Feb 14, 2022 Governance & Priorities Committee

[00:00:03]

OK, I WILL CALL OUR GOVERNANCE AND PRIORITIES COMMITTEE MEETING FOR MONDAY, FEBRUARY 14TH,

[1. Opening Statement:]

AND I'D LIKE TO BEGIN BY ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE IS LOCATED IN CHIEF DRYGEESE TERRITORY.

FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL, IT'S BEEN THE TRADITIONAL LAND OF YELLOWKNIFES DENE FIRST NATION.

WE RESPECT THE HISTORIES, LANGUAGES AND CULTURES OF ALL OTHER INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, INCLUDING THE NORTH SLAVE METIS AND ALL FIRST NATIONS, METIS AND INUIT, WHOSE PRESENCE CONTINUES TO ENRICH OUR VIBRANT COMMUNITY.

[2. Approval of the agenda.]

ANYTHING TO ADD MS. BASSI-KELLETT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR.

NO, NOTHING NEW TO ADD.

THANK YOU. NEXT, WE HAVE DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST IN THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF.

[3. Disclosure of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof.]

SO THE NEXT ITEM IS A MEMORANDUM REGARDING WHETHER TO AMEND SCHEDULE A OF BYLAW NUMBER

[4. A memorandum regarding whether to amend Schedule A of By‐law No. 5045, a by‐law to repeal and replace Zoning By‐law No. 4404, for the purpose of incorporating public comments received at the Statutory Public Hearing.]

MS. BASSI-KELLETT DO YOU HAVE ANY OPENING COMMENTS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR.

NO ABSOLUTELY. SO THE CITY HAS BEEN WORKING TO IMPLEMENT A NEW ZONING BYLAW THAT REFLECTS OUR 2020 COMMUNITY PLAN SINCE LATE 2020.

WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON IT SINCE THAT WINDOW.

AND CERTAINLY IN THE FALL OF 2020 AND EARLY IN 2021 ADMINISTRATION UNDERTOOK PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ON THE OVERALL APPROACH.

AND THEN IN EARLY FALL 2021, WE SOUGHT INPUT ON A DRAFT BYLAW.

WE HEARD FROM LOTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY AND IT WAS VERY CONSTRUCTIVE.

SUBSEQUENTLY, IN OCTOBER OF 2021, THE BYLAW WAS PRESENTED AS A DRAFT TO GPC AND COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION.

AND OF COURSE, A LARGE PART OF COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION INCLUDES THE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING THAT'S REQUIRED SO THAT RESIDENTS AND STAKEHOLDERS CAN SHARE THEIR PERSPECTIVE WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS DIRECTLY BECAUSE YOU, OF COURSE, ARE THE ULTIMATE LAWMAKERS.

SO THE CITY RECEIVED 47 SUBMISSIONS, BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN FOR THE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING, AND THAT HEARING, OF COURSE, TOOK PLACE ON THE 27TH OF NOVEMBER.

SO WE HEARD LOTS ON THAT DAY AND THERE WERE MANY WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS PROVIDED IN ADVANCE AS WELL. SO THAT REALLY PROVIDED THE CONTEXT FOR THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT.

THAT PART OF THE DISCUSSION NOW, OF COURSE, HAS BEEN WRAPPED UP WITH THE NUMBER OF COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN RECEIVED, AND TODAY ADMINISTRATION PRESENTS OUR RECOMMENDATIONS TO GPC FOR NEXT STEPS GOING FORWARD BASED ON THE COMMENTS RECEIVED TO DATE.

AT THIS POINT, I WILL ASK MS. WHITE IF SHE WOULD LIKE TO ADD ANYTHING.

SHE IS THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT WHO HAS BEEN OVERSEEING THE PROJECT, AND I'LL HAND IT TO HER TO PROVIDE SOME HIGHLIGHTS OVER TO YOU, CHARLSEY.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR ALTY AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL. I WOULD FIRST LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU TO ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE ZONING PROCESS TO DATE.

MANY PEOPLE PARTICIPATED IN THE OPEN HOUSES OR PROVIDING WRITTEN COMMENTS AND SPEAKING AT THAT PUBLIC HEARING.

ALSO, WE HAD PEOPLE CONTACT OUR OFFICE JUST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION.

SO THANK YOU TO EVERYONE FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION.

I'M ALSO JOINED TODAY BY ROB LOCKE, OUR MANAGER OF PLANNING LANDS.

TOGETHER, WE ARE PLEASED TO PRESENT THE SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SOME PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE UPDATED DRAFT ZONING BYLAW FOR THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE. TODAY, IN THE MEMO TO GPC, WE PRESENT A LIST OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE DRAFT ZONING BYLAW.

