USES IS A DRAMATIC CHANGE FOR ALL RESIDENTIAL ZONES IN THE BY-LAW [NOISE]. 
          NOW THERE'S BEEN SOME STARRY-EYED IDEAS THAT OUR CITY SHOULD LOOK LIKE CITIES IN EUROPE OR SOUTHERN CANADA OR EVEN NEW ZEALAND. 
          WELL, CITIES SUCH AS HAMILTON, ONTARIO BEEN CITED AS EXAMPLES TO FOLLOW. 
          HOWEVER, LET'S COMPARE APPLES TO APPLES, NOT APPLES TO ELEPHANTS. 
          HAMILTON IS A CITY OF OVER HALF A MILLION PEOPLE. 
          YELLOWKNIFE ISN'T EVEN A CITY BY EXISTING POPULATION STANDARDS OR BY COMPARABLE POPULATIONS STANDARDS. 
          UNLIKE THOSE LARGE SOUTHERN CITIES, EXISTING DOWNTOWN CORE IS WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE FROM ALMOST ANYWHERE IN YELLOWKNIFE. 
          THE CITY'S COMMUNITY PLAN RECOGNIZES THAT FACT AND DESCRIBES THE RC AREA AS A GEOGRAPHICALLY CONVENIENT PLACE TO LIVE. 
          THE CITY'S PLANNING CONSULTANT STATED THAT NAVEEN LAKE WAS DEVELOPED, NO CONVENIENCE STORES OR OTHER COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES WERE INCLUDED BECAUSE IT WAS FELT THAT IT WAS WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE OF THE DOWNTOWN AND ITS AMENITIES, INCLUDING CONVENIENCE STORES. 
          GIVEN THAT MOST, IF NOT ALL OF THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE PROPOSED RC1 ZONE ARE CLOSER TO DOWNTOWN THAN NAVEEN LAKE, THE SAME LOGIC SHOULD APPLY. 
          WHY IS THE CITY PROPOSING TO EXPAND THE DOWNTOWN CORE BY COMMERCIALIZING EXISTING RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS NEAR THE DOWNTOWN? CERTAINLY NOT BECAUSE OF GROWTH. 
          I LIKE TO BE AN OPTIMIST, BUT YOU ALSO HAVE TO BE A REALIST. 
          ONLY HAS TO LOOK AT THE VARIOUS ECONOMIC REPORTS AND FORECASTS FOR THE END OF THE UT. 
          CONFERENCE BOARD OF CANADA FORECASTS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE NON-COMMERCIAL SECTOR, EVERY SECTOR OF THE ECONOMY AND THE END OF THE UT WILL SEE DECLINES IN EMPLOYMENT OVER AT LEAST THE NEXT TEN YEARS. 
          EVEN USES THE WORD GRIM TO DESCRIBE THE FORECAST FOR CERTAIN SECTORS. 
          THEY ALSO STATE THAT POPULATION GROWTH WILL BE DISMAL BEYOND 2022 AND TURN NEGATIVE AFTER 2027. 
          EVEN IF GROWTH WAS A POSSIBILITY, THERE ARE PLENTY OF EMPTY AND UNDERDEVELOPED LOTS IN THE DOWNTOWN. 
          ONE OF COUNCIL STATED GOALS IS THE REVITALIZATION OF THE DOWNTOWN. 
          THAT HAS NOT MATERIALIZED ANY MEANINGFUL DEGREES. 
          SO NOW THE APPROACH APPEARS TO BE TO ABANDON THE DOWNTOWN, AND SIMPLY EXPAND THE POTENTIAL COMMERCIAL SPHERE BEYOND THE DOWNTOWN. 
          WHY NOT TAKE STEPS TO IMPROVE THE DOWNTOWN SUCH AS TAX OR OTHER INCENTIVES TO LOCATE AND BUILD? TAXATION OF VACANT PROPERTIES AND A BEST USE BASIS TO ENCOURAGE OWNERS TO EITHER DEVELOP OR SELL THOSE PROPERTIES RATHER THAN LEAVE THEM VACANT. 
          CITY PUTS CAVEATS AND RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES THAT REQUIRE OWNERS TO BUILD WITHIN TWO YEARS OF PURCHASING A LOT. 
          WHY NOT SIMILAR INCENTIVES TO FORCE COMMERCIAL OWNERS TO BUILD? THE BY-LAW PROCEEDS AS COUNCIL APPEARS TO ONE, IT MEANS THAT THOSE DEVELOPERS THAT HAVE NO DESIRE TO BUILD IN THE DOWNTOWN CAN SIMPLY MOVE OUTSIDE THE DOWNTOWN CORE, AND INFECT THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS WITH COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE WHOLLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          ULTIMATELY DRIVING OUT THE RESONANCE, SIMPLY EXPANDING THE DOWNTOWN WITH ALL ITS ASSOCIATED PROBLEMS. THAT MISSES THE MARK FOR BOTH DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION AND FOR HOUSING. 
          ALMOST ALL OF THE 90-PLUS PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT WERE TABLED FOR THE GOVERNANCE AND PRIORITIES COMMITTEE MEETING IN OCTOBER WERE OPPOSED TO VARIOUS ELEMENTS OF THE ZONING BY-LAW AND LARGE NUMBER OF THOSE WERE SPECIFICALLY OPPOSED TO THE ORIGINAL RC ZONING. 
          HOWEVER, WE KEEP HEARING STATEMENTS FROM SOME CITY OFFICIALS ABOUT THE SIGNIFICANT SUPPORT FOR THE BYLAW. 
          WE ALSO HEAR ABOUT ALL THE BUSINESSES THAT SUPPORT THE RC ZONING AND ARE JUST WAITING FOR IT TO HAPPEN. 
          THESE UNSUPPORTED STATEMENTS APPEAR TO SIMPLY BE THROWN OUT TO SUPPORT AN ENTRENCHED POSITION. 
          WE SAW NOTHING IN THE PUBLIC COMMENTS ABOUT BUSINESSES BEING SUPPORTIVE OF THE RC ZONING. 
          OF COURSE, DEVELOPERS ARE GOING TO SUPPORT AN UNFETTERED ABILITY TO BUILD WHATEVER THEY WANT, WHEREVER THEY WANT. 
          CITY IS ALSO ABDICATING ITS RESPONSIBILITY TO OVERSEE DEVELOPMENT BY ATTEMPTING TO PUT SO MANY PERMITTED USES IN THE RC1 ZONING AREA. 
          THIS WOULD EFFECTIVELY MEAN THAT A DEVELOPER CAN BUILD ANYTHING WITHIN THOSE PERMITTED USES WITHOUT ANY ADDITIONAL APPROVALS, WITHOUT COUNCIL APPROVAL, AND FREE FROM APPEALS. 
          CERTAINLY MAKES THE JOB OF THE DEVELOPER, COUNCIL, AND THE CITY PLANNERS THAT MUCH EASIER IF EVERYTHING IS SIMPLY PERMITTED. 
          BUT THAT'S NOT HOW YOU ENSURE THAT APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT OCCURS. 
          IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT THE REGULATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ZONING BYLAW WILL ENSURE THAT DEVELOPMENT IS CONTROLLED. 
          BUT THOSE REGULATIONS TYPICALLY ONLY DEAL WITH THE NUANCES OF DEVELOPMENT, 
          [00:20:04]
SUCH AS SETBACKS, LANDSCAPING, PARKING SIGNAGE, ETC. 
          SOMEONE'S PERMITTED TO BUILD AN ALL NIGHT EXOTIC DANCE CLUB IN THE MIDDLE OF A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          WE HIGHLY DOUBT THAT THE REGULATIONS GOVERNING WHAT SORT OF SIDING THE BUILDING IS CLAD IN ARE GOING TO GO VERY FAR TO ALLAY THE NEIGHBORS CONCERNS. 
          GIVEN A SURPLUS OF AVAILABLE PROPERTIES IN THE DOWNTOWN, A LACK OF FORECASTED GROWTH FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE, THE CLEAR LACK OF DEMAND FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, THE NEED FOR HOUSING, AND THE CLEAR OPPOSITION TO THE DESTRUCTION OF MANY OF THE WELL-ESTABLISHED, FAMILY-FRIENDLY, COMMUNITY ORIENTED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE RC1 ZONE, IT MAKES NO SENSE FOR THE CITY TO SACRIFICE THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS FOR AN UNPROVEN SOUTHERN IDEA. 
          YELLOWKNIFE IS NOT HAMILTON OR CALGARY OR A CITY IN DENMARK OR NEW ZEALAND. 
          ANYONE WHO'S LIVED HERE FOR ANY LENGTH OF TIME, AND I WAS BORN AND RAISED HERE, KNOWS THAT YELLOWKNIFE IS A UNIQUE CITY WITH UNIQUE NEIGHBORHOODS AND A UNIQUE HISTORY OF DEVELOPMENT. 
          YOUR APPROACH HERE APPEARS TO BE THAT WE CAN TAKE A SOUTHERN MODEL AND SIMPLY OVERLAY IT ON THE CITY AND EVERYTHING WILL BE WONDERFUL. 
          NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. 
          THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE PROPOSED RC1 ZONE ARE POPULATED BY PEOPLE THAT WANT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THEIR UNIQUE LOCATIONS IN ORDER TO WALK TO WORK AND THE DOWNTOWN, HAVE THEIR CHILDREN WALK TO SCHOOL, FROM KINDERGARTEN TO GRADE 12. 
          ALL OF WHICH IS VERY ENVIRONMENTALLY CONSCIOUS, I WOULD KNOW. 
          YOU'D HAVE WHAT HAS BEEN REFERRED TO AS THE GOLD STANDARD OF A SINGLE DETACHED HOME, THAT ALLOWS THEM TO HAVE A YARD FOR THEIR CHILDREN TO PLAY IN OR PERHAPS A GARDEN AND SOMEWHERE TO PARK THEIR VEHICLE, SO THAT WHEN THEY WANT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF YELLOWKNIFE'S NATURAL BEAUTY, THEY CAN LOAD UP YOUR CANOES, KAYAKS, OR CAMPING GEAR AND DRIVE TO ONE OF OUR LOCAL RECREATIONAL AREAS. 
          IN ADDITION, THEY WANT TO KNOW THEIR NEIGHBORS, PARTICIPATE IN BLOCK PARTIES AND GATHERINGS, BUILD A STRONG SENSE OF COMMUNITY. 
          WHEN SOMETHING UNREASONABLE THREATENS THAT CHOSEN LIFESTYLE, BAND TOGETHER TO OPPOSE IT. 
          THOSE ARE THE REASONS WHY OUR RESIDENTS CHOSE TO LIVE ON 58 A AVENUE. 
          THE BY-LAWS PROPOSED SUGGEST THAT A BIG BOX RETAIL STORE, NIGHTCLUB OR AN ALL-NIGHT CONVENIENCE STORE WOULD GREATLY ENHANCE THE CHARACTER OF SUCH A NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          >> TOM, WE JUST REACHED THE 10-MINUTE MARK. 
          DO YOU HAVE MUCH LONGER? 
          >> TWO SENTENCES. 
          >> TWO SENTENCES, OKAY. 
          >> [LAUGHTER] THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. 
          RESIDENTS OF 50 A AVENUE AND OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE RC1 ZONE, AND ANYONE ELSE WHO HAS AN APPRECIATION FOR QUALITY OF LIFE DISAGREES. 
          CITY NEEDS TO LISTEN TO THOSE RESIDENTS. THANK YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU. TOM, IF YOU ARE WILLING YOU CAN SUBMIT YOUR STATEMENT THERE AND THE CITY CLERK WILL CIRCULATE IT TO COUNCIL, BECAUSE THEN WE CAN DIGEST IT FURTHER AND HAVE IT ON HAND WHEN WE'RE DELIBERATING IT'S SECOND READING. 
          >> SURE. 
          >> WITH THAT, I WILL OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL FOR THE SPEAKER. COUNCILOR WILLIAMS. 
          >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. THANK YOU, TOM, FOR COMING AND PRESENTING TODAY. 
          THE DRAFT THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATION AT OCTOBER 25TH MEETING. 
          SPEAKING FROM A PERSPECTIVE OF REPRESENTING THOSE 30 RESIDENTS THAT YOU TALKED ABOUT, WERE YOU SATISFIED OR WERE THERE STILL SOME DEFICIENCIES IN THE PROPOSED ZONING BY-LAWS THAT WAS PRESENTED ON THE OCTOBER 25TH? I KNOW THAT YOU TALKED ABOUT US TAKING A STEP BACKWARDS WHEN WE ADDED THOSE EXTRA USES, BUT I GUESS FROM OCTOBER 25TH AFTER THAT PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT THAT YOU MADE REFERENCE TO, WERE YOU SATISFIED WITH THE DOCUMENTS OR WOULD THERE HAVE BEEN FURTHER CHANGES RECOMMENDED AT THAT POINT? 
          >> MR. HALL. 
          >> THANK YOU, COUNCIL WILLIAMS. YEAH. WE WERE LARGELY SATISFIED WITH THE CHANGES THAT HAD BEEN MADE UP TO THAT POINT, EXCEPT FOR THE INCLUSION. 
          I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT DETAILS IN FRONT OF ME. 
          EFFECTIVELY, WHAT WE WERE OPPOSED TO WAS THE COMMERCIAL USES, ANY COMMERCIAL USES THAT WERE BEING PUT INTO THE PERMITTED USES FOR THE AREA. 
          CERTAIN OF THOSE COMMERCIAL USES WE FELT COULD BE BETTER PUT INTO DISCRETIONARY USES BECAUSE ESPECIALLY IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT IF SOMETHING IS BEING PROPOSED IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, IT BE EVALUATED IN THE CONTEXT OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD TO DETERMINE IF IT IS A FIT OR NOT. 
          >> NOW, THROUGH SOME OF THE DISCUSSION, ONE OF THE COMMERCIAL USES WAS COMMERCIAL RECREATION. 
          THERE HAS BEEN SOME EXAMPLES OF SMALLER BUSINESSES. 
          YOU TALKED ABOUT THE ECONOMY BEING STAGNANT AND ONE OF THE FEW BRIGHT SPOTS ARE OPPORTUNITIES, AFTER THE PANDEMIC IS POSSIBLY A GROWTH IN TOURISM, AND I THINK THAT A COUPLE OF TOURISM BUSINESSES WERE USED AS EXAMPLES OF EXISTING AND COEXISTING IN CURRENT RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          I'M JUST CURIOUS ABOUT THAT SPECIFIC USE, COMMERCIAL RECREATION. 
          [00:25:03]
WOULD THAT BE INCLUSIVE OF YOUR DESIRE OF SAYING NO COMMERCIAL USES OR ALL COMMERCIAL USES IN DISCRETIONARY INCLUSIVE OF COMMERCIAL RECREATION? 
          >> MR. HALL. 
          >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. YEAH, THE COMMERCIAL RECREATION ONE IS ONE THAT WE FELT COULD POSSIBLY BE PUT INTO THE DISCRETIONARY USES BECAUSE WE REALIZE, YES, THINGS LIKE TOURISM BUSINESSES, THERE'S BEEN DISCUSSION AROUND A FEW OF THOSE COMMERCIAL RECREATION BUSINESSES. 
          AGAIN, DISCRETIONARY USE IS PUTTING IT IN THERE ALLOWS YOU TO EVALUATE WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED. 
          I MEAN, WE'VE SEEN IN THE CITY HOUSES RESONANCE IS BEING USED FOR TOURISM OPERATIONS AND THINGS THAT SHOULDN'T HAPPEN, SUCH AS UNCLEAN TOUR BUSES PARKED ON THE STREET AND THINGS LIKE THAT HAPPENING. 
          AGAIN, IN DISCRETIONARY USES, IT DOES GIVE YOU THAT OPTION TO EVALUATE WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED AND MAKE SURE THAT IT IS A FIT. 
          >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. THANK YOU. 
          >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL? COUNCIL MARS. 
          >> THANKS VERY MUCH. THANKS FOR COMING TO PRESENT. 
          I JUST WONDERING IF THE NEIGHBORS THAT YOU'RE SEEMED TO BE REPRESENTING, IF YOU GUYS HAVE TALKED ABOUT SPECIFIC COMMERCIAL USES WHICH ARE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THAN OTHERS WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT MAKING THEM DISCRETIONARY, WHICH ARE THE ONES THAT ARE CAUSING CONCERN? IS IT ALL COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY? I MEAN, I NOTE THAT THERE IS A LONG STANDING CONVENIENCE STORE VERY CLOSE TO 58 AVENUE. 
          I DON'T THINK IT'S AFFECTING THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          YOU'VE GOT THE COLLEGE NEXT DOOR, I MEAN, THERE IS QUITE A BIT OF MIXED USE AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO BEGIN WITH ALREADY. 
          IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IT WOULD BE GENERALLY OKAY THAT SOME BUSINESSES OPEN UP NEARBY. 
          I'M JUST WONDERING IF YOU'VE THOUGHT ABOUT SPECIFICS WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT DISCRETIONARY USES IS IT ALL COMMERCIAL OR IS IT JUST CERTAIN COMMERCIAL? IS THERE A WAY THAT YOU COULD COME UP WITH SOME THINGS THAT YOU MIGHT BE WILLING TO COMPROMISE ON OR THINGS THAT ARE MORE OF A THAN OTHERS. 
          >> MR. HALL. 
          >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I DON'T THINK IT'S AN ISSUE OF COMPROMISE WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT STUFF LIKE, I MEAN, YOU'VE HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD THERE'S A CONVENIENCE STORE ON THE CORNER OF FRANKLIN AVENUE DOWN FROM 58 AVENUE. 
          THERE'S A MAJOR RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE BUILDING AT THE END OF 58 AVENUE. 
          IT'S THERE. WE HAVE IT, WE DON'T NEED IT. 
          THAT'S IN THE DOWNTOWN CORE. 
          IN MY COMMENTS EARLIER IN REGARD TO THE ACCESSIBILITY TO THINGS LIKE THAT, WITHIN EASY WALKING DISTANCE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, THEY ARE THERE. 
          WE DON'T NEED TO PUT THEM IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THOSE. 
          OUR POSITION IS THAT COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES SIMPLY DON'T BELONG, OBVIOUSLY WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE COMMERCIAL, RECREATIONAL, BUT OTHER THINGS LIKE CONVENIENCE STORES AND RETAIL AND FOOD AND BEVERAGE AND THINGS LIKE THAT SIMPLY DON'T BELONG IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          IT'S NOT IN KEEPING WITH THE CHARACTER OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU HAVE ACCESS TO IT ALREADY WITHIN AN EASY WALK. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE PRESENTER? 
          >> I HAVE ONE. JUST SO I'M CLEAR. 
          IN WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS THAT WE RECEIVED, WE DID RECEIVE SOME COMMENTS THAT SUPPORT COMMERCIAL URBAN AGRICULTURE IN THE RC1, IF THE DEFINITION DOESN'T INCLUDE LIVESTOCK. 
          JUST TO BE CLEAR, WOULD YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP BE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT OR IS IT A NO TO COMMERCIAL URBAN AGRICULTURE COMPLETELY? 
          >> MR. HALL. 
          >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. YEAH. OUR POSITION ON THAT WOULD BE NO TO COMMERCIAL AGRICULTURE DOESN'T BELONG IN RESIDENTIAL. 
          HOWEVER, THE AGRICULTURE WHERE PEOPLE ARE SAY PERHAPS KEEPING A FEW CHICKENS IN THEIR BACKYARD OR OBVIOUSLY GARDENS, CERTAINLY. 
          BUT YES, THE KEEPING OF LIVESTOCK IS JUST WHOLLY INAPPROPRIATE IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA. 
          >> SUPPORTIVE OF NON-COMMERCIAL AGRICULTURE LIKE COMMERCIAL AGRICULTURE WITH NO LIVESTOCK ISN'T SUPPORTED? 
          >> MR. HALL. 
          >> I THINK WHAT'S REFERRED TO THERE IS THE URBAN AGRICULTURE COMMUNITY. MADAM CHAIR. 
          THE CONCERN IS IN THE DEFINITION SOMEHOW LIVESTOCK LIKE PIGS AND GOATS MANAGED TO SNEAK INTO THAT DEFINITION, WHICH IS DIFFERENT THAN THE COMMUNITY PLAN, AND THEN THERE ARE ALREADY PEOPLE IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE CITY KEEPING CHICKENS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          AGAIN, AS LONG AS THAT IS CLOSELY REGULATED FROM A HEALTH AND SAFETY PERSPECTIVE, THAT'S FINE. 
          >> THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? COUNCIL WILLIAMS? 
          >> THIS IS MORE FOR ADMINISTRATION. IT'S ALL RIGHT. 
          >> MS. [INAUDIBLE] WOULD NOW ARE SAVED THE QUESTIONS FOR ADMIN TILL THAT SECTION. 
          [00:30:03]
          >> WE CAN BE FLEXIBLE WITH WHATEVER COUNCIL WOULD PREFER IF WE WOULD LIKE TO GO SECTION BY SECTION, IF THAT'S THE MOST APPROPRIATE THOUGH. 
          >> COUNCIL WILLIAMS DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR ADMIN ON THIS? 
          >> I DO INDEED. IN THIS DEBATE OF LIVESTOCK VERSUS NO LIVESTOCK, ARE THERE TO SEPARATE THE DEFINITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN DETERMINED? 
          >> MS. KASAY KELLER. 
          >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WILL PASS THIS ALONG TO MS. WHITE, BUT I WILL SAY THAT A LOT OF WHAT IS INVOLVED IN THIS IS SCALE. 
          WE HAVE HAD NEIGHBORHOODS WITH ONE GOAT, WE HAVE NEIGHBORHOODS WITH ONE PIG, WE HAVE THAT INVOLVED QUITE CLOSELY IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS HISTORICALLY, BUT CERTAINLY WE UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE THE CONCERNS THAT COME FORWARD ABOUT LARGE-SCALE PIG FARMS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS. 
          THAT SCALE IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE NOT ADVOCATING IN ANY WAY. 
          BUT I WILL ASK MS. WHITE TO WAY IN. 
          >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT LIVESTOCK AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, THERE ARE A SET OF RULES THAT ARE BEYOND WHAT IS CONTAINED WITHIN A ZONING BY LAW. 
          THE DEFINITIONS DON'T GET INTO PIGS VERSUS HORSES VERSUS CHICKENS IF THAT IS THE DIRECTION COUNCIL WISHES TO GO BY ALL MEANS WE CAN. 
          THE REGULATORY AUTHORITY THOUGH, WOULD BE OUTSIDE OF THE ZONING BY LAW BECAUSE THERE ARE THINGS WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT LIVESTOCK THAT NEED TO BE CONSIDERED MORE THAN JUST HAVING ANIMAL IN YOUR BACKYARD IS WHAT ARE THEY BEING USED FOR? ARE THEY BEING USED AND TREATED PROPERLY INHUMANELY? HOW IS MOST IMPORTANTLY THE WASTE BEING DISPOSED OF AND TREATED? IT IS A BIGGER CONVERSATION AND THE REGULATIONS REALLY LIE WITH THE TERRITORY, BUT WHEN IT COMES TO DEFINITION, IT'S SOMETHING SHOULD COUNCIL DIRECT CAN DEFINITELY PROVIDE CLARITY ON. 
          >> I GUESS THAT COULD CAUSE A PROBLEM. 
          WE'RE DEFERRING TO THE GENE WT WHEN WE'RE DEFINING A SPECIFIC USE WITHIN SIDE OF THE ZONING BY-LAWS ITSELF. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT. MY LAST QUESTION FOR ADMINISTRATION ON THIS PARTICULAR ONE IS I RECOGNIZED THAT THERE WAS A ONE-POINT ATTRACT CHANGES DOCUMENT THAT SHOWED THE EVOLUTION FROM OCTOBER 25TH TO THE CURRENT FORMAT. 
          FIRST READING, JUST CURIOUS IF THERE'S STILL I'VE GOT OF COURSE, THE PREVIOUS AND THE NEW ONE. 
          HOWEVER, THAT ONE DOCUMENT THAT ACTUALLY SHOWED ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE, THE TRACK CHANGES. 
          WHERE CAN THAT BE ACCESSED? 
          >> THAT'S IN THE COUNCIL PACKAGE FOR NOVEMBER 8TH, 2021. 
          >> IS IT ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC? 
          >> YES, YEAH. IF YOU GO TO YELLOWKNIFE.CA CITY GOVERNMENT COUNCIL AND THEN COUNCIL AGENDAS. 
          YOU CAN GO TO NOVEMBER 8TH ON THE CALENDAR AND THEN YOU CAN LOOK AT OH, YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO LOOK ALMOST. 
          YOU'LL ALSO BE ABLE TO SEE THE MINUTES FROM THAT COUNCIL MEETING, BUT YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE THE AGENDA PACKAGE, AND THE AGENDA PACKAGE WHERE IT HAS THE TRACK CHANGES BETWEEN OCTOBER 25TH AND NOVEMBER 8TH. YES, NOVEMBER 8TH. 
          >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. 
          >> THE OTHER PART TO NOTE IS THE URBAN AGRICULTURE COMMERCIAL DEFINITION. 
          IT DOES CURRENTLY SAY NO KEEPING A SMALL ANIMALS AS REFERENCED IN B, ARE ALLOWED IN THE IG INDUSTRIAL GENERAL ZONE. 
          IT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT COUNCIL CONSIDERS IS IN THE IG AND OUR C1 ZONE, BUT THAT'S FUTURE MEETINGS, DISCUSSIONS. 
          THANK YOU, MR. HALL. 
          THAT'S WE'RE NOW AT THE END OF QUESTIONS COMES FROM COUNCIL MERCHANDISER. 
          >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH YOUR WORSHIP. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. HALL, FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. 
          I JUST HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU AND THE MEMBERS THAT YOU ARE REPRESENTING WITH REGARDS TO FOOD AND BEVERAGE SERVICES. 
          ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HEARD ENGAGING WITH RESIDENTS WAS IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD A CONCERN WAS THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY, LIGHTS WOULD BE TURNED OFF AND IF SOME OF THESE PLACES WERE ALLOWED AS SAY FOOD AND BEVERAGE SERVICES. 
          YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD WAS LOOKING TO MAINTAIN A NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          WOULD YOUR MEMBERS BE OPEN TO SAY A SHARED, LET'S SAY A COFFEE SHOP IN THE FRONT, BUT RESIDENTIAL IN THE BACK OR A SHARED USE. 
          >> MR. HALL. 
          >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. THE CONCERN WE HAVE WITH THAT AND THERE'S BEEN DISCUSSION AROUND IT ALREADY BY COUNCIL IS, IS THAT WHEN YOU USE LIKE THAT IS PUT IN SOMETHING THAT'S STEP FALLS WITHIN THE PERMITTED USE OF FOOD AND BEVERAGE. 
          IT MAY START AS A COFFEE SHOP. 
          UNFORTUNATELY, THE NEXT PERSON THAT OWNS IT CAN TURN IT INTO SOMETHING OTHER THAN THAT BECAUSE THEY HAVE IT'S A PERMITTED USE IN ITS FOOD AND BEVERAGE AND IT CAN BE EXPANDED. 
          WE'VE HAD SOME OF OUR RESIDENCY. 
          I WOULD BE LOVELY TO HAVE A COFFEE SHOP NEXT DOOR AT THE END OF THE STREET OR WHATEVER. 
          BUT THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS WHAT IT COULD BECOME 
          [00:35:01]
FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD WITH INCREASED TRAFFIC, INCREASE LIGHTING, EXTENDED HOURS, THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          OUR STREET, FOR EXAMPLE, IS A RATHER NARROW STREETS. 
          ANY INCREASE IN TRAFFIC ALONG THAT STREET IS GOING TO BE PROBLEMATIC FOR THE RESIDENTS. 
          IN A PERFECT WORLD, IF YOU COULD CONTROL IT AND YOU COULD ENSURE THAT IS ALL THAT WHEREVER IT WAS WAS A COFFEE SHOP, OUR RESIDENTS WOULD PROBABLY BE FINE WITH THAT. 
          THE PROBLEM IS IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO DO THAT, AND IT COULD QUICKLY CHANGE INTO SOMETHING ELSE THAT IS AGAIN INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. HALL. 
          JUST TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND, WHAT I'M HEARING IS, A RESIDENTS MIGHT BE OPEN IF THERE IS A WAY TO MAKE SURE THAT THE HOURS ARE LIMITED, AND IF THIS IS JUST A RESTRICTED USE, MAYBE. 
          >> MR. HALL. 
          >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. HAS A GENERAL STATEMENTS ARE TAKING THE POSITION OF THE RESIDENTS. 
          I WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO SAY NO TO IT SIMPLY BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT IS A POSSIBILITY. 
          I THINK YOU'RE NOW GETTING REALLY DOWN INTO THE WEEDS ON A VERY SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT AND TRYING TO CONSTRAIN IT TO THAT DEGREE WOULD BE EXTREMELY DIFFICULT FOR THE CITY AND THE CITY PLANNERS TO DO TO PREVENT IT FROM BECOMING SOMETHING ELSE DOWN THE ROAD IF THAT WAS POSSIBLE. 
          BUT I SEE THAT AS ADMINISTRATIVELY A VERY DIFFICULT THING TO BE ABLE TO DO. 
          INSTEAD, WE WOULD HAVE TO SAY THAT WE WOULD OPPOSE THE FOOD AND BEVERAGE. 
          >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          >> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL? SEEING NONE. 
          ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE FOR MR. HALL, INCLUDING ANY MEMBER FROM ZOOM? SEEING NONE. THANK YOU AGAIN, MR. HALL FOR COMING TO PRESENT TODAY. 
          UP NEXT WE HAVE MS. LINDA BASSEY. 
          MISS BUSSEY IF YOU WANT TO COME UP TO THE TABLE. 
          MISS BUSSEY IF YOU'RE READY, YOU CAN KICK IT OFF. 
          >> THANK YOU. MY PRESENTATION HAS BEEN CIRCULATED TO COUNSEL. 
          MADAM MAYOR, COUNSELORS AND ADMINISTRATION, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TODAY ON THIS MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR US ALL. 
          I WANT TO START BY SAYING HOW GRATEFUL I'M TO LIVE IN A COMMUNITY WHERE RESIDENTS CAN VOICE CONCERNS OVER IMPORTANT MUNICIPAL DECISIONS THAT CAN AFFECT THEIR QUALITY OF LIFE. 
          I TRULY RESPECT THE WORK THAT ADMINISTRATION HAS UNDERTAKEN ON THIS ISSUE, AND I WOULD LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE HARD WORK AND EFFORT BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. 
          EVEN THOUGH WE DO NOT AGREE ON EVERYTHING RELATED TO A VISION FOR DEVELOPMENT IN YELLOWKNIFE, THAT DOES NOT MEAN I CAN'T ACKNOWLEDGE THE WORK, ENERGY AND TIME INVESTED IN BRINGING THIS FILE OR PROPOSAL TO THE STAGE WHERE IT IS TODAY. 
          I ALSO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE ALL THE WORK TIME AND ENERGY AND DEDICATION OF OUR NEIGHBORS ON 58, WHO PARTICIPATED ON A COMMITTEE FORMED TO HELP RESIDENTS ON OUR STREET EXPRESS THEIR CONCERNS AND RAISE THEIR QUESTIONS ON THE FUTURE OF THE DEVELOPMENT IN THIS PART OF DOWNTOWN. 
          I CHOOSE TO LIVE ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF DOWNTOWN, AND I HAVE DONE SO FOR THE PAST 26 YEARS. 
          FROM 55 TH'S STREET, TO ALBATROSS COURT, TO 44TH STREET CONDO FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME AND FIND NEON 50A AVENUE WHERE I CHOOSE TO DOWNSIZE AND RETIRE. 
          MY FAMILY AND I HAVE WALKED TO WORK, WALK TO SCHOOL, WALK TO CITY FACILITY, AND IT TRULY ENJOY THEIR PROXIMITY OF LIVING CLOSE TO DOWNTOWN. 
          WE ALSO ENJOYED COMING BACK TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          I UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE COMMUNITY PLAN AND THE ZONING BY LAW AS A BLUEPRINT TO ENSURE CONTROL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE COMMUNITY. 
          WHILE I CAN ACCEPT THAT THE PREMISES, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE REASONABLE PERIMETERS ESTABLISHED WITH THE ZONING BY LAW TO EFFECTIVELY MANAGE DEVELOPMENT AND RESIDENTIAL AREAS ADJACENT TO THE DOWNTOWN. 
          I THINK MORE PEOPLE LIVING IN OUR AREA, IN ANY AREA, IN FACT, CAN BE A POSITIVE FOR NEIGHBORS AND THE CITY AND FOR ITS DEVELOPMENT. 
          [00:40:05]
I THINK I CAN SAY THAT MANY, IF NOT ALL OF THE NEIGHBORS UNDERSTAND THAT DENSIFICATION CAN BE A POSITIVE DEVELOPMENT FOR SUSTAINING A VIBRANT ATMOSPHERE. 
          TO ILLUSTRATE THIS, AND WE JUST TALKED ABOUT THIS. 
          LET ME REMIND EVERYONE THAT 58 AVENUE BORDERS ON A MAJOR APARTMENT COMPLEX AND A HOTEL BEHIND AN ENTIRE LENGTH OF A STREET, A FOURPLEX AND A 10 FLOOR RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AT THE ENTRY, AT WHEN ENTRY OF 50A. 
          WE HAVE THESE AND THESE AND AARON BEE'S, WE HAVE RENTERS, INDIVIDUALS RENTING ROOMS IN HOUSE, SOCIAL HOUSING, AND WE ALSO HAVE A COUPLE OF FAMILIES, CHILDREN THAT WERE RAISED ON THAT STREET AND ARE NOW BACK LIVING ON THE STREET WITH THEIR YOUNG FAMILIES. 
          I THINK ALL OF THESE EXAMPLE ILLUSTRATES THE DIVERSITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          AN INCREASE IN DUPLEXES, TRIPLEX'S AND SECONDARY SUITES ARE MORE THAN WELCOME IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          I THINK THAT RESONANCE OF 50 A AVENUE HAVE ALREADY DEMONSTRATED THAT THEY'RE NOT OPPOSED TO SPECIFIC COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
          DAY CARE, GROUP HOMES, RESIDENTIAL CARE FOR SENIORS, COMMERCIAL RECREATION, RELIGIOUS, AND EDUCATION INSTITUTION UNDER DISCRETION TO USE COULD BE MAINTAINED IN THE RC1 ZONE. 
          I SHOULD ALSO POINT THE POSITIVE IMPACT THAT DENSIFICATION WILL HAVE IN HELPING YELLOWKNIFE REDUCE THE LEVEL OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND STATES THAT THIS MAKES IT EASY TO SUPPORT HAVING MORE PEOPLE LIVING IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          THE LACK OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THE NEED FOR DENSIFICATION, AND THE EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ARE ONLY SOME OF THE CHALLENGES FACED BY THIS COMMUNITY. 
          [NOISE] SORRY. WHAT WE ALL WANT IS ASSURANCE THAT WE WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE A REASONABLE RESIDENTIAL EXPERIENCE NOT ENCUMBERED BY THE DISRUPTION OF EXCESSIVE TRAFFIC ON A NARROW STREET, PRESSURES ON PARKING THAT CANNOT BE ACCOMMODATED, AND NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON OUR QUALITY OF LIFE CAUSED BY AN INCOMPATIBLE MIX OF TARGETED COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL USE IN OUR AREA. 
          THE CITY WEBSITE REFERS TO KEY FEATURES ON THE ZONING BYLAW. 
          DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION AND INCREASE DENSIFICATION STATES THAT REGULATIONS DIRECT WHERE THIS IS SUITABLE, NOT SURE WHAT SUITABLE IS, AND THE CHARACTER AND FEEL OF EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS WILL BE PRESERVED TO ITS SIZE AND DESIGN REGULATION. 
          UNDER THE PROPOSED DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION AND INCREASE DENSIFICATION FOR RC1, THE CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD NOT BE PRESERVED. 
          THE RECOMMENDED CHANGE ARE MORE THAN DENSIFICATION AND THEY'RE NOT SUITABLE AS PRESENTED. 
          COMMERCIAL RETAIL, FOOD AND BEVERAGE, CONVENIENCE STORES, AND URBAN AGRICULTURE AS PRESENTED COULD CAUSE MAJOR CHANGES TO OUR ENVIRONMENT AND ARE FAR FROM BEING CONSISTENT WITH THE STATED GOAL OF PRESERVING THE CHARACTER AND FEEL OF OUR EXISTING NEIGHBOR. 
          I SUPPORT HUMAN AGRICULTURE IF LIVESTOCK IS REMOVED WITH THE EXCEPTION OF CHICKEN AND BEES. 
          I WOULD TAKE IT A STEP FURTHER AND HAVE REGULATIONS FOR THE NUMBER OF CHICKENS PERMITTED IN CERTAIN AREA, BUT THAT'S ALL ANOTHER DISCUSSION. 
          I DO NOT SUPPORT FOOD, BEVERAGE, COMMERCIAL, RETAIL, CONVENIENCE STORE AS EITHER PERMITTED OR DISCRETIONARY USE, AS I DO NOT THINK THESE WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THAT THE SUBSTANDARD WIDTH OF 50A WOULD HINDER TRAFFIC FLOW AND PARKING. 
          I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE A LITTLE COFFEE SHOP BESIDE MY HOME OR MY OWN [FOREIGN], BUT OUR STREET DESIGN IS NOT CONDUCIVE TO THESE TYPES OF COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES. 
          THIS IS A GOOD ILLUSTRATION OF OUR CONCERN ABOUT THE ABILITY TO ENSURE A REASONABLE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA. 
          ALL I'M LOOKING FOR IS TO PRESERVE A NEIGHBORHOOD ADJACENT TO DOWNTOWN WITH DENSIFICATION AND REVITALIZATION THAT RESPECTS THE CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT CITIES NEED TO LOOK TO THE FUTURE AND BE WILLING TO ADAPT AND ENSURE THEIR GROWTH. 
          I COULD HAVE TALKED ABOUT OTHER PRESSING ISSUES, DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION, THE STATE OF OUR ECONOMY, AND THE NWT, WHAT THE FUTURE PROMISES US, THE POPULATION FORECAST OR THE BUSINESS FORECASTS. 
          THE GNWT ECONOMIC REVIEW '21-'22 OFFERS COMPELLING INFORMATION OF THE STATE OF OUR ECONOMY. 
          I'VE GAVE YOU THE LINK IF YOU'RE INTERESTED. 
          BUT I WANTED MY PRESENTATION TO FOCUS ON MY NEIGHBORHOOD RC1 ZONE. 
          EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD IS UNIQUE AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE ALL APPRECIATE. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS GOING TO CHANGE OVER THE YEARS, BUT PLEASE ALLOW IT TO CHANGE WHILE RESPECTING ITS UNIQUENESS. 
          ALLOW ITS GROWTH TO BE SUITABLE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          >>THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PRESENTER? COUNCILOR [INAUDIBLE]. 
          >> THANK YOU. THANKS FOR COMING AND PRESENTING TODAY. 
          LINDA, IT MUST BE NICE TO BE ON THAT SIDE, AND NOT ON THIS SIDE. 
          [LAUGHTER] CHICKENS AND BEES. 
          I WANT TO ASK HOW MANY CHICKENS DO YOU THINK PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE AND HOW MANY BEEHIVES? 
          >> MS. BESSIE. 
          >> SORRY. BEEHIVES, I DON'T KNOW. 
          I COULDN'T FIND ANYTHING SPECIFIC. 
          [00:45:02]
CHICKENS, I THINK A FEW OF US ON 50A LOOKED AND I MEAN, CALGARY HAS A REGULATION OF FOUR. 
          IT DEPENDS ON THE AREA WHERE YOU LIVE ALSO. 
          I MEAN, 50A IS THE HOUSES ARE PRETTY CLOSE, SO HAVING 20 CHICKENS LIVING IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, JUST BESIDE ME COULD BE DIFFICULT. 
          THE BEES, I MEAN, WE ALL KNOW THAT [LAUGHTER] I HAVE BEES IN MY YARD, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY WOULD BE A GOOD THING. 
          I ONLY HAVE ONE. 
          >> FOUR CHICKENS AND ONE BEEHIVE IS WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING? 
          >> [LAUGHTER] FOR NOW. LET'S SAY THAT'S GOOD. 
          >> NO, I THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION BECAUSE A PERSON WHO HAS A PIG MIGHT SAY THAT THEY WANT A PIG. 
          I MEAN, I WOULDN'T WANT TO LIVE BESIDE 20 CHICKENS IN A DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL [LAUGHTER] AREA EITHER. 
          THOSE THINGS STINK [LAUGHTER] THANK YOU. 
          >> FOR GREAT STORIES OF PIG FLOYD AND TRAILS END. 
          ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE PRESENTER? SEEING NONE FROM COUNCIL. 
          ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE? SORRY, COUNCILOR WILLIAMS. 
          >> MINE WAS MORE FOR ADMINISTRATION PERTAINING TO COMMENTS MS. BETSY BROUGHT UP. 
          >> SURE. COUNCILOR WILLIAMS. 
          >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. MY QUESTION FOR ADMINISTRATION IS, WELL, IT'S TWO DEFINITIONS, LIVESTOCK IS ONE OF THEM. 
          WITHOUT PUTTING SPECIFIC NUMBERS ON THE DEFINITION OR IN THE ZONE, HOW IS ADMINISTRATION PROPOSING TO SCALE THESE DEVELOPMENTS OR THESE REQUESTS TO BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE SPECIFIC NEIGHBORHOOD? 
          >> MS. BETSY KELLER? 
          >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE QUESTION, AND IT'S CERTAINLY AN IMPORTANT ONE. 
          IT'S ONE THAT THE CITY WRESTLED WITH AROUND DOGS, THERE'S LIMIT ON DOGS. THERE ISN'T ANYMORE. 
          CERTAINLY, WHEN IT COMES TO LIVESTOCK ANIMALS, THAT IS A VERY VALID QUESTION. 
          I'D LIKE TO ASK MS. WHITE IF SHE COULD SPEAK TO THIS, AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO INVITE MS. THISTLE, OUR DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND STRATEGY, TO SPEAK A LITTLE BIT TO THE CONTEXT THAT WAS SET IN OUR AGRICULTURAL STRATEGY AROUND AGRICULTURE AND URBAN AGRICULTURE. 
          I'LL ASK HER TO SPEAK AFTER MS. WHITE'S RESPONSE TO HOW WE WOULD PROPOSE TO SCALE ANIMALS IN URBAN ENVIRONMENTS. THANK YOU. 
          >> GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE QUESTION. 
          THE ZONING BYLAW REALLY OUTLINES THE PARAMETERS OF WHERE THINGS ARE ALLOWED TO BE PERMITTED AND AT PRESENT DOESN'T DELVE INTO THE DETERMINATION OF NUMBERS AND TYPES. 
          WE GIVE EXAMPLES IN THOSE TWO DEFINITIONS, BUT DOES NOT OUTLINE THE NUMBERS. 
          MAYBE MS. THISTLE MIGHT WANT TO SPEAK TO THE AGRICULTURAL POLICY ITSELF. 
          >> THANK YOU. WHEN COUNCIL ADOPTED THE AGRICULTURE STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, OBJECTIVE 1.2 STATES, SUPPORT SUSTAINABLE GROWTH OF SMALL LIVESTOCK, BEES, AND INSECTS IN YELLOWKNIFE AND SPECIFICALLY THE ACTIONS UNDER THAT OBJECTIVE. 
          OUTLINE FOR ADMINISTRATION TO CONSIDER DEVELOPMENT OF AN ANIMAL CONTROL BYLAW THROUGH ENGAGEMENT WITH RESIDENTS, AND THAT INCLUDED THINGS SUCH AS SMALL LIVESTOCK, GOATS, PIGS, RABBITS, POULTRY, DEVELOP AND ADAPT SMALL LIVESTOCK SHELTER DESIGN GUIDELINES, DEVELOP AND ADOPT BEEKEEPING DESIGN GUIDELINES TO REGULATE NUMBER AND LOCATION OF HIVES AND PERMIT BEE AND INSECT KEEPING IN YELLOWKNIFE. 
          IT WAS INDICATED IN THE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN THAT RESEARCH OF BEST PRACTICES WOULD OCCUR IN 2021 AND THAT BY QUARTER 4 OF 2022, ADMINISTRATION ANTICIPATED BRINGING FORWARD RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION. 
          ADDITIONAL ACTIONS UNDER THAT WERE TO SUPPORT OPPORTUNITIES TO OFFER WORKSHOPS [INAUDIBLE] BEEKEEPING AND OPPORTUNITIES TO COLLABORATE WITH THE COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS TO BUILD CAPACITY AROUND URBAN AGRICULTURE, INCLUDING LIVESTOCK. 
          IT'S THE WORK PLAN TO DEVELOP THOSE SPECIFIC REGULATIONS AND WE ANTICIPATE 2022 BRINGING SOMETHING FORWARD BEFORE COUNCIL WITH RESPECT TO LIVESTOCK. 
          >> GREAT. THANK YOU. I GUESS MY SECOND QUESTION IS ALONG THE SAME LINES BUT PERTAINING TO COMMERCIAL RECREATION. 
          IS THERE A SIMILAR PLAN IN PLACE FOR DETERMINING SCALE OF COMMERCIAL RECREATION IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS? 
          >> MS. BETSY KELLER. 
          >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SCALE IS A VERY IMPORTANT THEME AS WE GO THROUGH WHAT IS ALLOWED IN CERTAIN NEIGHBORHOODS VERSUS OTHERS. 
          I WILL ASK MS. WHITE IF SHE WOULD SPEAK TO THIS ONE. 
          >> SORRY, I WAS JUST TRYING TO PULL UP THAT DEFINITION. 