A SUMMATION CHART, UPDATED MAPPING, AND A RED LINE VERSION OF THE DRAFT ZONING BYLAW.

UNDER THE RECOMMENDATION SECTION OF THE MEMO, WE'VE INCLUDED SEVEN PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE DRAFT BYLAW FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION.

THE SUMMATION CHART IS STRUCTURED BY SECTION IN THE SAME ORDER AS THE ZONING BYLAW.

YOU WILL SEE THE REFERENCED BYLAW SECTION ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE.

THE PUBLIC COMMENTS FORM THE FIRST COLUMN.

ADMINISTRATIVE PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS OR COMMENTS ARE IN THE MIDDLE, WITH ANY RECOMMENDED REVISIONS IN THE FAR RIGHT COLUMN.

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE COMMENTS IN THE CHART ARE NOT THE EXACT WORDING THAT WERE USED BY THE PUBLIC. ALL DETAILED COMMENTS ARE AVAILABLE IN THE AGENDA FROM THE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING AND AS WELL IN THE VIDEO FROM THE MEETING FOR REVIEW IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR SPECIFICS.

IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT SOME ADMINISTRATION CONSIDERATIONS DO INCLUDE MONITORING OVER THE PLANNING PERIOD IN PLACE OF MAKING A CHANGE RIGHT NOW TO THAT DRAFT ZONING BYLAW.

THIS IS BECAUSE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CURRENT DRAFT ZONING REGULATIONS, THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE TIME, AND IT MAY TAKE A FEW YEARS TO SEE SOME OF THESE CHANGES IN CERTAIN AREAS.

NOT HAVING A RECOMMENDED CHANGE NOW IN THE SUMMATION DOCUMENT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE

[00:05:01]

IT ONLY INDICATES AREAS WHERE STAFF FEEL IT'S BEST TO TAKE A PHASED APPROACH.

AND ONCE ALL THAT DATA HAS BEEN COLLECTED, THE CITY WOULD USE THAT INFORMATION AT THE TIME OF A REVIEW TO DETERMINE IF FURTHER ALLOWANCES OR INCREASED REGULATION SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED. AGAIN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE THIS COLLECTION OF INFORMATION, AND WE ARE ABLE TO DISCUSS OR ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS TODAY AS MAYOR AND COUNCIL, CHOOSE TO PROCEED.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

SO OPENING IT UP TO QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, DISCUSSION.

COUNCILLOR MORGAN. THANKS VERY MUCH, AND THANKS AGAIN TO STAFF FOR ALL YOUR MONTHS AND YEARS OF WORK ON THIS I KNOW A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF DEDICATION AND AND EFFORT HAS BEEN PUT INTO, YOU KNOW, HEARING FROM THE PUBLIC, RECONSIDERING, TWEAKING, REVISING MORE DRAFTS, MORE DRAFTS.

SO I REALLY APPRECIATE ALL OF THE ATTENTION TO DETAIL THAT'S BEEN GIVEN INTO THIS.

OK. I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT IN PARTICULAR, I REALLY APPRECIATE THE RECOMMENDATION THAT IS RECOMMENDED FOR THE RC1 IN TERMS OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES. I THINK THAT A GOOD COMPROMISE HAS BEEN REACHED WITH.

A FEW OF THE MORE HIGH IMPACT PIECES BEING TAKEN OUT THAT THAT LOCAL RESIDENTS HAD PROBLEMS WITH AND A FEW MADE DISCRETIONARY THAT PEOPLE INDICATED THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO LIVE WITH UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.

I ALSO APPRECIATE THAT THE ZONING MAP WAS REVISED SO THAT A FEW RESIDENTIAL AREAS CLOSE TO THE DOWNTOWN ARE BACK TO RESIDENTIAL, CENTRAL RATHER THAN DOWNTOWN, IT SEEMS THAT AN ERROR OVERSIGHT WAS MADE TO INCLUDE THEM IN THE DOWNTOWN ZONE IN THE FIRST PLACE, SO I'M TALKING ABOUT THE 44TH TO 46TH STREET AND A PORTION OF 49TH STREET THAT RESIDENTS WERE CONCERNED ABOUT, THAT SUDDENLY AND DRAMATICALLY CHANGING IF IT WAS INCLUDED IN THE DOWNTOWN ZONE. SO I APPRECIATE THAT THAT IS NOW RC, RESIDENTIAL CENTRAL.

I WAS WONDERING AND I SENT THIS IN AN EMAIL TO STAFF A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO, BUT IN TERMS OF THE CATEGORIES OF USES, SOME OF THEM ARE QUITE SWEEPING AND BROAD AND INCLUDE WIDE RANGES OF DIFFERENT THINGS.

FOR EXAMPLE, FOOD AND BEVERAGE SERVICES.

I KNOW WE GOT STUCK ON THAT A FAIR BIT DURING THE PUBLIC HEARINGS THAT EVERYONE SEEMED TO AGREE. THERE'S A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HAVING A SMALL COFFEE SHOP IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND HAVING SAY A BAR BE ESTABLISHED IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD ON YOUR RESIDENTIAL STREET.

AND I WONDERED ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF BREAKING DOWN SOME OF THOSE CATEGORIES SO THAT SOME OF THAT NUANCE COULD BE REFLECTED, AT THE VERY LEAST PUTTING A DIFFERENT CATEGORY BETWEEN, SAY, THE LICENSED ESTABLISHMENTS SERVING ALCOHOL AND NON-LICENSED ESTABLISHMENTS. AND I JUST WONDERED IF IF STAFF HAD CONSIDERED THAT OPTION OR IF THERE'S ANY PRECEDENT FOR THAT OR IF THAT'S AN OPTION.

THAT'S PROBABLY A CHALLENGING ONE, BECAUSE EVEN THERE'S A FEW COFFEE SHOPS DOWN SOUTH WHERE YOU CAN GET A SHOT OF BAILEYS IN YOUR COFFEE AND PEOPLE WOULD PROBABLY BE OK WITH THAT BUT THEY DON'T WANT THAT. THE DANCE CLUB BAR BUT ALL OF A SUDDEN, THIS COFFEE SHOP WOULD BE LICENSED AND IN THE SAME CATEGORY AS THE BAR, BUT MS. BASSI-KELLETT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, I'LL PASS THIS ONE TO MS. WHITE. GREAT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND YES, IT'S PARTLY WITH REGARDS TO LICENSING AS WELL AND WHAT IS PERMITTED BY THE GWT.

SO WITH REGARDS TO CONSIDERATION, I WILL ASK ROB MAYBE TO DESCRIBE SOME OF THE THOUGHT PROCESS BEHIND THESE USES.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THIS QUESTION.

I THINK THE BIGGEST LIMITING FACTOR THAT WE SAW WAS WAS THE EXISTING BUILT FORM.

SO IN THESE ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, WE STRONGLY SUSPECT THAT THEY'RE GOING TO STAY IN THAT DEVELOPMENT FORM AS AS PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS, AND THEY WON'T READILY CONVERT TO SOMETHING LIKE A BAR OR LARGE SCALE RESTAURANT.

YES, THE POSSIBILITY IS IS THERE TO TO A PORTION OF IT MIGHT BE CONVERTED TO A SMALL

[00:10:03]

BUT AGAIN, THE LAND CONSTRAINTS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS WE FELT WAS GOING TO PERFORM THE ROLE AS THE STRONGEST REGULATOR AS OPPOSED TO INTRODUCING REGULATIONS OF SCOPE AND SCALE FOR THOSE THOSE USES.

OK. I MEAN, I CAN APPRECIATE THAT OFTENTIMES THERE'S THIS SPECTRUM OF OF DIFFERENCES OR CHANGES IN USE RATHER THAN IT'S HARD TO MAKE A FIRM LINER CATEGORY BETWEEN THINGS THAT ARE. UM, YEAH, THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS WITHIN THE SPECTRUM BETWEEN A COFFEE SHOP AND A BAR. OK.

I WAS ALSO STRUGGLING WITH LIKE OUR PROCESS AROUND PERMITTED USES VERSUS CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES.

UNDERSTANDING THAT.

CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES CAN BE REALLY PROBLEMATIC FOR LOTS OF REASONS.

IF PEOPLE ARE WANTING TO START UP A BUSINESS OR BUILD SOMETHING NEW, IT'S A LOT OF UNCERTAINTY NOT HAVING, YOU KNOW, REALLY CLEAR GOALPOSTS.

AND IF IT'S JUST UP TO COUNCIL'S DISCRETION, WHETHER OR NOT SOMETHING IS IS OK, THAT CAN BE A LOT OF UNCERTAINTY, ESPECIALLY FOR BUSINESSES.

AND ALSO ACKNOWLEDGING, YOU KNOW, FROM FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, BEING ON COUNCIL TOO IT CAN IT CAN BE DIFFICULT AS A COUNCIL PERSON TO MAKE.

UH, DECISIONS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, ZONING THINGS OR BUILDINGS, WHEN MANY OF US ARE NOT EXPERTS IN BUILDING OR PLANNING OR ZONING AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S COMING TO US AND CERTAINLY WE LISTEN TO THE PUBLIC, BUT IT'S EASY TO BE SWAYED OFTEN BY THE LOUDEST VOICES AND US NOT REALLY ALWAYS HAVING THE EXPERTISE TO TO BE THE BEST ONES, TO BE THE FINAL ARBITER IN THINGS LIKE THAT. HOWEVER, I ALSO SEE ARGUMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC THAT THEY FEEL LIKE MAKING LOTS MORE THINGS PERMITTED USES.