          [NOISE] AT THE MOMENT, 
          [00:50:01]
I THINK WITH REGARDS TO A NUMBER OF THESE QUESTIONS, ONCE THE FINALIZATION OF THE ZONING BYLAW IS IN PLACE, THERE'S A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT POLICIES WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO LOOK AT WITH REGARDS TO HOW WE'RE GOING TO IMPLEMENT THE ZONING BYLAW. 
          WE COULD SAY THAT COMMERCIAL RECREATION WOULD BE PART OF THAT IN REVIEWING IT. 
          I WILL ASK ROB LUCK IF HE HAS ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SPECIFIC TO THAT COMMERCIAL RECREATION. 
          >> I DON'T HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, NO. 
          >> THEN THANK YOU FOR THAT. 
          >> THANK YOU. IF PEOPLE ARE INTERESTED, THE CITY'S FOOD AND AGRICULTURE PLAN PAGE 43, IT HAS SOME DRAFT REGULATIONS THAT OTHER MUNICIPALITIES HAVE USED TO TRY TO REGULATE THE NUMBER AND IT'S BY SQUARE FOOT OR SQUARE METER. 
          THAT'S SOMETHING PEOPLE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT IN THEIR FREE TIME. 
          ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL? COUNCILOR [INAUDIBLE] 
          >> THANK YOU. JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON COUNCILOR WILLIAMS'S QUESTION THERE. 
          IF WE PASS THIS BYLAW AND WE ALLOW THIS AGRICULTURE IN THERE, WHAT HAPPENS BETWEEN THE PASSING OF THE BYLAW AND WHILE WE'RE WAITING FOR THESE REGULATIONS TO BE APPROVED, IS IT LIKE THE WILD WEST? CAN I GO AND GET HALF A DOZEN COWS AND START BREEDING SOME BUILT-IN GALLOWAYS IN MY BACKYARD? OR HOW IS THE CITY GOING TO DEAL WITH ANY APPLICATIONS OR PEOPLE JUST DOING IT WHEN THE REGULATIONS HAVEN'T ACTUALLY BEEN APPROVED YET, BUT THE BYLAW IS APPROVED? 
          >> MS. BETSY KELLER. 
          >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE QUESTION. 
          IT'S A VERY GOOD ONE. 
          WE SEE THAT RIGHT NOW WHEN WE HAVE A COMMUNITY PLAN THAT DOES NOT HAVE AN ALIGNED ZONING BYLAW WITH IT. 
          WE'VE HAD A LITTLE BIT OF GROWING AS WE EVOLVE TOWARDS NEW WAYS OF DOING WORK IN MANY FRONTS. 
          I WILL ASK MS. THISTLE IF SHE'D LIKE TO RESPOND IN TERMS OF OUR ABILITIES AROUND ENFORCEMENT. 
          SHE PUTS HER CITY SOLICITOR HAT ON, AND OF COURSE, I WILL ASK MS. WHITE IF SHE'S GOT SOME IDEAS FROM, OF COURSE, SHE'S GOT GREAT EXPERIENCE IN ZONING IN OTHER COMMUNITIES AND OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD. OVER TO YOU, CARIE. 
          >> THANK YOU. WITH RESPECT TO ENFORCEMENT, IT'S SIMILAR TO THE CURRENT SITUATION. 
          IF A PERSON HAS GOATS IN THEIR YARD, THERE'S NO BYLAW THAT SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS THAT. 
          COMPLAINTS WOULD BE DEALT WITH UNDER OTHER BYLAWS. 
          FOR EXAMPLE, THE UNSIGHTLY LANDS BYLAW, THE CITY'S NOISE BYLAW. 
          IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE NATURE OF THE COMPLAINT, WHICH BYLAW WE WOULD NEED TO LOOK AT FOR ENFORCEMENT. 
          CURRENTLY, THE ONLY BYLAW THAT WE HAVE THAT DEALS SPECIFICALLY WITH ANIMALS IS THE DOG BYLAW. 
          >> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL? SEEING NONE. 
          ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE? SEEING NONE IN-PERSON. 
          ANYBODY ON ZOOM? SEEING NOBODY ON ZOOM. 
          THANK YOU AGAIN, MS. BETSY, FOR THE PRESENTATION. 
          >>THANK YOU. 
          >> NEXT WE HAVE NANCY ZIMMERMAN. 
          NANCY, IF YOU'D LIKE TO COME TO THE PODIUM OR TABLE. 
          >> YEAH, JUST THE BUTTON THERE. 
          WELL, THE AQUATIC REFERENDUM ON TUESDAY AND SOMETHING OF THIS MAGNITUDE TODAY, I'M GLAD FOR YOUR SAKES THAT CANNABIS IS LEGAL. 
          I, UNLIKE THE TWO PREVIOUS SPEAKERS, AM DISCOVERING HOW UNINFORMED I AM ABOUT CITY PLANNING. 
          THEY CLEARLY HAVE A GRASP OF THE WHOLE AND THE PROCESS THAT I SIMPLY DON'T HAVE SO MUCH SO THAT I'VE BEEN FREAKING OUT THE LAST FEW DAYS BECAUSE SOMEHOW EITHER I WAS ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL OR I DIDN'T GRASP THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE FACT THAT SOME TIME IN THE LAST WHILE, MY PARTICULAR STREET IS NOW DESIGNATED DOWNTOWN AS OPPOSED TO R3, WHICH I THOUGHT IT WAS. 
          IF I GOT NOTES IN THE MAIL ABOUT IT BEING DOWNTOWN IN MY HEAD, I'M PSYCHOLOGICALLY A DOWNTOWN PERSON SO I PROBABLY SAW, YEAH, DOWNTOWN WHATEVER. 
          I MAY HAVE MISSED THE BOAT. 
          NEVERTHELESS, I WANT TO SPEAK ABOUT A PARTICULARITY. 
          YOUR JOB IS TO CONSIDER THE WHOLE AND THE COMMON GOOD. 
          I'M A BIG BELIEVER IN THE COMMON GOOD AND I'M ALSO BE BELIEVER IN GREEN AND ANYBODY HERE PROBABLY KNOWS THAT. 
          [00:55:03]
BUT I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THE PARTICULARITY OF MY HOME AND THE HOME OF OTHER RESIDENTS WHO LIVE IN MY HOME AND SOME OF THE IMPLICATIONS. 
          I WAS BORN THERE. WELL, LITERALLY BORN IN STANTON, THREE STANTONS AGO, BUT DAY ONE I WAS BORN THERE. 
          THEN I WENT AWAY TO BOARDING SCHOOL AND WENT TO UBC AND THOUGHT I WOULD NEVER LOOK BACK. 
          I DID LOOK BACK 12 YEARS AGO AND WITH GREAT RELUCTANCE, MOVED INTO MY FAMILY HOME. 
          WHEN I SAY MY FAMILY HOME, I MEAN BUILT BY MY PARENTS IN THE 70S AND NEVER INTENDED TO STAY THERE LIKE MANY PEOPLE DON'T INTEND TO STAY AND DO AND CERTAINLY NEVER INTENDED TO PURCHASE. 
          I HAD A BEAUTIFUL CONDO. 
          MANY OF YOU KNOW ABOUT THIS BECAUSE I TALKED ABOUT A LOT. 
          MY DREAM CONDO AND GASTOWN, VANCOUVER, HIGH CEILINGS, EXPOSED BRICK, HARDWOOD FLOORS, GENUINE HARDWOOD FLOORS. 
          THAT WAS HOME, BUT AS BEAUTIFULLY OFTEN HAPPENS, AS THE YEARS WENT BY FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER, YELLOWKNIFE BECAME HOME, MY BIRTHPLACE BECAME MY HOME. 
          SLOWLY I DEVELOPED A VISION FOR 4909 45TH STREET. 
          I DEVELOPED THE VISION EVEN IN THE MIDST OF HAVING CHOSEN TO LIVE ON A STREET WHERE AT THE OTHER END OF THE STREET IS SALVATION ARMY. 
          I WANT TO DIGRESS FOR A MOMENT AND MAKE A REQUEST THAT NOBODY HERE EVER USED THE WORD NIMBY AGAIN. 
          NIMBY, I'M FED UP WITH IT. 
          IT TOO EASILY DISCOUNTS LEGITIMATE CONCERNS. 
          NOW, AM I GLAD THERE IS A SALVATION ARMY? YES. AM I FINE WITH IT BEING AT THE END OF THE STREET? YES, THEY DO A GOOD JOB. 
          IN PARTICULAR, THE STREET VAN HAS REALLY CLEARED UP ISSUES. 
          LET ME BE SPECIFIC ABOUT IN JUST AS LAST YEAR, I'VE HAD ENCOUNTERS TWICE WITH COUPLES HAVING SEX ON MY FRONT LAWN. 
          YOU WALK ONTO YOUR LAWN AND TRY AND TELL PEOPLE THEY NEED TO GO ELSEWHERE, ESPECIALLY WHEN ONE SEEMS TO BE COERCIVE AND WHEN YOU CALL THE POLICE, THEN THEY TURN ON YOU. 
          ANOTHER THING THAT HAPPENED LAST SUMMER, WAS THERE IS A PARTY OF FOUR PEOPLE ON THE FRONT DECK OF MY TENANTS ON MY TENANTS' COACHES AND CHAIRS, THEIR DECK FURNITURE. 
          YOU TRY BEING THE PERSON COMING HOME AS A SINGLE WOMAN TELLING FOUR DRUNK MEN, THEY CAN'T DO THAT. 
          I SAY THIS TO SAY NIMBYISM OUGHT TO BE CONSIDERED. 
          THERE ARE LEGITIMATE CONCERNS. 
          I'M A LITTLE WORRIED THAT WE'LL START HEARING THE WORD NIMBY ABOUT THOSE OF US WHO THINK, WAIT A MINUTE, THERE ARE SOME LEGITIMATE CONCERNS WITH WHAT'S GOING ON HERE. 
          BACK TO THE PARTICULARITIES OF MY HOME. 
          I CHOSE TO LIVE THERE DESPITE THE STREET ACTIVITY THAT IS PART OF MY LIFE, I CHOSE TO ROOT MYSELF AND ANCHOR MYSELF THERE AND I HAVE A VISION FOR MY HOME, WHICH INCLUDES CONTINUING BEING WHAT I THINK IS PART OF THE SOLUTION TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS. 
          IN ADDITION TO LIVING THERE MYSELF, I HAVE THREE RENTAL UNITS, WHICH BY YELLOWKNIFE STANDARDS ARE AFFORDABLE. 
          THEY HOUSE PEOPLE IN A QUIET, CALM, I THINK, RATHER NICE ENVIRONMENT. 
          ALL OF US WALK TO WORK WITH ONE EXCEPTION. 
          ALL OF US WALK TO WORK. 
          ALL OF US SHOP DOWNTOWN AT THE [INAUDIBLE] OVER THE YEARS AND ITEMS, IPADS AND SO ON, SO FAR FROM ROY WILLIAMS AND SOON TO BE, IF WE MANAGED TO GET IT THROUGH THE TRANSPORTATION CRISIS OUT OF THE WEST COAST. 
          A LARGE SCREEN TV. 
          MY VISION FOR MY HOME IS BIGGER THAN THAT FURTHER, WHICH IS: WE ALL KNOW THE PAIN OF PEOPLE COMING AND GOING, AND THINGS COMING AND GOING FROM YELLOWKNIFE. 
          I DON'T WANT TO BE THAT I HAVE DETERMINED I AM GOING TO BE BROUGHT OUT OF MY HOME IN MY COFFIN AND IT'S MORE SPACE THAN I NEED. 
          ONE LARGE ROOM, PROBABLY ABOUT ME TO SHEILA AND ME TO LINDA IS GOING TO BE WHAT I'M GOING TO USE FOR COMMUNITY EVENTS, NEIGHBORHOOD EVENTS. 
          THAT'S WHY THE BIG SCREEN TV, YOU PROBABLY KNOW THAT NEVER MIND, I WON'T NAME THEM, BUT THERE'S A FEW PEOPLE THAT I HOPE COME VISIT AND WE CAN HAVE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT IMPORTANT TOPICS THAT GO TILL THREE IN THE MORNING WITH WINE AND CHEESE AND LIKE PHILOSOPHERS CAFES. 
          I'M TRYING TO GIVE A PICTURE OF THE PARTICULARITY. 
          MY TENANTS TYPICALLY HAVE BIKES AND KAYAKS AND PADDLE BOARDS. 
          WE LIVE, WE INHABIT THERE AND WE, LIKE OTHER PEOPLE HAVE TALKED ABOUT, OF COURSE, WE GIVE LOTS OF BUSINESS TO THE DOWNTOWN. 
          I'M SAYING THIS, I THINK I'M PART OF THE SOLUTION AND MY HOME IS PART OF THE SOLUTION. 
          I THINK I'M A SOLUTION TO AT LEAST 
          [01:00:03]
HAVING SOME PEOPLE WANDERING AND CLING AROUND THE STREETS OF DOWNTOWN AND PURCHASING FROM DOWNTOWN RETAILERS. 
          I THINK WE'RE GREEN. 
          WE WALK MOST PLACES. 
          I THINK WE'RE COMMUNITY-BUILDING. 
          I'M ATTEMPTING TO COMMUNITY BUILD. 
          NOW, IMAGINE WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF ALL OF A SUDDEN NEXT DOOR OR JUST A LITTLE WAYS AWAY, IN COMES ANOTHER, LET'S JUST SAY LIQUOR STORE, BECAUSE THERE'S NO REASON NOT TO. 
          PERHAPS I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH ALL THE DETAILS, BUT I GET THIS SENSE THAT AS SOMEBODY WHO WAS ZONED NOW DOWNTOWN, IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO JUST ANNOUNCE, "YEAH, I'M BUILDING A LIQUOR STORE," HOLY HELL, THAT WILL WRECK MY HOME ENVIRONMENT AND IT WILL WRECK THE ENVIRONMENT FOR MY TENANTS. 
          OR IMAGINE IF THERE'S EVEN SOMETHING LIKE A BIG NEON FLASHING SIGN. 
          THAT'S WHAT I LEFT. 
          THERE WERE A FEW REASONS I LEFT FROM VANCOUVER, BUT ONE OF WHICH WAS I JUST GOT EXHAUSTED AND THE CONTINUAL NOISE AND YOU CAN PUT UP ALL THE SIGNS YOU WANT ABOUT: PLEASE BE RESPECTFUL OF THE NEIGHBOR. 
          IF IT'S THREE IN THE MORNING AND YOU'RE DRUNK AND YOU'RE 18, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE QUIET. YOU'RE JUST NOT. 
          I WOULD ASK THAT INSTEAD OF WHAT IT FEELS LIKE RIGHT NOW AS CARTE BLANCHE, ONCE THIS IS IN, YOU WANT TO DROP IN A LIQUOR STORE, YOU WANT TO DROP IN WHATEVER. 
          PLEASE AMEND THAT. 
          I'M NOT SOPHISTICATED ENOUGH ON THIS TOPIC TO KNOW WHAT THE LANGUAGE IS, BUT PLEASE PUT SOME CONDITIONS SO THAT THERE HAS TO BE A VERY THOUGHTFUL PROCESS. 
          HOW DOES THIS COMPARED TO THE NANCY PARTICULARITIES OF THE WORLD, THE PARTICULAR HOMES IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          HOW DO WE WEIGH THIS DROPPING A FOOD AND BEVERAGE OR WHATEVER COMPARED TO THE QUIETUDE RESIDENTS WHO WALK TO WORK, WHO SHOP DOWNTOWN, WHO ARE DEVELOPING COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD? RIGHT NOW IT JUST FEELS DOORS WIDE OPEN. 
          PLEASE CHANGE THAT. 
          PLEASE CHANGE THAT. 
          I'M INVESTING HEAVILY IN THIS LITTLE PLOT OF YELLOWKNIFE, $80,000 TO BE SPECIFIC, IN THE LAST YEAR FOR RENOVATIONS, NOT TO MENTION SELLING MY LITTLE PIECE OF VANCOUVER. 
          PLEASE CONSIDER AMENDING IT TO PUT VERY STRINGENT CONSIDERATIONS WHEN NEW THINGS MIGHT COME IN THAT COULD VERY DELETERIOUSLY AFFECT NOT JUST MY EXPERIENCE OF HOME AND RESIDING AND INHABITING, BUT ALSO THE EXPERIENCES OF AT LEAST THREE, SOMETIMES UP TO FOUR TENANTS WHO HAVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN DOWNTOWN YELLOWKNIFE. 
          THAT'S IT. I KNOW YOUR JOB IS TO CONSIDER THE AGGREGATE. 
          MY JOB IS TO REPRESENT THE PARTICULAR SO THERE'S MY PARTICULAR. ASK AWAY. 
          >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, NANCY, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE SPEAKER? SEEING NO QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE? THE AUDIENCE ON ZOOM, DO A LITTLE SCAN AND JUST TO LET YOU KNOW, NANCY, THAT IN THE ZONING BY-LAW THERE IS A SECTION ABOUT ILLUMINATION OF SIGNS 7.9.13, AND SO THERE IS A POSSIBILITY, THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER SHALL CONSIDER THE AMENITIES OF THE ZONE AND POSSIBLE INTERFERENCE WITH TRAFFIC SIGNAL LIGHTS AND OTHER SIGNS. 
          HOWEVER, SOMETHING COUNCIL COULD CONSIDER AS PERHAPS THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT NOT IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OR NOT NEAR THE HOUSES I IMAGINED, WELL, CONSIDER THE AMENITIES OF THE ZONE WOULD BE SOMETHING BUT APPRECIATE THAT POINT. 
          SEEING NO QUESTIONS FOR THE PRESENTER, THANK YOU AGAIN. 
          UP NEXT, ACTUALLY, SORRY, NANCY, IF YOU'D BE ABLE TO JUST TURN OFF THE MIC OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS ON ZOOM. THANK YOU. 
          NEXT I HAVE LEWIS LITTLE. 
          LEWIS IS JOINING US ON ZOOM, SO FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE, YOU CAN WATCH UP ON THE SCREEN HERE. 
          LEWIS, THANK YOU. I WILL TURN THE FLOOR OVER TO YOU. 
          >> GREAT. THANKS VERY MUCH MAYOR TO HAVE A FEW MOMENTS OF YOUR TIME. 
          I'VE ACTIVELY MONITORED THIS WHOLE PLANNING PROCESS AND WRITTEN A NUMBER OF LETTERS AND EMAILS, SO I THOUGHT I WOULD VERBALLY MAKE A COUPLE OF POINTS TO YOU THIS MORNING WITH THE HOPE THAT IF LETTERS AREN'T HEARD THEN MAYBE MY VOICE IS. 
          THIS IS I WANT TO RAISE. 
          [01:05:06]
THE FIRST POINT, I WANT TO REMIND FOLKS ON COUNCIL THAT THE COMMUNITY PLAN UPDATE REALLY HAS TWO MAJOR OBJECTIVES RELATED TO ZONING. 
          ONE OBJECTIVE BEING INCLUSIONARY ZONING TO INCREASE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, A MAJOR OBJECTIVE. 
          THE SECOND BEING FLEXIBILITY IN ZONING IN SOME AREAS FOR MIXED USE LAND DEVELOPMENT. 
          THAT'S WHAT I UNDERSTAND TO BE KIND OF THE TWO OBJECTIVES THAT ARE REALLY DRIVING THIS ZONING BY-LAW. 
          BUT I THINK WHAT HAS HAPPENED OR WHAT I SEE IS HAPPENING IS THAT THE CITY HAS REALLY GONE TOO FAR AND HAS SACRIFICE OF RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND IT'S DESIRE TO ACHIEVE THOSE OBJECTIVES AND I AM NOT SURE THAT AN ANYTHING GOES, LAND USE AND PERMITTED USES IS REALLY ACCOMPLISHING THE OBJECTIVE OF INCREASING AFFORDABLE OR FLEXIBILITY IN MIXED LAND USES. 
          I GUESS FROM MY POINT OF VIEW [INAUDIBLE], AND THE WIDE RANGE OF PERMITTED USES REALLY HAVE PUT NEIGHBORHOODS THROUGHOUT THE CITY AT PERIL. 
          I THINK THAT THE CITY HAS MIDDLE TO PUT THE POTENTIAL OF COMMERCIAL ECONOMIC USES OVER, SO THEY YOU HAVE A IDEOLOGICAL CONFLICT WITH THE SACRIFICE AND I THINK PREVIOUS SPEAKERS AND CERTAINLY SOME OF THE SUBMISSIONS THAT I'VE SEEN ARE CONTENDING THAT SAME THING. 
          I GUESS I WOULD BE ASKING COUNCIL [INAUDIBLE] THIS BYLAW THE COST TO RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, THE COST TO THE QUALITY OF LIFE, THE COST TO THE NATURE OF YELLOWKNIFE AS A NORTHERN CAPITAL CITY, AND I PERSONALLY THINK THAT THE COST TO RESIDENTS IN THIS CITY IS JUST TOO HIGH, AND I WOULD BE ASKING, AS I HAVE IN SEVERAL OTHER LETTERS, THAT WE RETHINK THE SCALE AND THE SIZE OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE BEING ALLOWED AND THE WIDE RANGE OF PERMITTED USES THAT ARE BEING ALLOWED THROUGHOUT THE CITY. 
          THE SECOND POINT THAT I WANT TO MAKE IS THAT I SEE THIS ZONING BY-LAW AS FUNDAMENTALLY UNDEMOCRATIC, AND IT APPALLS ME THAT A PUBLIC GOVERNMENT LIKE THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE WOULD IN EFFECT MUTE THE VOICES OF RESIDENCE WHEN IT COMES TO DECISIONS ABOUT PERMITTED DEVELOPMENTS AND PERMITTED USES, BECAUSE VIRTUALLY ANYTHING GOES ANYWHERE IN THE CITY IN THIS PROPOSED ZONING BY-LAW, AND BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY PROVISIONS IN THIS PROPOSED ZONING BY-LAW, THAT DON'T EVEN REQUIRE ANY PERMIT. 
          THAT YOU CAN PUT IN TEMPORARY USES, FOR EXAMPLE, AND NOT EVEN HAVE ANY PERMITTING PROCESS, SO THERE IS NO MECHANISM FOR INDIVIDUALS SUCH AS MYSELF OR ANY OF THE OTHERS THAT HAVE SPOKEN TO REALLY INTERVENE. 
          FOR ME THAT IS FUNDAMENTALLY UNDEMOCRATIC WHEN YOU HAVE REMOVED RESIDENTS, CITIZENS VOICES FROM THIS PROCESS, AND THAT FOR ME IS JUST UNACCEPTABLE. 
          I HAVE MADE THESE POINTS OVER AND OVER AND AGAIN IN LETTERS AND EMAILS AND PRESENTATIONS OVER THE LAST YEAR OR SO AND I WILL CONTINUE TO MAKE THEM BUT I HAVE TO SAY THAT I AM NOT 
          [01:10:07]
OPTIMISTIC THAT WE'RE GOING TO SEE ANY REAL CHANGE IN THE ZONING BY-LAW. 
          I THINK THE FIX IS IN AND THE FIX IS PROFIT OVER PEOPLE, AND THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN YELLOWKNIFE IS GOING TO DIMINISH SUBSTANTIALLY AND THAT WILL BE THE LEGACY OF THIS COUNCIL. 
          THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY AT THE MOMENT, THANK YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MORRIS. 
          >> THANKS VERY MUCH. THANKS FOR TAKING THE TIME TO PRESENT TO US LEWIS. 
          I DID WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT YOUR PERSPECTIVE THAT COUNCIL OR ADMINISTRATION OR THE ZONING BY-LAW MAYBE A BETTER WAY TO PUT IT, IS PUTTING PROFIT OVER PEOPLE. 
          I MEAN, PERSONALLY SPEAKING, ANYTIME A BUSINESS IS OPENED IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT I'VE LIVED IN, I THINK PRETTY MUCH EXCLUSIVELY. 
          I'VE ALWAYS FOUND IT TO BE AN AMENITY THAT I'M EXCITED ABOUT. 
          IN MY CASE, I'M SPEAKING ABOUT RESTAURANTS, I REMEMBER BEING IMMENSELY EXCITED ABOUT THE BREW PUB OPENING NEARBY AND WE'VE HAD A RESTAURANT OPEN, A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT RESTAURANTS OPEN IN THE PAST COUPLE YEARS IN MY IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND SO THIS IDEA OF PEOPLE OVER PROFITS, I MEAN, IN ALMOST ANY CASE I CAN THINK OF WITH A SMALL BUSINESS OPENING IN A NEIGHBORHOOD, THEY USUALLY ARE SERVING THAT NEIGHBORHOOD MORE THAN ANYBODY ELSE AND SO IT'S NOT REALLY IN MY PERSPECTIVE A SITUATION OF PEOPLE OVER PROFITS, IT'S A BUSINESS WHICH IS SERVING THE NEIGHBORHOOD ITSELF OPENING UP, AND SO I GUESS I WOULD JUST ASK, WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THAT PERSPECTIVE? I MEAN, DO YOU HAVE EXAMPLES YOURSELF OF BUSINESSES OPENING NEARBY WHICH ARE SOMEHOW HURTING THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR HARMING THE NEIGHBORHOOD PERSONALITY? BECAUSE WHEN I THINK OF BUSINESSES NEARBY ANYWHERE THAT I'VE LIVED MOST OF THE TIME, THEY'RE SERVING THE NEIGHBORHOOD ITSELF AND THE WIDER COMMUNITY AND ARE THERE AND TEND TO, IN MY OPINION, IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE, SO WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THAT PERSPECTIVE AND THAT POSSIBILITY THAT PERHAPS IT'S NOT SO MUCH A PROFIT OVER PEOPLE SITUATION, IT'S IN FACT THAT BUSINESSES ARE PART OF A VIBRANT COMMUNITY? 
          >> MISS LITTLE. 
          >> THANKS FOR THAT JULIAN. 
          I THINK THAT SOME OF THE OTHER SPEAKERS HAVE SAID, AND I AGREE THAT, RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS ARE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, AND THERE'S A SPECIAL QUALITY ABOUT THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS IN YELLOWKNIFE, AND YOU START PLOPPING IN BUSINESSES AND I SEE IT AROUND ME THROUGHOUT THE OLD TOWN, AND IT CHANGES THE QUALITY OF THOSE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND THAT RESIDENTIAL EXPERIENCE. 
          I THINK AS MR. HALL ELOQUENTLY POINTED OUT, BUSINESSES ARE WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE VIRTUALLY ANY PLACE IN THIS CITY, AND TO HAVE THEM THROUGHOUT RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, I THINK IS A DISSERVICE TO RESIDENTS, SO I GUESS I DISAGREE WITH YOU IN THAT THEY ARE AN AMENITY TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          I THINK RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS ARE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND I THINK COMMERCIAL AREAS ARE COMMERCIAL AREAS. 
          THERE MAY BE SOME EXCEPTIONS, BUT AGAIN, WHENEVER WE HAVE NO MECHANISM TO REALLY INTERVENE IN THOSE DISCUSSIONS, THEN I DON'T THINK ANYBODY WINS IN THE END, SO I THINK WE'RE ON A DIFFERENT PATH HERE. 
          I DON'T REALLY AGREE WITH YOUR JULIAN. THANK YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU. FAIR ENOUGH, AND THERE IS CERTAINLY NO NEED FOR US TO GET INTO A BACK-AND-FORTH DEBATE. 
          I JUST WANTED TO FLOAT THAT THOUGHT BUT YEAH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION LEWIS, VERY MUCH APPRECIATE YOU TAKING THE TIME AND THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS. 
          >> THANK YOU. COUNCIL MORGAN THEN COUNCIL CONGA. 
          >> THANK YOU MA'AM TOO. THIS QUESTION IS MORE FOR ADMIN. 
          IT'S JUST RELATED TO SOME OF THE CONCERNS BROUGHT BY OUR LAST COUPLE OF SPEAKERS. 
          I THINK WE COULD ALL IMAGINE CERTAIN COMMERCIAL USES 
          [01:15:02]
IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT COULD ENHANCE. 
          LIKE THE COFFEE SHOP EXAMPLE THAT PEOPLE HAVE TALKED ABOUT DOWN IN OLD TOWN. 
          WE CAN BUY ICE CREAM NOW AND COFFEE AND I THINK MANY PEOPLE APPRECIATE EVEN HAVING THE WOODYARD. 
          BUT NANCY BROUGHT UP THE SCENARIO OF SAY, A RESIDENTIAL STREET ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF DOWNTOWN. 
          WHAT IF A NEW BAR WAS BEING PROPOSED RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF A RESIDENTIAL STREET ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF DOWNTOWN? MY QUESTION FOR ADMIN IS, IF SOMETHING WAS PERMITTED, SAY EVEN IN THE DOWNTOWN ZONE, BUT IT'S A RESIDENTIAL STREET AND IF SOMETHING LIKE A BAR IS BEING PROPOSED, THAT CLEARLY MIGHT HAVE SOME HIGHER IMPACTS ON NEIGHBORS, WHAT TOOLS MIGHT ADMIN USE TO CONSULT NEIGHBORS OR CONSIDER THOSE HIGHER IMPACTS? WOULD IT BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD JUST IF THEY FOLLOWED THE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND THIS THING, YOU CAN DO IT OR ARE THERE CRITERIA THAT YOU MIGHT DECIDE ACTUALLY THIS USE WILL NOT FIT EVEN THOUGH IT'S PERMITTED IN THE ZONE, ON THIS STREET IN THIS CONTEXT, THIS IS JUST NOT GOING TO WORK. 
          BECAUSE I THINK PEOPLE BELIEVED THAT IF SOMETHING BECOMES PERMITTED, THAT WE WILL JUST HAVE TO ALLOW IT IN ANY SCENARIO IN ANY CASE BECAUSE IT'S IN THE ZONING BY-LAW, THAT IT'S ALLOWED IN AND NOBODY GETS TO SAY AND ANYTHING GOES. 
          CAN ADMIN EXPLAIN, WOULD THERE BE TOOLS, WOULD THERE BE CRITERIA, WOULD THERE BE WAYS THAT SOMETHING THAT IS A HIGH-IMPACT COMMERCIAL USE COULD BE REJECTED IF IT WAS DEEMED IT WAS JUST TOO MUCH IMPACT ON THAT RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD? THE BIG THING IS, IF YOU'RE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING BY-LAWS, SO IT'S A PERMITTED USE AND YOU'RE FOLLOWING EVERY SINGLE BULLET POINT THEN YOUR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT WOULD GET APPROVED. 
          THE DISCRETIONARY USE, THAT'S WHERE COUNCIL CAN COME IN AND SAY, "OH, THE BAR ISN'T A GOOD USE HERE, BUT A COFFEE SHOP WOULD, BUT MS. BESSIE CALEB (PHONETIC). 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YES, THERE ARE SOME PARAMETERS THAT ARE PUT INTO THE ZONING BY-LAWS AND I WILL ASK MRS. WHITE IF SHE COULD SPEAK TO EXAMPLES THAT COULD ILLUSTRATE THIS. 
          WE'VE HEARD THE DISCUSSION OF PIG FARM VERSUS A COUPLE OF CHICKENS, SO I THINK WE HAVE SOME COMPARABLE EXAMPLES FOR OTHER KINDS OF USES. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE ARE ALSO TALKING DEPENDING ON WHICH PART OF THE CITY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. 
          THE RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF, I JUST WANT TO REITERATE, WAS WHAT WAS PROPOSED IN THAT OCTOBER 25TH DRAFT. 
          WHAT SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT PEOPLE ARE SPEAKING TOO TODAY ARE ABOUT THOSE USES THAT WERE ADDED BACK IN UNDER THAT RC ZONE AND SO IT IS STAFF'S PROPOSAL THAT IF WE GO TO THAT RC1 WITHOUT THOSE COMMERCIAL USES, THEN SOME OF THIS CONVERSATION MAYBE WOULDN'T BE HAPPENING. 
          HOWEVER, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PERMITTED USES IN SPECIFIC ZONES, WHATEVER THOSE DO FINALIZE AND END UP BEING. 
          WE HAVE THE POLICIES AND THE OUTLINE IN THE ZONING BY LAW FOR WHAT THAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICERS TO LOOK AT WHEN REVIEWING THE APPLICATIONS. 
          THERE'S THE FULL LIST AND I WON'T GO THROUGH EVERY ITEM, BUT IN SECTION 7, AS WELL AS IN EACH OF THE ZONES THEMSELVES, THERE ARE SPECIFIC PARAMETERS, WHETHER IT'S RELATED TO THE AMOUNT OF SPACE ON THE SITE OR HEIGHT. 
          IT'S NOT NECESSARILY IN ANYTHING GOES, THERE ARE DIFFERENT SECTIONS WITHIN THE ZONING BY LAW THAT ALL NEED TO BE USED TOGETHER WHEN LOOKING AT WHETHER OR NOT SOMETHING IS APPROPRIATE. 
          I WILL ASK BOTH ROB AND OUR CONSULTANT MARGARET, IF THEY WANT TO PROVIDE GREATER INFORMATION OR DETAIL. 
          BUT IT'S NOT JUST BECAUSE IT'S PERMITTED IT IS ALLOWED CARTE BLANCHE ANYWHERE IN THAT ZONE. 
          THERE ARE OTHER REGULATIONS WE NEED TO LOOK AT AND REVIEW AS PART OF THOSE APPLICATIONS. 
          ROBERT, MARGARET. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I DON'T HAVE A LOT MORE TO ADD. 
          IF IT IS IN THE RC ZONE FOR EXAMPLE, BACK TO CHARLES' POINT THAT THOSE WERE ADDED AFTER OCTOBER 25TH AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE DEBATE AND DISCUSSION IS ABOUT TODAY. 
          IF THEY WERE REMOVED FROM THAT OR PUT IN DISCRETIONARY, THEN THAT WOULD OPEN UP THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION. 
          AS IT RELATES TO THE DISCUSSION AROUND 45TH STREET AND BEING PART OF THE DOWNTOWN ZONE, THAT WOULD HAVE A FEW MORE IMPLICATIONS THAT MIGHT BE WORTH FOR COUNCIL TO 
          [01:20:02]
CONSIDER IF THINGS LIKE A BAR OR OTHER ACTIVITIES WERE ALLOWED IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE DOWNTOWN ZONE. 
          I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT AS A COMMENT. 
          THAT COULD BE A CONSIDERATION THAT WE MAY HAVE TO TAKE AWAY IS HOW DO WE PROVIDE MECHANISMS IN THE PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL AREAS IN THE DOWNTOWN ZONE THAT HAD BEEN CAPTURED TO HELP PROVIDE SOME INPUT ON THAT. I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. 
          COUNCIL KONGE. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. 
          I JUST WANT TO GET A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A FEEL LIKE YOU DON'T WANT BUSINESS AT ALL AND RESIDENTIAL IS WHAT I'M HEARING. 
          BUT THERE IS LIKE WHAT ABOUT HOME-BASED BUSINESSES. 
          I'M SURE THAT YOU HAVE HOME-BASED BUSINESSES PROBABLY WITHIN FOUR OR FIVE HOUSES OF WHERE YOU LIVE AND I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE. 
          BUT I MEAN, THEY'RE ALL OVER TOWN. 
          ARE HOME-BASED BUSINESSES OKAY OR IS IT ONLY YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT WALMART BEING NEXT DOOR? MS. LITTLE. 
          THAT'S THE DISCUSSION. 
          I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE IS A BLACK AND WHITE RESPONSE TO THAT COUNCIL KONGE LIKE IT IS. 
          EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD, EVERY RESIDENTIAL AREA AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT OVER AND OVER AND AGAIN, IS UNIQUE AND SO THERE NEEDS TO BE MECHANISMS IN THIS ZONING BY-LAW THAT THAT DISCUSSION CAN BE HAD. 
          BECAUSE YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. 
          THERE ARE HOME-BASED BUSINESSES THROUGHOUT THE CITY. 
          THERE ARE SHORT-TERM ACCOMMODATION RENTALS, WHICH ARE COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS THROUGHOUT THE CITY. 
          THERE ARE THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT THAT'S A VERY DIFFERENT OPERATION SIZE AND SCALE THAN I SHOULD SAY A WALMART OR A BAR, OR A COFFEE SHOP OR WHATEVER. 
          THERE ARE CRITERIA, FOR EXAMPLE, WITH HOME-BASED BUSINESSES THAT YOU CAN'T HAVE 10 EMPLOYEES, YOU CAN'T HAVE ALL OF THIS TRAFFIC AND PARKING. 
          WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT WE NEED MECHANISMS TO HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS AS THEY APPLY IN VARIOUS NEIGHBORHOODS AND VARIOUS RESIDENTIAL AREAS. 
          IT'S NOT NOT BLACK AND WHITE. 
          NO, NOTHING IS EVER THAT EASY. 
          NO, IT ISN'T. 
          NO. 
          I THINK THE PROXY OF MY QUESTION IS, I'VE HEARD DEFINITELY A LOT OF BOTH SUPPORT FOR AND AGAINST THE SHORT-TERM RENTALS. 
          YOU HAVE HOUSES THAT ARE ESSENTIALLY BEING TURNED INTO HOTELS AND RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND SOME PEOPLE THINK IT'S WONDERFUL AND OTHER PEOPLE THINK THAT THE CITY NEEDS TO DO MORE TO ENSURE THAT THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN TO PROTECT THE LOOK AND FEEL OF A NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          THAT'S REALLY WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IS WHERE YOU ARE ON THAT SPECTRUM BECAUSE YOUR PRESENTATION WAS VERY MUCH NO BUSINESS. 
          I MEAN, I CAN GET BEHIND THAT, BUT THAT MEANS NO HOME-BASED BUSINESS, THAT MEANS NO SHORT-TERM RENTALS, THAT MEANS NO COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE OF ANY SORT IN ANY NEIGHBORHOOD IF WE DEEM THEM RESIDENTIAL ONLY. 
          TO YOUR POINT, I THINK THAT THAT WOULD CHANGE SOME NEIGHBORHOODS THAT VERY MUCH LIKE THAT ACTIVITY GOING ON THERE. 
          THEY LIKE THAT THEIR NEIGHBOR IS SELLING, I DON'T KNOW, WATKINS PRODUCTS, I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT, THE TUPPERWARE, WHATEVER PEOPLE SELL OUT OF THEIR HOUSES NOWADAYS. 
          AFTER THIS DISCUSSION, I THINK I'M HEARING FROM YOU THAT YOU'RE NOT A HARD NO, BUT YOU WOULD LIKE MECHANISMS IN PLACE WHERE YOU CAN DECIDE THAT WALMART ISN'T APPROPRIATE NEXT DOOR TO YOU, IS THAT CORRECT? YOU'RE NODDING YOUR HEAD. 
          EXACTLY. YES. YOU GOT IT. 
          I GUESS MY NEXT QUESTION IS, WE'RE HEARING FROM ADMINISTRATION THAT THERE ARE THOSE MECHANISMS IN PLACE IN THE ZONING BY-LAW. 
          BUT I GUESS MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, DO YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC MECHANISMS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE PUT IN PLACE TO EASE YOUR MIND ON THIS? MS. LITTLE. 
          YES, THANK YOU. I'M LOOKING FOR VERY SPECIFIC PROCESSES THAT GIVE SOME PRIORITY IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS TO THE RESIDENTS AND I DON'T SEE THOSE MECHANISMS IN THE DRAFT BY-LAW AS IT'S PUT FORWARD. 
          [01:25:01]
THAT'S WHY I USE A PHRASE, PROFIT OVER PEOPLE, IS THAT THERE SEEMS TO BE A BIAS IN THIS ZONING BY-LAW TOWARDS COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE AS OPPOSED TO THE RESIDENTIAL QUALITY OF LIFE FOR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          I GUESS I'M LOOKING FOR SOME MECHANISM AND I HAVEN'T REALLY THOUGHT THAT OUT IN WHAT IT MIGHT LOOK LIKE. 
          BUT IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA, PRIORITY SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE RESIDENTIAL NATURE OF THAT AREA, AND DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY IS ALLOWED. 
          SORRY, I CAN'T BE MORE SPECIFIC THAN THAT COUNCILOR KONGE, BUT I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO GIVE PRIORITY TO THE RESIDENTS OF NEIGHBORHOODS WHEN THOSE DECISIONS ARE BEING MADE. 
          >> I AGREE, WE'VE CERTAINLY OPENED UP A LOT OF OPPORTUNITY FOR SOME DIFFERENT TYPES OF COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL. 
          BUT THIS ZONING BY-LAWS ALSO OPEN UP A LOT OF OPPORTUNITY FOR MORE RESIDENTIAL IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          WE'VE ALL GOTTEN YOUR EMAILS. 
          I'VE CERTAINLY READ YOUR EMAILS AND RESPONDED TO, WE GET A LOT OF EMAILS. 
          I DON'T RESPOND TO ALL OF THEM BY ANY MEANS. 
          ZONING BY-LAW IS PRETTY IMPORTANT DOCUMENT I HAVE READ THE EMAILS THAT WE GET FROM RESIDENTS SO YOU DON'T FEEL YOU'RE BEING HEARD, BUT I HAVE READ YOUR EMAILS. 
          DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ABOUT, YOU WORRIED ABOUT THE CARTE BLANCHE ON THE COMMERCIAL SIDE, BUT WE'RE ALSO GIVING COULD BE DEEMED CARTE BLANCHE ON THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE. 
          DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT. 
          >> MS. LITTLE? 
          >> YEAH. I GUESS I DETAILED THOSE IN MY SUBMISSION COUNSELOR CONCH ABOUT THE SIZE AND SCALE OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT IS BEING PERMITTED. 
          THE VARIANCE ISSUE LIKE THERE IS, I THINK THAT THIS ZONING BY LAW HAS GONE TOO FAR IN TERMS OF THE SIZE AND SCALE OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT IS ALLOWED AND THE INABILITY OF OTHER NEIGHBORS, RESIDENTS IN THAT COMMUNITY TO HAVE A SAY ABOUT A 12 METER HIGH SECONDARY BUILDING IN THE BACKYARD. 
          VARIANCES THAT ARE A METER FROM THE LOT LINE. 
          THINGS LIKE THAT, IT REALLY HAS GONE OVER THE EDGE. 
          THE IMPLICATIONS TO RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE THINKING WAS HERE, I KNOW YOU WANT TO PROVIDE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND SECONDARY SUITES IN THE BACKYARD THAT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. 
          WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THAT SCALE? WHY DID WE BUMP UP THE SCALE TO 12 METERS HIGH, TO 900 OR MORE SQUARE FEET? IT'S PRETTY INTENSE, AND AGAIN, RESIDENTS DON'T HAVE A VOICE IN THAT SIZE AND SCALE OF DEVELOPMENT. 
          >> THANK YOU. IF ADMINISTRATION COULD WALK US THROUGH A HYPOTHETICAL PROPOSAL SOMEBODY WANTS TO BUILD, LET'S JUST SAY, A THREE-STORY WALK UP APARTMENT IN THEIR BACKYARD. 
          YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN. I HAVE A PRETTY GOOD IDEA WHAT'S INVOLVED IN THAT, AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU COULD EVEN DO IT BASED ON NOT ONLY OUR ZONING BY-LAW OR THE NEW PROPOSED ZONING BY-LAW, BUT THERE'S, A NATIONAL BUILDING CODE AND A WHOLE BUNCH OF OTHER THINGS THAT WOULD HAVE A LOT OF INFLUENCE ON WHAT YOU COULD OR COULDN'T DO. 
          BUT I FEEL THAT YOU CAN'T JUST LOOK AT OUR ZONING BY-LAW AS AN ISOLATED DOCUMENT. 
          THERE'S ALL SORTS OF OTHER INFLUENCES. 
          I THINK IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL IF WE HAD ADMINISTRATION JUST QUICKLY WALK US THROUGH, SOMEBODY APPLIES FOR A THREE-STORY WALK UP APARTMENT IN THEIR BACKYARD, WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO GET THERE. 
          >> MS. BETSY KELLER. 
          [01:30:01]
          >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH YOUR WORSHIP. 
          I WILL ASK MS. WHITE IF SHE AND/OR HER TEAM CAN SPEAK TO WHAT THAT PROCESS LOOKS LIKE. 
          >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE QUESTION. 
          EVEN WITHIN THE ZONING BY-LAW, IT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. 
          IT'S NOT JUST THE ONE MEASUREMENT WITHIN THE ZONE THAT WE LOOK AT. 
          THERE ARE OTHER ITEMS THAT WOULD NEED TO BE LOOKED AT, AND SPECIFICALLY WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SECONDARY SUITE OR A SECONDARY DWELLING AS AN ACCESSORY USE IN SOMEONE'S REAR YARD, WE HAVE TO FIRST LOOK AT THE DEFINITION OF ACCESSORY. 
          INCIDENTAL, SUBORDINATE AND EXCLUSIVELY DEVOTED TO THE MAIN USE AND CARRIED OUT WITH SUCH MAIN USE, BUILDING YOUR STRUCTURE ON THE SAME LOT. 
          INCIDENTAL AND SUBORDINATE, SO IF YOUR PRIMARY DWELLING IS TWO STORIES OR SAY 10 METERS HIGH, DEPENDING ON THE TOPOGRAPHY OF YOUR PROPERTY. 
          THAT SECOND UNIT IN THE BACK WOULD NEED TO BE INCIDENTAL AND SUBORDINATE TO IT. 
          SMALLER THAN YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SEE THAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER IN REVIEWING THE APPLICATION SAY, "OH, WELL, THE ZONE SAYS YOU CAN BE 12 METERS HIGH, BUT YOUR PRIMARY DWELLING IS ONLY AT 10 METERS." IT HAVE TO BE EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN, SUBORDINATE TO. 
          EVERY INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY WOULD NEED TO BE REVIEWED BASED ON WHAT IS CURRENTLY THERE AND WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED. 