CAN OFTEN REMOVE SOME OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC INPUT TO HAVE A SAY INTO WHAT'S GOING ON IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. AND SURE, THEY CAN GO TO THE APPEAL BOARD IF THEY FEEL IF THERE'S SOMETHING PROCEDURALLY THAT'S BEEN DONE INCORRECTLY OR, YOU KNOW, A VARIANCE OR SOMETHING. BUT THEY THERE'S NOT THE SAME OPPORTUNITY TO, YOU KNOW, COME AND SPEAK IN PUBLIC FORUMS AND AND EXPRESS HOW THEY ENVISION THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT THEY WANT AND WHAT IMPACTS IT MIGHT HAVE ON THEM THAT MAYBE STAFF HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, BUT ALSO SOMETIMES SOMETHING BEING A PERMITTED USE DOESN'T GIVE STAFF MUCH LEEWAY, EITHER IN TERMS OF DISCRETION TO SAY, WELL YEAH, TECHNICALLY THIS IS A CATEGORY OF THING THAT WE ALLOW, BUT YOU KNOW THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSAL COULD HAVE SOME REALLY HIGH IMPACTS ON NEIGHBORS, SO IT KIND OF HAMSTRINGS EVERYONE.

SO I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF THERE'S ANY KIND OF COMPROMISE SOLUTIONS WHERE THERE COULD BE MORE OPPORTUNITIES WITH PERMITTED USES FOR PEOPLE TO LIKE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC INPUT OR PERHAPS PEOPLE TO GO TO THE DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD IF THEY FEEL IT'S HAVING A PARTICULARLY HIGH IMPACT ON THEM OR THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.

I JUST WONDERED IF ANY THOUGHT HAD BEEN PUT INTO SORT OF COMPROMISE PROCESSES BETWEEN BEING SO UNCERTAIN AND GOING TO COUNCILS THE ARBITER AND THEN BASICALLY BEING ABLE TO JUST AUTOMATICALLY BE APPROVED BECAUSE IT FITS WITHIN A CATEGORY AND IT'S JUST GOING TO, YOU KNOW, GO THROUGH THE SYSTEM, IS THERE ANYWHERE IN BETWEEN, I GUESS? HERE'S THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADD MORE REGULATIONS ABOUT THE PERMITTED USE, SO IT'S NEVER PERMITTED, AND IT'S A FREE FOR ALL.

YOU STILL HAVE TO FOLLOW ALL THE THE OTHER PARTS OF THE REGULATIONS FOR THE ZONE AND AND THE OVERALL BYLAW, BUT MS. BASSI-KELLETT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT, I WILL ASK MS. WHITE TO RESPOND, AND IT'S A IT'S A REALLY, I'M GOING TO INTERRUPT.

I WILL MAKE THE COMMENT THAT IT'S A REALLY INTERESTING DILEMMA.

AND OF COURSE, COUNCIL DOES HAVE THE FINAL SAY IN MANY PARTS OF HOW OUR COMMUNITY IS DEVELOPED. BUT I APPRECIATE THE CONUNDRUM THE COUNCILLOR MORGAN FLAGS THAT SOMETIMES THERE ARE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT ISSUES, SOME OF THEM TECHNICAL.

[00:15:01]

I WILL TURN THINGS DOWN TO MS. WHITE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE QUESTION.

THIS DEFINITELY WAS REFLECTED IN THE COMMENTS, BOTH WRITTEN AND SPOKEN AT THE PUBLIC HEARING CONCERN ABOUT WHERE THAT PUBLIC PORTION OR VOICE FITS WITHIN THIS PLANNING PROCESS, AND IT'S A CONVERSATION HELD ACROSS THE COUNTRY ABOUT WHERE THAT APPROPRIATE PLACE IS FOR THIS PROCESS.

SO CURRENTLY, THE APPEAL PROCESS, REALLY WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THAT SPECIFICALLY IS OUTLINED IN THE LEGISLATION, AND WE KIND OF HAVE TO CONFORM TO THAT SPECIFIC PROCESS.

BUT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ZONING BYLAW ITSELF, AND I HOPE I EXPLAINED IT SOMEWHAT IN, I GUESS, WOULD BE ITEM NUMBER FOUR ON THE SUMMATION CHART, WHERE CURRENTLY THE PROCESS IS REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT'S A PERMITTED USE OR A DISCRETIONARY USE, THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESS KICKS IN.