          WHAT IS IN THAT SPECIFIC ZONE, BECAUSE THERE ARE DIFFERENCES, WHETHER YOU'RE R1, R2, RC1, RC, ALL OF THEM ARE A LITTLE DIFFERENT. 
          WHAT WE HAVE DONE, AND I WILL ASK ROBIN MARGARET, TO SPEAK TO IT AS TO PROVIDE SOME DIAGRAMS AND INFORMATION JUST ON DIFFERENT SCALE AND SIZE. 
          BECAUSE WE ANTICIPATED THERE'D BE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT, SO I'LL ASK IF MARGARET OR ROB WISHES TO SPEAK TO THAT. 
          >> WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO INTRODUCE AN EXHIBIT THAT WE CAN BOTH HANDOUT AS WELL AS POST ONLINE SO THAT WE CAN LOOK AT THESE IMAGES TOGETHER TO AID THIS DISCUSSION? 
          >> DO WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY MS. BETSY KELLER? DAVE DO YOU HAVE A PROCEDURAL QUESTION? IF YOU JUST COME TO THE TABLE WHILE WE MAYBE WORK ON THE TECH OVER THAT. 
          WELL ALSO, WE'VE REACHED OUR 90 MINUTE MARK, SO JUST AFTER THIS QUESTION WE'LL TAKE A 10 MINUTE BREAK SO WE CAN WORK ON THAT TECH ISSUE AND THEN COME BACK FOR DAVE. 
          >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR. 
          WHAT I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY IS WE'RE ALL HERE TO PRESENT TO COUNSEL, IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING. 
          WE HAVE A LOT OF SPEAKERS TO COME. 
          THE QUESTIONS BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THE SPEAKERS AND COUNCIL I THINK ARE EXCELLENT. 
          BUT I'M JUST ASKING IF WE CAN KEEP RELATIVELY LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF DEBATE BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN TOLD WE'RE NOT HERE TO DEBATE THE BY-LAW, AMONGST COUNCIL AND STAFF, WHICH A LOT OF THIS IS NOW STARTING TO HAPPEN. 
          CAN WE JUST KEEP A LITTLE BIT OF A LEAD ON THE AMOUNT OF DEBATE THAT'S GOING BACK AND FORTH? THE COUNSEL ASKING QUESTIONS TO STAFF, BECAUSE THEN WE DON'T GET TO SPEAK. 
          >> FOR SURE. NO WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THE QUESTIONS ARE RELEVANT TO THE ZONING BY-LAWS, PROVIDING ANY CLARITY TO FOLKS, BUT NOT GETTING INTO DELIBERATIONS. 
          >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          >> WITH THAT, LET'S TAKE A 10 MINUTE BREAK AND EVERYBODY HAS TO HAVE THEIR MASKS ON AND WE WILL COME BACK AT 1:54. 
          I'LL CALL OUR MEETING BACK TO ORDER AND ADMINISTRATION IS GOING TO PULL UP A QUICK PRESENTATION, OR SOME SLIDES THAT THEY'LL BE ABLE TO TALK THROUGH COUNSELOR CONGRESS QUESTION. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? ONCE THE SLIDES ARE UP OVER TO MR. LOCKE. 
          >> THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT. 
          REALLY QUICKLY HERE WE'VE JUST PREPARED TWO PICTURES THAT HELPS AID THIS DISCUSSION AROUND STORIES. 
          WE VERY PURPOSELY HAVE SET THE REGULATIONS AT A 12-METER CAP. 
          WE'VE STAYED AWAY FROM THE DISCUSSION OF STORIES BECAUSE STORIES, WHEN IT COMES TO TRYING TO PUT A MAXIMUM ON DWELLING UNITS CAN BE REALLY DIFFICULT TO COUNT. 
          IF YOU SEE THAT FIRST PICTURE THERE WITH THE TWO BUILDINGS, THE BUILDING ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE IS IN ESSENCE THREE STORIES. 
          THE NATIONAL BUILDING CODE WOULD RECOGNIZE THAT AS THREE STORIES. 
          BUT THE VERY FIRST STORY IS EMBEDDED INTO THE GROUND, AND YOU CAN SEE THE DAYLIGHT WINDOWS THERE. 
          SAME ON THE TOP AT LESS THAN 50 PERCENT ON TOP YOU SEE THERE A PENTHOUSE SUITE OR PERHAPS A GREENHOUSE. 
          THAT DOESN'T COUNT AS A STORY EITHER. 
          INSTEAD OF HAVING THAT DISCUSSION ABOUT STORIES OR USING THE WORD STORY TO REGULATE DWELLING UNITS. 
          WE'VE PROPOSED A CAP OF 12 METERS AND WHATEVER STORIES CAN 
          [01:35:01]
GET FIT IN THERE IS THE DEVELOPER'S DESIGN. 
          THE SECOND PICTURE, PLEASE? MY APOLOGIES FOR THE DELAY. PICTURE NUMBER 2. 
          ON PICTURE NUMBER 2 HERE, YOU SEE BASICALLY WHAT WE WOULD CALL A YELLOWKNIFE SPECIAL. 
          THERE'S ENOUGH ROOM DOWN AT THE GROUND LEVEL FOR A SEWER TANK AND A WATER TANK IF THIS IS NOT ON PIPE SERVICES, AND ON THE ROOF YOU SEE A VERY BASIC 412 PITCH. 
          THEN YOU SEE THREE STORIES WITHIN THIS. 
          ALL OF THIS IS DONE TO SCALE AND CAN BE MET IN 12 METERS. 
          BUT CERTAINLY THERE'S A NUMBER OF PERMUTATIONS AND COMBINATIONS HERE THAT CAN MIX AND MATCH THIS UP DEPENDING ON GROUND CONDITIONS AND THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING. 
          AGAIN, WE'RE RECOMMENDING THAT DISCUSSION BE AROUND 12 METERS INSTEAD OF STORIES. 
          >> THANK YOU FOR THAT. COUNSELOR KONG ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? 
          >> NO. THANK YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU. COUNSELOR WILLIAM? 
          >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. THANK YOU, LOIS, FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. 
          I GUESS SOME OF YOUR LANGUAGE LIKE THE FIXES AND STUFF LIKE THAT, THERE ARE SOME OF US ON COUNCIL THAT ARE VERY MUCH WILLING TO LISTEN AND ARE TAKING NOTES TODAY AND ARE HOPING TO DELIVER A ZONING BY-LAW THAT EVERYONE CAN BE AS HAPPY AS WITH AS POSSIBLE. 
          IN THAT WE'RE MOVING TOWARD SECOND READING ON THIS BY-LAW, MR. HALL HAD USED SOME EXAMPLES OF CHANGES THAT HE'D LIKE TO SEE THAT WERE A BIT MORE SPECIFIC. 
          THE REINSTATEMENT OF THE RC1 ZONE, REMOVING OR MOVING COMMERCIAL, RETAIL, URBAN AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND BEVERAGE, COMMERCIAL RECREATION TO DISCRETIONARY USES. 
          I GUESS I'LL GO BACK TO ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I ASKED MR. HALL AND ASK IT TO YOURSELF AS WELL, WHICH IS THAT THE DRAFT BY-LAW THAT WAS RELEASED ON OCTOBER 25TH. 
          WERE YOU SATISFIED WITH THAT? BECAUSE CERTAINLY SOME OF THE COMMENTS LEFT ME THINKING THAT IN YOUR OPINION, THE ENTIRE THING IS BROKEN. 
          I GUESS IF THE ENTIRE THING IS BROKEN, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE CHALLENGING TO RECTIFY BY SECOND READING. 
          HOWEVER, IF THERE IS SOME SPECIFICS THAT WE AS COUNSEL CAN CONSIDER AND WORK ON, BE HAPPY TO HEAR THOSE. 
          IS THERE SPECIFIC TO THE SPECIFIC ZONES THAT YOU'D LIKE TO SEE CHANGED? 
          >> MS. LITTLE. 
          >> YES. THANK YOU PASTOR WILLIAMS. I HAD WRITTEN A COUPLE OF LETTERS REGARDING THE CHANGES, TO THE SIZE AND SCALE PERMITTED DEVELOPMENTS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS. 
          PARTICULARITY IN WHAT WAS THE ONE ZONE. 
          SO, I CAN'T SEE WHY WE OPTED FOR THE 12 METER HEIGHT ALLOWANCE. 
          I CAN'T SEE WHY WE HAVE EXPANDED THE SIZE OF SECONDARY UNITS ON RESIDENTIAL LOTS. 
          I CAN'T SEE WHY WE HAVE CHANGED THE VARIANCE. 
          I GUESS ALL OF THOSE ISSUES, I'M THINKING WHY DID WE MAKE SUCH A GIGANTIC, LEAD AWAY FROM THE OLD OR THE PREVIOUS REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS. 
          THAT'S CERTAINLY I THINK THAT THE COUNCIL, NEEDS TO REALLY LOOK AT, WHY THOSE CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE AND THE IMPACTS OF THEM IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          AS A REALLY STRONG ADVOCATE OF DEMOCRACY, I AM REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE MUTING OF OUR VOICES IN WHAT GOES ON, IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AND IN OUR CITY. 
          I WOULD BE LOOKING FOR SOME MECHANISM THAT DOES NOT MUTE RESIDENTS' VOICES. 
          >> THANK YOU LOUIS FOR THAT. 
          I THINK ONE OF THE GREAT WAYS OF HAVING THE PUBLIC BE ABLE TO CHIME IN ON SOME OF THESE DEVELOPMENT DECISIONS, 
          [01:40:01]
IS THE MOVEMENT OF THEM FROM SAY, AN APPROVED USE TO AN EXTRA DISCRETIONARY USE. 
          SO WOULD YOU BE IN SUPPORT FOR SPECIFICALLY MOVING SOME OF THOSE COMMERCIAL USES IN THE NON DT CORE TO DISCRETIONARY, FOR VERY MUCH THAT OPPORTUNITY HAVE YOUR VOICE BE HEARD? 
          >> MS. LITTLE. 
          >> DISCRETIONARY USES, [LAUGHTER] THAT'S REALLY A LOADED TERM AND WE'VE SEEN IT MISUSED OVER THE YEAR. 
          BUT IF THAT IS THE ONLY AVENUE AVAILABLE TO US TO HAVE RESIDENTS VOICES HEARD, I GUESS I WOULD SAY THAT, YES, I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THAT. 
          >> EXCELLENT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'VE GOT ONE FOLLOW-UP FOR ADMINISTRATION. 
          OTHER THAN THE MECHANISM OF PLACING SPECIFIC USE AND DISCRETIONARY USE IS THERE ANY OTHER MECHANISM FOR PUBLIC DIALOGUE WHEN, SAY A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT COMES ACROSS LANDS TABLE? 
          >> I THINK THE BIGGEST ONE IS TODAY, THIS THE ZONING BY LAW. 
          SO DETERMINING WHAT'S PERMITTED, WHAT ARE THE CONDITIONS FOR BEING PERMITTED, WHAT'S DISCRETIONARY, AND THEN WHAT'S NOT ALLOWED AT ALL. 
          I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THIS IS REALLY THAT DEMOCRATIC PROCESS OF DECIDING WHAT IS PERMITTED IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS AND WHAT SHOULD BE DISCRETIONARY USES AND WHAT SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED AT ALL. 
          BUT FURTHER TO THAT, MS. BESSIE KELLER. 
          >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'LL ASK MISS. WHITE TO [INAUDIBLE] 
          >>THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND YES, TODAY, AS WELL AS WHEN THAT COMMUNITY PLAN WAS DEVELOPED, A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO, SETTING FORTH THE DIRECTION FOR WHICH THIS ZONING BY-LAWS NOW FALLING IN BEHIND AND LOOKING TO TRY TO IMPLEMENT AND BE CONSISTENT WITH. 
          THERE ARE POTENTIAL, WE COULD GO INTO A WHOLE CONVERSATION ABOUT THINGS AS YOU'VE HEARD THE TERM SPOT ZONING BEFORE. 
          THERE'S OTHER MECHANISMS THAT COULD BE PUT IN PLACE. 
          WE TRIED TO STAY AWAY FROM SOME OF THOSE. 
          THEY'RE MUCH MORE INVOLVED PROCESSES. 
          BUT SHOULD COUNCIL WANT US TO TAKE A LOOK WE WOULD ABSOLUTELY COULD? WE TRIED TO REALLY CREATE THAT BALANCE BETWEEN SOME OF THE INFORMATION AND DATA, THAT STUFF AND OUR CONSULTANTS HAD LOOKED AT IN, WHAT IS THE MAJORITY OF APPLICATIONS THAT ARE COMING IN AND ARE THEY REALLY NECESSARY TO GO BEFORE COUNCIL OR ARE THEY THINGS THAT WITH THE RULES IN THE ZONING BY-LAW ADMINISTRATION REALLY CAN CREATE THOSE DECISIONS FOR. 
          SO IT WAS REALLY IMPORTANT WHEN CREATING THESE RULES THAT STAFF AND OUR CONSULTANTS LOOKED AT THAT INFORMATION, AS TO THE STATUS AND WHAT THOSE PAST APPLICATIONS REALLY AND TRULY INVOLVED. 
          >> ISN'T THERE A PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PERIOD FOR EVERY DEVELOPMENT PERMIT THAT GETS ISSUED? 
          >> MISS. BESSIE KELLER. MISS. WHITE. 
          >> IF WE GO IN AND I SHOULD JUST FIND THE SECTION ON AND MAYBE I'LL ASK ROD TO ADD A LITTLE INFORMATION HERE. 
          IT WILL DEPEND ON, IF WE GO TO THE SECTION ON OR ONE, THREE AND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR CHANGE OF USE IS REQUIRED. 
          SO IT WILL DEPEND ON, WHETHER THAT USE NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FALLS WITHIN THIS CATEGORY OR NOT, AS TO WHAT PUBLIC PROCESS MAY OR MAY NOT BE FOLLOWED. 
          ROD, DID YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING THERE? 
          >> JUST AS A QUICK REFRESHER. 
          CERTAINLY THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESS, ONCE A PERMIT IS ISSUED, THERE'S A 14 DAY APPEAL PERIOD THAT'S AVAILABLE TO THE RESIDENCE TO SPEAK UP AND VOICE THEIR CONCERNS. 
          BUT A PERMIT HAS BEEN ISSUED, AND IF THEY BELIEVED THAT AN ERROR HAS OCCURRED IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BYLAWS, SO THAT IS CONSISTENT THROUGH EVERY DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, THAT THAT'S ISSUED. 
          >> THANK YOU. THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING ADD. 
          YES. THANK YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL FOR THE PRESENTER? 
          >> LOUIS, I DO HAVE A FEW FOR YOU. 
          I HEAR YOUR POINT ON WANTING TO HAVE MORE ENGAGEMENT AND SAY ON THE USES IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          HOWEVER, MOVING EVERYTHING TO DISCRETIONARY USE, SO THAT EVERY USE AND BUILDING PERMANENT GOES OUT TO COMMUNITY CONSULTATION AND THEN TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL, WOULD BE QUITE ONEROUS ON RESIDENTS, STAFF AND COUNSEL AND I'M NOT SOLD THAT NEIGHBORS REALLY WANT TO, ENGAGE IN IF THEIR NEIGHBOR ONCE A SHED. 
          THAT IT GOES OUT TO 14 DAY CONSULTATION WITH THE NEIGHBORS, IT COMES TO COUNSEL FOR A PUBLIC VOTE. 
          THERE WAS A 14 DAY APPEAL PERIOD. 
          TODAY REALLY IS DETERMINING WHAT SHOULD BE PERMITTED UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS? 
          [01:45:05]
WHAT SHOULD BE DISCRETIONARY, AGAIN, GOING OUT TO THAT NEIGHBORHOOD 14 DAY CONSULTATION PERIOD. 
          WHAT I'M HEARING FROM YOU, IS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS, YOU WANT MOST COMMERCIAL USES OR ALL COMMERCIAL USES IN THE DISCRETIONARY CATEGORY, WOULD THAT BE CORRECT? 
          >> I WOULD WANT TO COMMERCIAL USE THOSE IN PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL AREAS TO THERE WOULD BE A MECHANISM AND IF THAT IS THE ONLY MECHANISM, MIRROR ALL T. I GUESS THAT'S WHAT TO LIVE WITH. 
          BUT I THINK WHEN YOU'VE GOT A PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL AREA, WHERE THERE'S DIFFERENT USES THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED, THAT RESIDENTS NEED TO HAVE A PROCESS, YEAH. 
          I FULLY APPRECIATE LIKE THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO LOAD DOWN RESIDENCE OR CITY IN ANY BUREAUCRATIC PROCESS. 
          BUT WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO HEAR PEOPLE'S VOICES WHENEVER THERE. 
          THIS ZONING BYLAW IS A HUGE DEPARTURE FROM WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SEEING. 
          PEOPLE AREN'T GOING TO GET A RUDE AWAKENING WHEN THIS STARTS GETTING IMPLEMENTED. 
          THEN FIND OUT THAT THEY DON'T HAVE A VOICE. 
          >> THE OTHER ONE I HEAR IN YOUR WRITTEN SUBMISSION IS YOU HAVE CONCERNS WITH TOWNHOUSE AND APARTMENT STYLE DWELLINGS IN OUR ONE SO THE RESIDENTIAL. 
          SO WOULD YOU RECOMMEND THAT THOSE ARE IN DISCRETIONARY USE OR THOSE AREN'T PERMITTED PERIOD? MS. LITTLE. 
          >> IN LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, I DON'T THINK THAT THERE IS A PLACE FOR TWO OR THREE LOTS TO BE JOINED TOGETHER AND APARTMENT BUILDINGS TO BE DEVELOPED, THAT IS REALLY SO CONTRARY TO THE NATURE OF SO MANY RESIDENTIAL AREAS IN YELLOWKNIFE INCLUDING MY OWN. 
          >> SO FOR TOWN HOME AND APARTMENT STYLE, YOU'RE ONLY LOOKING FOR THEM TO BE IN THE DOWNTOWN OR WHERE DO YOU SEE THEM BEING ALLOWED TO BE IN YELLOWKNIFE? 
          >> WHERE THEY FIT INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THEY DON'T FIT INTO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, THEY DON'T FIT. 
          >> OTHER ONES THAT PEOPLE HAVE RAISED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AGAIN AND ON YOUR POINT ABOUT HAVING MORE ENGAGEMENT AND SAY EVERY TIME, IT'S DISCUSSED IS THE SHELTERS. 
          PEOPLE WANT THEM IN THE BY-LAW BEFORE US IT'S BEING PUT IT AS PERMITTED, IN OUR CURRENT BY-LAW, IT'S DISCRETIONARY. 
          ARE YOU ALSO ADVOCATING THAT IT HAS THAT PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT FOR EVERY PROCESS THAT COMES FORWARD OR WHAT WOULD YOUR TAKE ON ON THAT BE? 
          >> WHERE DEVELOPMENTS HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT, ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR THEIR SURROUNDING AREA. 
          AGAIN, AS A DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT, DO WE NOT HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE A MECHANISM FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE A VOICE? WHETHER YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE IT'S BEING ABLE TO WEIGH IN AND HAVE A VOICE. 
          >> THOSE WERE MY QUESTIONS FOR THE PRESENTER. 
          ANYTHING FURTHER? SEEING NONE FROM COUNCIL. 
          ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE PRESENTER? ANY MEMBERS ON ZOOM? SEEING NONE. 
          THANK YOU LEWIS FOR NOT ONLY COMING TODAY BUT ALSO YOUR WRITTEN SUBMISSION, I APPRECIATE IT. 
          NEXT UP IS SHELLEY BROWNE, WHO IS ALSO ON ZOOM. 
          SHELLEY, I WILL START THE TIMER AND I WILL PASS THE MIC OVER TO YOU. THANK YOU. 
          >> LET ME JUST GET ONTO MY SCREEN BEFORE YOU START THE TIMER BECAUSE I'M GOING TO RUN IT DOWN, RUN OUT THE CLOCK, NO. 
          THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTRIBUTE TO THIS IMPORTANT CONSULTATIVE PROCESS AND THIS DISCUSSION. 
          BEFORE BEGINNING MY REMARKS, I REALLY WANT TO GENUINELY ACKNOWLEDGE THE WORK OF MAYORALTY AND COUNCIL AND CITY STAFF FOR THEIR HARD WORK ON THESE AMENDMENTS. 
          THIS IS NOT EASY, THIS IS NOT GOING TO WIN ANYONE A POPULARITY CONTEST. 
          [01:50:02]
THANK YOU FOR GUIDING OUR CITY TOWARDS A SET OF COMPROMISES BECAUSE THERE MUST BE COMPROMISES. 
          COMPROMISES THAT MEET THE NEEDS OF ALL OF OUR RESIDENTS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. 
          I RECENTLY SERVED AS AN ELECTED COUNCIL AND A SCHOOL TRUSTEE IN A COMMUNITY IN BC. 
          I'VE GOT DEEP RESPECT AND GRATITUDE FOR PEOPLE WHO TAKE ON LOCAL GOVERNANCE AND WORK HARD TO MAKE OUR COMMUNITIES BETTER, SO MESSAGE, REALLY APPRECIATE IT. 
          I ALSO APPRECIATE MAYORALTY COMMENTS AT THE START OF TODAY THAT WE ALL WANT WHAT'S BEST FOR YELLOWKNIFE. 
          THAT'S COME OUT LOUD AND CLEAR THROUGHOUT THE MORNING, THROUGHOUT THE DAY. 
          THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL OF LANDS IN A COMMUNITY, IT CAN AFFECT THE DAILY LIVES OF RESIDENTS IN VERY REAL WAYS. 
          BYLAWS ARE ALSO LIVING DOCUMENTS AND THEY'VE GOT TO EVOLVE AS THE COMMUNITY EVOLVES TECHNICALLY AND IN TERMS OF CONTENT. 
          THEY CAN'T BE DIVISIVE, BUT I'M GLAD WE'RE HAVING A RESPECTFUL CONVERSATION. 
          RESPECTFULLY, I'M SPEAKING OUT IN OPPOSITION TO THE BYLAW. 
          I'M PARTICULARLY OPPOSED TO THE COMMERCIAL USE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS. 
          THIS IS NOT A BLACK AND WHITE ISSUE AS PEOPLE HAVE SAID, IT'S NOT A HARD NO, BUT AS THESE AMENDMENTS ARE PROPOSED, AMENDMENTS ARE CONSTITUTED, I AM IN OPPOSITION. 
          THE COMMERCIAL RETAIL CONVENIENCE STORE, FOOD AND BEVERAGE, URBAN AGRICULTURE, BREWING, CANNABIS, CONVENIENT STORES, IN MY VIEW, THEY DON'T BELONG IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          THIS IS NOT IN MY BACKYARD KIND OF THING. 
          YELLOWKNIFE IS FORTUNATE IN THAT THE DOWNTOWN CORE IS QUITE ACCESSIBLE. 
          A LOT OF NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE A HIGH WALKABILITY SCORE YOU CAN GET DOWNTOWN WITHOUT LIVING DOWNTOWN IN TERMS OF THESE ENTERPRISES BEING RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO YOU. 
          I'VE ONLY RECENTLY PURCHASED HERE IN YELLOWKNIFE, I'VE MOVED TO YELLOWKNIFE TWO YEARS AGO AND WHEN I WENT LOOKING FOR A PLACE TO BUY, THERE WEREN'T MANY OF THEM, I WAS REALLY FORTUNATE TO FIND A PLACE ON 55TH STREET. 
          IT'S THE EDGE OF DOWNTOWN, I CAN WALK TO WORK, I WALK ALMOST EVERYWHERE. 
          I CAN SAY WITH CERTAINTY THAT I WOULD NOT HAVE PURCHASED IN THIS AREA IF THERE WERE SOME OF THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS OR ENTERPRISES, IS THAT THIS BYLAW WOULD POTENTIALLY ALLOW. 
          I DON'T WANT TO LIVE NEXT DOOR TO SOME OF THE THINGS THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE PERMITTED INTO THIS BYLAW. 
          I ASKED THAT COMMERCIAL USES BE TAKEN OUT OF THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS IN ORDER TO AS PEOPLE HAVE SAID, TO MAINTAIN THE NATURE OF OUR RESIDENCES. 
          AS THE AMENDMENTS ARE CURRENTLY CONSTITUTED, THEY'RE TOO BROAD IN MY VIEW RESPECTFULLY, AND THEY GIVE WHAT A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE SAYING IS UNACCEPTABLE, UNFETTERED ACCESS TO POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES. 
          I DON'T AGREE WITH COUNCIL REMOVING THE RIGHT OF RESIDENCE TO SPEAK TO NEW DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE A PARTICULARLY STRONG POTENTIAL IMPACT ON THEIR RESIDENCES OR THEIR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          I ABSOLUTELY AGREE THAT WHAT WOULD MAKE ME GO FROM HARD NO TO I'M A HAPPY PERSON IS A MECHANISM IN PLACE THAT REQUIRES CONSULTATION ON SOME PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. 
          THIS FALLS INTO THE DISCRETIONARY CATEGORY AND WE'VE ALL AGREED THAT WE HAVEN'T DEFINED WHAT MIGHT CONSTITUTE DISCRETIONARY DEVELOPMENT. 
          BUT I THINK THAT THAT MIGHT HIT THE SWEET SPOT, THAT MAY BE THE COMPROMISE. 
          WE KNOW THERE ARE THESE DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE NOT PERMITTED AND THESE ONES ARE. 
          THESE ONES ARE ONES THAT WE NEED TO GO BACK TO THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AND SPEAK WITH RESIDENTS AND SEE WHAT THEIR FEELING IS AND HOW CAN THIS ENTERPRISE POTENTIALLY BE MADE TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          I WANT TO SPEAK BRIEFLY ABOUT COMMERCIAL URBAN AGRICULTURE. 
          I AM A CHICKEN CHAMPION. 
          WHEN I WAS A COUNCIL IN BC, WE DEVELOPED THE BACKYARD CHICKEN BYLAW. 
          RESIDENTS WERE WANTING TO HAVE BACKYARD CHICKENS. 
          IT WAS CAREFULLY REGULATED. 
          THAT'S HOW MANY CHICKENS IN MY COMMUNITY. 
          IT WAS SIX CHICKENS WERE PERMITTED, NO ROOSTERS. 
          THERE WERE A STRINGENT CONDITIONS IN PLACE ON STORAGE OF FEED AND THINGS SO THAT THESE CHICKEN BACKYARD, 
          [01:55:03]
CHICKEN CUBES WOULD NOT BECOME A PEST ATTRACTANT OR A WILDLIFE ATTRACTANT AND IT'S WORKING VERY WELL. 
          I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT SUPPORT AND I VIGOROUSLY OPPOSE ANY LIVESTOCK BEING INVOLVED IN URBAN AGRICULTURE. 
          I'VE HAD THE EXPERIENCE MYSELF AS LIVING IN A RURAL NEIGHBORHOOD BUT STILL IN A NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          THESE ARE FIVE-ACRE LOTS, WORTH FIVE-ACRE LOTS AND ONE OF MY NEIGHBORS BROUGHT PIGS AND COWS AND SOME KIND OF BIRD ONTO THE PROPERTY, POULTRY AND IT HAD A HUGE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE NOISE, THE SMELL. 
          I THINK THERE WERE PROBABLY SOME HEALTH HAZARDS AND IT CERTAINLY DISRUPTED THE REALLY BEAUTIFUL ENVIRONMENT, THE NEIGHBORLY RELATIONS THAT EXISTED IN THAT AREA. 
          I DO NOT SUPPORT LIVESTOCK IN URBAN AGRICULTURE. 
          I WANT TO QUICKLY FINISH WHAT I FEEL IS A BIT OF A RAMBLING SET OF REMARKS BY TALKING ABOUT MIXED RESIDENTIAL USE. 
          I SUPPORT MIXED RESIDENTIAL USE IN YELLOWKNIFE, ANYWHERE. 
          OUR COMMUNITY AND EVERY COMMUNITY IS FACING HOUSING SHORTAGES, AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS SIMPLY NOT AVAILABLE, AND I THINK THAT WE CAN BE CREATIVE IN HOW WE CONSTITUTE OUR NEIGHBORHOODS WITH MIXED DENSITY. 
          I AGREE THAT AGAIN, THERE HAS TO BE IN KEEPING WITH NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          CARRIAGE HOUSES ARE WONDERFUL, SECONDARY SUITES, DUPLEXES, SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES, MULTI-UNIT. 
          OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S THE RUB COMES IN WHEN SOMEONE WANTS TO PUT UP A HIGH RISE NEXT TO YOUR SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. 
          SUPPORT MIXED-USE, GOT TO TACKLE IT AS A COMMUNITY AND FIGURE OUT WHAT'S IN, WHAT'S OUT. 
          NONE OF THESE IS A BLACK AND WHITE MATTERS. 
          I LIKE SOME OF THE LANGUAGE THAT HAS BEEN USED TODAY THAT IT'S NOT BLACK AND WHITE, IT'S NOT A HARD NO, WE'RE IN A STAGE OF DECISION-MAKING AND DISCUSSION. 
          FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I'D LIKE TO SEE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO COMMERCIAL USE BE REVISED FURTHER AND I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT THEY'VE BUILT IN REQUIREMENT THAT RESIDENTS ARE CONSULTED IN THIS CATEGORY OF DISCRETIONARY USES THAT NEEDS TO BE DEFINED AND SUPPORT AS I SAY, MIXED-USE FAMILY, MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
          BUT AGAIN THIS ISN'T JUST WIDE OPEN UNFETTERED ACCESS TO WHATEVER YOU WANT. 
          LOTS AND LOTS OF DISCUSSION NEEDS TO HAPPEN. 
          I'M GLAD WE ARE WHERE WE ARE IN TERMS OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS AND I LOOK FORWARD TO CONTRIBUTING IN ANY WAY THAT I CAN AS THIS GOES ON. 
          THAT CONCLUDES MY REMARKS, I'M HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. 
          >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH SHELLEY. 
          DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PRESENTER? SEEING NONE FROM COUNCIL. 
          I DO APPRECIATE THE EXTRA INFO ON YOUR CHICKEN BYLAW IN YOUR PREVIOUS COMMUNITY SO WE MIGHT HAVE TO FOLLOW UP TO HEAR WHAT THAT COMMUNITY WAS BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE TO SAY IT IN PUBLIC. 
          ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE, INCLUDING MEMBERS ON ZOOM? SEEING NONE. 
          THANK YOU AGAIN VERY MUCH SHELLY FOR COMING TO PRESENT. 
          PARTICULARLY AS A NEW RESIDENT, THAT'S GREAT. 
          TOWNSFOLK JUMP IN AND BE ENGAGED RIGHT AWAY. 
          >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S WORK. 
          >> NEXT, I HAVE MARIE ADAMS WHO'S ALSO ON ZOOM. 
          MARIE, THE FLOORS OVER TO YOU. 
          >> THANKS, MADAM CHAIR. CAN YOU HEAR ME? 
          >> YES, WE CAN. 
          >> FIRST, I HAVE TO SAY THAT BRUCE DAVIDSON WHO LIVES WITH ME, WAS MISTAKENLY ADDED AS A SPEAKER SO HE WON'T BE SPEAKING. 
          YOU CAN TAKE THEM OFF YOUR LIST. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> I'M NOT GOING TO REITERATE, BUT A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE SO ELOQUENTLY PUT FORWARD. 
          YOU'VE GOT MY WRITTEN SUBMISSION. 
          I'M GOING TO FURTHER CONDENSE MY REMARKS TODAY FROM WHAT I ORIGINALLY WANTED TO SAY BECAUSE MUCH OF THIS HAS BEEN SAID BEFORE. 
          I WANT TO THANK ALL OF YOU FOR ALL OF THE HARD WORK COUNCIL AND ADMINISTRATION. 
          IT'S NOT GONE UNNOTICED AND I'M GRATEFUL FOR THE OPPORTUNITY WITH THIS HEARING TO SPEAK AND SEE SOME OF THE POINTS THAT I WANTED TO BRING UP. 
          [02:00:05]
I HAVE TO SAY I WAS QUITE HESITANT TO SPEAK IN THIS MEETING BECAUSE MOST OF US WANTED TO FOSTER MORE PRESERVE A CONSTRUCTIVE DIALOGUE WITH THE CITY. 
          BUT WE'VE BEEN PORTRAYED AS BEING COMPLETELY OPPOSED TO ANY CONSTRUCTIVE CHANGE THAT MIGHT BE PROPOSED. 
          BUT MANY OF US, I THINK MYSELF INCLUDED, SUPPORT REASONABLE CHANGES AS NOTED IN MY WRITTEN SUBMISSION. 
          BUT WE'RE LOOKING FOR A FAIR PROCESS WHERE RESIDENTS ARE PERMITTED TO FLAG CONCERNS WHICH OUR DEVELOPER CAN TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION. 
          A PROCESS WHERE COMMUNICATIONS ARE RESPECTFUL AND INCLUSIVE BETWEEN THE CITY, THE DEVELOPER, AND RESIDENCE. 
          I WAS QUITE TROUBLED AFTER THE LAST SET OF AMENDMENTS, WHICH WAS PROPOSED AND PROMOTED PUBLICLY BY CITY ADMINISTRATION, WAS SEEMED TO BE OVERTURNED OVERNIGHT BY COUNCIL. 
          I HAVE TO READILY ADMIT THAT I'M NOT AS FAMILIAR AS I'D LIKE TO BE WITH THE PROCESS, AND WITH DEVELOPMENT PLANS. 
          I JUST HAVE TO TELL YOU WHAT I FELT WAS THAT I WAS CONTACTED BY CITY ADMINISTRATION TO INFORM ME THAT THERE WAS A NEW ZONING DESIGNATION. 
          THEY RC1 DESIGNATION MYSELF AND OTHERS WERE GRATEFUL FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF OUR CONCERNS AND THEN TO HAVE THAT SEEMINGLY SUMMARILY DISMISSED OVERNIGHT WAS QUITE A SHOCK TO ME. 
          I LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING MORE INCLUSIVE DIALOGUE WITH THE CITY AND ALSO WITH DEVELOPERS AS WE GO ALONG. 
          HAVE TO SAY, I AM A PASSIONATE SUPPORTER OF THE CITY AS A HOMEOWNER AND TAXPAYER WHO'S LIVED AND WORKED AND VOLUNTEERED FOR THE CITY FOR OVER 40 YEARS. 
          I'VE SUPPORTED THE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF THIS CITY. 
          I LIKE TO FEEL THAT MY VIEWS WILL BE AT LEAST CONSIDERED WHEN NEW DEVELOPMENT AND CHANGES ARE CONTEMPLATED. 
          IF COUNSEL IS TRULY TALKING ABOUT BUILDING THE NEIGHBORHOODS WE ALL WANT. 
          I DON'T SEE HOW THESE ZONING BY-LAWS WAY TO ASSIST IN THOSE ASPIRATIONS. 
          I'M PARTICULARLY UPSET ABOUT THE SHEER NUMBER OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE IN THE PERMITTED CATEGORY VERSUS DISCRETIONARY. 
          NOW, THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT I WILL BE OKAY WITH EVERY DISCRETIONARY USE THAT'S PROPOSED. 
          BUT IF THERE WAS SOME MECHANISM TO ENABLE RESIDENTS TO PUT FORWARD THEIR VIEWS, TO SUGGEST OPTIONS, TO LOOK AT WORKABLE SOLUTIONS. 
          I'D BE MUCH MORE LIKELY TO GO ALONG AND BE OKAY WITH DEVELOPMENT. 
          I DON'T LIKE THE FACT THAT SOMEHOW THE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT HAPPY WITH COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS LIKE MYSELF, HAVE BEEN PUT IN A CATEGORY OF US AND THEM AND THERE'S THIS CULTURE, YOU'RE EITHER FOR THE ZONING BY-LAW OR COMPLETELY OPPOSING IT, WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE. 
          I ALSO SUPPORT REASONABLE DENSIFICATION AND MULTIFAMILY HOUSING. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT THOSE KINDS OF DEVELOPMENTS ALSO BE SUBJECT TO CONSULTATION WITH RESONANCE AND I'M OPEN TO CONSIDERING SOME OF THOSE USES PROVIDING THERE IS A MECHANISM BOOK AND CONSULTATION. 
          FINALLY, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT SOME OF MY EXPERIENCE IN MY CAREER HAS BEEN LAND-USE PLANNING AND LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESSES, AND IN THOSE PROCESSES, IT'S A PUBLIC PROCESS, AND A DEVELOPER OR A PROPONENT IN THAT CASE, IS COMPELLED TO SEEK AND CONSULT BIT AFFECTED INDIVIDUALS AROUND THE DEVELOPMENT. 
          THERE ARE PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUESTS QUADRATIC TO THE DEVELOPER FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE AFFECTED THEN FROM ADMINISTRATION, AND THOSE ARE ALL IN THE PUBLIC RECORD. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME OF THAT TYPE OF PROCESS INCORPORATED INTO PERMITTED USE, INTO DISCRETIONARY USES SO THAT RESIDENTS CAN HAVE SOME SAY IN THE TYPES OF DEVELOPMENTS PLAYING AROUND THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          I FEEL THAT IF YOU DON'T ALLOW RESIDENTS SOME OPPORTUNITY TO FOSTER AND BUILD A SENSE OF COMMUNITY BY HAVING THIS DIALOGUE INTO THE DEVELOPMENTS THAT MIGHT BE OCCURRING IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          YOU DESTROY THAT SENSE OF COMMUNITY, PEOPLE START TO LEAVE. 
          THIS CITY WILL ALWAYS CONTINUE THEM TO HAVE A LARGE TRANSITORY POPULATION. 
          [02:05:01]
IF YOU DON'T FOSTER THAT SENSE OF COMMUNITY. 
          I LOVED MY NEIGHBORHOOD AND I HAVE GOOD NEIGHBORS. 
          I'VE HAD USES THAT I'M NOT VERY HAPPY ABOUT AT TIMES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO WORK THOSE OUT. 
          I'M HOPEFUL THAT COUNCIL WILL THINK ABOUT THIS, WILL CHANGE THE NUMBER OF DISCRETIONARY VERSUS PERMITTED USERS TO HAVE MORE DISCRETIONARY USERS, AND AS OTHERS HAVE SAID, I DO NOT WANT SUDDEN COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS AND LOCATED IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          BUT IF BEING ON THE DISCRETIONARY LIST IS THE ONLY MECHANISM THAT THERE MIGHT BE FOR RESIDENTS TO INPUT INTO THE PROCESS. 
          I'D SAY THAT'S ONE STEP ALONG THE WAY. THANKS VERY MUCH. 
          I DON'T SEE ANY POINT IN GOING THROUGH ALL OF THE OTHER POINTS ARE PERMITTED AND OTHER DEVELOPMENTS THAT PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN TO. 
          I WANTED TO MOSTLY TALK ON PROCESS, AND I'M HAPPY TO TAKE QUESTIONS. 
          >> THANK YOU, MARIE. APPRECIATE THAT. I AGREE. 
          I THINK OUR COUNCIL PROCEDURE BY LAW WHERE IT'S VERY BINARY ON OR EUPHORIA AGAINST THE BY-LAW. 
          IT'S NOT HOW LIFE IS. 
          THERE'S FOLKS THAT LOVE 90 PERCENT OF THE BY-LAW AND IT'S JUST THAT LAST 10 PERCENT THAT THEY WANT AMENDMENT, SO ON. 
          THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE COULD CONSIDER UPDATING, WHETHER IT'S FOR OR AGAINST OR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE BYLAW. 
          I DID WANT TO TOUCH QUICKLY ON YOUR WRITTEN SUBMISSION. 
          YOU DID TALK ABOUT THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY DISCUSSION ON INCENTIVES AND SUPPORT FOR BUSINESSES TO LOCATE IN THE DOWNTOWN. 
          JUST SO I KNOW OTHERS HAVE SPOKEN ON THAT TOO IN THEIR SUBMISSIONS. 
          IT'S A BIT OF A CASCADING BY-LAW UPDATE, SO WE START WITH THE COMMUNITY PLAN, WHICH IS THE OVERARCHING GOALS AND OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES FOR EACH ZONE. 
          THEN WE GO TO THE ZONING BY-LAW AND WE UPDATE IT TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMMUNITY PLAN AND IT GETS INTO THE NUTS AND BOLTS. 
          FOLLOWING THE APPROVAL OF THE ZONING BY-LAW, WE'LL BE UPDATING OUR DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE BY-LAW, WHICH WILL BE ABOUT ENCOURAGING, INCENTING DEVELOPMENT TO INCUR BASED ON THE COMMUNITY PLANS. 
          I DID JUST WANT TO UPDATE. 
          I HOPE FOLKS WHO HAVE PARTICIPATED IN THIS PROCESS WILL ALSO PARTICIPATE IN THAT BY-LAW UPDATE. 
          ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PRESENTER? I JUST HAVE A FEW MARIE, SO YOU DID SPEAK ON HOW YOU COULD SEE YOURSELF IN FAVOR OF MOVING SOME FROM THE PERMITTED TO THE DISCRETIONARY SO THE NEIGHBORS HAVE MORE ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES LOT BY LOT. 
          IS IT ALL COMMERCIAL OR IS THERE ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR THAT YOU WOULD LEAVE AND PERMITTED? JUST LOOKING FOR ANY FURTHER FEEDBACK YOU CAN PROVIDE ON WHAT YOU WOULD WANT TO SEE IN THE LIST OF OUR C1 MOVE FROM PERMITTED TO DISCRETIONARY USE OR REMOVED COMPLETELY. MS. MARIE. 
          >> THANKS, MADAM CHAIR. 
          I DO NOT WANT TO SEE ANY OF THE DEVELOPMENTS CONSIDERED UNDER THE COMMERCIAL HEADING MOVED INTO A RESIDENTIAL AREA. 
          I'D PREFER THAT THOSE BE THE LEFT. 
          I AM STRUCK BY, I THINK THERE WAS PART OF THE COMMUNITY PLAN TALKED ABOUT GENERALLY LOCATING COMMERCIAL USES ALONG ARTERIAL OR COLLECTED ROADS AT MICHELLE BE CONTIGUOUS WITH OTHER LOCAL SERVICE FACILITIES. 
          ARTERIAL OR COLLECTIVE ROADS ARE PRESENT IN MY LOCAL NEIGHBORHOODS, AND THERE ARE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS AROUND MY NEIGHBORHOOD IN ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR OLD. 
          I DO NOT WANT TO SEE THAT KIND OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT COME INTO MY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          BUT I AM IN SUPPORT OF DENSIFICATION INITIATIVES AND HOUSING INITIATIVES. 
          IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE ARE ALL NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE TO LOOK AT, IS SOMETHING THAT WE COLLECTIVELY HAVE COME TO GRIPS WITH THAT WE NEED SOLUTIONS FOR WORKABLE SOLUTIONS. 
          IF THOSE ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE DISCRETIONARY TYPES OF DEVELOPMENTS, THAT TO ME, SEEMS TO BE THE ONLY MECHANISM RIGHT NOW FOR RESIDENTS TO INPUT INTO THAT PROCESS. 
          I THINK WHEN YOU DO HAVE THAT KIND OF INPUT, YOU DO BUILD THAT SENSE OF COMMUNITY. 
          MANY DEVELOPMENT AND ENDS UP BEING A BETTER DEVELOPMENT FROM WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED WHEN YOU HAVE THAT FEEDBACK. 
          I APPRECIATE TIME AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT YOU'VE SPOKEN OUT. 
          BUT I AM REALLY HOPING THAT THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS CAN BE REMOVED IN RESIDENTIAL WITH SOME CONSULTATION REQUIRED FOR OTHER DISCRETIONARY USES. 
          [02:10:04]
          >> THANK YOU. SEEING NO QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE OR ZOOM? SEEING NONE. 
          THANK YOU AGAIN VERY MUCH FOR THE WRITTEN AS WELL AS COMING TO PRESENT TODAY. 
          NEXT UP WE HAVE DAVE JONES. 
          DAVE, IF YOU WANT TO COME ON UP. 
          >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. SOME GREAT PRESENTATIONS SO FAR. 
          THANKS FOR ALL THE QUESTIONS AS WELL FROM COUNCIL. 
          I THINK MY COMMENTS ARE GOING TO FOCUS MOSTLY ON THE R1 ZONE FOR TODAY. 
          I'M IN STRONG AGREEMENT WITH THE COMMENTS I'VE HEARD ON THE RC ZONE AS IT'S BEEN PRESENTED TO DATE. 
          IN THE R1 ZONE, IT'S A ZONE THAT COVERS THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS IN OUR CITY. 
          WHILE I'M NOT OPPOSED TO INFILL AND DENSIFICATION, WHICH IS ONE OF THE HALLMARKS OF THIS BYLAW IN IMPLEMENTING THE COMMUNITY PLAN, AGAIN, AS OTHERS HAVE SAID, I THINK IT'S GONE A BIT TOO FAR. 
          WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THAT THE ADDITION OF APARTMENT BUILDINGS IN TOWNHOMES IN THE R1 ZONE IS SOMETHING THAT GIVES ME CONCERN FOR THE CHARACTER OF MY NEIGHBORHOOD AND OTHERS. 
          IT'S NOT SO MUCH THAT THESE BUILDINGS WOULD BE ALLOWED ON ONE LOT, BUT THEY COULD STRADDLE PROBABLY UP TO THREE. 
          THERE'S A QUALIFIER IN THE BYLAW THAT SAYS WHAT'S THE MAXIMUM SITE AREA. 
          LET'S ASSUME IT COULD STRADDLE THREE LOTS AND YOU COULD HAVE A 12-METER BUILDING IN A LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREA THAT STRADDLES THREE LOTS THAT COULD BE UP TO POSSIBLY 12-15 UNITS OR MORE. 