AND SO WHERE WE WERE TRYING TO TAKE THE NEXT STEP FOR THE ZONING BYLAW WAS THE ITEMS LISTED UNDER THE NOT REQUIRING A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IN THE ZONING BYLAW WOULD BE ABLE TO GO FORWARD. SO SOME THINGS LIKE FENCES OR DECKS, REALLY JUST MOVING THOSE SMALLER ITEMS ALONG. AND IT COULD BE THAT COUNCIL PROVIDES DIRECTION THAT ANYTHING WITHIN THAT PERMITTED USE CATEGORY WOULD NOT REQUIRE A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND EVERYTHING IN THE DISCRETIONARY USES DOES REQUIRE A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, OR COUNCIL COULD ALSO PROVIDE STAFF THE DIRECTION THAT BOTH CATEGORIES WILL CONTINUE TO PROVIDE AND REQUIRE THAT DEVELOPMENT PERMITS. AND THAT'S WHERE THE NEIGHBORS ARE NOTIFIED SO THAT OTHERS ARE AWARE OF WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED IN AND AROUND THE SITUATION.

AND SO THAT'S ONE OF THE ALTERNATIVES THAT I PROVIDED THERE AS AN OPTION, AND THERE'S PROS AND CONS TO GOING IN BOTH DIRECTIONS.

SO WE'VE TRIED TO, YES, KIND OF MEET IN THE MIDDLE TO ADDRESS YOUR QUESTION, COUNCILLOR MORGAN, SO THAT NOT EVERYTHING CONTINUES TO BE REQUIRING A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND BEING REGULATED. SO WE'RE TRYING TO SLOWLY EDGE TOWARDS SOME MORE OPENNESS IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, WHICH WE FEEL WOULD HELP SUPPORT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AS WELL.

AND AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT INCREASING HOUSING AND AFFORDABILITY.

ONE LESS PROCESS, IF THOSE PERMITTED USES WERE TO GO FORWARD WITHOUT A DEVELOPMENT PERMITS WOULD ALSO HELP REDUCE THE COST AND THE TIMELINE FOR THINGS TO BE DEVELOPED.

ROB, DID YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? NO ADDITIONAL COMMENT.

OK, AND I DID HAVE A FOLLOW UP QUESTION ON THAT.

I DID SEE IN I FORGET WHICH ITEM BEFORE THAT YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT YOU COULD YOU MIGHT BE LOOKING FOR SOME COUNCIL DIRECTION ON WHERE DEVELOPMENT PERMITS WOULD STILL BE REQUIRED OR WHERE THEY COULD SORT OF GET A PASS.

AND IT WASN'T CLEAR WHERE IT STANDS RIGHT NOW IN THE DRAFT, I LOOKED BACK THROUGH THAT SECTION AND IT APPEARS THAT AMEND MAY HAVE THE DISCRETION TO WAIVE A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IF IT'S WITHIN A PERMITTED USE, BUT AMEND MAY OR MAY NOT WAIVE THAT IS THAT WHERE WE STAND RIGHT NOW? OR ARE YOU ARE YOU LOOKING SPECIFICALLY FOR COUNCIL DIRECTION NOW ON WHICH WAY WE SHOULD GO ON WHEN DEVELOPMENT PERMITS MIGHT NOT BE NEEDED? MS. BASSI-KELLETT. MRS. WHITE. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THE FOLLOW UP QUESTION.

SO AS WE HAD PRESENTED PREVIOUSLY, THE IDEA WAS THAT IF IT WAS THE PERMITTED USE CATEGORY, THAT THAT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESS COULD BE REMOVED.

AND YES, YOU'LL NOTE EXACTLY AS YOU STATE THAT LAST LINE SAYS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS.

HOWEVER, FOLLOWING SOME OF THE COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC, WE ARE LOOKING TO COUNCIL TO SEE IF THAT IS STILL THE DIRECTION YOU WISH TO GO OR IF ADMINISTRATION SHOULD BE HAVING DEVELOPMENT PERMITS STILL FOR ALL PERMITTED USES AND ALL DISCRETIONARY USES.

SO UNDER THE PERMITTED USES, THAT WOULD BE AT THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER LEVEL AND IF IT IS A USE IDENTIFIED UNDER THE DISCRETIONARY USES, THAT WOULD BE ITEMS THAT WOULD STILL REQUIRE TO GO TO COUNCIL.