          I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS I DON'T FEEL THAT FITS IN WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE IN OUR CITY. 
          WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST INSTEAD OF THAT IS THAT THOSE BUILDINGS COULD BE PERMITTED, THAT BEING APARTMENTS AND TOWNHOMES, BUT THAT THEY'D BE RESTRICTED TO BEING ONLY PERMITTED ON ONE LOT IN ALL OF THESE LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREAS. 
          BACK ONE STEP THOUGH, WE HAVE A LOT OF EXAMPLES IN THE CITY WHERE WE HAVE TWO AND THREE AND FOUR-UNIT BUILDINGS ON SINGLE LOTS AND I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THOSE. 
          I THINK THEY HAVE SOME SPECIFIC PROBLEMS THAT CAN ARISE AT TIMES THAT CAN BE DEALT WITH. 
          MAYBE ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL ONES BEING THAT A LOT OF THE ONES THAT YOU SEE OF THIS NATURE, THREE AND FOUR-UNIT BUILDINGS IN LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREAS THAT DO NOT HAVE REAR LINE ACCESS END UP BEING LOCKED TO LOT GRAVEL PARKING LOTS WITH CARS IN THE FRONT AND I THINK WE NEED TO ADDRESS THAT, BUT THAT'S A SIDE MATTER. 
          ANOTHER THING THAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IN THE R1 ZONE IS THE SECONDARY DWELLING UNITS. 
          IT'S NOT THAT I'M OPPOSED TO SECONDARY DWELLING UNITS, BUT IN THE BYLAW, YOU CAN LOOK AT A DRAWING, A RENDERING THAT'S PROVIDED IN THE DEFINITION OF SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT. 
          WHAT YOU'LL SEE IN THAT, IN THE DEFINITION SECTION OF THE BYLAW IS A NICE-LOOKING TWO-STORY STRUCTURE WITH A NICE LITTLE ONE-STORY STRUCTURE SITTING IN BEHIND, WHICH IS THE SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT. 
          HOWEVER, THE REGULATIONS IN THE R1 ZONE AND THE SUPPLY IS TO RC AND R2 AS WELL IS THAT YOU COULD ESSENTIALLY BUILD A SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE UP TO 12 METERS HIGH AND DEPENDING ON THE LOT AREA, COULD BE UPWARDS OF AN 800 SQUARE FOOT FOOTPRINT IN A BACKYARD. 
          IF YOU ADD THAT UP BY THREE STORIES, YOU COULD HAVE A 2,400 SQUARE FOOT SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT IN THE BACKYARD. 
          THE THING THAT CONCERNS ME ABOUT THAT NECESSARILY IS THAT AS A NEIGHBOR OR AS AN OWNER OF A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING, I DO ENJOY MY BACKYARD. 
          I LIKE HAVING ACCESS TO THE SUN AND I HAVE A GARDEN AND I DON'T WANT A THREE-STORY BUILDING SITTING ONE METER AWAY FROM MY NEXT-DOOR NEIGHBOR'S BACKYARD LOOKING OVER MY YARD. 
          I DON'T THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE. 
          AGAIN, AS MANY OF OTHERS HAVE SAID HERE, A LOT OF THE ISSUES IN THE BYLAWS ARE ISSUES OF SCALE AND APPROPRIATENESS. 
          IT'S NOT SO MUCH THAT THE USES, I'M TALKING ABOUT RESIDENTIAL USES RIGHT NOW, I'M NOT REFERRING TO COMMERCIAL USES. 
          THE RESIDENTIAL USES, 
          [02:15:01]
THE SCALE OF THEM IS SOMETHING THAT I FEEL IS NOT APPROPRIATE IN MOST OF OUR LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND THAT'S THE POINT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO PUT FORWARD. 
          THERE'S A FEW OTHER THINGS THAT I HAVE SOME THOUGHTS ABOUT AND APART FROM THE ONE LOT ONLY NOTION IS, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT HEIGHT. 
          I THINK HEIGHT IS AN ISSUE IN LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS FOR THE REASONS THAT I SAID OF BLOCKING VIEWS AND MAKING USE OF BACKYARDS LESS ENJOYABLE AND OTHER THINGS. 
          I WONDER WHY WE NEED TO HAVE THIS 12-METER HEIGHT, BUT I COULD LIVE WITH THAT NECESSARILY IF WE COULD HAVE A BUILDING HEIGHT THAT'S RESTRICTED TO THREE STORIES. 
          THERE'S BEEN DISCUSSION THAT THERE'S NOT A DESIRE TO RESTRICT A BUILDING IN TERMS OF THE NUMBERS OF STORIES. 
          I THINK WHAT I WOULD POSSIBLY SEE IS THAT WHILE WE HAVE THIS 12-METER HEIGHT ALLOWANCE THAT THE VARIANTS PROVISIONS THAT ARE THERE IN THE BYLAW, WHICH ARE QUITE LIBERAL AND WHICH I WILL SPEAK TO MORE LATER, WOULD ALLOW A BUILDING IN EXCESSIVE 12 METERS. 
          THE DEVELOPER COMES INTO TO DEVELOPMENT OFFICER'S OFFICES AND SAYS ''WELL, I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO BUILD A FOUR-STORY BUILDING, CAN YOU GIVE ME A 10 PERCENT VARIANCE THAT LETS ME GET UP TO 13-AND-A-HALF METERS AND I'LL BUILD A FOUR-STORY BUILDING?'' ''OH, YEAH, WE CAN DO THAT.'' THERE'S NO RECOURSE FOR THE NEIGHBOR OR ANYTHING TO HAVE ANY INPUT ON THAT. 
          I HAVE SOME CONCERNS ON HEIGHT. 
          HEIGHT IS A BIG DEAL IN LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AROUND AT OUR LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS OF THE CITY, YOU WILL SEE A LOT OF TWO AND THREE-STORY BUILDINGS AND VERY FEW, BUT THERE ARE SOME FOUR-STORY BUILDINGS. 
          I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO GO TO FOUR STORIES. 
          I ALSO HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE HEIGHT OF THE SECONDARY DWELLING UNITS AND I'M SUGGESTING THAT WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN IS THAT THEY SHOULD BE RESTRICTED IN HEIGHT MORE ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT IS SEEN IN THE DEFINITION DRAWING FOR SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT INSTEAD OF THE ACTUAL REGULATIONS THAT ARE THERE IN THE INDIVIDUAL ZONES. 
          THERE'S A COUPLE OTHER THINGS, I HAD SOME COMMENTS IN THE RC ZONE, BUT I'M GOING TO LEAVE THOSE BECAUSE I THINK THAT THE OTHER SPEAKERS HAVE SPOKEN TO THE ISSUES THAT ARE OF CONCERN THERE. 
          I HAVE THE SAME ONES AS I SAID. 
          VERY QUICKLY, I HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE VARIANCE PROVISIONS IN THE ZONING BYLAW. 
          I THINK THAT WHAT THEY RELATE TO IS THAT THE VARIANCE PROVISIONS ARE MOSTLY UNLIMITED. 
          I KNOW THAT'S PROBABLY NOT COMPLETELY ACCURATE TO SAY, BUT THERE ARE NO PERCENTAGE LIMITATIONS ON VARIANCE. 
          I KNOW THERE'S CONSIDERATIONS THAT ARE IN THE BYLAW FOR VARIANCES, BUT WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IS THAT THE VARIANCE PROVISIONS BE LEFT IN THE HANDS OF THE STAFF, THAT THE COUNCIL NOT GET INTO VARIANCE REQUESTS AND AT THEIR MEETINGS, AND THAT WE SIMPLY LOOK AT A VARIANCE MAXIMUM. 
          I THINK THE BIGGEST VARIANCE, THOSE THAT NEED TO BE LOOKED AT ARE HEIGHT AND SITE COVERAGE, THOSE ARE BIG ONES THAT CAN REALLY AFFECT ADJACENT PROPERTIES. 
          SECONDARILY, ALL OF THE OTHER PROVISIONS RELATING TO LOT SETBACKS AND OTHER THINGS, I THINK WE COULD GO TO 25 PERCENT MAXIMUM VARIANCE IN THOSE. 
          I THINK ON THE HEIGHT VARIANCE, I THINK WE COULD LOOK AT 10 PERCENT. 
          PREVIOUS BYLAWS IN YELLOWKNIFE HAVE HAD VARIANCE RESTRICTIONS. 
          I KNOW STAFF LIKES TO HAVE NO RESTRICTIONS ON VARIANCE, BUT I'M SUGGESTING THAT I THINK WE NEED SOME. 
          I THINK THIS BYLAW REALLY, IT STRIKES ME THAT IT'S REALLY TAKEN, AND OTHER SPEAKERS HAVE RELATED TO THIS, IT'S TAKEN TOO LARGE OF A LEAP BEYOND WHAT WE'VE KNOWN FOR. 
          WHILE I THINK SOME OF THE PRINCIPLES IN THE BYLAWS ARE GOOD AND MOST PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN TO THOSE, I THINK THIS BY-LAW HAS TAKEN A STEP TOO FAR, IT'S NOT INCREMENTAL IN NATURE. 
          IT'S EVOLUTIONARY AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE RIGHT WORD, BUT IT HASN'T TAKEN A BABY STEP TO THE NEXT STEP, IT'S GONE FIVE STEPS AHEAD. 
          IN MY MIND, THERE'S TOO MUCH IN THIS BYLAW THAT HAS THE IMPACT OR THE ABILITY TO IMPACT RESIDENTIAL LOW-DENSITY NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          I THINK THAT'S THE MAIN THING THAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT. 
          I HAD A VERY SMALL SECONDARY COMMENT RELATING TO LANDSCAPING, 
          [02:20:03]
WHICH I'VE SPOKEN TO STAFF ON, AND I'M GOING TO SAY, I THINK AT THIS POINT I'M SEEING TWO OR THREE RECENT DEVELOPMENTS WHERE LANDSCAPING HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND THESE ARE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS WHERE IT SEEMS TO BE ACCEPTABLE TO HAVE LARGE AREAS OF MONOLITHIC GRAVEL AND STONE, BROKEN ROCK AS LANDSCAPING. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST AND IT'S FOUND IN MOST RESIDENTIAL ZONES THAT I'VE NOTICED THAT LANDSCAPING IS ACTUALLY REQUIRED TO BE, LET'S JUST SAY GREEN AND GROWING WHEREAS WE SEEM TO HAVE IN SOME OF THE COMMERCIAL ZONES, IT SHOWED UP IN A SLAVE LAKE AND IT SHOWED UP AT THE NEW STARBUCKS. 
          I'M NOT SURE IF THE CHATEAU NOVA IS CONSIDERED COMPLETE OR NOT, BUT WE'RE SEEING LANDSCAPING WHICH TO ME IS MONOLITHIC ROCK, OR GRAVEL, WHICH I DON'T FIND ACCEPTABLE. 
          I WOULD ASK THAT IF THERE'S ANY LOOPHOLES IN THE ZONING BYLAW THAT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN THAT WE CLOSE THOSE AND THAT LANDSCAPING IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE AS GREEN AND GROWING. 
          I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH SMALL ELEMENTS OF LANDSCAPING BEING ROCK OR STONE, BUT NOT MONOLITHIC AREAS OF BEING ROCK OR STONE. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO JUST MENTION THOSE ITEMS ABOUT LANDSCAPING IN A FAIRLY SMALL POINT, BUT IT DOESN'T DO OUR CITY A SERVICE TO GET THAT LANDSCAPING. 
          >> DAVE, YOU'VE REACHED THE 10-MINUTE MARK. 
          >> YES. I AM VERY MUCH AT THE END. 
          IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. 
          >> THANK YOU AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR WRITTEN SUBMISSION BOTH FOR THE HEARING AS WELL AS THE PREVIOUS ONE FOR THE AUGUST 24TH DRAFT. 
          ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PRESENTER? COUNCIL MORGAN? 
          >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. THANKS DAVE FOR ALL YOUR WORK ON THIS IN YOUR ONGOING ENGAGEMENT. 
          I KNOW THAT YOU'VE BEEN REALLY PASSIONATE ABOUT IT AND CERTAINLY DONE A LOT OF RESEARCH AND HELPED OUT OTHER RESIDENTS TOO IN TERMS OF PREPARING FOR THIS SESSION. WE APPRECIATE THAT. 
          MY FIRST QUESTION FOR YOU, YOUR POINT THAT IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS YOU FEEL THAT NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO ONE LOT AS OPPOSED TO BEING ABLE TO COMBINE LOTS FOR A NEW MULTI-UNIT BUILDING. 
          ARE THERE ANY EXAMPLES OF EXISTING MULTI-UNIT BUILDINGS THAT SPAN ACROSS SEVERAL LOTS THAT YOU THINK DO FIT INTO EXISTING RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, WHETHER IT'S AN OLD TOWN OR OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY? 
          >> MR. JONES. 
          >> THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR. I MEAN, THERE CERTAINLY ARE EXAMPLES IN THE CITY AND THERE'S CERTAINLY ONES THAT I CAN THINK OF IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA THAT STRADDLE MORE THAN ONE LOT WHICH ARE FINE DEVELOPMENTS AND I DON'T HAVE ANY CONCERNS WITH THEM. 
          BUILDING THE POINT OF THE VICTORIAN SUITES ON 53RD STREET ARE GOOD EXAMPLES OF MULTI LOT DEVELOPMENTS OF MULTI-UNIT BUILDINGS. 
          I JUST FEEL THAT IN THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND SORRY, BACKUP AND KEEP IN MIND THAT THESE BUILDINGS ARE PRIMARILY LOCATED IN THE CENTRAL CORE AREA DOWNTOWN, WHICH HAS ALLOWED THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT TO HAPPEN FOR PROBABLY OVER THE LAST 25 YEARS OR MORE. 
          BUT THEY HAVE NOT PREVIOUSLY BEEN ALLOWED TO HAPPEN IN ANY OF THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE CITY. 
          THAT'S THE BIG DIFFERENCE. 
          I MEAN I VIEW IT AS A COMPROMISE IN A SENSE THAT IF YOU'RE LOOKING TO DENSIFY THE CITY, WHICH I THINK IS DEFINITELY ONE OF THE GOALS OF THIS BYLAW, TO DENSIFY WITH THROUGH INFILL DEVELOPMENT THAT IN THE RESIDENTIAL, LOW DENSITY NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          THESE ARE ALL THE SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES PRIMARILY WITH SMALL EXCEPTIONS. 
          I THINK THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT YOU NEED TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT. 
          THE SCALE OF DEVELOPMENT, THAT SCALE AT THREE LOTS IS TOO BIG. 
          THE OTHER THING I WOULD MENTION, WHICH NOBODY HAS SAID IN THE MEETING AND I HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING WRITTEN ON IT, THERE'S ALSO ANOTHER ZONING CATEGORY THAT THE CITY HAS BROUGHT IN CALLED R2. 
          THIS ZONING CATEGORY APPLIES TO A SMALL NON VARIANCE IN THE CITY, BUT IT APPLIES TO NORTHLAND TRAILER COURT AND IT APPLIES TO THE KNUDSEN BURN ROAD WRONGLY DRIVE AREA. 
          IN THAT AREA, THE ZONING CATEGORY IS VIRTUALLY THE SAME AS R1, WITH THE MAJOR EXCEPTION BEING THAT RATHER THAN PUT IN AN APARTMENT STYLE BUILDING ON THREE LOTS IN THESE AREAS, YOU COULD DO IT ON UP 20 LOTS. 
          WHAT IT'S DONE IS IT'S CREATED A MUCH LARGER ALLOWANCE FOR MULTI-UNIT BUILDINGS. 
          I REALLY WONDERING DESCRIBING THESE AREAS THAT AT THE NORTH LANDSBERG, WHAT WE USED TO CALL FRAME SOUTH THE BROMLEY KNUDSEN BROMLEY ROAD AREA. 
          I MEAN, REALLY, I EVEN HAVE A HARD TIME THINKING THAT THAT WAS REALLY EVER EVEN GOING TO HAVE MORE IF IT'S POSSIBLE. 
          HOW YOU WOULD SEE REDEVELOPMENT LIKE THAT IN NORTHLAND TRAILER PARK. 
          [02:25:03]
I CAN'T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT. I CAN'T EVEN SEE IT HAPPENING. 
          BUT THAT'S THERE, IT HASN'T BEEN DISCUSSED AT ALL IN ANY OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS I'VE SEEN IN BY NOBODY THAT LIVES IN THOSE AREAS EITHER, WHICH IS SURPRISING TO ME. 
          >> JUST AS A QUICK FOLLOW-UP, WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS THAT YOU IMAGINE ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM THOSE MULTI-UNIT BUILDINGS THAT YOU ENVISION BEING THE MOST PROBLEMATIC. 
          JUST GIVE US A RUNDOWN OF WHAT WE CAN PICTURE HAPPENING TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF THOSE MULTI-UNIT BUILDING ON A LOW DENSITY STREET. 
          >> MR. JONES? 
          >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. YEAH, I WOULD SAY SIMILAR TO WHAT I'VE MENTIONED ALREADY, WHICH IS THE SIZE AND SCALE OF THE BUILDINGS AS AN IMPACTS ON ADJOINING YARDS AND PROPERTIES IN TERMS OF ENJOYMENT OF YARDS, ACCESS TO SUNLIGHT, THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          MY CONCERN DOESN'T NECESSARILY RELATE TO THE OCCUPANTS OF THE BUILDING. 
          IT'S THE SCALE OF THE BUILDING RELATIVE TO THOSE AROUND IT. 
          I THINK A MUCH NICER APPROACH, A BETTER APPROACH, A MORE OR LESS IMPACTFUL APPROACHES TO HAVE SMALLER BUILDINGS IN POSSIBLY MORE LOCATIONS, WHICH REALLY IN THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONES, IT SEEMS TO ME TO BE A MUCH GREATER PROBABILITY THAT YOU ACTUALLY SEE SINGLE LOT DEVELOPMENT THAN MULTI-LOT DEVELOPMENT IN THOSE AREAS. 
          ANYWAY, NOT TO SAY THAT IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE TO HAVE THREE LOTS, BUT I THINK IT'S A TRICKIER EXERCISE TO COMBINE LOTS IN AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AREA. 
          I THINK THAT THE ABILITY TO HAVE HOUSING BROUGHT ON STREAM IN THE CITY THROUGH THIS METHOD IN THE FUTURE IS SOMETHING YOU SHOULD KEEP A VERY CLOSE EYE ON, BECAUSE IT MAY NOT MEET THE GOALS THAT YOU'RE HOPING IT MIGHT ACHIEVE. 
          I THINK IF YOU GO AHEAD WITH THIS BYLAW IN ANY FORM, I WOULD REALLY SUGGEST THAT YOU KEEP A VERY STRONG ACCOUNT OF HOW INFILL DEVELOPMENT PROGRESSES OVER THE COMING YEARS BECAUSE IT MAY NOT MEET THE GOALS THAT YOU THINK IT'S GOING TO MEET. 
          WE'VE HAD INFILL ALLOWANCE IN DOWNTOWN FOR LAST 25 YEARS AND IT HASN'T EXACTLY FILLED UP WITH NEW DEVELOPMENT AS WE KNOW. 
          >> YOUR SUGGESTION THAT THERE BE LIMITS ON VARIANCES. 
          I THINK YOU WROTE 10 PERCENT LIMIT ON VARIANCES TO HEIGHT AND SITE COVERAGE AND THEN MAXIMUM OF 25 PERCENT FOR ALL THE REST. 
          IS THERE A REASON WHY YOU CHOSE THOSE NUMBERS? IS THERE A PRECEDENT SOMEWHERE OR CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY YOU THOUGHT 10 PERCENT AND 25 PERCENT WAS THE RIGHT NUMBERS? 
          >> MR. JONES? 
          >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. CERTAINLY, I WOULDN'T SUGGEST SHOWN THAT THERE'S ANY MAGIC TO THOSE NUMBERS AT ALL. 
          FRANKLY, I MEAN, I'VE SEEN THEM IN OTHER BYLAWS AND THEY'D BEEN IN PREVIOUS BYLAWS. LET ME JUST PUT IT THIS WAY. 
          THERE WAS A PREVIOUS BYLAW TO 4404 THAT HAD A 10 PERCENT VARIANCE CAP ON EVERYTHING. 
          THAT'S JUST THE WAY THE BYLAW WAS WRITTEN. 
          I UNDERSTAND THE FLEXIBILITY ISSUE AND I SEE THAT AND I KNOW THAT. 
          IN SOME RESPECTS IT'S A LITTLE EASIER FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER TO HAVE SOME LIMITS ON VARIATIONS SO THAT EVERY SINGLE DEVELOPMENT DOESN'T BECOME A NEGOTIATION ON VARIANTS FROM A DEVELOPER BECAUSE WHEN IT'S WIDE OPEN, THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS. 
          EVERY SINGLE DEVELOPMENT CAN BECOME A NEGOTIATION ON VARIANCE WITH NOT REALLY ANY LIMIT BEING PROVIDED IN A BYLAW, TO GIVE THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER DIRECTION. 
          >> YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU THINK THAT IT SHOULD JUST BE ADMINISTRATION THAT HAS THE POWER TO ISSUE VARIANCES AND NOT COUNSEL. 
          I THINK IN THE EXISTING DRAFT COUNSEL WOULD HAVE THE POWER TO DISCUSS OR MAKE VARIANCES RELATED TO SAVE DENSITY. 
          WHY DO YOU THINK THAT THE POWER SHOULD LIE WITH ADMINISTRATION AND NOT WITH COUNSEL? 
          >> MR. JONES? 
          >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. 
          I MEAN, MY THOUGHT ON THAT ONE IS HAVING SEEN SOME MEETINGS OVER THE YEARS. 
          IN MY MIND, IT'S IN THE WEEDS DETAIL EXERCISE THAT REALLY COUNSEL DOESN'T NEED TO GET INTO. 
          IT'S A DIFFICULT ISSUE TO GET INTO FOR COUNSEL, I THINK COUNSEL SHOULD MORE OR LESS 
          [02:30:01]
TRY TO STICK INTO ITS LEGISLATIVE ROLE THAN AN ADMINISTRATIVE ROLE, WHICH I CALL THAT AN ADMINISTRATIVE ROLE. 
          FIGURING OUT HOW MUCH OF VARIANCE SHOULD BE. 
          THAT'S MY RATIONALE FOR THEM. 
          >> IF IT WAS AN ADMINISTRATIVE EXERCISE, DO YOU ENVISION THAT THERE WOULDN'T BE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE PUBLIC TO HAVE INPUT. 
          BECAUSE USUALLY IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT ADMINISTRATION DECIDES BEHIND THE SCENES WITH THE DEVELOPER, THEN THERE'S LESS OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC INPUT. 
          IS THAT YOUR ENVISIONING OR IS THERE SOME OTHER WAY THAT YOU WOULD ENVISION THE PUBLIC WEIGHING IN ON VARIANCES AROUND SIGHT DENSITY ASIDE FROM COMING TO COUNSEL? 
          >> MR. JONES? 
          >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I THINK PROBABLY AND I BELIEVE THE WAY IT WORKS NOW OR I MIGHT HAVE MISSED IT, IS THAT IF A VARIANCE IS PROVIDED ON A GIVEN PROPERTY, THAT THE STAFF WILL PROVIDE NOTIFICATION OF THAT VARIANCE TO ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS AND THAT'S THE MECHANISM. 
          I THINK IT HAPPENS AFTER THE PERMITS HAS BEEN APPROVED, BUT IT DOES PROVIDE THE NOTIFICATION THAT COULD TRIGGER POTENTIALLY AN APPEAL, POSSIBLY IF IT BECAME AN ISSUE OF THAT MAGNITUDE. 
          THAT'S THE WAY I THINK IT'S HANDLED AS FAR AS I KNOW, OR COULD BE HANDLED. 
          >> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT YOUR ENVISIONING IT WOULD STILL BE OPEN TO AN APPEAL TO THE DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD. 
          THAT'S HOW THE PUBLIC COULD. 
          >> MR. JONES? 
          >> SORRY, MADAM CHAIR. REALLY THERE'S BEEN SOME TALK ON VARIOUS MEDIA A LOT ABOUT THIS. 
          NOW IF A USE IN THE ZONING BY LAW IS PERMITTED, THERE'S REALLY NO APPEAL OF THAT. 
          THE USE CAN GO AHEAD. 
          HOWEVER, CONDITIONS OR VARIANCES OR OTHER THINGS RELATING TO THAT PERMIT COULD ACTUALLY BE LOOKED AT. 
          BUT IF YOU APPROVE A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON A LOT THAT ZONE FOR SINGLE YOU CAN'T APPEAL. 
          THERE'S NOTHING TO APPEAL. IT'S APPROVED, IT'S A PERMITTED USE. 
          HOWEVER, IF THERE'S A 25 PERCENT VARIANCE GIVEN ON THE HEIGHT OF THAT BUILDING. 
          WELL, I THINK THAT WOULD BE AN APPEALABLE ITEM. 
          >> OKAY. 
          >> YES. 
          >> YEAH, NO, THIS IS SUPER USEFUL FOR US TO THINK THROUGH. 
          MY FINAL QUESTION WAS JUST ACTUALLY TO ADMIN, BUT IN RELATION TO YOU, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CONCERNS ABOUT ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND POTENTIAL HEIGHT. 
          IT BROUGHT UP A QUESTION FOR ME. 
          IF THERE'S CURRENTLY A RULE THAT ACCESSORY BUILDINGS SHOULD NOT EXCEED THE HEIGHT OF A PRINCIPLE BUILDING. 
          IS THAT OPEN TO A VARIANCE? OR IS THAT JUST AN ABSOLUTE RULE THAT IT MUST NOT EXCEED THE HEIGHT OR IS IT UNLESS YOU APPEAL FOR A VARIANCE AND THEN IT CAN. 
          >> MISS BESSIE KELLER? 
          >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'LL ASK MS. WHITE AND HER TEAM TO RESPOND. 
          >> THANK YOU. NO, IT'S NOT AN ABSOLUTE RULE. 
          WHAT WE WOULD TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ARE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT FACTORS INCLUDING THE TOPOGRAPHY OF A PROPERTY. 
          BECAUSE IF YOU'RE ON A SLOPING PROPERTY, OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME CONSIDERATIONS NEEDED THERE. 
          IS THE SECONDARY SUITE ON TOP OF A GARAGE THAT WILL ALSO HAVE AN IMPACT ON WHAT THAT HEIGHT IS. 
          IT'S NOT AN ABSOLUTE RULE. 
          I'LL ASK IF MARGARET OR ROB HAVE ANYTHING IN ADDITION TO ADD TO THAT. 
          >> I THINK THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD ADD WOULD I SUPPOSED TO COUNSEL COULD CONSIDER IT MAKING IT AN ABSOLUTE RULE. 
          BUT AT THE MOMENT, THE WAY WE'VE PROPOSED TO BYLAW IT ISN'T. 
          >> THOSE ARE ALL MY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE PRESENTER? ANY FROM THE AUDIENCE? AND ON ZOOM? SEEING NONE. 
          THANK YOU AGAIN, MR. JONES FOR YOUR PRESENTATION AS WELL AS YOUR WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. 
          JUST SO FOLKS HAVE A BIT OF, I DIDN'T READ THROUGH THE LIST, BUT THAT WAS HOURS AGO. 
          UP NEXT WE HAVE ANN PETER'S FOLLOWED BY KENNY RUPTASH, AND THEN WE'LL TAKE ANYBODY WHO IS AGAINST OR HAS RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS, WHO HASN'T SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. 
          YOU'LL BE INVITED TO SPEAK NEXT. 
          THEN WE'LL MOVE TO THOSE IN FAVOR WHO ARE EMORY PAQUIN FOLLOWED BY THE OTHER LIST. 
          BUT JUST SO THAT THE NEXT THREE PRESENTERS KNOW WHO'S UP, IT'S ANN PETER'S KENNY RUPTASH, OTHERS IN THE AUDIENCE AND THEN EMORY. 
          I'LL INVITE YOU TO THE TABLE. 
          >> THANKS VERY MUCH. MUCH OF WHAT HAS BEEN SAID BY OTHER SPEAKERS, OF COURSE, IS COVERED SOME OF THE POINTS I WAS MAKING IN MY PRESENTATION. 
          I JUST WANT TO MAYBE QUICKLY GO OVER SOME OF THE POINTS I RAISED. 
          BUT YOU ALL HAVE COMPLETE SUBMISSIONS. 
          [02:35:03]
FIRST AND FOREMOST IS THE IDEA THAT THE COMMUNITY PLAN SETS THE POLICIES FOR THE CITY. 
          SOMETIMES I THINK THE DISCUSSIONS AROUND THE ZONING BY LAW GONE A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED WITH THAT. 
          A REMINDER THAT THAT'S ALREADY ADOPTED. 
          THERE IS NO DISCUSSION ABOUT THOSE ITEMS WITHOUT AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMMUNITY PLAN. 
          WHERE THERE ARE CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE TWO. 
          I BELIEVE THERE ARE SEVERAL. 
          I'VE PROVIDED A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES, BUT THERE ARE DEFINITELY MORE WHERE THERE ARE POLICIES RECOMMENDED IN THE COMMUNITY PLAN AND THERE ARE NO TOOLS IN THE PROPOSED ZONING PART THAT WOULD ALLOW A DEVELOPMENT OFFICER TO IMPLEMENT THOSE POLICIES. 
          MOST SPECIFICALLY, THE ONE ABOUT THE WHAT'S IT CALLED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL AROUND THE DOWNTOWN CORE. 
          I THINK THERE'S QUITE SPECIFIC POLICY RECOMMENDATION THERE THAT DENSITY BE CLOSE TO THE EDGE OF DOWNTOWN AND AT THE PERIPHERY IT BE THE DENSITY BE LOWERED SO THAT IT'S MORE SIMILAR TO THE ADJACENT AREAS. 
          AND IT'S NOT IN THE PROPOSED ZONE, NOR IS IT IN THE PROPOSED C1, WHICH PROVIDES A PATCHWORK OF C1S. 
          I WANTED TO POINT OUT TOO THAT MY CONCERNS I'M GOING TO SAY, ARE NOT ABOUT MY THE NEIGHBORHOOD I LIVE IN OR THE HOUSE I LIVE IN ARE MY PROPERTY. 
          BUT BECAUSE I THINK AS MANY PEOPLE HAVE SAID, GILMAN IS A VERY COMPLETE LITTLE COMMUNITY. 
          I FEEL LIKE ALL OF IT IS MY BACKYARD. 
          I AM CONCERNED FOR THAT REASON THAT THIS MOVE TO ALLOW HIGHER DENSITY AND SPECIFICALLY COMMERCIAL OUTSIDE OF THE DOWNTOWN ZONE WILL DILUTE THE OBJECTIVES. 
          WE NEED TO REMEMBER THERE'S A REAL CRITICAL MASS NEEDED TO MAKE COMPACT DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL AREA FUNCTION. 
          DILUTING IT REALLY GOES AGAINST OUR OBJECTIVES. 
          ANOTHER ITEM I TALKED ABOUT WAS STREETSCAPING. 
          IF WE'RE GOING TO GO TO DENSER THEN MORE ATTENTION NEEDS TO BE PAID TO THE STREETSCAPE, AS PEOPLE NOTED, WHAT HAPPENS. 
          ON ONE OF THE STREETS WHERE I OWN PROPERTY, WHEN YOU GET HIGHER DENSE, MORE HOUSING UNITS, YOU GET A STREET THAT IS ALL GRUMBLE WITH CARS OUT FRONT. 
          NOT TOO BEAUTIFUL. 
          THEN IN LOOKING AT THAT, IT RAISES THE POINT. 
          I GO BACK TO THE COMMUNITY PLAN TO SEE WHAT DIRECTION THERE IS THERE ON LANDSCAPING. 
          I WAS SURPRISED TO FIND THAT THERE'S NONE. 
          SOMETIMES IN DOING THE ZONING BY-LAWS, THESE ISSUES OF POLICY IN THE COMMUNITY PLAN, GAPS ARE REVEALED, AND I'D SAY THAT'S QUITE A BIG ONE. 
          ANOTHER POINT I WANTED TO RAISE WAS THE ALLOWING SITE PREPARATION IN ADVANCE OF DEVELOPMENT PERMITS. 
          IT HAS BEEN A CONCERN OF MINE FOR MANY YEARS. 
          WE SEE SOME DEVELOPMENTS AROUND TOWN WHERE [INAUDIBLE]. 
          I'M GOING TO USE THE WORD DESTROYED, BUT PEOPLE CALL IT BEING PREPARED IN ADVANCE AND DEVELOPMENTS ACTUALLY DON'T OCCUR. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT REMOVED. 
          HOW I'M I DOING ON TIME, MADAM CHAIR? 
          >> SIX MORE MINUTES. 
          >> OKAY. ANOTHER POINT I RAISED IN MY SUBMISSION IS THE DEFINITION OF EDUCATION AND RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS. 
          COULD THAT BE DIVIDED INTO THE USES THAT IT'S DESCRIBING, WHY IS IT BEING MERGED INTO ONE. 
          WE HAVE OTHER INSTANCES WHERE THERE ARE MULTIPLE DEFINITIONS FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF USES AND THIS FOR SOME REASON IS SQUISHED INTO ONE. 
          WHEREAS IT COVERS A REALLY BROAD RANGE OF USES IN SCALE, IN TERMS OF THE SCALE OF DEVELOPMENT THAT ARE ALLOWED. 
          ALSO I JUST FIND IT SOMEWHAT DISTASTEFUL TO MERGE THOSE TWO USES INTO ONE BECAUSE EDUCATION IS NOT RELIGION. 
          THE DEFINITION OF DENSITY IS ANOTHER THING I RAISED. 
          I THINK IT'S MAYBE SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE THOUGHT ABOUT A BIT MORE. 
          I WON'T GO OVER ALL THE REASONS THAT ARE PROVIDED IN MY PREVIOUS SUBMISSION. 
          I ALSO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE LIKE MANY HAVE IS THAT I'M NOT TOTALLY AGAINST THE BYLAW AS PRESENTED. 
          I'M NOT HERE JUST TO OPPOSE I WAS NOT AWARE OF 
          [02:40:04]
THE PREVIOUS OPPORTUNITY FOR SOME DISCUSSION. 
          THERE'S BEEN VERY LITTLE DISCUSSION BACK AND FORTH. 
          I'M GLAD TO BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS, ALTHOUGH I DO THINK IT'S NOT QUITE THE RIGHT FORMAT FOR DISCUSSION. 
          I WANT TO REMEMBER THERE ARE LOTS OF GOOD POINTS. 
          I'M REALLY PLEASED TO SEE LESS REGULATION IN SOME AREAS IN TERMS OF HOME BUSINESSES, COMMUNITY SIGNS, THAT'S A SMALL CHANGE THAT I THINK IT'S FANTASTIC. 
          BROKEN ROCK DOESN'T HAVE TO GET A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. 
          I ALWAYS FOUND IT QUITE TROUBLING. 
          IT'S LAID OUT MUCH BETTER. 
          I REALLY LIKE THE USE OF GRAPHICS AND VERY HAPPY TO SEE SIMILAR USE, HAS BEEN CORRECTLY DEFINED. 
          THE REMOVAL OF MINIMUM PARKING AND TOTALLY BEHIND IT. 
          IT WILL STILL, IN MANY WAYS IT DOES, IT ISN'T KEEPING WITH THE COMMUNITY PLAN. 
          I AM ABSOLUTELY AND TOTALLY IN SUPPORT OF THE GOALS OF THE COMMUNITY PLAN TO MAINTAIN OR DEVELOPED FOOTPRINT AND NOT EXPAND AND TO FIND WAYS TO BUILD A MORE LIVABLE CITY WITHIN OUR EXISTING FOOTPRINT. 
          THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY TODAY. THANK YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU. YES. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUBMISSIONS ARE VERY THOUGHTFUL. 
          IT WAS THE RELIGIOUS AND EDUCATION INSTITUTES. 
          SOMETHING THAT WE'LL HAVE TO CONSIDER FURTHER. COUNSEL WILLIAMS. 
          >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. THANK YOU ANN FOR YOUR PRESENTATION TODAY. 
          YOU TALKED ABOUT THE CONFLICTS, THE COMMUNITY PLAN, AND THAT PHASED APPROACH. 
          THAT YES, I RECALL WHERE WE DEBATED THAT IN THERE. 
          DID YOU THINK THAT THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL FROM ADMINISTRATION BACK IN OCTOBER WITH THE INSTITUTION OF THE R1, NOT JUST RC1. 
          THERE WAS DOWNTOWN RC AND THEN OUR RC1. 
          DID YOU THINK THAT BETTER CAPTURED THE PHASED APPROACH THAT YOU ARE REFERENCING? 
          >> MISS PETER'S? 
          >> NO, I THINK IT'S ALSO PERMITTED IN RC. 
          YOU HAVE SOME PICTURES HERE IN YOUR WRITTEN SUBMISSION. 
          UNFORTUNATELY, PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE CAN'T SEE THAT. 
          BUT COMPARING HIGH RISE TO MEDIUM RISE TO LOW RISE AND, AND HOW THAT MIGHT PHYSICALLY LOOK ON A LOT. 
          I THINK WHAT YOU'RE ARGUING IS THAT MID-RISE DEVELOPMENTS COULD ACHIEVE THE GOAL OF DENSITY AS LAID OUT IN THE COMMUNITY PLAN AND FIT IN BETTER WITH NEIGHBORHOODS AND ALSO BE THE MOST BENEFICIAL IN TERMS OF CLIMATE CHANGE OR CLIMATE IMPACTS. 
          BECAUSE YOU MENTIONED THAT HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS MIGHT ACTUALLY BE REALLY INEFFICIENT IN TERMS OF HEAT, HEAT LOSS AND USE. 
          I WONDERED IF YOU COULD EXPAND UPON THAT A BIT MORE [OVERLAPPING]. 
          JUST EXPLAIN HOW YOU ENVISION EITHER HIGH RISER MEDIUM RISES FITTING IN EITHER SHORT DOWNTOWN OR OTHER RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          JUST IF PEOPLE ARE FOLLOWING ALONG IT'S IN THE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA, WHICH IS ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE AND IT'S PAGE 97. 
          THAT'S COUNSEL MORGAN IS REFERENCING THE IMAGE. MS. PETERS. 
          >> THANK YOU. YEAH. HAVING A LOOK AT, I GUESS HIGH-RISES HAVE BEEN SOMETHING I'VE BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT [LAUGHING] FOR MANY YEARS, MAINLY BECAUSE OF THE NEGATIVE IMPACTS. 
          BUT I THINK WHAT I MENTIONED THERE IS THAT THERE CAN BE SOME POSITIVE IMPACTS I WILL ACCEPT. 
          BUT I THINK ALLOWING THEM ANYWHERE IS WHAT I WAS GETTING AT. 
          IT'S NOT HOPPER. 
          WE KNOW WHAT THE IMPACTS ARE OF TALL BUILDINGS. YES, IT'S TRUE. 
          I THINK A COMMON MISCONCEPTION IS THAT THERE ARE ENERGY EFFICIENT, BUT IN FACT THEY'RE LESS ENERGY-EFFICIENT THAN MEDIUM RISE. 
          DEFINITELY, AND I THINK A LOT OF THE STUFF I'VE SEEN AT THAT THE MISSING MIDDLE, THE MIDDLE IS DEFINITELY MUCH EASIER TO TAKE AND YOU CAN ACHIEVE A LOT OF YOUR GOALS WITHOUT PRODUCES A LOT OF PROBLEMS. I HAD A LOOK AT SOME OF THE HIGH-RISE DEVELOPMENTS AROUND TOWN AND THEY CAN BE LOCATED. 
          THERE ARE SOME THAT ARE LOCATED IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE LONG SHADOWS THEY ARE CASTING OR ON OPEN AREAS RATHER THAN NEIGHBORING HOUSES, FOR EXAMPLE. 
          YOU CAN PREDICT WHERE THOSE ARE GOING TO BE GOOD. 
          JUST ALLOWING THEM ANYWHERE SOMEBODY ASSEMBLES SOME LAND IS NOT THE MEAT DISOWNING THE COMMUNITY PLAN GOALS, 
          [02:45:02]
THE DENSIFICATION WITHOUT THEM? I THINK THERE'S NO NEED TO ALLOW THEM ANYWHERE. 
          YOU COULD ALLOW MAKES SOME ALLOWANCE FOR THEM AS IT IS HOUSING FORM THAT DOES HAVE SOME ADVANTAGE. 
          JUST LEAVING THAT UP TO A DEVELOPER TO DETERMINE DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF ZONING IN SOME WAYS. 
          NOT SURE IF THAT ANSWERED THE QUESTION. 
          >> YEAH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          GO BACK TO MY. SORRY. YOU MENTIONED IN YOUR RECOMMENDATION UNDER THE ONE ABOUT RELIGIOUS AND EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, BUT YOU SAID WE SHOULD ADD A REQUIREMENT FOR DEVELOPING OUT WHAT'S DIFFERENT. MS. PETERS? 
          >> I'M SORRY, I'M GOING BY MEMORY HERE, BECAUSE OF THAT VERY BROAD DEFINITION AND THAT USE IS ALLOWED IN SEVERAL ZONES. 
          I THINK IT IS PERMITTED IN PS OR PR SOME TYPE OF NEED, BUT THERE WAS A REGULATION INTRODUCED THAT SAYS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER WILL [OVERLAPPING] CARRY OUT THAT POLICY OF TRANSITION WITHOUT BEING TOO PRESCRIPTIVE, MS. PETERS? 
          >> OKAY. I GUESS THERE'S TWO ISSUES, ONE IS THE HEIGHT. 
          THE WORDING OF THE COMMUNITY PLAN, I BELIEVE IS THE DENSITY WOULD STEP DOWN, AND SO I TAKE THAT TO MEAN HEIGHT-WISE. 
          USE IS A DIFFERENT ISSUE BECAUSE THERE ARE SPECIFIC POLICIES IN THE COMMUNITY PLAN TALKING ABOUT WHERE COMMERCIAL USES WILL BE CONCENTRATED, AND WHICH ONES WOULD BE ALLOWABLE IN THAT PERIPHERAL CENTRAL RESIDENTIAL AREA. 
          TWO DIFFERENT THINGS, BUT HEIGHT WAS CERTAINLY WHAT I THOUGHT THE COMMUNITY PLAN POLICY WAS SAYING, THAT IT SHOULD BE HIGHER DENSITY. 
          HIGHER BUILDINGS WOULD BE RIGHT UP, ADJACENT TO THE DOWNTOWN ZONE. 
          THERE ARE AREAS OF THAT CENTRAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE THAT ARE QUITE ALWAYS AWAY LIKE MATONABEE, DOWN AT THE BOTTOM OF THE HILL. 
          AN AREA THAT MANY OF US THINK OF AS BEING AN OLD TOWN, BUT IS ZONE CENTRAL RESIDENTIAL. 
          I WOULD SAY THAT'S FAR AWAY FROM THE DOWNTOWN CORE. 
          >> OKAY. THEN YOU RECOMMENDED THAT WITHIN THE RC, AND I'M ASSUMING ALSO THE RC1 ZONES, YOU WOULD CHANGE COMMERCIAL USES FROM PERMITTED TO DISCRETIONARY, AND THEN ADD CONDITIONS TO RESTRICT THE TYPES OF COMMERCIAL USES AND GUIDE WHERE THEY CAN BE LOCATED. 
          DO YOU HAVE ANY EXAMPLES OF CONDITIONS YOU THINK SHOULD BE ADDED TO RESTRICT CERTAIN TYPES OF COMMERCIAL USES? MS. PETERS? 
          >> I WAS THINKING OF USES THAT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THOSE IN THE COMMUNITY PLAN BECAUSE THEY ARE SPECIFICALLY NAMED THERE. 
          THEN CONDITIONALS ON MAIN STREETS WITHIN THAT ZONE WOULD BE WORTH CONSIDERING. 
          IT'S JUST NOT ANYWHERE, IS THE ISSUE. 
          >> OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THOSE LISTS OF THINGS THAT CURRENTLY DO NOT REQUIRE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT THAT CAN BE DONE BEFORE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. 
          I WANTED TO FOLLOW UP WITH ADMIN ABOUT WHY THAT IS ON THE LIST OF DEVELOPMENTS NOT REQUIRING DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, IN MY OWN PART OF A MUCH LARGER CONVERSATION, BUT I WONDERED IF THERE'S ANY INITIAL EXPLANATION AS TO WHY IT DOES NOT REQUIRE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, MS. BASSEY KELLER?. 
          >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. USUALLY, A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS ALSO PUT INTO PLACE WHICH CAN ADDRESS SOME OF THESE ITEMS. SITE ALTERATION, USUALLY DO ANY OTHER WORK ON THAT PROPERTY. 
          WHAT I'LL DO IS, I'LL ASK ROB MARGARET IF THERE'S MORE DETAIL AS TO WHY IT'S SPECIFICALLY NOT, BUT IT IS COVERED. 
          IN THE KAM LAKE ZONE MAY BE APPLICABLE TO AN AREA OUTSIDE OF KAM LAKE, BUT WHEN YOU CALL IT A KAM LAKE ZONE, IT'S PRETTY TOUGH TO SAY I'M TRYING TO REZONE TO KAM LAKE WHEN I'M OUT IN WHEREVER. 
          I THINK YOU SHOULD RECONSIDER THE NAMING CONVENTIONS. 
          SERVICE LOSS IS MY NEXT ONE. 
          OUT IN ANGLE, THERE IS NOT AN ALLOWANCE FOR A CARETAKER SUITE. 
          [02:50:01]
AS I UNDERSTAND THROUGH SOME CONVERSATION, THAT WAS THE SERVICEABILITY OF THE LOSS. 
          IT'S COST-PROHIBITIVE FOR THE CITY AND I'LL USE GRACE LAKE. 
          THE TAX BASE IN GRACE LAKE WILL NEVER SUPPORT THE SERVICES THE CITY PROVIDES IN GRACE LAKE. 
          I THINK THE CITY SHOULD CONSIDER DESIGNATING WHICH ZONES WILL BE UNSERVICED AND THE ABILITY TO HAVE A SECONDARY SUITE OR CARETAKER SUITE OUT IN ANGLE WITH AN UNSERVICED LOT, WOULD NOT COST THE CITY ANYTHING. 
          DEVELOPERS OR BUSINESSES OPERATING OUT THERE WOULD APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE SOMEONE OUT THERE. 
          IN KAM LAKE, THE ONLY REAL INDUSTRIAL AREA RIGHT NOW, THERE'S NOT ENOUGH FOOTPRINT TO HAVE A LARGE STORAGE AREA AND CONSOLIDATE ALL YOUR BUILDINGS INTO ONE AREA, AND STILL HAVE A CARETAKER SUITE. 
          MOVING OUT INTO ANGLE IF THE ABILITY WAS THERE, YOU'D SEE ANGLE A LITTLE BIT MORE POPULATED THAN IT IS RIGHT NOW. 
          THERE IS A PRECEDENT SET THERE IF YOU LOOK AT THE AIRPORT AND I REALIZE THERE IS INTER-JURISDICTIONAL WITH THE TERRITORY, POPULATING THE AIRPORT, BUT THOSE ARE ALL UNSERVICED LOTS. 
          THEY HAVE TO COORDINATE THEIR OWN WATER AND SEWER. 
          THEN THERE'S SOME PERIPHERAL LOTS AROUND YELLOWKNIFE THAT ARE UNSERVICED THAT I'LL GET TO LATER. 
          MY NEXT IS MINING CLAIMS AND ZONING INTERFACE. 
          YOU'VE GOT THE ZONING BY-LAWS THAT THE ONLY REAL DEFINITION THAT MAY BE MISCONSTRUED IN MINING CONTEXTS IS YOUR NATURAL RESOURCE EXTRACTION. 
          I DIDN'T HAVE THE ZOOM LINK, SO I COULDN'T SIT IN MY OFFICE AND ACTUALLY READ IT TO YOU. 
          THIS IS THE NOTES THAT I BROUGHT. 
          IF YOU LOOK AT THE NATURAL RESOURCE EXTRACTION DEFINITION AND I'M PARAPHRASING, THE ANTICIPATION THERE IS FOR QUARRYING TOPSOIL, REALLY NOT TRUE MINING ACTIVITIES. 
          GIVEN WE'VE GOT CON RIGHT NOW IN THE TERRITORY, THERE ARE ALSO PERIPHERAL MINING CLAIMS. I THINK THAT THE CITY SHOULD CONSIDER PUTTING A DEFINITION FOR MINING INTO THE BY-LAWS SO THAT WHEN GOLD TERRA TRIES TO REJUVENATE THE CON PROPERTY, IT'S NOT A WHOLE PROCESS TO ACTUALLY CONTEMPLATE WHAT THEY'RE DOING. 
          THE TWO SHOULDN'T BE CONSIDERED IN THE SAME STREAM, MINING FOR WHATEVER AND EXTRACTING NATURAL RESOURCES. 
          I KNOW THAT THEY'RE LOOSELY PARALLEL, BUT I THINK THEY SHOULD BE SEPARATED. 
          THE NEXT ITEM, THERE ARE PERIPHERAL PROPERTIES AROUND THE CITY RIGHT NOW THAT THIS COMMUNITY PLAN HAD DESIGNATED FOR A SPECIAL RESERVE MANAGEMENT, I BELIEVE. 
          THE CITY IS PLANNING TO USE THOSE LANDS IN THE FUTURE, IT IS EFFECTIVELY STYLE OF MANAGEMENT TO ANOTHER DESIGNATION IS A LARGER UNDERTAKING THAN JUST RE-ZONING PLAN. 
          IT'S A LOT MORE COST-PROHIBITIVE TO RE-DESIGNATE THE LAND, AT LEAST THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. 
          I DON'T THINK THAT THE CITY SHOULD BE DETERMINING WHAT THE FUTURE GROWTH OF PRIVATELY HELD PROPERTY SHOULD PUT IN CAMP-LIKE ITS WORKER CAMP. 
          IT'S SOMETHING AROUND EIGHT UNITS, AND THE UNITS AREN'T REALLY DEFINED, IT WAS PROPOSED BY CLARK BUILDERS WHEN THEY DID THE HOSPITAL. 
          NEXT YEAR, THERE ARE FIVE MAJOR PROJECTS IN THE CITY. 
          I THINK THE PEAK OF THESE PROJECTS AND RECOGNIZING THEY WON'T ALL BE AT THEIR PEAK, YOU COULD PROBABLY SCALE THAT BACK 75 PERCENT, BUT REGARDLESS, THE ASSOCIATION WILL ALWAYS TELL YOU THEY'VE GOT ROOM. 
          NONE OF THOSE HOTELS ARE LOCALLY OWNED, AND WHEN TOURISM PICKS BACK AGAIN. 
          AS A COMPANY THAT NEEDS TO BRING EMPLOYEES IN, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE, WE WILL EMPLOY EVERYBODY WHO WANTS TO WORK. 
          BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU STILL HAVE TO DO THE PROJECT. 
          I SUPPOSE THE FIRST STEP IS, LOOK FOR RENTAL, AND WE ALL KNOW WHAT THE RENTAL MARKET IS LIKE HERE. 
          THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE GO TO PURCHASE SOMETHING. 
          THE ABSOLUTE LAST STOP IS THE HOTELS BECAUSE IT'S COST-PROHIBITIVE. 
          TO GO BUY A HOUSE, AND LET'S JUST SAY EACH OF THESE PROJECTS GO AND BUY A NUMBER OF HOUSES AT THE END OF THEM, THEY'RE GOING TO TRY AND SELL THESE HOUSES, FLOOD THE MARKET WITH HOUSES, AND AT THE SAME TIME, WE WILL HAVE THE [INAUDIBLE] SHUTTING DOWN, OR ON THE PRECIPICE OF SHUTTING DOWN. 
          I THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE A FLOOD OF HOUSES ON THE MARKET THAT IF WE DON'T CONSIDER A WORKER COUNT AS A POTENTIAL MITIGATION, 
          [02:55:04]
THEN THERE'S GOING TO BE A DECLINE IN THE HOUSING MARKET HERE. 
          THAT'S IT. HOW MUCH TIME DID I USE? 
          >> SEVEN MINUTES. GOOD WORK. 
          ANY QUESTIONS? COUNCILOR MORRIS? 
          >> THANKS VERY MUCH KENNY, VERY CONCISE PRESENTATION. 
          YOU WERE GOING SO FAST I ACTUALLY MISSED YOUR FIRST POINT. 
          CAN YOU REITERATE THE POINT THAT YOU MADE ABOUT GRACE LAKE? I JUST DIDN'T CATCH WHAT YOU WERE SAYING THERE. 
          >> CAM LAKE, YEAH. MR. REPTASH. 
          >> ABOUT CAM LAKE AND? 
          >> THE NAMING CONVENTION. 
          >> NO, IT WASN'T THE NAMING CONVENTION, HE MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> POINT INVERSE WAS DESIGNATING WHICH ZONES WILL BE UN-SERVICED AND ALLOWING CARETAKER SUITES AND ANGLE? 
          >> THAT'S CORRECT. 
          >> YEAH. MR. REPTASH? 
          >> DID YOU WANT ME TO ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT? 
          >> PLEASE. 
          >> YES. THE ANGLED DISTRICT DOES NOT ALLOW FOR CARETAKER SUITES. 
          CAM LAKE ITSELF DOES NOT HAVE A LARGE ENOUGH PROPERTY THAT IF A BUSINESS OWNED A BUNCH OF EQUIPMENT TO PUT IT ALL ON ONE PROPERTY AND CONSOLIDATE EVERYTHING INTO ONE PROPERTY, WHICH CAN BE DONE IN ANGLE, BUT THERE IS NO PROVISIONS FOR CARETAKERS SUITES, OR REALLY AN OFFICE I BELIEVE OR A LARGE-SCALE OFFICE. 
          REGARDLESS THE SERVICE ABILITY OF THOSE LOTS, I THINK IF IT'S COST-PROHIBITIVE TO THE CITY THAT THEY SHOULD DESIGNATE WHICH LAWS ARE NOT SERVICED, MEANING NO WATER, NO SEWER. 
          YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH KAVANAUGH AND WB TO GET YOUR OWN SERVICES. 
          >> THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          YEAH, THERE'S A BIT MORE TO ANGLE THAN JUST SERVICING THE LOTS, BUT WE DON'T NEED TO TALK ABOUT THAT HERE, BUT I CAN MAYBE CATCH UP WITH YOU LATER TO TALK ABOUT THAT. 
          BUT THANKS, IT'S AN INTERESTING POINT ABOUT DESIGNATING SOME NEIGHBORHOODS THAT WON'T BE SERVICED, THAT IS ONE WAY TO MAYBE ACCOMMODATE. 
          BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN A CONVERSATION ABOUT GRACE AND THE FACT THAT HAVING LOTS OUT IN THE CITY, A LOT OF THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE OUT THERE OBVIOUSLY WANT TO HAVE LOTS THAT ARE FURTHER AWAY FROM THE CITY. 
          THEY GIVE THE AMENITIES OF THOSE LOTS, BUT THEY ARE MORE EXPENSIVE TO ADMINISTER SO THERE'S BEEN BACKING OFF A BUILDING, THAT THING. 
          PERHAPS HAVING OUR [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> SORRY COUNCILOR MORRIS. DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? 
          >> I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION. [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> WE CAN TALK. 
          >> THANK YOU. COUNCILOR [INAUDIBLE] 
          >> THANK YOU. THANKS FOR COMING IN KENNY. 
          I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE LOTS THAT CURRENTLY HAVE USES ON THEM THAT WENT TO WASN'T EVEN GROWTH MANAGERS FUTURE, WHATEVER. 
          IDEALLY, WHAT ZONING WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE ON THOSE LOTS IS I GUESS WHAT I'D LIKE TO KNOW. 
          >> THERE'S ABOUT FIVE PROPERTY OWNERS, THREE OF THEM WERE PRETTY ACTIVE IN THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT OF THIS NEW ZONING BY LAW. 
          UNFORTUNATELY, WE WERE NOT ENGAGED IN THE COMMUNITY PLANNING SESSION, WHICH IN HINDSIGHT IS REALLY WHERE WE SHOULD'VE BEEN INVOLVED, I'LL LEAVE THAT ALONE. 
          I DON'T THINK THERE IS ONE SIZE FITS ALL, I THINK WHAT WE HAD TRIED TO DO IS ACTUALLY PROPERLY ENGAGE WITH THE CITY, WITH ADMINISTRATION, AND THE RESPONSE THAT WE GOT IS HERE'S WHAT YOU'RE GETTING. 
          THERE WAS NO REAL ENGAGEMENT THERE. 
          THROUGH THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION, WE ACTUALLY SAT AND IT WAS TABLED THAT WE WILL HAVE A SEPARATE ENGAGEMENT BECAUSE WE DIDN'T WANT TO TAKE THE FOCUS AWAY FROM THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT, AND WHAT WE GOT WAS AN EMAIL SAYING YOU'LL BE GROWTH MANAGEMENT. 
          I'LL USE WEATHER B IS AN EXAMPLE, WEATHER B HAS PROPERTY OUT BY THE STAPLES IN THE CURRENT USE, WITH THE NEW PASSING OF THE NEW ZONING BY-LAW, HE CAN DO EVERYTHING HE'S ALREADY DONE. 
          BUT IF HE WANTS TO MAKE A SHIFT IN HIS BUSINESS OR GROW THE BUSINESS, HE'S UNABLE TO WITHOUT PROVIDING AN AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN, RE-DESIGNATING THE USE OF THE LAND, AT WHICH, AS I MENTIONED, IS COST-PROHIBITIVE, IT REQUIRES YOU TO GET A PROFESSIONAL REGISTERED PLANNER, COME UP WITH A PROPER PLAN AND SUBMIT THAT FOR CONSIDERATION. 
          YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT $15,000-$20,000 TO ALTERNATIVELY USE YOUR PROPERTY THAT YOU'VE PAID FOR AND YOU PAY TAXES ON. 
          FURTHERMORE, THESE PROPERTIES ARE THE UNSERVICED PROPERTIES SO WE PAY TAXES ON THEM BUT NOBODY PLOWS THE ROAD, NO GARBAGE, NO SEWER. 
          I DON'T THINK THEY'VE MADE RESPONSE TO A COUPLE OF THEM. 
          WE'RE HOST VOTERS THAT PAY TAXES. 
          >> THANKS FOR THAT. JUST A QUICK QUESTION FOR ADMINISTRATION. 
          [03:00:05]
I NEED TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THE RATIONALE OF HAVING PRIVATELY HELD LANDS AS GROWTH MANAGEMENT. 
          I DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND HOW THE RATIONALE BEHIND THAT ARE QUITE HOW WE GOT THERE. 
          ADMINISTRATION, COULD YOU PLEASE PROVIDE THAT, PLEASE? 
          >> MISS [INAUDIBLE] THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE QUESTION. 
          WE'VE GOT A COUPLE OF UNIQUE PARCELS THAT FALL WITHIN A BROADER AREA WHERE THERE'S NO DEVELOPMENT, SO THINK THERE'S A COUPLE OF UNIQUE SITUATIONS, I'LL ASK MISS WILDER IF SHE AND HER TEAM COULD TALK TO SOME OF THE UNIQUE PARCELS THAT EXIST WITHIN THE BROADER GROWTH MANAGEMENT. 
          >> SURE. AS THE SPEAKER NOTED, REALLY THIS STEMS FROM WHEN THAT COMMUNITY PLAN IS DEVELOPED BECAUSE IT LAYS OUT THAT FRAMEWORK FOR WHERE GROWTH IS GOING TO BE OVER, USUALLY A 20-YEAR LAND-USE PLANNING TERM. 
          AT THAT POINT IN TIME, YES YOU'RE RIGHT, THAT PROBABLY WOULD'VE BEEN THE STARTING POINT. 
          BUT WE ARE WHERE WE ARE NOW AND TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL IS FOCUSED AS PER THE COMMUNITY PLAN SO THERE'S DIRECTION SPECIFICALLY THERE THAT WE'RE TO FOLLOW. 
          WHEN IT COMES TO CHANGING SOME OF THAT AND LOOKING AT ALTERNATIVES TO WHAT SOME OF THESE PROPERTIES ARE ALLOWED TO BE USED FOR, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HAVING A LENGTHY PROCESS AS KENNY IS MENTIONING, IT'S NOT AS SIMPLE AS A FLIP OF A ZONE. 
          THERE'S MORE ANALYSIS THAT NEEDS TO GO INTO THAT, AND THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT REALLY DOES HAVE SPECIFIC RULES. 
          AS TO WHETHER OR NOT, NOT JUST IN DISTRICT YELLOWKNIFE, THERE'S LOTS OF PLACES WHERE PROPERTIES THAT ARE PRIVATELY HELD ARE ZONED. 
          YOU HAVE THE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY AS COUNCIL TO DO THAT THROUGH THE COMMUNITY PLAN AND THROUGH YOUR ZONING BY-LAW, SO IT'S AN EMBEDDED PROCESS. 
          I WILL ASK ROB BECAUSE HE WAS PART OF THAT COMMUNITY PLANNING PROCESS TO MAYBE PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, BUT THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, ROB. 
          >> [NOISE] THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT. 
          I THINK WHEN WE LOOK BACK AT WHERE THINGS WERE WITH THE 2011 COMMUNITY PLAN AND WHAT WAS ZONED AT THAT TIME, GROWTH MANAGEMENT WHEN WE FIND OURSELVES WITH A NEW COMMUNITY PLAN THAT SPEAKS TO HAVING A HIGH EMPHASIS ON THIS DENSIFICATION AND INFILL THAT THEN SOME OF THESE PERIPHERY PROPERTIES AT THE FAR EDGE OF THE COMMUNITIES SUCH AS THAT THE YELLOWKNIFE RIVER TO US LEAVING THEM ZONE GROWTH MANAGEMENT MAKES THE MOST SENSE. 
          IF WE CERTAINLY HAVE COME UP WITH ANOTHER ZONE THAT WOULD OPEN UP THE DOORS FOR DEVELOPMENT ON THE PERIPHERY OF THAT COMMUNITY, THEN WE'RE GOING TO START DEFEATING THE INTENT AND THE PURPOSE OF THE COMMUNITY PLAN. 
          HOPEFULLY THAT HELPS TO ANSWER SOME OF THE QUESTION. 
          >> PROBABLY NOT APPLICABLE HERE, BUT IT IS BECAUSE I THINK WE HAVE THESE OWNERS THAT HAVE THIS LAND THAT IT IS NOW GROWTH MANAGEMENT. 
          IN MY PERSONAL OPINION AS A COUNCILLOR IS THAT I MISS THAT, BASICALLY. 
          I DON'T THINK THAT THAT IS APPROPRIATE ZONE IN THE COMMUNITY PLAN. 
          I NEED TO THINK MORE ABOUT THIS BECAUSE FOR ME IT'S A SITUATION THAT WE NEEDED TO RECTIFY. 
          I MEAN, WE HAVE THE EXAMPLE GIVEN WHETHER IT BE TRUCKING, I MEAN, THEY'RE OPERATING OUT THERE AND FOR THEM TO TRY TO PIVOT IN TODAY'S WORLD WHERE EVERY BUSINESS NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO PIVOT, TO HAVE TO GO TO SUCH AN EXPENSE TO TRY TO DO SO IS NOT IN MY OPINION, REASONABLE OR FAIR. 
          I THINK THAT THOSE, IF IT'S FIVE PRIVATELY HELD LANDS, WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT, AND I HAVE SOME THOUGHTS, BUT I DON'T THINK HERE'S THE RIGHT PLACE TO BRING IT UP. [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> CORRECT, GOT THAT. JUST QUESTIONS. 
          WE HAVE REACHED OUR 90 MINUTE MARK. 
          [NOISE] WELL, HE PROBABLY WANTS TO WRAP UP BEFORE BREAK, SO COUNCILLOR MORGAN. 
          >> I'LL ASK YOU FORM OF QUESTION THAT MAYBE THAT WILL ALLOW YOU TO GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO FOLLOW UP, BECAUSE I WAS GOING TO ASK, WELL, MAYBE I'LL JUST ASK MY TWO QUESTIONS AT ONCE. 
          IT SEEMS THAT THE INTENT OF THE COMMITTEE PLANNING THE ZONING BY-LAW IS TO PREVENT OR DISCOURAGE GROWTH OF BUSINESSES THAT ARE SO FAR FROM THE CITY CORE OR OUT IN THESE UNDEVELOPED PROPERTIES. 
          BUT I WONDERED IF YOU WANTED TO MAKE A CASE WHY THE GROWTH OF THOSE BUSINESSES SHOULDN'T BE DISCOURAGED OR WHETHER THERE'S CERTAIN TYPES OF BUSINESSES THAT NEED TO BE OUT THAT FAR AND SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO GROW. 
          [03:05:02]
THEN SECONDLY, I WONDERED IF YOU COULD EXPLAIN WHY THERE'S A NEED FOR CARETAKER SUITS, AND ON LARGER OFFICES IN ANGLE FOR THE BUSINESSES OPERATING OUT THERE? [LAUGHTER] 
          >> I'M GOING TO PASS THE CHAIR TO COUNCILLOR MORGAN, BUT MR. RAPTOCH, IF YOU WANT TO ANSWER HER QUESTION. 
          >> YEAH, SURE. I SUPPOSE ALL OF THOSE POINTS TIE TOGETHER WHERE I SAY THE ON-SERVICE LOTS. 
          I RECOGNIZE THAT THE DENSIFICATION PRINCIPLES OF THIS NEW ZONING BY-LAW ARE SUCH THAT USE THE SAME SERVICES FOR MORE PEOPLE. 
          BUT IF YOU COME OUT AND SAY WE'RE NOT GOING TO SERVICE YOU, THEN WELL, IT HAVE YOU LOST, IT DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING. 
          IN THE CASE OF ANGLE, THERE ARE LARGER LANDMASSES. 
          WE CAN CONSOLIDATE MULTIPLE PROPERTIES ONTO ONE, AND WITHIN THOSE PROPERTIES, WE CURRENTLY HAVE LANDLORDS, SORRY, I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT I'M SAYING HERE. 
          THE LANDLORD SUITES, IN-CAMP LAKE. 
          ADDITIONALLY, THERE IS THE WORKER ACCOMMODATIONS CONTEMPLATED IN THE NEW ZONING BY-LAWS. 
          IF WE COULD EXTEND THAT TO ANGLE, WE CAN GET A LARGER LANDMASS AND CONSOLIDATE ALL OUR PROPERTIES INTO ONE. 
          >> OKAY. THANKS FOR CLARIFYING THAT. 
          SINCE I'M THE CHAIR NOW, I HAVE TO REMEMBER WHAT TO DO NEXT. 
          JUST BEFORE WE TAKE A BREAK. IS THERE ANYONE - [OVERLAPPING]. 
          OH, ROBIN, YOU HAD A FOLLOW UP QUESTION. OKAY. 
          >> I THINK KENNY WANTED TO RESPOND TO COMMENT THAT. 
          >> NO. SORRY, THAT WAS MY RESPONSE ON SERVICE LOTS. 
          [OVERLAPPING] I UNDERSTAND THE PREMISE OF DENSIFICATION AND REALLY THE CITY NEEDS TO FIND THOSE DEFICIENCIES AND CREATE A LARGER TAX-BASE WITH THE SAME SERVICES. 
          BUT IF YOU JUST SAY THOSE SERVICES ARE NOT GOING TO BE PROVIDED, YOU'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING THAT YOU'RE NOT ALREADY DOING. 
          THE ZONE COULD CHANGE IF WE'RE SAYING GROWTH MANAGEMENT BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO SEE A DEVELOPMENT OUT THERE BECAUSE THE CITY WANTS TO UTILIZE ITS CURRENT EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE, THEN SPECIFY THAT IT'S UNSURFACED. 
          IF I COULD CLOSE BECAUSE I KNOW EVERYBODY IS TRYING TO GO HOME AND I ACTUALLY HAVE A TWO-YEAR-OLD BIRTHDAY TODAY. 
          >> I JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU, KENNY. 
          >> YEAH. 
          >> JUST IN REGARDS TO YOUR POINT ABOUT WORK CAMPS, DO YOU ENVISION THAT BEING THE CAMP-LIKE ZONE OR WAS YOUR HOPE ALSO TO EXTEND TO THE ANGLE DISTRICT? WHERE DID YOU IMAGINE THOSE BEING A BEST-FIT? 
          >> IN MY COMMENTS ON ANGLE, I DON'T THINK THAT THIS ZONING, I'M NOT SURE THAT THE PROCESS, THE BUREAUCRACY THAT GOES BEHIND IT, IF YOU CAN MAKE THOSE TYPES OF CHANGES. 
          >>YEAH. 
          >> BUT I RECOGNIZE THAT THERE IS PROVISIONS WITHIN THE CAMP-LIKE ZONES TO CURRENTLY SAY THERE IS WORKER CAMPS CONTEMPLATED AND MAYBE FURTHER DEFINE THE DEFINITION OF A WORKER CAMP SUCH THAT A PROPER CAMP CAN BE IMPLEMENTED FOR THE SIZE OF THE PROJECT. 
          TO BRING THE WORKERS INTO TALENT, IT EITHER HURTS THE HOUSING MARKET, HURTS THE RENTAL MARKET, OR SENDS OUR PROFIT SOUTH TO THE SOUTHERN OWN HOTELS. 
          >> THANK YOU FOR THAT. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> DO I HAVE TO OFFICIALLY PASS IT? [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> YEAH IF YOU GOING TO PASS BACK. 
          >> PASS BACK [INAUDIBLE]. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL? MY QUESTION WAS ABOUT THE WORKER CAMPS AND WHETHER YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS JUST THAT WE DON'T LIMIT BECAUSE THE CURRENT DEFINITION HAS A MAXIMUM OF EIGHT OR YOUR COMMENT IS JUST LOOK INTO IT FURTHER AND ADD MORE CLARITY THERE. 
          >> I THINK YOU SHOULDN'T LIMIT SUBJECT TO THE PROPERTY SIZE. 
          THERE ARE LIMITATIONS ON THE AMOUNT OF STRUCTURE THAT CAN BE COVERING THE LANDMASS IN CAMP-LAKE, THAT SHOULD BE YOUR LIMITATION. 
          IF YOU WANT TO BUY A PROPERTY AND JUST PUT A CAMP THERE. 
          IF IT'S FEASIBLE TO DO, I DON'T SEE WHY THE CITY WOULD PREVENT THAT. 
          I KNOW WE HAVEN'T DONE IT EVER, BUT IF COVID HAS SHOWN US ANYTHING, IT'S AN INFLUX OF SOUTHERN WORKERS MINGLING INSIDE THE CITY CAN BE VERY DETRIMENTAL AND IT COULD THROW THE CITY INTO A LOCKDOWN WHERE KIDS ARE STAYING HOME, WHERE DAY CARES ARE THE ONLY PLACE YOU CAN SEND A KID. 
          >> THANK YOU, KENNY. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE? MEMBERS ON ZOOM? SEEING NONE. 
          HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOUR DAUGHTER. 
          >> [LAUGHTER] THANK YOU. 
          >> [LAUGHTER] WE'VE NOW REACHED OUR 90 MINUTE MARK AGAIN. 
          WE DO HAVE SOME FOOD BECAUSE I'M SURE FOLKS ARE GETTING PECKISH. 
          FOR THE PUBLIC, THERE'S SOME SANDWICHES AT THE BACK. 
          [03:10:01]
WE'LL MAKE OUR BREAK JUST A LITTLE BIT LONGER SO WE CAN HAVE A CHANCE TO EAT, GO TO THE BATHROOM. 
          BUT LET'S JUST KEEP IT AT 15 MINUTES. 
          LET'S BE BACK HERE FOR 1:55 PM. THANK YOU. 
          YOU CAN GET A MOTION TO EXTEND BEYOND THREE HOURS. 
          MOVE BY COUNCILLOR KONGE, SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS. ANYBODY OPPOSED? SEEING NONE. WE CAN CONTINUE. 
          WE'VE REACHED THE END OF OUR SPEAKERS LIST THAT SIGNED UP AHEAD OF TIME TO SPEAK AGAINST OR I HAVE RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS. 
          IS THERE ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST OR MAKE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS? SEEING NONE. 
          NEXT, WE WILL MOVE ON TO EMORY PAQUIN, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME UP TO THE TABLE. 
          >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. BARB AND I ARE HERE TODAY TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE SECTION OF THE PROPOSED ZONING BYLAW, THAT WOULD SEE THE VACANT PARCEL OF LAND IN KAM LAKE THAT IS LOCATED ADJACENT TO GRACE LAKE BOULEVARD AND ENTERPRISE DRIVE CONTINUED TO BE DESIGNATED AS GROWTH MANAGEMENT. 
          SINCE BUILDING OUR HOME IN GRACE LAKE BOULEVARD IN 2014, THE GRACE LAKE SUBDIVISION HAS DEVELOPED INTO A HEALTHY, THRIVING NEIGHBORHOOD, FOUNDED ON THE OUTDOOR LIFESTYLE AND THE RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES THE AREA HAS TO OFFER. 
          AT THE TIME, THE CITY DESCRIBED THE NORMAL, THE LARGER THE NORMAL LOTS, AS OPPORTUNITIES FOR US TO BUILD HOMES IN A QUIET, PRISTINE, NATURAL SETTING WITH ACTIVE RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES IN THE AREA LOCATED NORTH OF THE SUBDIVISION. 
          THIS WAS THE VISION EXPRESSED BY THE CITY AT THE TIME, AND ONE THAT WE BELIEVE REPRESENTS A GOOD FAITH AGREEMENT WITH RESIDENTS THAT STILL EXISTS TODAY. 
          THERE ARE MEMBERS OF THIS COUNCIL WHO HAVE EXPRESSED THE DESIRE TO HAVE THE VACANT LAND BORDERED BY GRACE LAKE BOULEVARD AND ENTERPRISE DRIVE REZONED FOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USE. 
          WE'RE NOT DISPUTING THAT LAND IS REQUIRED FOR BUSINESSES TO EXPAND. 
          ONE OF THE KEYS TO ANY SUCCESSFUL CITY IS A PROSPEROUS AND PROFITABLE BUSINESS COMMUNITY. 
          HOWEVER, WE WOULD LIKE TO REMIND COUNCIL, THAT ANOTHER KEY TO ENSURING A SUCCESSFUL CITY, IS PROVIDING RESIDENTS WITH NEIGHBORHOODS THEY WANT TO LIVE IN. 
          WE BECAME AWARE LAST SPRING THAT THE CITY ADVERTISED FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT A 160 LOT KAM LAKE INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION. 
          THE PROPOSED PLAN WOULD HAVE SEEN INDUSTRIAL LOTS COME WITHIN 30 METERS OF THE EXISTING GRACE LAKE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY BOUNDARIES. 
          THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS WAS SUBSEQUENTLY WITHDRAWN. 
          AT THE TIME, WE ARGUED THESE PLANS WERE PREMATURE, GIVEN THE AREA WAS ON GROWTH MANAGEMENT. 
          AN AREA DEVELOPMENT PLANNING PROCESS HAD NOT YET BEEN INITIATED, AND NEIGHBORS HAD NOT BEEN CONSULTED. 
          AT THE TIME, SEVERAL COUNCILORS REFERRED TO OUR ACTIONS AS BEING NIMBY, OR NOT IN MY BACKYARD. 
          IN REALITY, THERE IS NOTHING THAT COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. 
          WE RECOGNIZE THE CITY NEEDS LAND FOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES AS MUCH AS RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS ARE NEEDED FOR RESIDENTS TO LIVE IN AND TAXPAYERS AS WELL. 
          THE CHALLENGE FOR PLANNERS IS HOW BEST TO RECONCILE THESE APPARENT OPPOSING NEEDS AND INCONSISTENT LAND USES. 
          [03:15:06]
WE SUGGEST THE SOLUTION IS TO ENSURE ADEQUATE AND EFFECTIVE BUFFERS IN GREEN SPACE ARE IN PLACE. 
          TO THIS END, WE URGE COUNCIL, TO APPROVE THAT SECTION OF THE BYLAW THAT MAINTAINS THE LAND ADJACENT TO GRACE LAKE BOULEVARD AND ENTERPRISE DRIVE AS GROWTH MANAGEMENT AS NEUTRAL DESIGNATION SHOULD REMAIN IN PLACE. 
          THAT HAD BEEN CONCLUDED WITH ALL AFFECTED PARTIES. 
          WHILE WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO EVENTUALLY EXPANDING THE GRACE LAKE INDUSTRIAL AREA ONTO THIS VACANT LAND, WE ARE OPPOSED TO THIS TAKING PLACE WITHOUT FULL CONSIDERATION OF THE INTERESTS AND RIGHTS OF THE NEIGHBORING GRACE LAKE RESIDENTS WHO IN 2013, IN GOOD FAITH, ACCEPTED THE CITY'S INVITATION TO INVEST IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND BUILD OUR HOMES IN A QUIET, PRISTINE, NATURAL SETTING. 
          SOME MAY ARGUE THAT THE COMMUNITY PLAN ALREADY IDENTIFIES THIS LAND AS KAM LAKE INDUSTRIAL. 
          FOR THIS REASON ALONE, IT SHOULD BE REZONED, COMMERCIAL AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. 
          I WOULD REMIND COUNCIL THAT THE COMMUNITY PLAN ALSO ESTABLISHES THE GENERAL GOAL OF REDUCING LAND-USE CONFLICTS AND INCOMPATIBLE USES AND ENDORSES THE CONCEPT OF BUFFERS AND SETBACKS AS A MEANS OF ACCOMPLISHING THIS GOAL. 
          I'M GOING TO DEVIATE FROM MY NOTES HERE. 
          WE HAD QUITE A BIT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THE USE OF THE PERMITTED AND DISCRETIONARY DESIGNATIONS. 
          CURRENTLY, IN THE KAM LAKE DESIGNATION, HEAVY INDUSTRIAL AND AUTO RECORDS ARE IDENTIFIED AS MAIN DISCRETIONARY USES. 
          IN OUR OPINION, THESE LAND USES ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE OVERALL PROPOSED USE OF THE AREA, WHICH IS TO PROVIDE AN AREA FOR COMMERCIAL, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, AND COMPATIBLE USES WITH ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL CARETAKERS. 
          WE FEEL BY ALLOWING THESE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES TO REMAIN AS DISCRETIONARY USES IN KAM LAKE, UNCERTAINTY IS CREATED BY ENABLING FUTURE COUNCILS TO APPROVE LAND USES THAT ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE INTENDED LAND USE OF THE MANAGEMENT ZONE AND CREATE POTENTIAL CONFLICT WITH THE EXISTING GRACE LAKE NORTH RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION. 
          OUR RECOMMENDATION, HERE TODAY WOULD BE TO REMOVE THOSE TWO USES, THAT BEING HEAVY INDUSTRIAL AND AUTO RECORDS FROM THE DISCRETIONARY ALLOWANCE WITH RESPECT TO KAM LAKE. 
          TO CONCLUDE, WE SUPPORT THE SECTION OF THE PROPOSED ZONING BYLAW THAT WOULD MAINTAIN THE AREA ADJACENT TO GRACE LAKE BOULEVARD AND ENTERPRISE DRIVE AS GROWTH MANAGEMENT. 
          WE ASK COUNCIL TO MAINTAIN THIS NEUTRAL DESIGNATION AS CITY PLANNERS, BUSINESS OWNERS, AND RESIDENTS SIT DOWN TO DISCUSS THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS AREA. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ALLOWING ME TO PROVIDE MY VIEWS THIS AFTERNOON AND I LOOK FORWARD TO ANY QUESTIONS. 
          >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. PACKONE. 
          IT LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVE NOTES. 
          IF THEY ARE DIGITAL, YOU CAN SHARE THEM WITH CITY CLERKS, AND THEN COUNCIL WILL HAVE THEM ON HAND WHEN WE DELIBERATE ON SECOND READING. COUNCILOR WILLIAMS. 
          >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. THANK YOU, EMORY, FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. 
          I JUST MISSED THE LAST PART OF IT WHERE YOU SAID, REMOVE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL FROM KAM LAKE. 
          I JUST MISSED THAT SECOND USE. 
          >> MR. PACKONE. 
          >> YES, COUNCILOR WILLIAMS. THE SECOND DISCRETIONARY USES AUTO RECORDS. 
          >> AUTO RECORDS. [NOISE] 
          [03:20:02]
          >> I GOT ONE MORE FOLLOW-UP QUESTION FOR ADMINISTRATION, MADAM CHAIR. 
          IN THE AREA THAT MR. PACKONE HAD REFERENCED THE GM AREA THAT'S NEXT TO GRACE LAKE AND ENTERPRISE, ARE ANY OF THOSE LANDS CURRENTLY PRIVATELY HELD OR ALL OF THEM ARE CITY PROPERTY? 
          >> [INAUDIBLE]. [NOISE] 
          >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'M NOT SURE WE HAVE THAT INFORMATION READILY AVAILABLE. 
          I'LL ASK MS. WHITE. 
          I THINK SHE DOES. I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MS. WHITE. THANK YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YES, THAT WOULD BE MUNICIPALLY HELD AT THIS POINT IN TIME. 
          >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. 
          >> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE PRESENTER? COUNCIL KONGE? 
          >> THANKS FOR COMING IN TODAY. 
          DO YOU HAVE AN IDEA ON HOW BIG OF A BUFFER YOU THINK WOULD BE APPROPRIATE? 
          >> MR. PECKWAY? 
          >> I'M SORRY, COULD YOU, I DIDN'T [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> I'LL REPEAT MYSELF. 
          >> PLEASE, THAT WILL BE HELPFUL. 
          >> NO WORRIES. I'M JUST WONDERING IF YOU HAVE AN IDEA ON WHAT YOU THINK AN APPROPRIATE BUFFER WOULD BE? 
          >> ACTUALLY, I WAS HOPING YOU'RE GOING TO ASK THAT QUESTION. 
          >> I'M GLAD I DID THAT. 
          >> [LAUGHTER] IN THE CURRENT BYLAWS, THE ONLY SPECIFIC BUFFER THAT I'M AWARE OF IS 175 METERS THAT'S BEEN ESTABLISHED BETWEEN DOG LOTS AND THE NEAREST RESIDENTIAL AREA. 
          DESIGNATING A BUFFER BY SIMPLY SAYING 175 METERS, I THINK IS TOO SIMPLISTIC. 
          I THINK BUFFER SHOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT A NUMBER OF FACTORS. 
          PROBABLY THE LARGEST FACTOR IS THE GEOGRAPHIC FEATURES OF THE AREA. 
          IF THERE IS A LARGE, TALL ROCK OUTCROP BETWEEN TWO DEVELOPMENTS, THAT WILL CERTAINLY IMPACT THE SIZE OF THE BUFFER. 
          IF THERE IS A LARGE VALLEY BETWEEN THE TWO DEVELOPMENTS AND THEN LIGHT AND SOUND AND OTHER ANNOYING FACTORS WILL NOT BE ATTENUATED AS IT WOULD BY A ROCK OUTCROP. 
          I THINK A HOLISTIC APPROACH NEEDS TO BE TAKEN WHEN SETTING BUFFERS. 
          IF YOU ARE GOING TO ASK ME TO SET A BUFFER RIGHT NOW, I WOULD PROBABLY SAY IT WOULD REQUIRE THREE OR 400 METERS. 
          BUT AGAIN, THAT DISTANCE MAY WORK AT SOME LOCATIONS AND NOT AT OTHERS. 
          BUT I THINK WHAT IS NECESSARY HERE IS THAT THE PLANNERS AND LAND USERS REALLY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SIT DOWN AND DISCUSS THIS CONCEPT OF WHAT WOULD BE AN ADEQUATE BUFFER IN DETAIL. 
          >> OKAY. THIS ONE'S AN INTERESTING ONE FOR ME BECAUSE THE CITY ACTUALLY DID WORK ON THAT KAM LAKE EXTENSION BEFORE GRACE LAKE BOULEVARD CAME ON AND IT WAS SHELVED. 
          THEN GRACE LAKE BOULEVARD CAME AND NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT WHAT WE SHELVED AGAIN. 
          IT IS INTERESTING. THE 30 METERS IS PRETTY STANDARD AROUND TOWN. 
          WE HAVE AREAS WHERE THERE IS NO BUFFER ALONG OLDER PORT ROAD TO RESIDENTIAL WITH SOME DRILLING AND BLASTING COMPANIES THAT ARE RIGHT UP AGAINST EACH OTHER. 
          BUT THANK YOU FOR YOUR THOUGHTFUL COMMENTS. APPRECIATE IT. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> COULD I RESPOND TO THOSE COMMENTS? 
          >> SURE, MR. PECKWAY. 
          >> THIRTY METERS MAYBE THE HISTORICAL STANDARD, BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT THE CORRECT STANDARD. 
          THE OTHER COMMENT THAT I WOULD MAKE IS YES, WHILE KAM LAKE EXPANSION MAY HAVE BEEN CONTEMPLATED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO THE GRACE LAKE DEVELOPMENT, IT WASN'T FOLLOWED THROUGH. 
          THE CITY DID OFFER RESIDENCE, THE OPPORTUNITY TO BUY LOTS IN GRACE LAKE. 
          THE RESIDENTS WHOLEHEARTEDLY ACCEPTED THAT INVITATION AND A LOTS SOLD LITERALLY OVERNIGHT. 
          [03:25:07]
I THINK AS I MENTIONED IN MY PRESENTATION, WE FEEL THAT THERE IS CERTAINLY AN ETHICAL OR MORAL COMMITMENT FOR THE COUNCIL TO RESPECT THE AGREEMENTS THAT THE PREVIOUS COUNCIL MADE WITH RESIDENTS OF GRACE LAKE 
          >> THANK YOU. COUNCIL MUFANDAEDZA. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR WORSHIP. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PRESENTATION TODAY. 
          I JUST HAVE A FEW FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS FOR YOU. 
          I JUST WANTED TO GET CLARIFICATION WITH REGARDS TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT AREA. 
          I ALMOST UNDERSTAND FROM YOUR PRESENTATION THAT YOU'RE NOT EVENTUALLY OPPOSED TO A KAM LAKE EXTENSION, BUT YOU WOULD LIKE EXTENSIVE CONSULTATION WITH BOTH PARTIES, IS THAT CORRECT? 
          >> MR. PECKWAY? 
          >> THAT'S CORRECT. WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO, AND I'M ONLY SPEAKING FOR MYSELF AND MY WIFE, WE ARE NOT SAYING THAT THE KAM LAKE INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION SHOULD NOT TAKE PLACE. 
          WE'RE NOT SAYING THAT. 
          WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS THROUGH THE AREA DEVELOPMENT PLANNING PROCESS, DISCUSSIONS OR THE OPPORTUNITY FOR DISCUSSIONS NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED WITH RESPECT TO WHAT IS AN ADEQUATE BUFFER OR SETBACK OR GREEN SPACE OR WHATEVER TERM YOU WISH TO USE. 
          BUT THE PROPOSAL, I SHOULDN'T SAY THAT. 
          THE PLAN THAT WAS FLOATED BY THE CITY IN THE SPRING OF THIS YEAR WOULD HAVE ALLOWED A 30-METER BUFFER BETWEEN THE INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION ZONE AND THE BOUNDARIES OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF GRACE LAKE BOULEVARD. 
          WHAT I'M SAYING IS 30 METERS IS WOEFULLY INADEQUATE. 
          THERE NEEDS TO BE A DISCUSSION IS PART OF THE AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN AS TO WHAT AN APPROPRIATE BUFFER WOULD BE, AND BY MAINTAINING THE DESIGNATION OF THAT AREA AS GROWTH MANAGEMENT, THAT IS A NEUTRAL DESIGNATION. 
          WE COULD HAVE JUST AS EASILY COME FORWARD WITH THE PROPOSAL TO HAVE THAT AREA DESIGNATED AS NATURE PRESERVE, BUT WE DIDN'T. 
          WE THINK GROWTH MANAGEMENT IS AN APPROPRIATE DESIGNATION AS WE ENTER COOPERATIVELY INTO THE AREA DEVELOPMENT PLANNING PROCESS. 
          >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT RESPONSE. 
          I JUST HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION REGARDING YOUR REQUEST TO MOVE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL FROM DISCRETIONARY USE TO PERMITTED USE. 
          ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HEARD WAS HOW KAM LAKE HAS CHANGED WITH NOW RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS BEING ALLOWED IN THE KAM LAKE ZONE. 
          I'M JUST CURIOUS ON WHY YOU THINK HEAVY INDUSTRIAL SHOULD STILL BE PERMITTED WITHIN KAM LAKE KNOWING THAT THE AREA HAS SINCE CHANGED. THANK YOU. 
          >> I THINK HEAVY INDUSTRIAL AND AUTOMOBILE RECORDS, HIS RECOMMENDATION WAS REMOVED FROM DISCRETIONARY USE, SO REMOVE FROM THE ZONE PERIOD. 
          THAT'S CORRECT, MR. PECKWAY? 
          >> THAT IS CORRECT, MADAM CHAIR. 
          WE'RE PROPOSING OR WE'RE SUGGESTING THAT THOSE USES BE REMOVED FROM THE DISCRETIONARY USE. 
          THAT THEY DON'T APPEAR ANYWHERE WITHIN THE KAM LAKE DESIGNATION WHATSOEVER. 
          >> PERFECT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT CORRECTION. 
          I ACTUALLY HAD TAKEN INCORRECT NOTES TO SAY YOU ARE LOOKING TO MOVE FROM DISCRETIONARY TO PERMITTED. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. 
          >> THANK YOU FOR SEEKING THE CLARIFICATION. 
          >> THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL? SEEING NONE. 
          ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE? INCLUDING MEMBERS ON ZOOM. 
          SEEING NONE. 
          THANK YOU AGAIN FOR COMING TODAY. 
          NEXT UP WE HAVE JOE KELLY ON ZOOM, THEN TOM MCCLELLAN, THEN ROB WARBURTON AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, CAT MCGURK WHO WILL ALSO BE ON ZOOM. 
          JOE, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO YOU. 
          [03:30:02]
          >> HELLO. 
          >> JOE, WE CAN'T HEAR YOU. 
          YEAH, WE'RE GOOD NOW. 
          >> ALL GOOD? THANK YOU, EVERYONE, MAYOR, COUNCIL, ADMIN FOR GIVING US THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. 
          AS I'M SURE SOME OF YOU KNOW, MY PARTNER AND I HAVE BEEN ACTIVE IN COMMUNICATION WITH THE CITY ON THIS SUBJECT OF REZONING OF THE AREA NORTH OF GRACE LAKE BOULEVARD WHICH EMERY WAS JUST DISCUSSING AS WELL. 
          WE ARE IN SPORT ALSO IN KEEPING THE CURRENT ZONING OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT RATHER THAN CHANGING IT TO KAM LAKE AT THIS POINT. 
          WE ARE CONCERNED WITH WHAT APPEARS TO BE SOMEWHAT OF A PUSH FROM CERTAIN MEMBERS OF COUNCIL TO MAKE A BLANKET CHANGE TO THAT AREA SO THAT IT IS ZONED FOR KAM LAKE AND INDUSTRIAL USE. 
          I WANTED TO SPEAK TO THAT. 