DOES THAT ANSWER THE QUESTION? OK. AND CAN YOU QUICKLY SUMMARIZE FOR US SO WE KNOW THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS ITEM LIKE

[00:20:04]

WHAT EXTRA CHECKS AND BALANCES DOES THAT PROVIDE FOR SORT OF THE PUBLIC AT LARGE OR NEIGHBORHOODS? DOES THAT GIVE PEOPLE EXTRA OPPORTUNITIES TO TO WEIGH IN? OR IS IT JUST MORE OF A PROCEDURAL THING THAT LOTS MORE BOXES NEED TO BE TICKED ADMINISTRATIVELY BEFORE SOMETHING? [INAUDIBLE] CAN YOU JUST SORT OF GIVE US A SENSE OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF WAIVING DEVELOPMENT PERMITS OR REQUIRING THEM IN EVERY CASE? MS. BASSI-KELLETT MS. WHITE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND I WILL ASK ROB TO GIVE A LITTLE MORE DETAIL, BUT YEAH, IF THERE IS A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT THAT IS REQUIRED, THEN THAT DOES GET CIRCULATED SO THAT THERE IS NOTIFICATION TO THE AREA.

YOU AS A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER, WHETHER IT'S IN THE DOWNTOWN OR ONE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, WOULD BE MADE AWARE THAT THAT USE IS GOING FORWARD.

THE DIFFERENCE IS REQUIRING A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR EVERYTHING THAT IS PERMITTED.

THERE MAY NOT BE ANY VARIANCES OR ALTERATIONS, SO IMAGINE YOU PURCHASE A RESIDENTIAL LOT.

YOU GET THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND THERE'S POTENTIAL THAT SOMEONE COULD HAVE AN OBJECTION TO YOU BUILDING PERMITTED USE ON THAT LOT.

ALTERNATIVELY, THOUGH, THERE COULD BE CHANGES AND VARIANCES THAT ARE SIGNIFICANT, AND THOSE WOULD STILL REQUIRE A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.

SO IF I'M BUILDING A DWELLING ON A RESIDENTIAL ZONED PROPERTY AND I WANT TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT SIGNIFICANTLY OR TRY TO GO CLOSER TO THE SIDE LOT LINES OR THE REAR LOT LINES OR ADD SOMETHING ELSE, A VARIANCE WOULD STILL BE REQUIRED AND THAT PUBLIC PROCESS WOULD KICK IN. SO EVEN THOUGH IT'S PERMITTED, IF I'M GOING OUTSIDE THOSE REGULATIONS, THAT WOULD STILL BE TRIGGERED.

ROB, IS THERE ANYTHING ADDITIONAL? SURE, I CAN FOR A SEC SPEAK TO CURRENT PRACTICE.

SO IN THE EXISTING ZONING BYLAW, THERE'S SECTION 3.2, WHICH IS A WHOLE LIST OF ITEMS THAT DO NOT REQUIRE A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.

WE'VE TRANSFERRED THAT LIST OVER INTO THE EXISTING BYLAW, AND I BELIEVE IT'S IT'S NOW SECTION FOUR OR SOMETHING.

THAT LIST HAS BEEN TWEAKED A LITTLE BIT TO ACCOMMODATE SOME OF THE NEW USES.

SO, FOR EXAMPLE, AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITY HAS BEEN INTRODUCED INTO ITEMS NOT REQUIRING A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. SO IF YOU WANT TO SET UP SOME FLOWERBEDS, EVEN A LITTLE BIT OF SELLING OF THEIR VEGETABLES FROM YOUR FRONT YARD, THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. THAT'S HOW WE'VE SET THAT UP.

WHERE THE DISCUSSION IS THAT RIGHT NOW IS MANY MUNICIPALITIES IN CANADA THAT EVERYTHING IN A PERMITTED USE CATEGORY TYPICALLY DOES NOT REQUIRE A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.

IN YELLOWKNIFE AT THE MOMENT, TYPICALLY PERMITTED USES STILL REQUIRE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, EXCEPT THOSE IN THAT LIST OF EXCEPTIONS.

AND THAT'S OUR CURRENT PRACTICE.

BUT WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING AT THE MOMENT IS WHETHER THAT PRACTICE MIGHT BE REFORMED A LITTLE BIT. I HOPE THAT ANSWERS THE QUESTION.

YEAH, THAT'S SUPER, SUPER HELPFUL.

THANKS. AND SO I I DO REALLY SUPPORT AND APPRECIATE THE SORT OF MIDDLE GROUND THAT THAT WE'RE STRIVING FOR HERE IN TERMS OF STREAMLINING THE PROCESS TO TO SOME EXTENT TO NOT HAVE ALL THIS UNNECESSARY PAPERWORK AROUND DEVELOPMENT PERMITS WHEN SOMETHING IS RELATIVELY STRAIGHTFORWARD AND NOT A HUGE CHANGE OR NOT BIG VARIANCES, BUT.

BUT THEN HAVING THE DEVELOPMENT PERMITS STILL REQUIRED AND HAVING NOTIFICATIONS AND THAT BEING SENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHEN, YEAH, THERE'S VARIANCES BEING ASKED FOR.