          BASICALLY, BACK IN THE SPRING, I'M NOT GOING TO LIE, I THINK I'M NOT ALONE WHEN I SAY THAT MANY OF US, GRACE LAKERS, WERE STUNNED AND A LITTLE BIT DEVASTATED FROM WHAT HAPPENED UPON RFP REGARDING THE ENGINEERING SERVICES OF THESE 107 INDUSTRIAL LOTS THAT WERE SLATED FOR 30 METERS BEHIND OUR HOMES. 
          WE FELT AMBUSHED AND BETRAYED BY THE CITY BY WHAT APPEARED AT THAT POINT TO BE A SECRET PLAN. 
          WELL, WE DO UNDERSTAND THAT THE RFP WAS JUSTIFIABLY CANCELED AND IT WAS DISCOVERED IT HAD BEEN TENDERED WITHOUT DUE PROCESS IN AN ERROR. 
          IT WAS A WAKE-UP CALL FOR ALL OF US IN GRACE LAKE AND THAT THE VISION THAT WE HAD AS COMMUNITY AND THAT WE WERE SOLD BY THE CITY WAS AT RISK. 
          I THINK THAT WAS A SHOCKER FOR ALL OF US. 
          IN FACT, IT'S STILL HARD FOR US TO NOT FEEL A LITTLE BIT OF TREPIDATION IN ALL THESE CONVERSATIONS, WATCHING THIS PROCESS UNFOLD, THAT THE INTERESTS OF OUR ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD IN SOME OF THESE DISCUSSIONS HAS SOMEHOW SEEMED TO BE SUPERSEDED BY THE INTERESTS OF THOSE FEW IN FAVOR OF THE FUTURE KAM LAKE EXTENSION, NONE OF WHICH WE'VE HEARD FROM TODAY. 
          I BELIEVE THAT THE ESTABLISHED GRACE LAKE COMMUNITY SHOULD HAVE MORE THAN EQUAL STANDING IN ANY DISCUSSIONS PERTAINING TO THE GREEN SPACE THAT SEPARATES THEM FROM ANY CERTAIN ADDITIONAL GROWTH BUT CERTAINLY, EVEN THE EXISTING KAM LAKE COMMUNITY THAT IS THERE. 
          I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ANY ZONING CHANGES SHOULD OCCUR, OR IF THERE IS ANY ZONING CHANGES, THEY SHOULD BE IN FAVOR OF PARKS AND GREEN SPACE, AND I AM CERTAINLY SPEAKING TO THE LAND DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO GRACE LAKE BOULEVARD. 
          I BELIEVE THERE NEEDS TO BE APPROPRIATE CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO THE INTERESTS OF GRACE LAKE RESIDENTS AND THE PROMISES MADE TO OUR COMMUNITY THAT EMERY OUTLINED VERY WELL. 
          THOSE PROMISES WERE MADE TO THE COMMUNITY BY THE CITY AT ITS INCEPTION, THESE ARE NOT NEW IDEAS. 
          THESE WERE THINGS THAT WE ALL BOUGHT INTO WITH THE ORIGINAL PURCHASES OF THE PROPERTIES. 
          I SUGGEST, IT'S IMPORTANT THAT ZONING IN THIS AREA FULLY MAINTAIN THE CITY'S OWN VISION FOR GRACE LAKE AND THE RESIDENTS WHO LIVE HERE, AND CONTINUE TO PROVIDE A PROMISE OF GREEN SPACE, NATURE, TRAILS, AND WHAT WE BELIEVE WAS REALISTIC PROTECTION FROM NEIGHBORING INCOMPATIBLE USES LIKE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND THAT TRUE, YES, ADEQUATE BUFFERS AND CONSULTATION. 
          PLEASE DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE AGAINST INDUSTRIAL GROWTH OR DEVELOPMENT. 
          WE, LIKE MANY, ACTUALLY, PEOPLE IN GRACE LAKE HAVE BUSINESSES IN KAM LAKE INDUSTRIAL PARK. 
          WE LIVED THERE FOR 15 YEARS, WORKING TO GROW OUR BUSINESS, AND IN 2019, WE MOVED OUT OF THE INDUSTRIAL PARK AND IN TO GRACE LAKE BOULEVARD WHERE WE BUILT OUR DUE HOME IN THE QUIET, NATURAL LOTS THAT THE CITY SOLD US. 
          WE MOVED BECAUSE OF THE 15 YEARS LIVING IN INDUSTRIAL PARK, WE WANTED TO ESCAPE THE SIGNIFICANT NOISE, SMELLS, EMISSIONS, TRAFFIC, AND CONSTANT 24/7 BUZZ OF THAT COMMUNITY. 
          [03:35:03]
YOU CAN IMAGINE HOW DEVASTATING IT WAS FOR US TWO YEARS LATER, AFTER MOVING INTO OUR DREAM HOME, THAT WE WOKE TO THE RFP 21-036, KAM LAKE INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION TENDER. 
          IT WAS LIKE A SCENE FROM GROUNDHOG DAY. 
          HAVING LIVED IN ONE FOR MANY YEARS, I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT AN INDUSTRIAL PARK, EVEN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ONE, DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THIS RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD WILL PRODUCE MORE NOISE, MORE LIGHT POLLUTION, MORE EMISSIONS, AND MORE POTENTIAL FOR NEGATIVE RUNOFF THAN IS ACCEPTABLE IN THIS LAKESIDE COMMUNITY, WHERE OUR OWN CITY DESCRIBED IT AS BEING A PLACE TO BUILD YOUR DREAM HOME IN A QUIET, PRISTINE, NATURAL SETTING. 
          WE KEEP USING THIS QUOTE, IT'S STILL ACTUALLY ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE TODAY, SELLING THE OTHER SIDE, THE SOUTH SIDE OF GRACE LAKE. 
          WE TOOK IT SERIOUSLY WHEN WE READ THOSE ADS AND INVESTED IN THESE LOTS AND BUILD OUR HOMES. 
          THE CITY DESCRIBES OUR LAKE AS AN IMPORTANT NATURAL ASSET TO BE PROTECTED, AND WE FEEL THAT THAT IS ALSO A SERIOUS CONSIDERATION. 
          THERE IS A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF RUNOFF COMING FROM THE GREEN SPACE NORTH OF US. 
          THERE IS A LOT OF WATER THERE AND IT ALL TRICKLES THROUGH THE YARDS AND DOWN IN A GRADUAL RUN THROUGH MOST OF SPRING INTO THE LAKE. 
          THAT RUNOFF, THAT WATERCOURSE ALSO NEEDS TO BE PROTECTED WITH ANY CONSIDERATION FOR DEVELOPMENT, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT IN PARTICULAR, IN THAT AREA. 
          MOST OF THE MAJOR RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES, THEY ONLY HAVE ACCESS TO GREEN SPACE AND WALKING TRAILS. 
          THE AREA WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE TODAY IS THAT SPACE FOR OUR COMMUNITY, IT WAS A SPACE THAT WAS MENTIONED IN THE PLANS FOR THE COMMUNITY, IT'S A SPACE THAT IS FOR US ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE ROAD. 
          IT IS THE ONLY SPACE THAT WE HAVE. 
          WE DON'T HAVE LAKE ACCESS, THERE WAS NEVER THE REST PROMISE OF LAKE ACCESS, AND I THINK THERE WAS DOCKS AND OTHER THINGS, AND FLOATING WALKWAYS AT CERTAIN POINTS. 
          THOSE THINGS NEVER CAME TO FRUITION. 
          BUT WE BUILT ON THE NORTH SIDE, AT LEAST FEELING THAT WE ALWAYS HAD ACCESS TO THAT GREEN SPACE AND PASSIVE ENJOYMENT OF NATURE AND THE PEACE AND QUIET WHICH WAS, AS I SAID, JUST SOMETHING THAT WE FELT WAS VERY IMPORTANT TO US. 
          IN SHORT, THE SURROUNDING GREEN SPACE THAT KEEPS OUR COMMUNITY QUIET AND PRISTINE IS WHERE THE CITY MADE PROMISES OF TRAILS AND IN MY MIND, CONTINUE TO ACCESS TO NATURE AND QUIET. 
          WHAT'S THE WORD I'M LOOKING FOR? I GUESS, A COUNT OF JUST PROTECTION FROM OTHER USES THAT ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH OUR RESIDENTIAL AREA. 
          JUST TO BACKTRACK A LITTLE TOO, ANYTHING THAT DEVELOPS THERE IN THAT SPACE AS FAR AS KAM LAKE INDUSTRY, WE KNOW THAT THERE WAS CERTAINLY POSSIBLE IDEAS FOR THAT AREA TO EXPAND OFF OF ENTERPRISE DRIVE. 
          THERE ARE STILL OPTIONS TO DO THAT WITHOUT AFFECTING THE GRACE LAKE COMMUNITY. 
          HEADING NORTHWEST ON THE HANDY, THERE WAS AN ACCESS ROAD ALREADY PUSHED IN THERE MANY YEARS AGO WHEN THERE'S PILES OF RUBBLE. 
          EVERYTHING NORTHWEST OF THAT IS CERTAINLY, TO ME, A GOOD PLACE TO START AND IT HAS VERY LITTLE IMPACT ON OUR COMMUNITY. 
          THERE ARE TRAILS, CURRENTLY, A SNOWMOBILE TRAIL IN PARTICULAR THAT GIVES OUR COMMUNITY AS WELL AS COMMUNITY OF KAM LAKE ACCESS TO PRETTY IMPORTANT, SNOWMOBILE SYSTEMS. WE WOULD HOPE THAT THAT WOULD STAY INTACT NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENED. 
          BUT THERE COULD BE BUILDING IN THE NORTHWEST PART OF THAT, THE HENI AREA AND STILL KEEP THAT TRAIL INTACT AND STILL KEEP A GREEN SPACE BETWEEN GRACE LAKE AND ENTERPRISE DRIVE. 
          JUST A SIDE NOTE TOO, WE DID TALKED TO SEVERAL PEOPLE WHO LIVE ON ENTERPRISE, AND MANY OF THOSE PEOPLE ALSO ARE USING THAT GREEN SPACE AND ARE VERY HAPPY. 
          [03:40:08]
I GUESS ONE OF THE REASONS THEY BOUGHT THEIR PROPERTIES WAS THAT THEY FELT THAT THEY HAD LESS ACCESS TO GREEN SPACE AND THAT THEIR BUSINESSES DIDN'T IMPACT ANYONE ELSE ADVERSELY AND VICE VERSA, AND IT IS A VERY CONGENIAL SITUATION AT THE MOMENT. 
          ANYWAY, THAT'S BASICALLY ALL I WANTED TO SAY. 
          LIKE I SAID, WE DO CERTAINLY HAVE A HISTORY OF LIVING IN AN INDUSTRIAL PARK, WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE SAYING, AND I DON'T THINK WE'RE OUT OF LINE ASKING THE CITY TO BASICALLY STAND BY WHAT THEY PROMISED OUR COMMUNITY GOING FORWARD. 
          >> THANK YOU, JOE. WE JUST REACHED THE 10 MINUTE MARK, SO PERFECT TIMING. 
          DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL? SEEING NONE. 
          ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE, INCLUDING ANY MEMBERS ON ZOOM? SEEING NONE. THANK YOU AGAIN JOE, FOR COMING TO PRESENT TODAY. 
          >> THANKS FOR LISTENING. 
          >> NEXT UP, WE HAVE TOM MCLENNAN. 
          IF YOU WANT TO COME UP TO THE TABLE. 
          THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR. HI EVERYONE MY NAME IS TOM MCLENNAN. 
          I'VE BEEN IN YELLOWKNIFE FOR JUST UNDER SIX YEARS NOW. 
          I'D LIKE TO THANK CITY STAFF FOR REVIEWING THE WHOLE BYLAW. 
          THAT'S GOT TO BE A PRETTY MONUMENTAL TASK, SO THANKS FOR ALL YOUR WORK. 
          I'D LIKE TO SPEAK IN SOME BROAD STROKES IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED BYLAW CHANGES AND IN MY PERSPECTIVE, IT'S ALL ABOUT OPTIONS AND FLEXIBILITY. 
          WHEN WE LOOK AT HOW TO ADDRESS KEY ISSUES IN YELLOWKNIFE SUCH AS HOMELESSNESS, PUTTING A HOUSING AFFORDABILITY, ECONOMIC REJUVENATION, IT ALL STARTS WITH THE ZONING BYLAW. 
          I'M VERY ENCOURAGED AND EXCITED ABOUT WHAT THIS BYLAW CAN CREATE. 
          I THINK IT CAN PROVIDE BETTER SERVICES FOR VULNERABLE POPULATIONS, IT CAN ENCOURAGE NEW LOCAL SMALL BUSINESSES, IT CAN CREATE COMPLETE WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOODS AND MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPTIONS. 
          THE FIRST BIG PLUS FOR ME IS THAT IT MAKES DAY SHELTERS PERMITTED USE DOWNTOWN WHERE THEY'RE NEEDED. 
          AS WE SAW WITH THE MOST RECENT TEMPORARY SHELTER PROCESS, THE CURRENT BYLAW ISN'T WORKING. 
          THOSE AFFECTED HAVE BEEN CAST ASIDE AND ACTIVELY HURT BY THE CANADIAN SYSTEM FOR GENERATIONS AND WE NEED TO DO SO MUCH MORE FOR THESE NEIGHBORS. 
          IT'S ENCOURAGING TO SEE THAT PROPOSED BYLAW REMOVES SOME OF THE BUREAUCRATIC STEPS SO WE CAN MORE EASILY ASSIST THESE VULNERABLE NEIGHBORS. 
          ANOTHER POSITIVE TO PROPOSE CHANGES ARE THE CHANGES TO THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. 
          WHEN YOU WALK DOWNTOWN THERE'S A LOT OF VEHICLES AND A LOT OF PARKING, AND THE OPEN OPTION PARKING IS AN EXCELLENT CHANGE AND ALSO THE REDUCED REQUIREMENTS IN OLD TOWN IS A GREAT WAY TO ENCOURAGE INFILL IDENTIFICATION WITHOUT PAVING EVERYTHING. 
          THESE PARKING CHANGES CAN ALSO ENABLE MIXED USE AND SMALLER HOME BUSINESSES TO GET STARTED AND EXPAND. 
          AGAIN, FLEXIBILITY OPTIONS ARE ALWAYS GREAT. 
          WHEN I GIVE DEVELOPERS AND CITIZENS MORE OPTIONS TO FULFILL THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY. 
          THAT HAVING BEEN SAID, WE CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO WRITE A BLANK CHECK TO DEVELOPMENT. 
          WELL, I UNDERSTAND THAT SOME NEIGHBORHOODS WANT TO MAINTAIN THE CHARACTER IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          I FEEL LIKE THERE ARE SAFEGUARDS IN PLACE IN THE PROPOSED BYLAW TO DO THIS. 
          TO THAT END, THE DISCUSSION ABOUT RC AND RC 1 HAS BEEN VERY INTERESTING AND I THINK PRODUCTIVE. 
          I LIKE WHERE IT STANDS NOW IN TERMS OF FOOD AND BEVERAGE BEING ALLOWED IN RC 1. 
          IT'S BEEN ENCOURAGING TO SEE MAYOR AND COUNCIL'S LOGICAL PROGRESSION ON THIS ISSUE AND BRINGING IT BACK TO MORE PUBLIC DEBATE WE'RE SEEING TODAY. 
          I HAVE SOME EXPERIENCE LIVING IN THESE ZONES TO SIT SIDE DOWNTOWN AND I WOULD HAVE HEARTILY WELCOMED TO A COFFEE SHOP OR A SANDWICH SHOP OR SOMETHING NEAR THE PARKS IN THAT AREA. 
          IN MY CURRENT NEIGHBORHOOD I'D LIKE TO GIVE A SHOUT OUT TO THE TRADING POST. 
          IT'S BEEN A WONDERFUL ADDITION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND DELICIOUS FOOD AND, YEAH, LOVE TO SEE WHAT THEY'LL BE DOING MOVING FORWARD. 
          AGAIN, OPTIONS, HAVING THOSE THINGS AND THE OPTION TO PUT THOSE THINGS WHERE YOU COULD, INSTEAD OF WALKING 15 OR 20 MINUTES TO DOWNTOWN YOU CAN JUST GO AROUND THE BLOCK AND GRAB A COFFEE AND TALK TO YOUR NEIGHBORS, SIT IN THE PARK. 
          MY OWN EXPERIENCE WITH THE BYLAW RELATES TO HOUSING AFFORDABILITY. 
          DESPITE EXCEPTIONAL PRIVILEGE ON MY PART I'VE STRUGGLED TO FIND 
          [03:45:03]
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN YELLOWKNIFE AND PURCHASING A HOME REMAINS A DAUNTING PROSPECT. 
          I WORRY THAT PEOPLE IN MY DEMOGRAPHIC WILL LEAVE YELLOWKNIFE. 
          THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE IN THIS POSITION AND THE PROPOSED BYLAW CHANGES ALLOW FOR SOME MORE INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO REMAIN IN THE COMMUNITY LONG-TERM. 
          THE MIDDLE HOUSING INFILL AND CREATIVE HOUSING ENCOURAGED IN THE BYLAW WOULD GO A LONG WAY TO FILLING THIS NEED. 
          THE FUTURE OF YELLOWKNIFE'S TAX BASE IS TRYING TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO INVEST THEIR TIME AND MONEY IN THIS COMMUNITY. 
          I CREATED A PETITION THAT WAS IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES THAT GATHERED 36 SIGNATURES IN OCTOBER AND MOST OF THESE COME FROM PEOPLE IN MY DEMOGRAPHIC. 
          YELLOWKNIFE IS AN AMAZING PLACE BUT THERE ARE LIMITED REASONABLE OPTIONS FOR FIRST-TIME HOME BUYERS AND THIS BYLAW IS A BIG STEP TO PROVIDING MORE OPTIONS FOR YOUNG AND MIDDLE AGED PEOPLE TO FIND THEIR PLACE AND TO PUT DOWN ROOTS IN THIS COMMUNITY. 
          I'D ALSO LIKE TO SAY THAT IT'S NICE TO SEE THE RECOGNITION OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF INDIGENOUS GOVERNMENTS IN THE BYLAW AND THE STRESS ON THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE CITY AND THOSE GOVERNMENTS. 
          I'D JUST LIKE TO REMIND THE MAYOR, COUNCIL, AND THE CITY THAT THOSE ARE WORDS AND THEY MUST BE SUPPORTED BY CONCRETE ACTION. 
          TO SUM UP, I'VE SAID IT A FEW TIMES BUT I THINK THIS JUST COMES DOWN TO OPTIONS. 
          THE CREATION OF MORE OPTIONS TO THE CITY AND DEVELOPERS AS WELL AS CITIZENS IS ALWAYS IMPORTANT. 
          YELLOWKNIFE FACES MANY COMPLEX AND CHALLENGING ISSUES AND MAINTAINING BARRIERS AND LIMITING FLEXIBILITY DOESN'T CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT CONDUCIVE TO PROGRESS. 
          I BELIEVE THERE ARE MECHANISMS IN PLACE SUCH AS THE APPEALS PROCESS TO PROTECT CONCERNED RESIDENTS FROM INAPPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT AND RECTIFY ANY ISSUES FOUND. 
          THE ZONING BYLAW REVIEW PROGRAM HAS BEEN CAREFULLY STUDIED AND A MULTI-YEAR ENDEAVOR, IT'S IN THE MIDST OF THREE MONTHS OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION. 
          I BELIEVE THE PROPOSED CHANGES WOULD REMOVE BARRIERS THAT ARE CURRENTLY DOING SOLUTIONS TO AID OUR NEIGHBORS. 
          IT WOULD FOSTER CREATIVE HOUSING SOLUTIONS THAT WILL ATTRACT AND ENCOURAGE RESIDENTS TO PUT DOWN ROOTS HERE. 
          IT'LL GIVE OUR COMMUNITY THE TOOLS TO ADDRESS CURRENT AND FUTURE CHALLENGES. 
          THEREFORE I WOULD STRONGLY ENCOURAGE COUNCIL TO MOVE FORWARD THE BYLAW AND ITS CURRENT FORM OR NEAR TO MAYBE WITH THE RC 1, MAYBE SOME DISCRETION I USE OR MAYBE ONE TIME PERMITS FOR COMMERCIAL USES, SOME COMPROMISE THERE. THANK VERY MUCH. 
          THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL? COUNCIL MORGAN. 
          THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR AND THANKS TOM FOR TAKING THE TIME TODAY AND I KNOW THE LONGER THIS GOES ON THE MORE PEOPLE HAVE TO SIT AND WAIT AND SPEND THE WHOLE DAY HERE BUT HOPEFULLY IT'S INTERESTING. 
          MY QUESTION FOR YOU IS, YOU MENTIONED SEVERAL EXAMPLES OF BUSINESSES THAT YOU REALLY WELCOME IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND THEY REALLY ADD TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          ARE THERE ANY TYPES OF BUSINESSES THAT YOU THINK SHOULD BE CONCENTRATED DOWNTOWN, THAT THERE SHOULD BE INCENTIVES OR RULES THAT WELL, DOWNTOWN OR OTHER ZONES OR PARTS OF THE CITY, OR FLIP SIDE OF THAT, BUSINESSES THAT YOU THINK DON'T BELONG IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS? MR. MCLENNAN. 
          THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR. I THINK CONVENIENCE STORES COULD BE A DIFFERENT KETTLE OF FISH AND CERTAINLY LIVESTOCK, THAT SORT OF THING. 
          MAYBE DISCRETIONARY USE, AND I WAS WONDERING ABOUT TOO LIKE ONE TIME PERMITTING FOR COMMERCIAL USES. 
          I THINK IT'S BEEN MENTIONED THAT A COFFEE SHOP COULD GET A COMMERCIAL PERMIT AND THEN COULD SELL TO SOMEONE TO CREATE, WHO KNOWS WHAT BUSINESS. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A WAY TO DO SINGLE PERMITTING OR SOME OPTION THERE, BUT YEAH. 
          I DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS AND CONVENIENCE STORES CAN BE A DIFFERENT THING, THE LIVESTOCK IS A MUCH DIFFERENT THING. 
          BUT I THINK THE COMMERCIAL RECREATION AND FOOD AND BEVERAGE IS DEFINITELY SOMETHING THAT I THINK COULD FIT WELL IN A LOT OF NEIGHBORHOODS ESPECIALLY SURROUNDING DOWNTOWN. 
          OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT. 
          THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL? SEEING NONE. 
          TOM, WERE YOU READING FROM NOTES, A DIGITAL? SORT OF, THEY WERE DISCHARGED. 
          OKAY. I WAS GOING TO SAY IF YOU WANT TO SHARE YOUR SPEAKING NOTES WITH THE CITY CLERK, THAT'S ALWAYS A POSSIBILITY. 
          ANY QUESTIONS FROM RESIDENTS? OR RESIDENTS ON ZOOM? 
          [03:50:03]
SEEING NONE. THANK YOU AGAIN TOM FOR COMING TODAY. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          NEXT WE HAVE ROB WARBURTON, FOLLOWED BY KAT MCGUIRK. 
          AWESOME. HELLO, AND THANKS FOR COMING TODAY. I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. 
          I'M ALSO, AS MANY OF YOU KNOW, GOVERNMENT CLOUD WORKS, WE INVEST IN THE CITY FOR A LONG TIME AND INCUBATE A LOT OF BUSINESSES HERE IN THE CITY, SO INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE OF HOW THE RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD HERE WITH BY-LAWS AND BUSINESS. 
          IN MY VIEW, IS AN IMPORTANT OPPORTUNITY FOR COUNCIL TO CREATE A MORE ATTRACTIVE, CIVIC, ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY, AND ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT THAT WILL SUPPORT CIVIC AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OVER THE NEXT DECADE. 
          I ENCOURAGE YOU TO THINK OF THE LONG-TERM IMPACTS THIS BY LAW AND NOT GIVE JUST UNFORTUNATE WAIT TO SHORTER-TERM CONCERNS. 
          FOR BUSINESSES TO BE SUCCESSFUL, THEY NEED CLARITY ON ACTIVITIES ARE PERMITTED THROUGHOUT THE CITY, FLEXIBILITY TO MAKE USE OF ALREADY AVAILABLE SPACES, AND REMOVAL OF REGULATORY BARRIERS THAT HOLD BACK MUCH-NEEDED INVESTMENT. 
          CLARITY IS PERMITTED USES, CLARITY IS NOT PUTTING THINGS IN DISCRETIONARY BECAUSE THAT TOO MAYBE. 
          YOU ACTUALLY RECOVER SLEAZY OBJECTIVES ARE BEING ACHIEVED IN THIS DRAFT ZONING BY LAW ARE PLEASED TO SHARE OUR SUPPORT ALONG WITH SOME SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE DO INCLUDE IN THE BRITONS MISSION, WHICH I WON'T GO OVER UNLESS YOU LIKE. 
          MORE BROADLY, WE FEEL IT AS NEW BY LAW IS ONE OF THE RARE TIMES THAT MANY DIFFERENT OBJECTIVES IN OUR COMMUNITY LINEUP. 
          ONE OF THEM IS THE SOCIAL AND CIVIC. 
          WE CAN PROVIDE SOME MIDDLE HOUSING OPTIONS OF THIS BY LAW, LAST LESSON I TALKED ABOUT THAT IT MEANS. 
          WE CAN ENGAGE AVERAGE ON IT FOR US TO HELP HOUSING SUPPLY AND NOT RELY ON LARGE, BIG PROJECTS. 
          THESE REGULATIONS ALLOW THE AVERAGE CITIZEN TO JUST USE THEIR HOUSE OR USE THEIR PROPERTY IN WAYS THAT CAN ADDRESS THESE ISSUES AS OPPOSED TO WAITING FOR, AGAIN, A BIG PROJECT TO DO THAT. 
          ENVIRONMENTALLY, NEW DEVELOPMENTS USE MASS AMOUNTS OF INFRASTRUCTURE, AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE, AND WE ALREADY HAVE THIS INFRASTRUCTURE WHICH WE ARE SUPPORTING OUR TAX DOLLARS, SO THIS BY-LAW HAS GAUSSIAN ENTHALPY AT ITS CORE, WHICH CHAMBER LOVES TO SEE BECAUSE WE'RE USING WHAT WE HAVE, SO WE'RE NOT USING MORE TAX DOLLARS TO EXPAND. 
          WE'RE STILL GROWING, BUT WE'RE DOING IT IN A VERY FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE WAY, WHICH IS LIKE TO SEE, AND ECONOMICALLY, WHICH IS THE MAIN POINTING AND SPEAK TO. 
          YARDS DOESN'T WANT TO INVEST IN RATHER A CITY, I KNOW MANY FOLKS THAT WOULD LOVE TO INVEST IN PROPERTIES HERE IN YELLOWKNIFE, BUT IT CAN'T USE THEM HAVING WHITE TO, AND THEY CAN'T DO WHAT THEY WANT WITH THEM. 
          THE SUPPLY IS VERY LIMITED AND BUILDING NEW IS VERY COST-PROHIBITIVE, SO REUSING WHAT THEY HAVE IS THE GOAL AND THIS BYLAW WOULDN'T DO THAT. 
          THE NEW BY LAW EMPOWERS AND UNLEASHES THE ABILITY OF THE UNIVERSE TO USE THEIR SPACES, FESTER TIME, MONEY, ENERGY IN THEIR COMMUNITY, WE DON'T HAVE A LACK OF WILL HERE, WE HAVE A LACK OF OPPORTUNITY CURRENTLY. 
          I THINK THE BIGGEST ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THIS BYLAW FOR A LONG TIME IS GOING TO BE IN THE HOUSING SECTOR, I KNOW SOMEONE SPOKE ATLANTA LANEWAY AND ATTACHED SECONDARY SUITES DESPITE THERE'S LOTS OF TALK AROUND, HEIGHTS INVARIANCES AND THERE'S REALLY GOOD REASONS THOSE WERE ADJUSTED, THE OLD BYLAW HAD FAMILY HOUSING THAT YOU COULDN'T FINANCE AND YOU COULDN'T ACTUALLY BUILD IN THE REAL WORLD, SO HAVING A BY LAW REFLECTS THESE THINGS IS THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF THE WORK THAT WE'VE BEEN DOING AS A CHAMBER, TRY AND MAKE SURE THE BYLAWS ACTUALLY LAND IN A WORLD WHERE YOU CAN BUILD AND DO THEM. 
          EXAMPLE WOULD BE IF SOMEONE WANTED TO TAKE CURRENTLY A BUNGALOW AND MAKE A DUPLEX OUT OF IT, NOW THAT PERSON CAN MAKE A FOUR-PLEX OUT OF IT. 
          IN DIFFERENT ZONES IN THE CITY, HOW STAYS THE SAME, THE ECONOMICS CHANGE, SO BY CHANGING THE RULES, YOU MAKE THE ECONOMICS WORK IN YOUR CITY. 
          BAYESIAN AVERAGE DEVELOPERS OR DEVELOPERS, I THINK THIS TERM IS MISUSED AS PHILISTIA DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPERS, THEY ASSUME IT'S BUSINESS, BUT MOST OF THEM I'VE ACTUALLY HAPPENS BY CITIZENS, SO THIS BY LAW, ALLOWS THEM TO ALONG WITH THE LARGER OPERATORS, PROVIDE HOUSING INNER CITY. 
          LIKE I SAID, IT'S NOT LIKE AN INVESTMENT, THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE THAT HAVE DONE WELL FOR THEMSELVES THAT ARE WELL PAID, AND HE LIKED TO DEPLOY THAT NEW CITY, BUT THEY DON'T THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT, SO NEW BYLAW ISN'T THAT CHANCE TO INVEST. 
          I KNOW HOUSING TENDS TO BE OUTSIDE OF THE CITY WHEELHOUSE, THIS IS, I THINK THIS BYLAW AND HOW IT'S WRITTEN AND DESIGNED IS 
          [03:55:01]
THE SINGLE BIGGEST IMPACT YOU CAN HAVE ON HOUSING THE NEXT TWO DECADES IN YOUR CITY. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, THAT WAS ALL WE HAD. 
          >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL. 
          COUNSELOR MORRIS MORGAN. 
          >> THANK YOU. THANKS, ROB FOR COMING TO PRESENT. 
          SOMETHING THAT WAS RAISED TO ME BY A RESIDENT AND I'M CURIOUS, TO GET THE CHAMBER'S THOUGHTS ON THIS. 
          WITH REGARDS TO THE RC 1 ZONE, IT WAS THE MOST COMPELLING ARGUMENT I'VE HEARD ABOUT CHANGING SOME OF THE RULES IN THERE IF WE WERE GOING TO AND THAT WAS JUST A CONCERN RAISED ABOUT IF WE EXPAND THE AREA WHERE DIFFERENT BUSINESSES CAN DO THEIR WORK, CAN GET PERMISSION TO ESTABLISH, IT'S REALLY GOING TO MAKE IT DIFFICULT FOR US TO ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT IN DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION. 
          I'M CURIOUS ABOUT, I GUESS THE CHAMBER'S THOUGHTS, OR YOUR THOUGHTS, OR MAYBE THEY'RE ONE AND THE SAME AND THE ROLE THAT YOU'RE PLAYING RIGHT NOW ON THAT PARTICULAR ARGUMENT RELATED TO, IF WE'RE GOING TO REVITALIZE THE DOWNTOWN, WE HAVE TO FIND WAYS TO INCENTIVIZE PEOPLE TO BE THERE. 
          IF THEY CAN OPEN BUSINESSES IN THE PLACE WHERE IT'S CHEAPER FOR THEM OUTSIDE THE DOWNTOWN, HOW ARE WE GOING TO ALSO INCENTIVIZE DEVELOPMENT DOWNTOWN, SO I'M CURIOUS TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT. 
          >> MR. WARBURTON. 
          >> THANK YOU, JOANNE. 
          I THINK IT'S TWO DIFFERENT THINGS HERE, SO DOWNTOWN WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DRIVING BUSINESS DOWNTOWN, BEYOND A FEW PROPERTIES DOWNTOWN, IT'S FULL, THERE'S NOTHING ELSE TO OCCUPY THAT EXIST, SO NOW YOU'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT IS BUILDING DOWNTOWN. 
          FOR A LOT OF SMALL BUSINESSES, ESPECIALLY STARTING BUSINESSES, THAT'S JUST NOT POSSIBLE, THAT'S IN THE REALM OF LARGER BUSINESSES ARE DEVELOPERS IN TOWN. 
          I DON'T THINK BY ALLOWING THAT PERIPHERAL USE IS OF COMMERCIAL, I DON'T THINK YOU'RE ACTUALLY SUCKING AWAY FROM DOWNTOWN THAT MUCH. 
          THERE'S A STEP NEEDED FROM A HOME-BASED BUSINESS TO RENTING A DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL SPACE, AND THAT MISSING PIECE, I THINK IS WHAT THIS ZONE WILL DO. 
          LIKE THERE'S MORE DEMAND FOR RESTAURANTS SPACES BY MULTIPLES AND THERE WAS AT RESTAURANTS SPACING YELLOWKNIFE, BUT THAT STEP FROM YOUR HOME KITCHEN TO A COMMERCIAL KITCHEN IS JUST TOO BIG, SO IT'S JUST LIKE IT'S FLEXIBILITY. 
          BY ALLOWING THESE DIFFERENT ZONES FOR USE, MORE FLEXIBILITY, ESPECIALLY AROUND SOME USE COMMERCIAL USERS DON'T EVEN SEE A RESTAURANT POP UP ON FOREST DRIVE, BUT IF SOMEONE CAN NOW BUILD A COMMERCIAL KITCHEN IN THEIR BASEMENT AND DO THAT ABOVE-BOARD THAT'S THE THING THEY'RE GOING SEE BEING DONE COMMERCIALLY. 
          NO ONE IS GOING TO KNOCK OVER OUR HOUSE AND BUILD A RESTAURANT, IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. 
          I DON'T THINK THEY'RE INCONGRUENT, I THINK THERE ARE DIFFERENT SCALES OF BUSINESSES DOING DIFFERENT THINGS IN DIFFERENT PLACES, SO I THINK I CAN DO BOTH. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> COUNSEL MORGAN. 
          >> THANK YOU ROB. YOU MENTIONED THE IMPORTANCE FOR BUSINESSES OF HAVING CLARITY AND SO HAVING IT AS A DISCRETIONARY USE, YOU'RE SAYING WOULDN'T PROVIDE ENOUGH CLARITY FOR BUSINESSES. 
          CAN YOU EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE UNCERTAINTIES THAT BUSINESSES FACE IF SOMETHING IS A DISCRETIONARY USE? THERE'S A SECOND PART TO THAT, ARE THERE OTHER WAYS TO ACHIEVE CLARITY INSTEAD OF MAKING SOMETHING JUST SORT OF PERMITTED ANYWHERE THROUGHOUT A ZONE, FOR EXAMPLE, SOMETHING COULD BE PERMITTED BUT WITH CLEAR CONDITIONS AS TO, FOR EXAMPLE, JUST ON ARTERIAL ROADS OR HAVE SOME PARAMETERS WHERE THINGS ARE PERMITTED BEYOND JUST HAVING IT PERMITTED THROUGHOUT A ZONE. ROB? 
          >> WELL, FIRST, I'LL GO OVER THE PERMIT VERSUS DISCRETIONARY. 
          THE INVESTMENT TO GET TO THE PART WHERE YOU APPLY FOR A PERMIT, DOESN'T CHANGE, PERMIT OR DISCRETIONARY. 
          JUST I KNOW THAT ME PERSONALLY, IF I WANT TO DO SOMETHING AND I KNOW IT'S PERMITTED AND AS I FOLLOW THE RULES AND STAY IN THE BOX, I KNOW THIS LOW RISK THAT, THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. 
          I GO DISCRETIONARY, ALL THE SAME INVESTMENT HAS TO HAPPEN BUT THEN IT GOES TO COUNSEL AND THEN I CAN GET A NO. 
          THAT'S A VERY DIFFERENT RISK ANALYSIS WE'RE LOOKING TO DO ARE CURRENTLY VERY FRONT-LOADED BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS, WHICH IS NEXT, WHICH IS EXCITING. 
          YEAH, IT'S ABOUT THE RISK. 
          ONE IS JUST WAY MORE RISK THAN THE OTHER ONE WHEN IT COMES FROM WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO INVEST THE MONEY UP FRONT BECAUSE THE REQUIREMENTS TO APPLY FOR BOTH ARE EXACTLY THE SAME. 
          THERE'D BE THAT ONE. CLARITY WITHOUT DISCRETIONARY, 
          [04:00:01]
HAVING IT AS PERMITTED IS PREFERABLE BECAUSE THEN IT'S A KNOWN ENTITY. 
          I KNOW I CAN QUANTIFY THAT, AN ARCHITECT CAN LOOK AT THAT. 
          I CAN LOOK AT THAT. A BUSINESS CAN LOOK AT IT AND WITH CERTAINTY KNOW, CAN I DO THIS IN THIS PROPERTY? AGAIN, EVEN TO RENT A PLACE BEFORE IF IT'S A DISCRETIONARY USE WOULD BE REALLY RISKY TO DO BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE GOING TO NEED THE PERMIT. 
          WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT SOMEWHERE IT HAS THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF PLACES AVAILABLE TO RENT OR USE. 
          TALKING A COUPLE THOUSAND BUILDINGS, WHICH IS NOT THAT MUCH. 
          HAVING THAT FLEXIBILITY TO USE BECAUSE EVEN PROBABLY YOUR PROPERTY ONE MIGHT WORK, ONE MIGHT NOT. 
          THE FLEXIBILITY DESIGN GIVES IT, AND THE MORE THINGS THAT CAN INCLUDE IN PERMITTED WOULD MAKE MORE CERTAINTY FOR BUSINESS FOR SURE. 
          DID I ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? 
          >> YEAH. THE PART OF THE QUESTION WAS AS TO PROVIDE CLARITY SO GETTING AWAY FROM DISCRETIONARY, BUT HAVING MORE RESTRICTIVE CONDITIONS PUT ON, SAY WHERE BUSINESSES WOULD ACTUALLY BE PERMITTED WITHIN ITS OWN. 
          IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU THINK COULD PROVIDE ADEQUATE CLARITY AND FLEXIBILITY TO IT? 
          >> THEY GIVE CLARITY IN A BYLAW, BUT SAY FOREST DRIVE. 
          YOU'D SAY FOREST DRIVE IS A BIG ENOUGH RV THAT WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW XYZ BUSINESSES THERE. 
          WELL, THAT DOESN'T GUARANTEE THAT ANY BUILDING ON THAT STREET COULD DO THAT. 
          IF A PROPERTY ONCE, 100 FEET AWAY COULD DO IT, IT'S KNOWN IN THAT SENSE. 
          IT'S LEAST SLICING AND DICING WHEN YOU DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY OPTIONS. 
          IF YOU TOOK EVERY PROPERTY THAT'S IN THE RC ZONE RIGHT NOW, IT'S NOT THAT MANY RIGHT NOW. 
          IF YOU START SLICING AND DICING OUT MORE, IT'S JUST SOMETHING ACTUALLY HAPPENING OR GO DOWN PRETTY FAST FROM A BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE. 
          WE'RE TOO SMALL AS OPTIONS ALL READY FOR PLACES TO DO THINGS. 
          THE MORE YOU DO THAT, THERE'S EXPONENTIALLY LESS CHANCE, I WOULD SAY. 
          >> OKAY, LAST QUESTION. 
          HAVING LISTENED TO SOME OF THE OTHER PRESENTERS TODAY, HOW MIGHT YOU RESPOND TO RESIDENTS WHO ARE REALLY CONCERNED? RIGHT NOW THEY LIVE ON A RESIDENTIAL STREET CLOSE TO DOWNTOWN, BUT NOT REALLY IN THE DOWNTOWN CORE AND THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT HAVING A HIGH IMPACT BUSINESS POP-UP IN ANOTHER STREET, LIKE A BAR OR A CONVENIENCE STORE. 
          OR HOW MIGHT YOU RESPOND TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE CONCERNS THAT, THAT WILL HAVE A HUGE IMPACT ON THEIR QUALITY OF LIFE LIVING ON THAT STREET? 
          >> ROB? 
          >> THIS IS WHERE THE PRACTICAL ME COMES IN. 
          IT'S LIKE THE CONCERNS AROUND A TOWER GOING IN. 
          NO ONE IS BUYING 800,000 HOUSES AND BUILDING A MULTIFAMILY BUILDING. 
          THAT'S NEVER HAPPENING RIGHT NOW, OR EVEN A DECADE FROM NOW. 
          AS IS SIMILAR TO THE BUSINESS. 
          THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF A HOUSE ON 50A IS A HOUSE ON 50A. 
          IT HAS MORE VALUE THAN A COMMERCIAL BUILDING WOULD HAVE THERE. 
          THE ECONOMICS, THESE THINGS, I THINK IT'S MECHANISM TO BUY ALL THAT GIVE THE ABILITY TO ADJUST THOSE. 
          BUT JUST THE STREET ECONOMICS, THESE THINGS DON'T MAKE SENSE IN A WAY. 
          THE BIG SCARY THING IS HARD TO DO FINANCIALLY OR PROBABLY NOT POSSIBLE RIGHT NOW. 
          IT'S JUST, WHEN YOU SAY FOOD AND BEVERAGE, EVERYTHING'S RESTAURANT. 
          BUT FOOD AND BEVERAGE CAN ALSO BE SOMEONE PUTTING A COMMERCIAL KITCHEN IN THEIR BASEMENT. 
          IT'S NOT ALL THE SAME THING. I THINK YOU'LL SEE MORE OF THE LIGHT IMPACT USES IN THOSE AREAS FOR THOSE COMMERCIAL USES. 
          THEN YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THIS BIG CONVENIENCE STORE AND THE IMPACTS THAT COULD FOR ENVISIONING BECAUSE I JUST DON'T THINK THOSE ARE LIKELY IN THE SHORT TERM. 
          >> THANKS FOR YOUR INPUT TODAY. 
          >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE PRESENTER? 
          >> I MISSED ONE POINT I MAY THINK, CAN I? 
          >> YEAH, FOR SURE. 
          >> IT'S JUST SITTING AROUND I KNOW IT'S COUPLE TIMES ON LAND WE HOUSED IN SECONDARY STREETS. 
          I MENTIONED A BIT IN MY PRESENTATION, BUT NO MORE DETAIL. 
          THE OLD BYLAW AS WRITTEN WITH THE LAW AND YOUR LOWER HEIGHTS IN THE SQUARE FOOTAGE LIMIT, YOU ACTUALLY COULDN'T BUILD A BUILDING AND YOU COULDN'T GET A MORTGAGE OR ANY FINANCING TO DO IT. 
          IT WAS A BYLAW THAT WAS GOOD ON PAPER BUT DIDN'T ACTUALLY LIVE IN THE REAL WORLD OF DOING. 
          THERE'S NEW BYLAW THAT'S WIDER IN WHAT IT DOES BECAUSE IT ALLOWS YOU TO ACTUALLY DO IT. 
          IF YOU WANT PEOPLE TO INVEST, THEY HAVE FAILED TO BORROW MONEY, THEY HAVE FAILED TO HIRE A BUILDER. 
          THAT NEW LANEWAY HOUSING BYLAW THAT I SPENT A BIT OF TIME WITH ADMINISTRATION, GONE BACK AND FORTH TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS DOABLE. 
          IT IS IN ITS CURRENT FORM SO IT'S NOT AS EASY AS JUST SAYING DROP THE HEIGHT LIMIT AND STUFF, THERE'S SOME REAL-WORLD CONSTRUCTABILITY IMPACTS OF THAT. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> I JUST HAD A QUESTION. YOU TALKED ABOUT THE RISK FACTOR OF A BUSINESS ON PERMITTED VERSUS DISCRETIONARY USE. 
          [04:05:05]
WHEN YOU GO TO THE BANK AND TRY TO GET A LOAN, YOU WANT TO BUY A PROPERTY BECAUSE YOU THINK THIS WOULD BE GREAT FOR WHATEVER IT MAY BE, A LITTLE CAFÉ AND IT'S A DISCRETIONARY USE, DOES THE BANK ALSO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AND WOULD APPROVE OR DENY YOUR LOAN BASED ON THE RISK THAT IT'S A DISCRETIONARY USE AND COUNCIL MIGHT ACTUALLY VETO IT AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE ANY MONEY BECAUSE YOUR BUSINESS IS NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO BE CREATED? IS THERE ANYTHING FROM A BANKING PERSPECTIVE RECOGNIZING YOU'RE NOT [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> THIS MIGHT BE A BIT ON MY WHEELHOUSE, BUT I THINK THAT'D BE A VERY BIG RISK FOR YOU TO SIGN A LEASE OR SIGN A MORTGAGE, OR GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS TO NOT-KNOWING YOU COULD DO IT. 
          THE FRONTEND OF THAT WAS THE WORK THE BANK REQUIRES ME A FINANCING IS INCREDIBLY EXPENSIVE FOR A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. 
          TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO GET TO THE POINT WHERE YOU DECIDE TO BUY IT. 
          YEAH, IF IT'S DISCRETIONARY, I DON'T SEE A LOT OF BUSINESSES EVEN DOING THAT PROCESS BECAUSE IT'S JUST TOO MUCH RISK AND TOO MUCH INVESTMENT IN FRONT LOADED, I GUESS. 
          WHEREAS, IF IT'S PERMITTED AND I KNOW I CAN DO IT THEN I CAN SPEND MONEY WITH MORE CERTAINTY AROUND FINANCING. 
          >> YEAH, THANK YOU. 
          SEEING NO FURTHER QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE? YES. ACTUALLY ANNE IF YOU WANT TO COME UP AND ASK THE QUESTION HERE. 
          [OVERLAPPING] WELL WE'VE GOT TO GET IT INTO THE MIC. 
          WE CAN GET THE QUESTIONS AT THIS TABLE AND THEN WE DON'T NEED TO DO THE OLD SWITCHEROO. GOOD. 
          >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WAS WAITING TO HEAR ROB SPEAK BECAUSE I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THAT HE'S GOT THAT ON THE GROUND KNOWLEDGE. 
          I GUESS MY QUESTION IS FROM SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT YOU MADE, IT SOUNDED LIKE THERE WAS PERHAPS SPECIFIC INSTANCES WHERE THE RULES WOULD BE SUPPORTING LIKE LAMELY HOUSING, FOR EXAMPLE. 
          I PRESUMED THAT THE ZONING CHANGES WOULD ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN IN AN AREA WITH LANE WAYS AND THAT IF THE ZONING REGULATIONS WERE ADJUSTED TO ALLOW THAT WHERE THERE ARE LANE WAYS, BUT PERHAPS NOT IN OTHER AREAS OF TOWN WHERE THERE'S STREET, PATTERN WAS DIFFERENT THAT YOU WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT OR NOT? 
          >> ONE HUNDRED PERCENT NO. 
          WE HAVE LIKE, I'M GOING TO GUESS LIKE 10 PERCENT YOUR HOUSING STOCK HAS LANE WAYS ON. 
          IF YOU TAKE THAT AS YOUR METRIC AND THEN OUT OF THOSE THAT WOULD BE SUITABLE, DOWN YOU GET NOTHING. 
          THE POINT IS TO HAVE A BILATERAL WE'RE GOING TO USE IS TO BE AS OPEN AS POSSIBLE. 
          I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY WHY IT'S CALLED DETACH SECONDARY STREET AND NOT THE LANE WAY HOUSE SO IT CAN GO ANYWHERE IN THE CITY. 
          IT'S TOO LIMITING YEAH. 
          >> CAN I GET A SECOND QUESTION? 
          >> YEAH. [LAUGHTER] YOU GET AS MANY. 
          >> AS MANY AS I WANT. 
          >> MANY QUESTIONS THAT ARE APPROPRIATE, RESPECTFUL AS YOU'D LIKE. 
          >> I GUESS MY OTHER QUESTION WAS ABOUT A FOLLOW UP ON A QUESTION I THINK COUNSELOR MORRIS ASKED WAS ABOUT ALLOWING, THE QUESTION OF SCALE, THE COMMERCIAL USES ALLOWED IN OTHER AREAS OUTSIDE OF THE DOWNTOWN CORE YOU DIDN'T THINK WOULD DILUTE THE GOAL OF HAVING A COMPACT BUSINESS AREA BECAUSE YOU SAID THEY WOULD BE MORE OF THE MIDDLE AREA THAT STEPPED BETWEEN A HOME-BASED BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL USE. 
          AGAIN, I GUESS THE TWO QUESTIONS I HAVE FROM THAT AS THE CHAMBER HAVE A REASON WHY ISN'T THAT DEVELOPMENT HAPPENING IN THE DOWNTOWN CORE? YOU SAID THERE WASN'T PROPERTIES AVAILABLE, BUT IT SEEMED LIKE ME AS A PERSON WALKING THROUGH THE AREA ZONE DOWNTOWN, IT SEEMS THERE'S AN AWFUL LOT OF PROPERTIES THERE THAT ARE POTENTIAL. 
          >> THIS IS AN ECONOMICS QUESTION. 
          THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION IS EXPONENTIALLY HIGHER THAN MOST BUSINESS CAN AFFORD LIKE THE COST TO BUILD A NEW BUILDING IS WAY BETTER, WAY CHEAPER TO BUY A PLACE AND RENOVATED. 
          THIS IS WHY WE LANDED ON SUPPORTING AROUND DOWNTOWN. 
          FRANKLY NO ONE CAN BUILD HERE, IT'S VERY HARD TO BUILD HERE AS A NEW BUSINESS AND THEN OCCUPY THERE IT'S JUST TOO EXPENSIVE. 
          >> NO, I APPRECIATE THAT, IT GUESS MY QUESTION WAS THERE'S AN AWFUL LOT OF 
          [04:10:03]
PROPERTIES IN THE AREAS ON DOWNTOWN THAT ARE LIKE LITTLE OLD HOUSES. 
          >> YEAH, BUT WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT WHAT IS AVAILABLE AND WHAT'S NOT BEING USED CURRENTLY, THERE'S ESSENTIALLY NOTHING, A COUPLE OF EMPTY MILES SPACES. 
          EVERYWHERE BUILDING IN DOWNTOWN, IT'S LIKE THEY'RE OCCUPIED THEY'RE BEING USED ALREADY. 
          >> THE EXISTING SMALL, OLDER HOUSES. 
          >> YEAH, PEOPLE LIVING IN THEM THEY'RE ZONED ON THE RIGHT WAY, BUT THEY'RE BEING USED AS HOUSING BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF HOUSING OPTIONS. 
          >> I GUESS WOULDN'T THE SAME ARGUMENT FOLLOW FOR OTHER AREAS OF TOWN HOUSES. 
          >> A LOT OF OLD HOUSES DOWNTOWN HAVE COMMERCIAL USERS IN THEM SO IN THEIR BASEMENT OR LIKE AN AUXILIARY TO THEM BECAUSE PEOPLE WANT TO LIVE IN AND WORK IN A SPACE BECAUSE HE CAN'T AFFORD BOTH. 
          THEY EXPAND THAT AROUND DOWNTOWN LIKE I SAID, IF SOMEONE CAN HAVE A FOOD AND BEVERAGE OPERATION IN THEIR GARAGE OR IN THEIR BASEMENT, WHEREAS YOU CAN'T DO THAT RIGHT NOW EXCEPT IN VERY SPECIFIC PARTS OF TOWN I FEEL CAN'T AFFORD TO EITHER BUY OR BUILDING. 
          IT'S JUST MORE OPPORTUNITY YOU SPACE BETTER IN A COMMERCIAL WAY. 
          >> THEN FINALLY, I'LL JUST ONE MORE QUESTION AND THEN I WILL STOP. 
          IT JUST SOUNDS LIKE YOU WOULD BE POSSIBLY AMENABLE TO THERE BEING CONDITIONS AS TO A SCALE OF COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED IN AN EXISTING IN AN AREA THAT IS PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL SMALL-SCALE, ROB. 
          >> NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN BY SCALE SO THE BYE DICTATE SCALE ALREADY AND IT'S HEIGHTS AND WIDTHS AND SETBACKS AND THINGS. 
          YEAH, THE BUILDING PERMIT WE'RE LOOKING AT THE TRAFFIC TRAFFIC AND INCORRECT HERE, BUT THERE'S A BUSINESS LICENSE, BUT ALSO REQUIRES YOU TO MATCH PARKING IN FOOT TRAFFIC AND SO THERE'S JUST NOT JUSTIFY WHY THAT'S CONTROLLING THAT THERE'S MULTIPLE THINGS THAT CONTROL IT. 
          HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION SORT OF. 
          >> YOU ARE NOT REALLY BAD. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS THEN? 
          >> NO. 
          >> OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE? WILL HOLD ON FOR THAT ONE SECOND. 
          LET'S JUST FINISH QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE. 
          QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS ON ZOOM? COUNCILOR WILLIAMS. 
          >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, JUST A QUICK FOLLOW-UP TO MISS PETER'S LINE OF QUESTIONING. 
          MY QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION, ISN'T THERE A TWO-STORY MINIMUM FOR NEW BUILDS IN THE DT ZONE? 
          >> MISS WHITE. 
          >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YES, SO THAT IS CORRECT AND I THINK TO ADD TO IT IS WE HAVE TO LOOK AT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHO'S BUILDING IN THE DOWNTOWN? WHAT IS THE ECONOMY AS WE EMERGE FROM OUR CURRENT SITUATION GOING TO LOOK LIKE, AND WHAT ARE THE TYPES OF BUSINESSES THAT WE'RE TRYING TO INCUBATE WITHIN THE CITY AND WHAT DO THEY NEED? IT MAY NOT BE RIGHT OFF THE BAT THAT TWO-STORY, THREE-STORY, FOUR-STORY BUILDING. 
          THERE'S ALSO BUILDING CODE IMPLICATIONS WHEN YOU DO GET ABOVE A CERTAIN HEIGHT SO THAT WILL ADD AN ADDITIONAL COST ON TOP OF THAT BUILD THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DOWNTOWN. 
          THIS ZONING BY LAW IS LOOKING AT THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT IN A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT WAYS BY TRYING TO FACILITATE SOME OF THAT CURRENTLY BEING USED AS PARKING INTO A NEW DEVELOPMENT WHICH WOULD BE OF A LARGER SCALE, AND WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE RC, RC ONE, THAT'S THAT MIDDLE GROUND AS ROB WAS SAYING, BETWEEN HOME-BASED BUSINESS AND FULL-ON GOING TO GO BUILD THAT TWO, THREE-STORY BUILDING DOWNTOWN? 
          >> THAT BECAUSE I THINK FOR EVEN MEDIUM-SIZED BUSINESSES, THE HILL TO CLIMB TO CONSTRUCT A NEW TWO-STORY BUILDING FOR A SINGLE PURPOSE IN A COMMERCIAL ZONE IS VERY CHALLENGING HILL TO CLIMB SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          >> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? 
          >> I'LL JUST ADD IT'S NOT FROM A LACK OF DEMAND. 
          THERE'S A HUGE AMOUNT OF DEMAND IN YOUR KNIFE FOR SPACE, IT'S JUST THAT IT CAN'T USE A SPACE WE HAVE RIGHT NOW SO IT NEED MORE OF IT AND SO THIS IS WHY WE SUPPORT THE BY LAW BECAUSE IT PROVIDES THAT. 
          >> THE RETAILER REVITALIZATION WAS TALKING ABOUT THE MISMATCH OF WHAT'S AVAILABLE TO WHAT PEOPLE OUGHT TO DO. 
          SEEING NOTHING FURTHER. 
          THANK YOU AGAIN ROB FOR COMING AND FOR THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION AS WELL. 
          FINALLY, WE WILL GO WITH CAT MCGURK AND JUST A REMINDER, AFTER ALL OF THE PRESENTERS THAN COUNSEL CAN ASK QUESTIONS OF ADMIN. 
          ONCE WE'RE DONE THAT, THEN WE WILL START 
          [04:15:02]
BACK AT THE TOP AND EVERYBODY WILL HAVE TWO MINUTES. 
          WE'VE LOST A FEW PEOPLE, BUT WILL HAVE TWO MINUTES TO DO CONCLUDING COMMENTS FROM THOSE WHO ARE HERE TODAY SO WITH THAT CAT, I WILL HAND IT OVER TO YOU. 
          >> THANKS, MIRA LT. I'M OBVIOUSLY SPEAKING IN SUPPORT AND THE LAST PERSON HERE, I REALLY HOPE THAT PEOPLE AREN'T TOO BURNT OUT. 
          [LAUGHTER] I JUST WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE REASONS WHY I SUPPORT THE PROPOSED BYLAW. 
          PROVISIONS ON SCALE, HEIGHT AND SETBACKS WILL NEVER FULLY ADDRESS THE CONCERN THAT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WILL BE COMPROMISED. 
          WE SAW THIS WITH THE BURDEN TRAILER COURT, THE DISAPPOINTING APPEALS PROCESS, AND INDEED NO-WIN SITUATION FOR EVERYONE. 
          BECAUSE THE DEVELOPMENT COULD HAVE STILL GONE AHEAD TO THE DISSATISFACTION OF THE PEOPLE WHO APPEALED IT WITH FEWER UNITS THAN THE DEVELOPER WANTED AND AT A LOWER DENSITY THAN THE CITY, WAS HOPING FOR. 
          WE'LL SET THAT THE SHODDY CLOUD DEFENSE WAS AN OLD TOWN LANDMARK AND THEY DON'T WANT TO GET RID OF IT OR BECAUSE RESIDENTS WOULD BE SHADED. 
          THEY FELT THAT THE BUILDING WAS UGLY. 
          THAT DIDN'T FIT WITH THE VIBE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          A FEW AESTHETIC PROVISIONS IN OUR BYLAWS MIGHT HAVE ALLOWED THE RESIDENTS TO APPEAL TO THE BUILDING IN A MEANINGFUL WAY, BUT THERE WERE NOT AND THIS BYLAW OFFERS THAT. 
          THERE'S SOMETHING SPECIAL AND WORTH CHERISHING ABOUT OLD TOWN OBVIOUSLY. 
          I'VE HAD SO MUCH CHARACTER, AND WHAT MAKES IT SO UNIQUE. 
          BECAUSE YOU CAN LEAVE YOUR OFFICE AT 05:00 P.M. AND YOU CAN WALK TO WEAVER'S AND BUYER NEW TOOL ON YOUR WAY TO YOUR RESERVATION AT BULLOCK AND THEN YOU CAN END THE NIGHT FOR THE PIE TO THE WOOD YARD AND SAFELY STUMBLE HOME TO MCDONALD'S DRIVE. 
          HEAVILY PEOPLE IN OLD TOWN LIVE, WORK AND ACCESS AMENITIES WITHOUT HOPPING INTO A CAR. 
          THAT'S BECAUSE MUCH OF OLD TOWN HAS ALWAYS BEEN ZONED FROM EXCUSE, THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT SPECIAL. 
          I LIVE IN A CENTRAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE. 
          I LOVE BEING ABLE TO WALK TO THE GROCERY STORE AND BUY DOWN THREE FOR BREAKFAST AND THAT'S WHY I MOVED HERE AND THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE PAY PREMIUMS ON RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS DOWNTOWN. 
          MIXED-USE ZONING IS A POSITIVE THING. 
          ANOTHER REASON THAT PEOPLE TALK ABOUT THE CHARACTER OF THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD CHANGING IS BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT CHANGE PERIOD. 
          BUT THINGS HAVE TO CHANGE. 
          IF WHEN I'M 50, THINGS HAVEN'T CHANGED, I MIGHT BE DEAD. 
          WE'RE FILLING IN SOME POSTS, COLLAPSE WORLD REZONING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS, REALLY FAINT AND DISTANT MEMORY. 
          IT MIGHT SOUND LIKE A LAUGH TO EQUATE THE PASSING OF HIS ZONING BY LAW TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC COLLAPSE OF SOCIETY. 
          BUT ITS RESISTANT TO CHANGE IS THE REAL KILLER. 
          IT'S NOT JUST A NAIL IN THE COFFIN, IT'S JUST BY 1,000 PAPER CUTS. 
          THE OPEN HOUSES HAVE LARGELY ATTENDED HAVE BEEN DOMINATED BY A GENERATION OR TWO OLDER THAN MY OWN. 
          NOT TO SAY THAT WE SHOULD PASS THE SIDE, THE VOICE OF EXPERIENCE, BUT I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT PEOPLE MY AGE ARE GIVEN A CHANCE TO BE HEARD. 
          WE'RE VERY BUSY, STATISTICALLY, WE'RE OVERWORKED AND UNDERPAID EVEN IN THIS TOWN. 
          WE DON'T HAVE TIME TO COMMENT ON THESE ISSUES. 
          BARELY ANY OF US BELIEVE WE'RE GOING TO RETIRE EITHER BECAUSE WE CAN'T AFFORD TO OR DON'T THINK WE'LL LIVE TO SEE IT OR SOME COMBINATION OF THE TWO. 
          IT'S HARD FOR US TO PUT ENERGY INTO COMBAT IN THE VALUES THAT PUT US IN THIS POSITION, WE SIMPLY DON'T HAVE THE CAPACITY TO HOLD OUR OWN AGAINST RETIRED BOOMERS. 
          I'VE ATTENDED NEARLY EVERY OPEN HOUSE ON THIS ISSUE AND I'VE HIDDEN IT BEHIND MY SCREEN. 
          IT IS AN EMOTIONAL CONVERSATION FOR EVERYONE, BUT ULTIMATELY WILL BE THE ONES MOST IMPACTED FOR THE LONGEST AMOUNT OF TIME BY THE CONTENT OF HIS BYLAW. 
          AS A PERSON UNDER 30, I SUPPORT THIS BYLAW. 
          I WANT TO GROW OLD IN A CITY I CAN EASILY GO AROUND IN. 
          IF WE DON'T ENCOURAGE MORE WALKABLE COMMUNITIES AND INCENTIVIZE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION NOW THAT WON'T HAPPEN. 
          MY GENERATION IS KEEN ON MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS. 
          WE DON'T LIKE CARS AND WE HATE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS. 
          OUR NEIGHBORHOODS WILL LOOK VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE OF THE GENERATIONS BEFORE US BUILT. 
          I'M MORE THAN JUST AN EGO ANXIOUS YOUNG PERSON. 
          I'M A WHOLE PERSON WITH MULTIPLE PRIORITIES AND STRONG VALUES. 
          THERE ARE MANY REASONS FOR ME TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF THESE FOR THIS NEW BYLAWS. 
          AS A BUILDER, I SUPPORT THIS BY LAW. 
          I'M INCREDIBLY PASSIONATE ABOUT BUILDING BETTER HOMES. 
          MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING HAPPENS TO BE THE MOST EFFICIENT TO BUILD AND MAINTAIN. 
          I CAN GIVE AN ENTIRE DISSERTATION ON THE SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND HEALTH BENEFITS OF MEDIUM-DENSITY HOUSING. 
          BUT I ONLY HAVE 10 MINUTES AND WE'VE BEEN HERE SINCE 10 IN THE MORNING. 
          TO SUM IT UP, ONE SIX PLEXUS IS FASTER AND EASIER TO BUILD THAN SIX DETACHED HOMES. 
          UNITS ARE MORE ENERGY AND THERMALLY EFFICIENT AIR QUALITY IS EASIER TO CONTROL AND THERE'S A LARGER FOOTPRINT FOR GREEN SPACE. 
          SHARED LIVING CONDITIONS PROMOTE BETTER COMMUNITY AND COMBAT LONELINESS, AND UNITS ARE AFFORDABLE. 
          AS AN ENVIRONMENTALLY CONSCIOUS PERSON, I SUPPORT THIS BYLAW. 
          WE CAN'T AFFORD TO HOUSE PEOPLE AND DETACHED SINGLE HOMES ANYMORE. 
          WE CAN'T CONTINUE DROPPING PERSONAL VEHICLES. 
          PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE CONTROL OF SPREE PARKING BECAUSE THEY CAN'T IMAGINE THAT ANYONE COULD LIVE IN A SOCIETY WITHOUT A VEHICLE, AND UNFORTUNATELY THERE RIGHT. 
          IF WE CONTINUE TO BUILD INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT PERSONAL VEHICLES AND DESIGN OUR COMMUNITIES AROUND THEM, PEOPLE WILL CONTINUE TO NEED THEM. 
          THAT IS EXACTLY WHY OUR BYLAWS NEED TO GIVE US THE FREEDOM TO RECONFIGURE THE URBAN LANDSCAPE. 
          AS A FOSTER PARENT, I SUPPORT THIS BYLAW AND I WANT MY COMMUNITY TO BE WALKABLE, SO I KNOW MY KID IS CLOSE BY BECAUSE MORE FOOT TRAFFIC MEANS SAFER STREETS. 
          I WAS BORN AND RAISED HERE. 
          BEYOND SPORTS, THERE AREN'T REALLY ANY OPTIONS FOR YOUNG PEOPLE. 
          [04:20:01]
WHEN I WAS IN HIGH SCHOOL, THEY'RE ONLY JUST BUILDING THE GREEN SPACE NEXT TO CITY HALL. 
          OTHERWISE, I WOULD SPEND HOURS STRESSING OUT WITH HALF WHICHEVER AROMA UNTIL EVENTUALLY, I WALKED THERE MYSELF. 
          MIXED-USE MEANS MORE PLACES WHERE YOU CAN GO WITHOUT DEPENDING ON A RIDE, IT MEANS HEALTHIER TEENS WITH MORE INDEPENDENCE AND BETTER AGENCY. 
          AS A HOMEOWNER, I SUPPORT THIS BYLAW. 
          I WANT DIVERSITY IN MY COMMUNITY. 
          I'M EXCITED AT THE POTENTIAL OF A FOURPLEX DOWN THE STREET. 
          NEW FACES WHO WANTED TO PARTICIPATE IN AND GROW THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT I LOVE AND WANT TO SUPPORT THE SMALL BUSINESSES THAT POP UP AROUND THE CORNER. 
          THIS IS WHAT MAKES LIVING IN A COMMUNITY SO EXCITING. 
          THE BUSTLE AND THE COLLABORATION, THE VISITING, AND THE SHARING NEW PEOPLE AND NEW IDEAS. 
          I DON'T WANT TO LIVE SOMEWHERE WHERE I HAVE NO OPPORTUNITY TO MEET MY NEIGHBOR BECAUSE WE SHOP AT DIFFERENT GROCERY STORES BUT OPPOSITE ENDS OF TOWN. 
          AS AN ADVOCATE FOR FOOD SECURITY IN THE NORTH, I SUPPORT THIS BYLAW. 
          SUPPLY CHAINS ARE FAILING AROUND THE WORLD. CLIMATE IS CHANGING. 
          WE NEED TO PROMOTE AGRICULTURE NOW SO THAT WE'RE READY TO DIVE IN WHEN IT'S REALLY NECESSARY. 
          WITHOUT EASY ACCESS TO LAND, WE'LL NEVER BE ABLE TO ADDRESS FOOD SECURITY IN THE NORTH. 
          WE NEED GREENHOUSES AND UNCONVENTIONAL LAND USE, AND WE NEED BYLAWS TO SUPPORT THAT. 
          OPENING THE DOORS TO DIFFERENT APPROACHES AND IDEAS IS THE BEST STEP WE CAN TAKE. 
          AS THE FOUNDER OF A NON-PROFIT, I SUPPORT THIS BYLAW. 
          MY FRIENDS THAT I BASICALLY HAD TO BUILD A MILLION-DOLLAR NON-PROFIT BECAUSE THERE'S NOT ENOUGH FLEXIBILITY OR ACCESSIBILITY IN THIS TOWN TO SUPPORT A MODEST WOODSHOP AT THE OUTSET, THERE'S LITTLE INCENTIVE FOR PROPERTY OWNERS TO ADDRESS VACANT BUILDINGS OR LOTS, AND 40 PERCENT OF THE DOWNTOWN IS A PARKING LOT BECAUSE THE CITY SAID IT HAD TO BE. 
          THESE WERE OUR REQUIREMENTS. 
          WE NEEDED 2,000 SQUARE FEET ACCESSIBLE BY PUBLIC TRANSIT, BARRIER-FREE ENTRY, AND IT NEEDS TO BE LESS THAN $10,000 A MONTH. 
          I DIDN'T THINK THAT IT WAS A LOT TO ASK. 
          WOULD HAVE GOTTEN RENOVATE A BAR IN ORDER TO BUILD OUR SHOP. 
          AS A PERSON WITH COMPLEX MENTAL HEALTH NEEDS, I SUPPORT THIS BYLAW BECAUSE I LIVE SO CLOSE TO DOWNTOWN. 
          EVERY SUPPORT I NEED IS WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE OF MY HOME. 
          ANYONE LIVING WITH ONGOING MENTAL OR PHYSICAL HEALTH NEEDS SHOULD HAVE THE CHOICE AND THE RIGHT TO READY ACCESS TO THE SUPPORT THEY NEED REGARDLESS OF THEIR SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS. 
          I SUPPORT THIS BYLAW FOR MANY REASONS. 
          I WAS A PART OF THE FOCUS GROUPS THAT FORMED THIS DOCUMENT AS A YOUNG PERSON, HOMEOWNER ADVOCATE, BUILDER, AND FOSTER PARENT, AND FINALLY, AS A RESIDENT OF THE CITY, I FEEL HEARD WHEN I READ THIS DOCUMENT. 
          I SPENT A GREAT DEAL OF TIME MULLING OVER THE NEW BYLAW AND BY NO MEANS AM I AN EXPERT IN ITS CONTENTS. 
          BUT I LEARNED A GREAT DEAL FROM THE OPEN HOUSES AND VARIOUS FACTS SHEETS SUPPLIED OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS. 
          ALSO FROM TODAY'S HEARING, I WAS EXCITED TO SEE THE CHANGES PROPOSED AND INSPIRED BY THE OPPORTUNITIES THEY PROVIDE. 
          I'M GRATEFUL FOR THE WORTH OF THE CITY AND THEY'RE PLAYING DEPARTMENT HAVE DONE TO BRING US SUCH COMPREHENSIVE DOCUMENTS. 
          THE WORK YOU ARE DOING IS NOTABLE AND TRULY PROFESSIONAL. 
          I HOPE THAT THE COMMUNITY IN REAL LIFE CAN REFLECT ON THE FACT THAT EACH MEMBER OF YOUR TEAM WAS HIRED FOR THEIR SKILLS AND THEIR KNOWLEDGE. 
          THAT IS YOUR JOB TO PRESENT THE MOST OPTIMAL AND PROGRESSIVE SOLUTION LOOKING FORWARD. 
          [NOISE] THANK YOU ALL FOR DRAFTING THIS NEW BYLAW AND THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF IT. 
          SORRY IF I SPOKE TOO FAST. 
          [LAUGHTER] 
          >> GOD. YOU HAD 2.5 MINUTES LEFT. 
          IT DID APPEAR YOU ARE READING, SO IF YOU ARE WILLING TO SHARE YOUR SPEAKING NOTES WITH THE COUNCIL, WE CAN REVIEW THEM IN MORE DETAIL WHEN WE GET TO THE SECOND READING AND I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT IF YOU CAN SHARE WITH THE CITY CLERKS. 
          WITH THAT, I WILL OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL. COUNCIL MORGAN. 
          >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PASSIONATE REMARKS AND DEFINITELY PUT A LOT OF THOUGHT AND EFFORT INTO THIS AND THANKS FOR ALL YOUR TIME ENGAGING WITH THIS PROCESS AS IT'S GOING ON. 
          I JUST WONDERED IF YOU HAD ANY THOUGHTS OF WHETHER THERE ARE CERTAIN COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES THAT YOU FEEL DON'T BELONG IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS EITHER, RIGHT IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA OR SOME OF THE SURROUNDING AREAS RC OR RC 1. 
          DO YOU FEEL THAT THERE SHOULD BE CONDITIONS OR LIMITS ON SOME TYPES OF COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES OR DO YOU FEEL IT'S IMPORTANT TO ALLOW THE FLEXIBILITY FOR ANYTHING THAT SOMEONE MIGHT WANT TO CREATE TO HAPPEN? 
          >> MISS MCGURK. 
          >> YEAH, I'M DEFINITELY REALLY PRO FLEXIBILITY. 
          LIKE I WOULD LOVE TO LIVE ACROSS THE STREET FROM A PIZZA PLACE. THAT SOUNDS AWESOME. 
          [LAUGHTER] I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND THE FEAR AND THE ANXIETY AROUND IT WHEN I THINK ABOUT PEOPLE HARKENING BACK TO THE 50S WHEN THEY CAN JUST TAKE A WALK DOWN THE STREET AND GO GET AN ICE CREAM CONE WITH A GRANDPA. 
          THAT'S WHY WE WERE TALKING ABOUT MIXED-USE ZONING. 
          PEOPLE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BUILD COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS. 
          I DON'T THINK THAT THEY SHOULD BE SO DIVIDED AND OTHER THAN HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USE, 
          [04:25:05]
I DON'T SEE WHY WE WOULD BE DE-INCENTIVIZING THAT. 
          >> THANKS FOR YOUR COMMENTS ON THAT. 
          >> THANK YOU. I WAS INTERESTED. 
          YOU WERE MENTIONING YOUR DISSERTATION WAS ABOUT MIXED HIGHER DENSITY. 
          WAS IT HIGHER DENSITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE? JUST WONDERING IF YOU CAN ELABORATE A BIT MORE ON THAT POINT. 
          >> YEAH. WELL, IT'S LIKE A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS. 
          IF YOU LOOK AT MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING MEDIUM DENSITY HOUSING. 
          IT SOLVES A LOT OF PROBLEMS THAT THE MANY DIFFERENT PEOPLE HAVE WITH HOW WE LAYOUT OUR COMMUNITIES. 
          BUT IN TERMS OF LIKE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, IF YOU HAVE SAY, WELL, USE THAT EXAMPLE OF A SIX-PLEX YOU CAN CLAD THE EXTERIOR IS A LOT SMALLER SURFACE AREA TO CLOUD THE EXTERIOR SO YOU'RE USING LESS PETROLEUM PRODUCTS TO CLOUD THE EXTERIOR OR LESS DETAIL THE PENETRATIONS IN THE BUILDING. 
          THERE ARE REASONS WHY I GUNNER MATERIALS LEVEL THAT MAKES SENSE. 
          IT'S ALSO BECAUSE OF THE EFFICIENCY. 
          IT COSTS LESS, BUT ALSO IT'S AN ENVIRONMENTAL PLUS AS WELL. 
          BECAUSE OF THE INEFFICIENCY, THERE ARE HEALTH BENEFITS BECAUSE YOU CAN REGULATE THE AIR QUALITY MORE EFFECTIVELY. 
          ALSO, LONELINESS IS A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR TO MENTAL AND PHYSICAL HEALTH IN NORTH AMERICA. 
          HAVING PEOPLE LIVING TOGETHER IN A COMMUNITY IS ANOTHER REASON WHY THEY'RE POSITIVE. 
          I COULD JUST GO ON ABOUT IT. 
          [LAUGHTER] WHAT I MEANT BY THAT IS I COULD JUST TALK FOREVER ABOUT THIS. 
          THERE'S A LOT OF BENEFITS. [LAUGHTER] 
          >> APPRECIATE IT. WELL, THANK YOU. 
          SEEING NO FURTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL FOR THE PRESENTER, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE? ANY MEMBERS ON ZOOM? DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE. 
          THANK YOU AGAIN CAPS AND IF YOU DO WANT TO SEND TO CITYCLERK.YELLOWKNIFE.CA. THANK YOU. 
          THANKS. 
          WITH THAT, WE'VE REACHED THE END OF THE SPEAKERS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP. 
          I ONLY SEE, I THINK A FEW PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE. 
          DOES ANYBODY WANT TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE BYLAW? SEEING NONE. 
          WITH THAT, WE WILL MOVE TO QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION FROM COUNCIL. 
          I KNOW THERE WAS A LOT THAT WE'RE ASKED THROUGHOUT THE PRESENTATION, BUT IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL? I WILL START. 
          THERE WERE A FEW QUESTIONS TODAY PEOPLE BROUGHT UP THAT THEY WON'T BE OPPOSED TO A COFFEE SHOP, FOR EXAMPLE, AS A FOOD AND BEVERAGE, BUT THEN THE CONCERN THAT ONCE THAT'S PERMITTED, IT COULD TURN INTO A BAR AND THAT GOES TOO FAR. 
          I KNOW WE DID APPROVE, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN THE WOMEN'S SOCIETY WAS LOOKING FOR A SPECIAL CARE FACILITY, KITTY CORNER TO THE LIQUOR STORE, WE DID A ONE YEAR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. 
          IS IT POSSIBLE THAT WE COULD, IN THE ZONING BYLAW, CONSIDER THAT USES ARE BASED ON THE USER AND THEN IF THERE'S A FUTURE USE OR A DIFFERENT USE, THAT IT COULD BE BROUGHT BACK TO COUNCIL OR HAS A DIFFERENT PERMITTING PROCESS? JUST WONDERING IF ADMIN HAS ANY COMMENTS ON THAT, MISS SPACEY KELLER. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR. 
          I WILL ASK MISS WHITE TO RESPOND, BUT BEFORE I TURN IT OVER TO HER I WILL SAY THAT WE WANT TO TAKE SOME OF THESE THINGS UNDER ADVISEMENT AND COME BACK. 
          ONE OF THE KEY THINGS THAT THE ZONING BYLAW REALLY DOES SEEK TO FOCUS ON IS THE LAND USE AS OPPOSED TO USERS THEMSELVES. 
          CERTAINLY THAT'S BEEN A VERY DOMINANT THING WHEN IT COMES TO HOW WE WOULD APPROACH SPECIAL CARE FACILITIES. 
          I WILL ASK MISS WHITE IF SHE'D LIKE TO MAKE ANY PRELIMINARY COMMENTS, BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO RESERVE THE RIGHT TO COME BACK WITH A VERY THOUGHTFUL AND WELL THOUGHT OUT ANSWER. MISS WHITE. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YES, WE'RE HAPPY TO BRING THAT BACK SHOULD COUNCIL REQUEST A SUMMATION OF THE EVENTS TODAY. 
          WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT IS, WE HAVE TRIED TO ALREADY ADDRESS THIS IN THE CURRENT BYLAWS. 
          [04:30:03]
WE HAVE CONDITIONS WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CHANGE OF USE FOR A CHANGE OF INTENSITY. 
          IF A USE OF A PROPERTY STARTS OUT, AND I'M JUST GOING TO USE RANDOM EXAMPLES HERE, BUT TO TRY TO SHOW THAT CHANGE IN SCALE AS WE MOVE FORWARD. 
          A SMALL COMMERCIAL, WHETHER WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A COFFEE SHOP, WE CAN START THERE AND WHAT DOES THE INTENSITY OF THAT USE LOOK LIKE? A COUPLE OF PATRONS, MAYBE IT'S IN THE FRONT ROOM OF A CONVERTED HOME ON THE MAIN FLOOR AND MAYBE THE NEXT PERSON PURCHASES THE PROPERTY AND THEIR NEXT USE DOESN'T FUNCTIONALLY CHANGE THE INTERIOR OF THE HOME. 
          MAYBE IT'S A SMALL HAIR SALON WITH ONE CHAIR [NOISE] IN THE FRONT ROOM AGAIN OF THAT SAME STRUCTURE. 
          THEN THE NEXT PERSON COMES IN AND STILL MAYBE UNDER THE SIMILAR USE OF A FOOD SERVICE, BUT IT'S A RESTAURANT REQUIRING A COMMERCIAL KITCHEN TO BE INSTALLED IN THE BACK WHERE BUILDING PERMIT IS NOW GOING TO BE REQUIRED. 
          WE'RE NOW INCREASING THE INTENSITY BECAUSE FROM ONE OR TWO TABLES, WE'VE NOW GOT 6-10 TABLES WHICH CAN HOLD UP TO 30 PEOPLE. 
          WHEN WE LOOK AT THAT CHANGE USE AND CHANGE OF INTENSITY, THAT'S WHEN IT WOULD NOT JUST TRIGGER THAT BUILDING PLAN, BUT THAT PLANNING PROCESS TO SEE WHAT ARE THOSE IMPACTS. 
          WE'VE TRIED TO BUILD THAT ACTUALLY INTO THE DRAFT THAT IS BEFORE COUNCIL TODAY. 
          BUT WE DEFINITELY WOULD APPRECIATE THE TIME TO MAYBE ELABORATE ON WHAT I'VE SAID TODAY TO PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION. 
          YEAH, FOR SURE AND I APPRECIATE THAT PENDING COUNCIL'S MOTION, YOU'LL DO A SUMMATION AND MAKE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS THERE. 
          JUST GOING BACK TO MR. REPTASH'S POINT, THESE ARE LOTS AND CAN WE SPOT ZONE THEM AS OPPOSED TO DOING AREA DEVELOPMENT PLANS, WHICH WHEN I THINK OF AN AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN BYLAW, IT'S TALKING ABOUT MULTIPLE LOTS AND THEREFORE NEEDS TO HAVE LOT LINES AND NEEDS TO HAVE BUFFER ZONES AND NEEDS TO HAVE DRAINAGE, BUT IF WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT LOT NUMBER 1 THERE, LOT NUMBER 2 THERE, LOT NUMBER 3 THERE, COULD WE NOT SPOT ZONE THOSE TO BE AS HE MENTIONED, KIND OF AN EQUIVALENT TO A CAMP LIKE ZONE, MISS SPACEY KELLER? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR. 
          I WILL ASK MISS WHITE TO RESPOND TO THIS, BUT I KNOW THERE CAN BE SOME COMPLEXITY WITH SPOT ZONING BEFORE WE HAVE AN OVERALL BIG PICTURE PLAN. 
          I THINK ABOUT THE DISCUSSIONS WE'VE HAD AROUND CAMP LIKE ZONE, HOW THERE ARE DIFFERENT USES INCLUDING QUARRIES, DOGS, TOURISM, RECREATION. 
          THINKING ABOUT SPOT ZONING THERE AND HOW THESE WOULD ALL ULTIMATELY ALL FIT TOGETHER IS SOMETHING THAT WE DO NEED TO WRAP OUR HEADS AROUND AND WHAT'S GOING TO MAKE GOOD STRATEGIC SENSE. 
          I WILL ASK MISS WHITE, SHE IS OUR KNOWLEDGE HOLDER TO SPEAK AUTHENTICALLY TO THIS. THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THERE ARE A DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND THE PURPOSE ARE OUTLINED IN THE COMMUNITY PLAN SO WE WOULD OBVIOUSLY START THERE. 
          SPOT ZONING WOULD POTENTIALLY BE WHERE THE PROPERTY EXISTS. 
          IT WOULDN'T BE FOR AN AREA WHERE NO SUBDIVISION HAS BEEN LAID DOWN, NO ROADS, NO INFRASTRUCTURE, LIKE WHAT YOU DESCRIBE AS GREENFIELD, WE WOULD NEVER RECOMMEND SPOT ZONING IN THAT SORT OF A SITUATION, BUT IN AN EXISTING LOT FABRIC, DEPENDING ON WHAT THAT CHANGE OF USE IS, IT MAY BE APPROPRIATE, BUT WOULD BE DETERMINED ON A SITE BY SITE BASIS, AND ALSO WOULD BE SOMETHING TO CONSIDER, IS THE INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLACE AT THE TIME? IT'S NOT A BLANKET YES, NOT A BLANKET NO, BUT IT DEFINITELY HAPPY TO BRING MORE IN-DEPTH RESPONSE BACK. 
          THANK YOU. APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE I'M NOT LOOKING FOR A FULL BLANKET. 
          RAW LAND IS NOW GOING TO BE CAMP LIKE ZONE, BUT THEY DO HAVE, I BELIEVE, SURVEYED LOTS. 
          SO WHETHER WE CAN MAKE THOSE FIVE SURVEYED LOTS A CERTAIN ZONE. 
          LOOK FORWARD TO FURTHER INFORMATION ON THAT, BUT RECOGNIZE THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE TODAY. 
          THAT CAN BE PART OF THE SUMMATION. 
          ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? COUNCILOR MORRIS? THANK YOU. SORRY, I FORGOT. 
          I DID HAVE ONE THAT I WANTED TO POSE TO ADMINISTRATION NOW RATHER THAN LATER. 
          IT WAS SIMILAR TO THE QUESTION I ASKED THROUGH THE CHAMBER. 
          RESIDENTS RAISED THE CONCERN TO ME THAT IF WE EXPAND THE ABILITY OF COMMERCIAL USES THROUGHOUT THE CITY, THAT THAT IN THEIR WORDS, WOULD BE THE FINAL NAIL IN THE COFFIN OF THE DOWNTOWN. 
          I DON'T PERSONALLY THINK OF THE DOWNTOWN AS A COFFIN. 
          I ACTUALLY REALLY LIKE THE DOWNTOWN AND ALWAYS TAKE ISSUE WITH PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT IT, LIKE IT'S SO TERRIBLE WAY. 
          I HAVE ALWAYS ENJOYED WORKING THERE AND VISITING THERE, AND I THINK IT'S BUSTLING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DAY. 
          BUT THAT ASIDE, I DO AND I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM OUR EXPERTS ON THIS 
          [04:35:07]
ON THE POSSIBILITY THAT EXPANDING THE AREA THAT COMMERCIAL USES CAN GO ON AND IT'LL DISINCENTIVIZE DEVELOPMENT DOWNTOWN. 
          TO HONE THAT QUESTION A LITTLE BIT MORE BASED ON WHAT WE HEARD BACK FROM THE CHAMBER, IT SOUNDS LIKE WHAT'S NEEDED SIMILAR TO MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING IS MISSING MIDDLE COMMERCIAL, LIKE THE SMALL COMMERCIAL USES STARTUP, THE ABILITY FOR PEOPLE TO GET A FOOT UP OR A LEG UP AND THEN MOVE A BUSINESS AS IT GETS BIGGER INTO THE DOWNTOWN WHERE IT WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE. 
          I CAN HEAR FROM RESIDENTS. 
          I AM OCCUPYING A BIT OF A MIDDLE GROUND ON THIS ONE. 
          I PERSONALLY VERY MUCH RESONATE WITH SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WERE SHARED BY PEOPLE IN FAVOR OF THE BYLAWS SAYING THAT, LIKE GENERALLY SPEAKING, I THINK HAVING MOST BUSINESSES THAT I CAN THINK OF NEARBY WHERE I LIVE IS ACTUALLY A REALLY POSITIVE THING AND CREATES HAPPIER, BETTER NEIGHBORHOODS, ONES THAT I'D RATHER LIVE IN THAN BEING OUT IN THE STICKS WHERE ALL THERE IS HOUSING AND YOU HAVE TO GET IN THE CAR AND DRIVE LONG DISTANCES TO GET TO A SERVICE. 
          I MUCH PREFER WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOODS MYSELF. 
          TO GET BACK TO THE QUESTION, I AM INTERESTED IN THAT BECAUSE DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION HAS BEEN A BIG CHALLENGE FOR NUMEROUS COUNCILS OVER TIME IN YELLOWKNIFE AND I WOULD BE CONCERNED IF THIS BYLAW IS CREATING A SITUATION WHERE WE ARE PUTTING ANOTHER NAIL ON THE PROVERBIAL COFFIN OF DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION. 
          BUT I AM CURIOUS TO HEAR FROM OUR EXPERTISE, HOW WE CAN MITIGATE THAT OR WHETHER THAT IS BEING MITIGATED IN THE BYLAW AND HOW WE CAN CREATE THAT MISSING MIDDLE THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR WITHOUT DISINCENTIVIZING DEVELOPMENT IN THE DOWNTOWN. 
          MISS SPACEY KELLER? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WILL TURN THIS TO MISS WHITE, BUT BEFORE I DO, I WANT TO SPEAK TO SOME OF THE BROADER THINGS THAT THE CITY IS UNDERTAKING TO SUPPORT WHAT COUNCILOR MORRIS HAS LAID OUT HERE. 
          WE ARE SUPER MINDFUL THAT DOWNTOWN IS A REALLY IMPORTANT AND VIBRANT PART OF OUR COMMUNITY AND WE HAVE EMPHASIZED FOR QUITE SOME TIME THROUGH A NUMBER OF INITIATIVES THAT PUTTING OUR MONEY WHERE OUR MOUTH IS INTO THE DOWNTOWN CORE IS A REALLY IMPORTANT PART OF SUPPORTING WHAT CAN BE A VERY DIVERSIFIED USE IN THE DOWNTOWN. 
          FOR EXAMPLE, WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF ENSURING THAT WE HAVE A REALLY VIBRANT VISITOR INFORMATION CENTER. 
          WHEN TOURISM COMES BACK, WE WANT TO BE READY AND PREPARED. 
          WE HAVE NEGOTIATED A DEAL WITH THE OWNERS OF THE CENTRE SQUARE MALL SO THAT WE CAN TAKE A COUPLE OF BOXES. 
          WITH AN INITIATIVE LIKE THAT WE CAN BE A POSITIVE FORCE WITHIN THAT MALL THAT HAS BEEN QUITE STAGNANT FOR SOME TIME. 
          WE CAN BE THE ANCHOR TENANT. 
          THAT IS ACTUALLY BY HAVING THAT SPACE OCCUPIED BY OURSELVES THAT ARE GOING TO BE DRAWING IN LOTS AND LOTS OF FOOT TRAFFIC INTO THAT SPACE. 
          WE WILL BE ATTRACTING OTHER BUSINESSES TO CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A VIABILITY FOR THEM TO CONSIDER SPACE IN THAT ADJACENT AREA AS WELL, AND WE'RE ALSO LOOKING TO MAKE THAT SOMETHING THAT'S REALLY RELEVANT FOR YELLOWKNIFERS BY HAVING NON-COMMERCIAL GALLERY SPACE IN THAT SPACE AS WELL. 
          DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION CAN TAKE MANY FORMS. OBVIOUSLY, THE ZONING BYLAW IS A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF THIS. 
          BUT HAVING THINGS LIKE THAT, HAVING THINGS LIKE PUSHING HARD WITH THE GOVERNOR OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES AS THEY CONSIDER THE AURORA COLLEGE CAMPUS EXPANSION AND POTENTIAL FOR A POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY. 
          WE'VE BEEN VERY AGGRESSIVE AND VERY FIRM FROM CITY ADMINISTRATION AND COUNCILORS HAVE AS WELL THAT THAT NEEDS TO BE IN THE DOWNTOWN. 
          THERE ARE MANY THINGS THAT WE WILL DO ON A LARGE SCALE THAT WE WILL PUSH FOR THAT AND CONTINUE TO PUSH FOR THAT. 
          THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE'VE HEARD TODAY AROUND THE VIABILITY OF SOME OF THAT AS WHAT IS NOW BEEN INTERESTINGLY COINED AS THE MISSING MIDDLE FOR COMMERCIAL, DOES MAKE A REALLY GOOD VIABLE ARGUMENT FOR SOME OF THE AREAS THAT WILL ENABLE THE STEPPING STONE FROM HOME-BASED BUSINESS TO SOMETHING THAT'S IN THE COMMERCIAL DOWNTOWN AREA. 
          BUT I WILL ASK MISS WHITE IF SHE COULD SPEAK TO THE ZONING BYLAW AND HOW WE WILL SUPPORT THAT. 
          >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH I WILL. 