I WONDER, THOUGH, IF LIKE RIGHT NOW, IT JUST SAYS IT'S AT THE DISCRETION OF ADMIN TO DECIDE WHERE IT MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT OR NOT.

LIKE I I HEARD FROM THE PUBLIC TOO, THAT THERE'S SOME DISCOMFORT AROUND SPEAKERS].

YEAH, THERE'S A CLARIFICATION ON THAT BECAUSE IT'S NOT FULLY AT THE DISCRETION OF THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. LIKE THERE'S A SECTION 4.

1 TALKS ABOUT ALL OF THE SO YOU NEED A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IF YOU'RE GOING TO CHANGE THE USE. SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO RESIDENTIAL USE TO COMMERCIAL USE, YOU'RE GOING TO NEED A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, EVEN IF IT'S A PERMITTED USE.

AND SO THERE IS A WHOLE PAGE WORTH OF POINTS ABOUT TO GIVE THE DIRECTION TO THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER AND PRESIDENT WHEN A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED.

DEFINITELY. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT I WAS OVER SIMPLIFYING FOR SURE, AND I UNDERSTAND THE

[00:25:02]

SO THAT'S THAT'S LAID OUT.

I GUESS WHERE I WAS GOING TO AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, IT SEEMS THAT IF THERE'S SOME DEGREE OF VARIANCE.

BUT NOT A CHANGE OF USE, THEN THAT'S WHERE ADMIN MIGHT USE DISCRETION TO REQUIRE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. AND I GUESS I JUST WONDERED IF THERE WAS ANY SORT OF CLEAR GOALPOSTS OR SIGNALS WE COULD GIVE TO THE PUBLIC IN TERMS OF WHERE THE THRESHOLDS ARE AROUND DISCRETIONARY POWERS, LIKE IF THE VARIANCE IS OVER A CERTAIN AMOUNT, THEN THAT WOULD INDICATE. THAT THE DEVELOPMENT PERMITS REQUIRED.

I WAS JUST LIKE JUST HEARING FROM PEOPLE ABOUT THEIR DISCOMFORT AROUND UNLIMITED VARIANCE POWERS AND THEN, YOU KNOW, ALSO HEARING ADMINS ARGUMENTS THAT WHY THEY DON'T YOU DON'T WANT TO SET SPECIFIC PERCENTAGE LIMITS ON VARIANCES AND HOW I UNDERSTAND MOST VARIANCES ARE. MINOR.

ANYWAY, I I WONDERED IF IF ANY MORE CRITERIA OR BOUNDARIES COULD BE SET AROUND WHERE ADMIN WOULD USE DISCRETION TO REQUIRE A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, WHEN IT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY OTHERWISE BE REQUIRED IN A PERMITTED ZONE.

I KNOW THIS IS GETTING DEEP INTO THE DETAILS.

I'M JUST. I SUPPORT THE GENERAL IDEA OF THE DIRECTION THAT WE'RE GOING IN TERMS OF . I THINK THE BIG ONE THAT YOU COULD POINT RESIDENTS TO IS SECTION 4.1.3 B IS PARTICULARLY THERE'S A CHANGE IN INTENSITY OF USE, SO.

UM, WHICH IS.

AND VARIANCES ARE DIFFERENT IN A VARIANCE WOULD ALWAYS REQUIRED A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT BECAUSE THAT'S NOT THAT'S NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING BYLAW.

IF THAT WOULD BE, I'LL HAND IT OVER TO MS. BASSI-KELLETT TOO. SO JUST TO CLARIFY IF IF THERE'S ANY VARIANCE BEING ASKED FOR WITHIN LIKE A PERMITTED USE, THEN IT DOES REQUIRE A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AUTOMATICALLY, OR IF IT'S ONLY A CERTAIN SCALE OF VARIANCE LIKE A MAJOR VARIANCE? YOU NEED TO BE IN COMPLIANCE.

AND SO THE VARIANCE ISN'T YOU'RE NOT MEETING THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, BUT I SHOULDN'T EXPLAIN IT ALL. MS. BASSI-KELLETT. OVER TO YOU, MRS. WHITE. GREAT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

YES, SO THERE'S A NUMBER OF SECTIONS THAT DO OUTLINE KIND OF THOSE RULES AND REGULATIONS AS TO WHEN A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IS OR IS NOT GOING TO BE REQUIRED.

WHEN WE TALK ABOUT VARIANCES, YEAH, THERE'S.

THERE'S REALLY BEEN A MOVE IN LAND USE PLANNING AWAY FROM SETTING SPECIFIC LIMITS, BECAUSE WHERE THAT USED TO GO WAS IF YOU COULDN'T MEET THAT 10 PERCENT UNDER 10 PERCENT VARIANCE, THEN AUTOMATICALLY IT WAS TRIGGERING A ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT, WHICH COULD POTENTIALLY TRIGGER COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT.