          IT IS JUST ONE PIECE OF THAT LARGER OVERALL INFRASTRUCTURE THAT THE MUNICIPALITY AND THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY NEED IN PLACE TO FACILITATE NEW DEVELOPMENT. 
          WE'RE COMING UP TO HOPEFULLY A POINT WHERE WE'RE GOING TO SEE SOME OF THOSE TAKE-OFF WITH THE NEW ZONING BYLAW IN PLACE. 
          HOPEFULLY, WE'LL SEE THE TRANSITION OF SOME OF THOSE LOTS THAT ARE JUST SITTING EMPTY DOWNTOWN, I MEAN THEY GOT SEWER AND WATER RIGHT TO THE DOORSTEP. 
          THEY'RE READY TO BE DEVELOPED FOR THOSE WHO ARE AT THAT POINT IN THEIR BUSINESS CYCLE TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD THAT. 
          BUT HOW DOES THE PERSON GET OUT OF THEIR SMALL BUSINESS IN THEIR OFFICE AND ABOVE THE GARAGE OR IN THEIR GARAGE? TO THAT POINT, THEY NEED A LITTLE BIT BIGGER SPACE. 
          [04:40:01]
THEY NEED SOME SUPPORT. 
          IN SOME CASES THEY EVEN NEED THE SHARING OF SPACE IN ORDER TO DO THAT. 
          IT'S REALLY TRYING TO CREATE AN ECONOMY OF SCALE AND AN OPPORTUNITY NEAR THE MARKET. 
          WHERE THEY MAYBE LIVE IN THE SAME SPOT, MAYBE THEY DON'T. 
          BUT JUST PROVIDING THAT OPPORTUNITY AND THE MUNICIPALITY HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO A POINT. 
          THEN IT'S WHEN BUSINESS AND THE ECONOMY STEPS IN AND TAKES OVER FROM THERE TO MAKE IT AN ACTUAL VIABLE BUSINESS. 
          FIRST STEP IS PUTTING THE ZONING BY LAW IN PLACE. 
          THEN AS THE CITY MANAGER SAYING, ALL THESE OTHER PIECES WE CAN DO TO SUPPORT, THE JWT HAS THEIR PART TO PLAY, THE BUSINESS OWNER HAS THEIR PART TO PLAY, AND IT HOPEFULLY WILL ALL COME TOGETHER AND WE'LL SEE THAT THROUGH TIME. 
          I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT CREATING A TRANSITION, WHETHER YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT A CONCENTRIC RING MODEL OR THERE'S MANY MODELS WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE DOWNTOWNS OF COMMUNITIES AND CITIES ACROSS NORTH AMERICA. 
          I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS SMALL AREA, WHETHER IT'S RC RC1, IS GOING TO EITHER DRAW MORE BUSINESS OUT OF THE DOWNTOWN, CREATING A GREATER VOID. 
          I THINK IT'S REALLY THAT STEPPING STONE AND SUPPORT TO PUSH BUSINESS INTO THE DOWNTOWN AND THAT SURROUNDING AREA. 
          >> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS [INAUDIBLE] [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> YEAH, I KNOW IT'S ALWAYS HARD DOING THIS AT THESE TIMES BECAUSE SOMETIMES THESE ANSWERS, IT TAKES SOME TIME TO THINK ABOUT THEM AND EVERYTHING AND IT'S HARD TO DO IT ALL ON THE FLY. 
          THE OTHER POINT THAT I THOUGHT WAS BROUGHT UP THAT WAS REALLY RELEVANT AND INTERESTING TO ME IS HOW WE CAN BETTER INCENTIVIZE DEVELOPMENT IN THE DOWNTOWN GENERALLY. 
          I'D BE INTERESTED TO HEAR FROM THE ADMINISTRATION DOESN'T HAVE TO BE NOW. IT COULD BE LATER AS WELL. 
          OTHER THAN I'M POSING THESE QUESTIONS NOW TO GIVE THEM A CHANCE TO THINK ABOUT THIS AND COME BACK WITH MORE DETAILED ANSWERS THAT THEY NEED TO. 
          BUT I AM CURIOUS ABOUT WHAT MORE WE CAN DO, AND TO HEAR ABOUT HOW THE ZONING BY-LAW IS INCENTIVIZING BUSINESSES TO MOVE INTO THE DOWNTOWN. 
          BECAUSE GENERALLY WHAT I HEAR FROM PEOPLE. 
          MS. MCGURK BROUGHT UP THE FACT THAT THE ORGANIZATION SHE STARTED, WHICH OF COURSE I WORKED FOR WHEN I'M WEARING MY OTHER HAT, DID HAVE A LOT OF DIFFICULTY FINDING A SPACE DOWNTOWN. 
          THE POINT THAT THERE'S LOTS OF OPEN AREAS FOR DEVELOPMENT AND THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          IT IS QUITE HARD TO FIND COMMERCIAL SPACE IN THE DOWNTOWN. 
          WHAT CAN WE DO TO INCENTIVIZE THAT BETTER? IS THERE ANYTHING THAT'S NOT IN THE ZONING BYLAW THAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER OR WHAT ARE THE THINGS IN THE ZONING BYLAW THAT ARE GOING TO CHANGE THE SITUATION THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY IN. 
          WHERE IT SEEMS TO BE THAT PEOPLE DON'T MOVE INTO THE DOWNTOWN A LOT OF THE TIME BECAUSE IT'S QUITE EXPENSIVE. 
          I'VE HEARD DIFFERENT THINGS. 
          I TALKED TO A BUSINESS OWNER A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, WHO FELT THAT MOST OF THEIR SUCCESS CAME FROM THEIR DOWNTOWN LOCATION. 
          EVEN THOUGH THERE IS A NARRATIVE THAT IS HARD TO DO BUSINESS IN DOWNTOWN, SOMETIMES I THINK SOME BUSINESS OWNERS ARE FINDING THE MODEL WORKING REALLY WELL. 
          I'M CURIOUS WHAT WE'VE DONE. 
          THAT WE'LL BETTER INCENTIVIZE DEVELOPMENT. 
          IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT AT THIS LATE HOUR, LIKE IS THERE SOMETHING MORE THAT WE COULD DO TO GET PEOPLE MOVING INTO THE DOWNTOWN AND OPENING BUSINESSES THERE AND WORKING THERE. 
          >> THE NEXT PILOT, ONCE WE APPROVE THE ZONING BY-LAW, IS THAT DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE BY LAW. 
          I THINK THERE'S PROBABLY SOME GREAT THINGS WE CAN DO THERE. BUT [INAUDIBLE] 
          >> TOTALLY AGREE WITH THAT COMMON. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH YOUR WORSHIP. 
          I GUESS I WOULD ALSO SAY THERE ARE SOME THINGS TO INCLUDE IN THE ZONING BY-LAW, LIKE THE OPEN CONCEPT PARKING, WHICH IS A RADICAL CHANGE FROM WHAT WE'VE DONE BEFORE. 
          WE'RE REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THAT. 
          WE DON'T NEED TO HAVE ACRES OF PARKING IN THE DOWNTOWN THAT ACCOMMODATE. 
          WE'VE ALL WALKED THROUGH, WE'VE ALL WALKED BY, AND SEEING THAT THEY'RE OFTEN MAYBE 50 PERCENT OCCUPIED. 
          CHANGING AND PROVIDING MORE FLEXIBILITY AND OPTIONS AROUND HOW PARKING IS USED IS GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT I THINK WILL MAKE A VERY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA. 
          I WILL ASK MS. WHITE IF SHE IS FOR THE COMMENTS, YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE. 
          >> ONLY ONE SMALL ADDITIONAL COMMENT IS THE CONTINUED PROMOTION AND SUPPORT FOR ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION. 
          THAT WILL ALSO SUPPORT YOUR DOWNTOWN. 
          WHETHER THAT'S INCREASING AND IMPROVING TRANSIT TRAILS, OTHER MODES OF TRANSPORTATION THAT WILL ALL SUPPORT THAT LIVE-WORK RELATIONSHIP. 
          >> THANKS THAT'S IT FOR ME. 
          >> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FROM COUNCILOR CONGO? 
          >> THANK YOU. THERE'S JUST AN INTERESTING ONE THAT MR. RAKESH PRODUCT PROMOTE. 
          HAVING THE ABILITY TO SAY THAT THERE IS NO SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH CERTAIN AREAS OF 
          [04:45:02]
THE CITY AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT WOULD OPEN EVEN HAVING THAT, WHETHER OR NOT THAT WOULD OPEN UP THE OPPORTUNITY FOR WORK CAMPS. 
          MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE REASON WE DON'T ALLOW ANY TYPE OF RESIDENTIAL OR OVERNIGHT STAY OUT IN THE ANGLE IS A PROXIMITY TO THE HUGE BULK FUEL STORAGE OUT THERE AND THE POTENTIAL CATASTROPHIC EVENT THAT COULD HAPPEN. 
          BUT IT IS AN INTERESTING ONE BECAUSE HE DOESN'T BRING UP SOME VERY VALID POINTS ABOUT THE PROJECTS THAT ARE COMING ONLINE IN YELLOWKNIFE FROM THE NEXT 6-24 MONTHS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          WE ARE GOING TO NEED WORKERS, AND HOW DO WE ACCOMMODATE THAT, WHETHER OR NOT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT IN THIS NEW ZONING BY LAW. 
          I'M HOPING THAT PERHAPS ADMINISTRATION COULD GIVE US SOME OPTIONS ON NOT AS WELL. 
          >> MS. [INAUDIBLE] KELLER. 
          >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          WE ABSOLUTELY WILL TAKE A LOOK AT THIS. 
          THERE WERE SOME INTERESTING POINTS RAISED. 
          WE HAVE AS AN ADMINISTRATION TAKEN A FAIRLY STRONG POSITION IN THE PAST AROUND NOT ENCOURAGING WORK CAMPS, BUT WANTING INSTEAD THAT THERE'LL BE MORE EMPHASIS ON PEOPLE WHO ARE INTEGRATED AND BECOME PART OF THE COMMUNITY. 
          WE'VE DONE THAT WITH A GIANT MINE PROJECT. 
          WE'VE DONE IT WITH SOME OTHER PROJECTS AS WELL. 
          WE'LL WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS IF THERE IS A VERY SIGNIFICANT AND SHORT-LIVED SPIKE THAT'S ANTICIPATED, THAT DOES GIVE US REASON TO WANT TO THINK ABOUT OPTIONS. 
          THE WORK CAMPS TYPICALLY HAVE A LOT OF ISSUES RELATED WITH THEM. 
          WE'LL WANT TO LOOK AT THIS IN A LOT MORE DETAIL. 
          THERE WERE SOME VERY COMPELLING POINTS MADE, BUT WE HAVE HAD SOME VERY COMPELLING POINTS MADE ABOUT NOT HAVING WORK CAMPS AS WELL. 
          LOTS TO THINK ABOUT ON THAT ONE AND WE WILL BE LOOKING AT THE BROADER CONTEXT AROUND THAT. THANK YOU. 
          >> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL? COUNCIL MORGAN? 
          >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I WONDER IF ADMINISTRATION COULD GIVE ANY THOUGHTS NOW, ON WHY THE HIGH-RISE RESIDENTIAL AS OPPOSED TO MEDIUM RISE WHITE, HIGH-RISE IS PERMITTED AS OPPOSED TO DISCRETIONARY. 
          IF IT'S IN CERTAIN ZONES OBVIOUSLY NOT IN EVERY ZONE. 
          IF IT'S FELT THAT THERE ARE COMPELLING REASONS WHY WE NEED FLEXIBILITY TO ALLOW HIGH-RISES SAY ANYWHERE, THAT DEVELOPERS MIGHT FEEL THEIR APPROPRIATE IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA, OR WHETHER THERE MIGHT BE CONSIDERATION TO MAKING IT DISCRETIONARY GIVEN THAT EXCEPTIONALLY HIGH IMPACTS OF 45 METER HIGH-RISE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING. 
          >> MISS. [INAUDIBLE], I'LL ASK MISS WHITE TO RESPOND THANK YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE QUESTION. 
          AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF WAS NOT TO HAVE HIGH RISES UP 45 METERS PERMITTED EVERYWHERE. 
          THERE ARE SPECIFIC IF YOU LOOK AT THE OCTOBER 25TH ZONING, THERE ARE SOME LIMITATIONS TO WHERE THOSE ARE TO BE LOCATED, AS WELL I WILL DEFINITELY SEE IF ROBERT MARGARET WANT TO SPEAK TO IT, BUT IT'S NOT ABOUT 15 METERS VERSUS 45 METERS BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE USE OF WHAT IS IN THE BUILDING, NOT NECESSARILY JUST THE STRUCTURE AS WELL. 
          BUT LOOKING THEN AND COMBINING IT WITH THAT TRANSITION AND TRYING TO SEE HOW THAT WORKS THROUGH THE WHOLE OF THE COMMUNITY FROM THE OUTER RIM OF YOUR DOWNTOWN INTO THE DOWNTOWN CORE. 
          IF WE GO BACK TO THAT RC ONE RECOMMENDATION FROM OCTOBER 25TH, I BELIEVE IT WAS YOU'LL SEE THAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THE CURRENT FIRST READING BY LAW IS. ROBERT MARGARET. 
          >> SORRY, BUT SPECIFICALLY IN TERMS IF WE JUST LOOK AT THE DOWNTOWN ZONE, IT'S CURRENTLY PERMITTED ANYWHERE IN THE DOWNTIME. 
          JUST WONDERED IF YOU HAD ANY MORE THOUGHTS ON THE WISDOM OF MAKING IT PERMITTED ANYWHERE IN THE DOWNTOWN ZONE OR IF IT SHOULD BE, SAY, DISCRETIONARY IN THE DOWNTOWN ZONE, GIVEN THAT THEY HAVE HIGH IMPACTS IN IT ANYWHERE, REALLY THAT IT KNEW 45 METER HIGH RISE BUILDING MIGHT HAVE SOME SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND CONCERNS THAT MIGHT NEED TO BE CONSIDERED AND DISCUSSED WITH NEIGHBORS OR. 
          [04:50:05]
          >> MISS WHITE. 
          >> SO FOR THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFICALLY, THAT IS DEFINITELY AN APPROPRIATE AREA, THERE'S PROPER SERVICING, PROPER INFRASTRUCTURE, AND SIMILAR LIKE USES, WHETHER THEY'RE ADJACENT HIGH-RISE RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL OFFICE SPACE, THOSE ARE TRADITIONALLY COMPATIBLE USES. 
          I DON'T SEE ANY REASON OUR LIMIT AS TO WHY THEY WOULD OR WOULDN'T BE IN THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC. 
          BUT I WILL AGAIN TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ROBERT MARGARET TO ADD TO THAT. 
          >> TWO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS I WANTED BRING TO THE TABLE WAS, THERE'S A HEIGHT RESTRICTION OF 45 METERS, BUT YOU'LL ALSO NOTICE AT THE SAME TIME, THERE'S A HEIGHT RESTRICTION OF 36 METERS AND IT'S VERY MUCH INFLUENCED BY THE AIRPORT. 
          WE NEED TO REMEMBER THAT A FLIGHT PATH GOES RIGHT OVER THE DOWNTOWN AREA AND ANY SORT OF HIGHER RISE BUILDING THAT NEEDS TO BE BUILT, WHERE IS PROPOSED TO BE BUILT, NEEDS TO BE VETTED BY THE AIRPORT TO MAKE SURE IT DOESN'T INFLUENCE THE FLIGHT PATH. 
          IT'S VERY MUCH DEPENDENT ON THE DEMOGRAPHY OF THE SPECIFIC LOT IN QUESTION. 
          IF THE ELEVATION OF THAT PROPERTY IS HIGHER THAN SOMEWHERE ELSE IN THE DOWNTOWN, OF COURSE, THAT WILL INFLUENCE THAT TOTAL HEIGHT AVAILABILITY BECAUSE AGAIN OF THE FLIGHT PATH. 
          THE SECOND THING I WANTED TO RAISE WAS WHEN WE START TO TALK ABOUT A HIGH RISE BUILDING, FOR HOWEVER MUCH YOU GO UP AT THE SAME TIME, YOU ALSO GO OUT THAT MUCH. 
          THE BASE OF THE BUILDING MIGHT NOT EXPAND THAT MUCH, BUT THE OTHER USES ON THE PROPERTY ALSO GO UP. 
          YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO SEE A HIGH RISE BUILDING GO UP WHERE THERE'S GOING TO BE ZERO PARKING, IT'S NOT GOING TO WORK. 
          THE DEVELOPER THAT HIGH RISE KNOWS THEY NEED SOME PARKING. 
          WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A BUILDING LIKE THE WATERMARK AND YOU THINK ABOUT HOW MUCH LAND THAT OCCUPIES, THEY NEED THAT MUCH LAND IN ORDER TO BUILD A BUILDING THAT TALL. 
          IT'S INCREDIBLY HARD TO ASSEMBLE THAT LAND IN THE PROXIMITY OF THE DOWNTOWN, WHETHER IN THE DOWNTOWN OR IN THE RC, IT'S INCREDIBLY HARD. 
          WHEN WE TALK ABOUT RESTRICTING IT TO A FEW SPOTS, THAT MAY NOT BE THE REALITY. 
          THE REALITY MAY BE, IT'S WHERE A DEVELOPER, IS FINALLY ABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY ASSEMBLE ENOUGH LAND THAT A HIGH RISE TOWER BECOMES A POSSIBILITY. 
          >> COUNSEL WILLIAMS. 
          >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I JUST WANTED TO QUICKLY JUST TOUCH BACK ON THE CONVERSATION ABOUT WORK CAMPS. 
          I THOUGHT THAT ONE OF THE POINTS THAT WAS PARTICULARLY COMPELLING BECAUSE I DEFINITELY RECOGNIZE THE RESPONSE THAT MISS BETSY CALLARD HAD PROVIDED AND REMEMBER THAT DISCUSSION VIVIDLY. 
          BUT IN THE NEW COVID-19 CONTACTS, THAT IS WHERE I FEEL THAT THERE'S A COMPELLING ARGUMENT FOR THEM TO REASSESS WHAT THE NEED FOR A CAMPS. 
          I THINK AT THE TIME THERE WAS A MUCH OF A PUSH TO HAVE IT BE A SOCIAL ECONOMIC IMPACT FOR YELLOWKNIFE. 
          I THINK THAT IN 2021 IT'S CERTAINLY A DIFFERENT WORLD, ESPECIALLY WE HAVE A LARGE AMOUNT OF WORKERS COMING UP FROM THE SOUTH. 
          CERTAINLY HOPING THAT WHEN ADMINISTRATIONS SUPPLIES THAT RESPONSE THAT THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A LENS OF THE COVID-19 CONTEXT IN THERE AS WELL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH MADAM CHAIR. 
          >> THANK YOU. I DIDN'T HEAR A QUESTION IN THAT, SO WERE YOU LOOKING FOR A RESPONSE JUST TO A POINT? 
          >> IT WAS AN ADDITION TO THE LAST CLIENT [OVERLAPPING] IT WAS ABOUT THE WORK CAMPS AND THAT ADMINISTRATION SAID THEY WERE GOING TO SUPPLY A RESPONSE FOR A CRESCENDO ON THAT. 
          I JUST WANTED TO ADD TO IT THAT THEY WOULDN'T FORGET THE CONTEXT THAT MR. [INAUDIBLE] BROUGHT UP, WHICH WAS THE COVID-19 CONTEXT. 
          >> GOTCHA. YEAH. UNDER ADVISEMENT SAID NO RESPONSE RIGHT NOW FROM ADMIN. 
          SEEING NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, WE DO HAVE ABOUT A HALF HOUR TO 45 MINUTES AND WE'VE NOW REACHED BEYOND OUR 90 MINUTE MARK. 
          LET'S TAKE ANOTHER QUICK 10 MINUTES AND BE BACK AT 3:50 PM. WE WILL RECONVENE, AND COUNCILOR MUFANDAEDZA, YOU HAVE A QUESTION? 
          >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR WORSHIP. 
          I JUST HAD A QUESTION WITH REGARDS TO KAM LAKE, WE DID HEAR FROM A PRESENTER THAT WAS PUTTING IN A REQUEST FOR THINGS LIKE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL TO BE REMOVED FROM A, DISCRETIONARY USE. 
          MY QUESTION TO ADMINISTRATION IS IF THINGS LIKE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL WERE TO BE REMOVED FROM DISCRETIONARY USE IN KAM LAKE, WHAT WOULD THIS MEAN TO EXISTING BUSINESSES AND ANY POTENTIAL EXPANSION THEY MIGHT BE LOOKING AT? THANK YOU. 
          >> MISS BESSIE KELLER. 
          >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT IS PART OF 
          [04:55:02]
THE REASON WE REALLY WANT TO TAKE THIS QUESTION BACK, AND WEIGH OUT WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS WOULD BE, PARTICULARLY IF THERE'S GRAND FURTHERING INVOLVED IF THERE'S IMPLICATIONS FOR EXPANSION, NOT FOR EXISTING, NOT JUST NEW. 
          WE WILL TAKE THAT AWAY. 
          I WILL ASK MS. WHITE IF SHE HAS ANY PRELIMINARY THOUGHTS BEFORE WE COME BACK WITH A FULL ANALYSIS ON THAT QUESTION. THANK YOU. 
          >> YES. THANK YOU. WE APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE A GREATER ANALYSIS THAN WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY RIGHT NOW. 
          BUT IF SOMETHING IS LEGALLY PERMITTED UNDER A PREVIOUS BYLAW, THAT HAS THE RIGHT PERMITS AND HAS CONFORMITY WITH THE RULES AND REGULATIONS AT THE TIME THAT IT WAS ESTABLISHED, THEN THEORETICALLY IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE GOING FORWARD. 
          BUT THAT WOULD STOP ANYONE WHO MAYBE HAD PLANS TO INITIATE SOMETHING, OR MAYBE HAS AN EXISTING USE, AND WANTS TO EXPAND ON THAT. 
          WE'D LIKE TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER BECAUSE IT'S NOT A SIMPLE YES OR NO, EVERYBODY'S GOOD OR THEY'RE NOT, ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. 
          >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, COUNCILOR MORGAN? 
          >> THANKS. THERE WAS MENTION, ACTUALLY THINK IT WAS THE MAYOR THAT MENTIONED THE RETAIL STUDY THAT HELPED ELIMINATE THIS MISMATCH BETWEEN THE DEMAND FOR SPACE FROM NEW BUSINESSES OR EXISTING BUSINESSES, AND THEN THE EXISTING SUPPLY. 
          CAN YOU REMIT, IS THIS A STUDY THAT ALREADY EXISTS THAT IS AVAILABLE FOR US TO SEE OR IT'S IN THE WORKS? I'M JUST WONDERING IF WE COULD GET A COPY OF THAT OR EVEN A WORKING COPY IF THAT'S POSSIBLE. 
          >> THAT WAS THE DOWNTOWN RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY. 
          I CAN'T REMEMBER WHICH YEAR, BUT I CAN SHARE IT. 
          MISS BESSIE KELLER, DO YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE AT THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD? 
          >> THANKS. IT'S ON OUR WEBSITE. 
          I BELIEVE IT WAS 2018. THANK YOU. 
          >> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL? COUNCILOR WILLIAMS? 
          >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, I THINK THIS WAS COVERED IN THE DISCUSSION WITH TOM HALL, BUT I WOULD JUST BE CURIOUS FOR ADMINISTRATION POSSIBLY TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE AS FAR AS LIVESTOCK OR HAVING SOME OPTIONS FOR LIVESTOCK AS FAR AS THE DEFINITION GOES ON, THE ZONING BY LAW. 
          I'M JUST TRYING TO LOOK AT MY NOTES [LAUGHTER] ON IT. 
          IT WAS SAYING LIVESTOCK VERSUS NO LIVESTOCK DEFINITION NEEDS TO BE CLEANED UP. 
          I'M JUST CURIOUS, MADAM MAYOR OR MADAM CHAIR, I WOULDN'T WANT TO HALT THE CONVERSATION WHEN IT COMES TO, SECOND READING OF THIS. 
          BUT I THINK THAT THAT DEFINITION THERE SHOULD BE SOME DISCUSSION AROUND THAT OR SOME PROPOSAL OF ALTERNATE DEFINITIONS PROPOSED TO COUNCIL. 
          >> FOR SURE. PENDING THE MOTION THAT WE DISCUSS AT THE END OF THIS MEETING. 
          BUT I IMAGINE FOLKS WILL BE RECOMMENDING THAT WE DO A SUMMATION WITH POTENTIAL WAYS THAT ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED TODAY BECAUSE HE ADDRESSED FROM. 
          IF FOLKS LOOK, THE COMMUNITY PLAN, THE SUMMATION THAT ADMINISTRATION DID FOR US, HAS A NICE TABLE THAT I'D RECOMMEND THAT WE CONSIDER AGAIN. 
          I DID FIND THAT IT WAS THE RETAIL REVITALIZATION STRATEGY. 
          IT'S ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE REPORTS AND PUBLICATIONS UNDER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AND IT'S CALLED DOWNTOWN YELLOWKNIFE RETAIL REVITALIZATION STRATEGY AND WAS PREPARED IN SEPTEMBER 2019. 
          WHILE RELEASED, I GUESS. COUNCILOR MUFANDAEDZA. 
          >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR WORSHIP. 
          JUST ONE LAST QUESTION. 
          WE HEARD ONE OF THE PRESENTERS TALK ABOUT POSSIBLY CARETAKER, SUITES IN THE IG ZONE, THAT I REQUEST TO SEE IF THAT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT WAS ADDED. 
          I DO KNOW THAT IN PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS AND I THINK ONE OF THE COUNCILORS MENTIONED THAT, THAT ONE OF THE REASONS THAT THIS HAS NOT BEEN AS MORE TO DO WITH THE FUEL TANK FARM. 
          IN PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'VE BROUGHT UP IS THAT I REALLY HAVE A DIFFICULT TIME UNDERSTANDING THIS ARGUMENT BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW THAT DURING, SAY, THE WINTER SEASON WE HAVE A LOT OF TRUCKERS THAT WAS SLEEPING IN THIS IG ZONE IN THEIR VEHICLES VERSUS GETTING A PLACE TO SLEEP. 
          I'M JUST WONDERING IF ADMINISTRATION WOULD BE OPEN TO REVISITING THIS AREA. THANK YOU. 
          >> MISS BESSIE KELLER. 
          >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE QUESTION. 
          THIS IS ONE WE WOULD DEFINITELY COME BACK WITH INFORMATION ON BECAUSE AT FOUR O'CLOCK ON A SATURDAY I'M A LITTLE FUZZY ON THIS, BUT I WILL RECALL SOME OF THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE'VE HAD AROUND ENGLE AND THE CREATION OF ENGLE, THESE ARE WHAT KAM LAKE IS NOW. 
          KAM LAKE WAS CREATED BACK IN THE '70S AS THE INDUSTRIAL AREA OF YELLOWKNIFE. 
          CLEARLY, IT HAS EVOLVED INTO THE LOCATION WHERE 
          [05:00:01]
PEOPLE WHO WANT TO LIVE AND WORK WITH THEIR BUSINESSES HAVE THAT ABILITY TO DO SO. 
          WE STILL HAVE THAT NEED FOR THE INDUSTRIAL AND HEAVY INDUSTRIAL AREAS TO HAPPEN, AND THAT WAS PART OF THE THINKING BEHIND THE CREATION OF THE ENGLE BUSINESS DISTRICT. 
          WE HAVE OTHER ISSUES AS WELL BECAUSE WE'RE ON TRUCK SERVICE. 
          WE HAVE ISSUES WITH FIREFIGHTING AND MAKING SURE THAT EMERGENCY RESPONSE IS SOMETHING THAT WHEN WE ARE DEALING WITH THE INDUSTRIAL SCALE, THERE ARE SOME VERY DEFINITIVE CONSIDERATIONS THAT WE NEED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT. 
          IF WE ARE HEARING THAT THERE'S AN APPETITE ON THIS, WE'LL CERTAINLY PROVIDE THE RATIONALE BACKUP WHY THERE WAS A VERY CLEAR CONFIRMATION WHEN THE ENGLE BUSINESS DISTRICT WAS SET UP, WHEN THE ORIGINAL ZONING WAS SET UP, THAT THERE IS NO CARETAKER SUITES IN THERE. 
          WE WILL BE ABLE TO PROVIDE A MORE FULSOME DISCUSSION ON THAT. 
          I'M ALSO REMEMBERING THAT IN THE COMMUNITY-PLANNED DISCUSSIONS, THERE WAS AN AREA ORIGINALLY IDENTIFIED FOR DOG LOTS. 
          YES. YOU'RE REMEMBERING THAT TOO COUNCILOR MUFANDAEDZA, WHICH WE DID REMOVE, BECAUSE OF COURSE, PEOPLE DO WANT TO LIVE NEAR THEIR DOGS AS WELL WHEN THEY'RE MUSHING. 
          THIS IS ONE THAT WE CAN PROVIDE SOME OF THE CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND AROUND WHAT THE THINKING WAS AND WHY WE'RE AT THE POINT WE'RE AT, AND THAT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THEN THE COUNCIL CAN CONSIDER. THANK YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE AGAIN, WHEN WE NEED TO POLLING PROBABLY A SUMMATION AND IT COMES BACK. 
          COUNCIL, OF COURSE, CAN ASK FURTHER QUESTIONS AT SECOND READING. 
          WITH THAT, WE ARE NOW ALMOST AT THE END AND SO NOW IS THE TIME THAT WE WILL GO BACK, STARTING AT THE TOP, GO ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE BOTTOM. 
          PEOPLE WHO HAVE SPOKEN TODAY WILL HAVE TWO MINUTES TO PROVIDE A CONCLUDING STATEMENT OR ADDRESS ANY ISSUES THAT THEY HEARD TODAY. 
          WITH THAT, I WILL START WITH TOM HALL. 
          OF COURSE, YOU DON'T HAVE TO IF YOU DON'T WANT TO. 
          BUT IF YOU'D LIKE TO COME UP TO THE PODIUM AT TWO MINUTES TO DO STATEMENTS. 
          >> IT'S GOING TO BE PROBABLY SOME CONCLUDING STATEMENTS AND JUST TO COMMENT ON SOMETHING THAT WE'VE HEARD. 
          FIRST OF ALL, I ALWAYS FIND IT INTERESTING TO HEAR THAT PEOPLE OF AROUND MY GENERATION ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THE PROBLEMS AND DON'T KNOW HOW TO DEVELOP A COMMUNITY DESPITE THE FACT THAT MANY OF US HAVE INVESTED 50 OR 60 PLUS YEARS LIVING, WORKING AND HELPING TO BUILD A COMMUNITY. 
          BUT BE THAT AS IT MAY, MANY OF THE PEOPLE ON 58, FOR EXAMPLE, LIVED THERE FOR 25, 30, OR MORE YEARS. 
          BECAUSE THEY FIND THAT IT IS A COMPLETE AND VERY LIVABLE COMMUNITY WITH WALKABLE ACCESS TO THE DOWNTOWN. 
          WE'RE NOW STARTING TO SEE A WHOLE LOT OF YOUNG FAMILIES MOVING INTO THAT PARK FOR EXACTLY THE SAME REASONS, SO I LIKE TO THINK THAT MAYBE WE'VE DONE SOMETHING RIGHT. 
          58 DOESN'T NEED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT TO BE THAT WAY THAT'S WHY WE'VE ASKED TO TOTALLY DELETE THOSE USES OF COMMERCIAL RETAIL SALES AND SERVICE, ELITE CONVENIENCE STORE FOOD AND BEVERAGE SERVICES AND URBAN AGRICULTURE COMMERCIAL. 
          ALSO, WE'VE ASKED FOR THOSE TO BE REMOVED BECAUSE PERMITTED USES, OF COURSE, ARE NOT APPEALABLE IN ANY WAY, SO WE DON'T WANT TO SEE THOSE HAPPENING ON THE STREET. 
          THERE'S BEEN TALK OVER THE COURSE OF THE DAY ABOUT VERY SPECIFIC CONDITIONS, AND REDEFINING VERY SPECIFIC USES. 
          THEY'RE TRYING TO NARROW THEM DOWN. 
          THAT ALL SOUNDS WELL AND GOOD, BUT THE PROBLEM THAT WE FORESEE WITH THAT, THAT ONLY WORKS IN CONJUNCTION WITH ENFORCEMENT. 
          WE KNOW THAT ENFORCEMENT IS ALREADY PERHAPS NOT AS EFFECTIVE AS IT COULD BE, AND TRYING TO PUT SUCH STRINGENT CONDITIONS ON THINGS IS LIKELY TO MAKE THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF ENFORCEMENT EVEN MORE CHALLENGING. 
          WE DON'T REALLY SEE THAT AS A, PARTICULARLY VIABLE OPTION. THANK YOU. 
          >> WITH THAT, WE HAVE LINDA BASSEY. 
          SHE IS ONLINE ZOOM. LINDA, ARE YOU WITH US? HEARING NONE. NANCY ZIMMERMAN, I DON'T SEE ANY AUDIENCE ANY FURTHER. 
          LEWIS LITTLE I SAW ONLINE, BUT I DON'T THINK I SEE ONLINE ANYMORE. 
          WE'RE DOWN TO SIX PARTICIPANTS. 
          LEWIS IS NOT HERE. 
          SHELLY, I SEE IS GONE. 
          MARIE IS GONE. DAVE JONES, YOU ARE UP NEXT. 
          >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. 
          A LOT OF GOOD INFORMATION CAME OUT TODAY AND I THINK 
          [05:05:03]
IT'S PROBABLY MY FEELING THE FIRST TIME THAT I'VE BEEN ABLE TO SIT AND REALLY SPEAK TO THE COUNCIL ON IT, WHICH IS GREAT AND OTHERS AS WELL, BECAUSE I THINK YOU NEEDED TO HEAR DIRECTLY WHAT WE HAVE TO SAY. 
          I THINK THE BYLAW NEEDS A BIT OF WORK, AND I'M HOPING THAT COUNCIL WILL SEE ITS WAY TO MAKING SOME CHANGES THAT WOULD GO BACK A LITTLE BIT TOWARDS THE APPROACH OF SOME DIFFERENT ZONING CATEGORIES THAT FIT DIFFERENT AREAS INSTEAD OF THIS MASH IT ALL TOGETHER INTO ONE ZONE APPROACH, WHICH IS KIND OF HAPPEN NOW. 
          THE CURRENT BYLAW, I SHOULD SAY FOR, 404, MY RECOLLECTION, IT HAS EIGHT OR NINE RESIDENTIAL ZONES AND THAT HAS BEEN DEEMED TO BE SOMEHOW UNMANAGEABLE OR NOT CLEAR TO THE PUBLIC. 
          I DON'T GET THAT PERSONALLY, BUT I THINK BY GOING TO THIS ONE SIZE FITS ALL ZONING, YOU CREATE SOME OTHER PROBLEMS AS WELL. 
          I'M SUGGESTING A RELOOK AT THE AREAS THAT ARE COVERED BY THE CURRENT RESIDENTIAL ZONES, AND THE POSSIBILITY OF LOOKING AT CREATING A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT ZONING CATEGORIES THAT BETTER REFLECT WHAT'S GOING ON IN SOME OF OUR RESIDENTIAL AREAS. 
          I'M HOPING THAT YOU CAN GO IN THAT DIRECTION AND THAT WOULD BE MY SUMMATION TODAY. 
          THANKS AGAIN FOR TAKING THE TIME. 
          >> THANK YOU, DAVE. I DO SEE LINDA IS BACK. 
          LINDA, DID YOU WANT TO HAVE YOUR TWO MINUTES CONCLUSION? JUST GOING TO HAVE TO UNMUTE YOURSELF. 
          SEEING NONE. 
          WE'LL TRY TO CIRCLE BACK TO YOU. 
          PETER'S, FINAL COMMENTS? 
          >> THANKS. 
          I GUESS I WANT TO SUM UP AND REALLY CIRCLING BACK. 
          I'VE TO SAY I'M REALLY PLEASED THAT WE HAVE A ZONING BYLAW AND A COMMUNITY PLAN THAT WORK TOGETHER THAT ACTUALLY ARE PROMOTING THIS APPROACH TO PLANNING IN THE CITY, AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT I HAVE BEEN SUPPORTING AND ADVOCATING FOR MANY YEARS, PROBABLY SINCE I WAS THE SAME AGE AS THAT. 
          IT WAS LOVELY TO SEE HER SPEAK. 
          BUT IT'S NOT A GENERATIONAL DIVIDE AT ALL. 
          BECAUSE OUR TIME IS LIMITED, I FOCUSED ON A LOT OF THINGS THAT I FELT NEEDED TO BE CHANGED, BUT I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S UNDERSTOOD. 
          I'M REALLY PLEASED TO SEE THAT THE CITY IS OUT THIS POINT AND THAT THERE'S SUCH GENERAL BROAD ACCEPTANCE FOR INTENSIFYING THE USE AND BEING MORE AWARE OF HOW WE USE THE LAND AND HOW WE USE ENERGY. 
          THANKS VERY MUCH, I TOO FOUND THIS WAS THE ONLY OPPORTUNITY I'VE HAD TO HEAR DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW. 
          THAT'S REALLY BEEN MISSING FROM THIS PROCESS FOR VARIOUS REASONS. 
          I'M REALLY PLEASED TO BE ABLE TO MAKE MY COMMENTS TODAY. THANK YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU. NEXT, WE HAVE KENNY [INAUDIBLE], WHO IS STILL GONE. 
          EMERY PAQUIN, SALLY. 
          JOE KELLY. JOE, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TWO MINUTES TO PROVIDE CLOSING COMMENTS. 
          JOE, ARE YOU WITH US? I CAN ALSO SEE IF LINDA'S WITH US. 
          >> JOE JUST UNMUTED. 
          >> OKAY. PERFECT. JOE OVER TO YOU. 
          TWO MINUTES, IF YOU WOULD LIKE. 
          >> HI. SORRY, A LITTLE SLOW ON THE UPTAKE. 
          I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS EXCEPT TO THANK YOU GUYS FOR TAKING THE TIME TO LISTEN. 
          IT HAS BEEN A FRUSTRATING PROCESS TO FEEL HEARD, AND SO THESE TYPES OF ENGAGEMENTS ARE REALLY HELPFUL. 
          HOPEFULLY EVERYONE FINDS A MIDDLE GROUND AND WE CAN ALL BE HAPPY WHEREVER WE LIVE. 
          THAT'S THE GOAL. THANKS AGAIN. 
          [05:10:05]
          >> THANK YOU. TOM MCLENNAN, I SAW LEAVE, JUST CONFIRMING HE'S STILL LEFT. 
          ROB WARBURTON, I JUST SAW LEAVE AND CAT MCGURK, IF YOU'D LIKE, FINAL, TWO MINUTES. 
          >> CAT SAYS, NO THANKS. 
          >> OKAY. PERFECT. LINDA BASSEY, ARE YOU LOOKING TO BE YOUR LAST TWO MINUTES? 
          >> LINDA, YOU'RE GOING TO NEED TO UNMUTE YOURSELF. 
          WE DON'T HAVE CONTROL OVER IT FROM THIS END. 
          >> LINDA, COULD YOU HEAR? YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO UNMUTE YOURSELF. 
          OKAY. YOU QUIT. BUT THANKS FOR TRYING, LINDA. 
          WITH THAT, WE HAVE COME TO THE CLOSE OF OUR STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING. 
          AS MENTIONED AT THE BEGINNING, WE DO HAVE ONE OR MORE SUBMISSION IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED BYLAW, OR WE'VE ALSO RECEIVED SUBMISSIONS RECOMMENDING AN AMENDMENT. 
          COUNCIL HAS THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS. 
          WE CAN, ONE, DIRECT ADMINISTRATION BY RESOLUTION TO PREPARE A SUMMATION OF POINTS RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, TWO, MADE BY RESOLUTION, CONSIDER SUBMISSIONS AND PROCEED WITH SECOND READING, THREE, MADE BY RESOLUTION REFER THE BYLAW BACK TO ADMINISTRATION, FOUR, MADE BY RESOLUTION REFERS TO THE BYLAW BACK TO ADMINISTRATION WITH DIRECTION TO DRAFT AN AMENDMENT TO THE BYLAW. 
          ONE POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATION THAT COUNCIL MAY WANT TO CONSIDER WAS WHAT WE DID AFTER THE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE COMMUNITY PLAN, THE MOTION WAS THAT COUNCIL DIRECT ADMINISTRATION TO PREPARE A SUMMATION OF POINTS RAISED DURING THE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING AND REFER THE BYLAW BACK TO ADMINISTRATION WITH DIRECTION TO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS TO THE BYLAW TO GIVE EFFECTS THE CONCERNS RAISED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          IS THAT A MOTION THAT A COUNSELOR WOULD LIKE TO MOVE BY COUNCILLOR MORSE SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR MORGAN? 
          >> WAIT. I WOULDN'T MOVE THE MOTION. 
          I JUST LIKE TO ADD SOME WORDING TO IT AS WELL. 
          >> MORE WORDING? 
          >> IF IT'S POSSIBLE, YEAH. 
          >> WHAT'S YOUR RECOMMENDED MOTION? 
          >> THAT IT WOULD SAY WITH DIRECTION TO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS TO THE BYLAW TO GIVE EFFECT TO CONCERNS AND SUPPORT RAISED. 
          >> SURE. THAT'S A FRIENDLIER. 
          >> JUST NOTING THAT THERE WERE CONCERNS RAISED, BUT ALSO THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF SUPPORT. 
          I THINK IT'S CLEAR WHY I'D WANT TO DO THAT. 
          >> I WILL JUST CIRCULATE THAT SO FOLKS SEE IT. 
          COUNCILLOR MORGAN, YOU SECOND THAT YOU'RE OKAY WITH THAT ADDITION? CONCERNS AND SUPPORT RAISED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          OPENING IT UP TO DISCUSSION. COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS? 
          >> JUST LIKE IN PAST ITERATIONS, I WOULD HOPE THAT IF IT IS BEING REFERRED BACK TO ADMINISTRATION FOR AMENDMENTS, THAT DOCUMENT IS TRACK CHANGES FOR US TO BE ABLE TO RE-REVIEW. 
          IS THAT THE FORMAT THAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING HERE, MADAM MAYOR? 
          >> IT WOULD BE A TABLE. 
          SIMILAR TO THE COMMUNITY PLAN, IT WILL BE SOMEBODY RAISED THIS POINT, CONCERNS ABOUT URBAN AGRICULTURE, COMMERCIAL AND LIVESTOCK. 
          STAFF RECOMMENDATION. 
          >> GREAT. THE CHALLENGE THAT I'M HAVING IS WE'RE GETTING TO SO MANY VERSIONS OF THIS DOCUMENT, AND WHEN YOU REVIEW IT, SO MANY TIMES YOU START TO GO, WELL, WHAT VERSION ARE WE ON? I'D LIKE TO JUST REMAIN AS THE EXISTING VIRGIN AS IT IS RIGHT NOW WITH PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ON TOP. 
          THEN IF THEY WERE TO EMBED THEM INTO THE ACTUAL DOCUMENT, THAT THEY WOULD HIGHLY CALL THEM OUT VIA TRACK CHANGES. 
          I LIKE THE WAY THAT IS PROPOSED BY MADAM CHAIR, WHICH IS A TABLE. 
          THAT'S GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          >> PERFECT. BECAUSE IT'D BE LIKE ONE STEP BEYOND THAT, AFTER THAT GPC WHEN WE GET THE TABLE WHERE COUNCIL BE MAJORITY AND SUPPORT AND AT SECOND READING WILL MAKE SOME OF THOSE AMENDMENTS. 
          ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT THE MOTION TO PREPARE A SUMMATION OF POINTS RAISED AND REFER THE BYLAW 
          [05:15:03]
BACK WITH DIRECTION TO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS TO GIVE EFFECT TO CONCERNS AND SUPPORT? COUNCILLOR KONGE. 
          >> THANKS. WILL THE COPY WE GET HAVE TRACK CHANGES? I REALLY LIKE THOSE. 
          >> PARDON ME, SIR? 
          >> WILL COPY THAT WE GET WHEN THEY SEND IT BACK, WILL IT HAVE TRACK CHANGES FROM THIS NOVEMBER 10TH OR 8TH THROUGH WHATEVER COPY WE'RE ON RIGHT NOW? 
          >> THAT'LL BE ONE STEP WHEN WE GET TO THE GPC WHERE THE TABLE OF THE SUMMATION AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOLLOWING THAT WOULD BE A TRACK CHANGES. 
          >> OKAY. 
          >> YEAH. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> ANYTHING FURTHER FROM [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE I CAN FOLLOW ALONG IN A LOGICAL FASHION. 
          >> FOR SURE. SEEING NOTHING FURTHER FROM COUNCIL, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION. 
          THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. WITH THAT, WE'VE COME TO THE CONCLUSION OF OUR AGENDA. 
          CORRECT, WAS CLASSICAL NO FURTHER DIRECTION. 
          IF I CAN GET A MOTION TO ADJOURN MOVE BY COUNCILLOR MORSE SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR SMITH. 
          ANYBODY OPPOSE? SEEING NONE. JUST TO NOTE THAT THIS MONDAY IS THE 5TH MONDAY OF THE MONTH, SO WE DON'T HAVE GPC. 
          THE FOLLOWING MONDAY IS MONDAY, DECEMBER 6TH. 
          WE DO BEGIN BUDGET DELIBERATIONS AT 5:30. 
          FOLKS CAN FEEL FREE TO SEND COUNCIL YOUR BUDGET, CONCERNS AND SUGGESTIONS ALL NEXT WEEK AND THE WEEK AFTER THAT. 
          BUT HAVE A GREAT NIGHT, EVERYBODY, AND THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR ALL YOUR PARTICIPATION TODAY AND IN THE YEAR LEADING UP TO THIS REALLY.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.