AND SO REMOVING THOSE LIMITS, PUTTING THAT DECISION POWER OR DECISION ON DIFFERENT RULES WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER REALM REALLY CAN AFFORD MORE ABILITY TO DEVELOP, I GUESS, IS REALLY WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS MAKE DEVELOPMENT COMPLIANT.

SO YEAH, AS SOON AS YOU DO REQUIRE A VARIANCE, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS, BUT ALSO MAKING SURE FROM A DEVELOPMENT STANDPOINT THAT IT IS IN KEEPING WITH THE CHARACTER OR THE FEATURES THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN PLACE IN THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS.

SO AGAIN, WE WOULDN'T RECOMMEND GOING BACK TO THAT STANDARD 10 PERCENT OR GREATER OR 25 PERCENT OR GREATER THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOME FLEXIBILITY.

AND A GOOD EXAMPLE IS SOME OF THE RECENT VARIANCES THAT WERE APPROVED.

SOME OF THEM, YOU KNOW, THEY COULD BE UP TO 50 PERCENT.

BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THEM ON AN ACTUAL SITE PLAN, THAT MAY BE LESS THAN A FOOT, RIGHT, SO IT REALLY SHOULD BE DONE ON A SITE BY SITE BASIS TO ENSURE THAT THE DEVELOPMENT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THAT SPECIFIC AREA.

BUT I WILL ASK ROB IF HE WANTS TO ADD SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

OK. SURE. THANK YOU.

I CAN ADD A FEW ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, SO I THINK THAT LAST LINE UNDER THAT LIST OF THINGS NOT REQUIRING A DEVELOPMENT WHICH TALKS ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER DISCRETION.

YOU ALSO NEED, AS A REMINDER, THERE'S A SERIES OF TIER OF DEVELOPMENT OFFICERS HERE AT THE CITY. SO WE'VE GOT STAFF, THEN WE'VE GOT A MANAGER AND THEN WE'VE GOT A DIRECTOR.

[00:30:01]

AN EXAMPLE THAT WE MIGHT POINT TO HERE IS THAT AT THE MOMENT, TO ESTABLISH A SECOND DRIVEWAY IN YOUR PROPERTY, SAY YOU OWNED A CORNER LOFT AND YOU WANT TO ESTABLISH A SECOND DRIVE. AT THE MOMENT THAT REQUIRES A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, IT'S NOT EXEMPT.

WE MAY, IF WE SEE A WHOLE SERIES OF APPLICATIONS COME FORWARD IN THE FUTURE, DECIDE TO TO ESTABLISH A PROCESS THAT CAN GO STRAIGHT TO GETTING A PERMIT FROM PUBLIC WORKS AND YOU CAN INSTALL THAT SECOND DRIVEWAY.

THIS GIVES US THAT ABILITY TO ESTABLISH THAT PROCESS WITHOUT COMING BACK TO COUNCIL AND AMENDING THIS BYLAW.

BUT AGAIN, THAT DISCRETION ULTIMATELY LANDS AT THE DIRECTORS LEVEL.

IT'S NOT. IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT THAT'S APPLIED AD HOC BY THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICERS STAFF. OK, WELL, I'LL LEAVE THAT FOR NOW AND HEAR WHAT MY COLLEAGUES HAVE TO SAY ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD.

MOVE AWAY FROM REQUIRING DEVELOPMENT PERMITS.

YOU KNOW, IN MOST CASES WHERE IT'S ALREADY A PERMITTED USE, I KNOW I'M STILL NOT DESCRIBING THAT PERFECTLY CORRECTLY, I DON'T I HAVEN'T FOUND THE WAY TO ACCURATELY TALK ABOUT WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT, BUT HOPEFULLY YOU KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

OH, THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.

YEAH, ONLY GOT TWO QUICK ONES FOR ADMINISTRATION ON THIS ONE.

I DO RECALL THERE WAS A COMMENT FROM THE PUBLIC IN REGARDS TO WORKER ACCOMMODATIONS AND PUTTING A LIMIT OF EIGHT ON THOSE ACCOMMODATIONS.

NOW, WHEN I LOOK THROUGH THE COMMENTS THAT WERE PROVIDED FROM ADMINISTRATION, I DID SEE A LITTLE SECTION ON THE DEFINITION AND THAT'S GOING TO BE PART OF MY NEXT QUESTION, BUT I DIDN'T SEE THEM CALLING OUT SPECIFICALLY THAT LIMIT OF EIGHT.

DID I JUST MISS IT OR WHERE MIGHT THAT BE CONTAINED? MS. BASSI-KELLETT. MS. WHITE. RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE QUESTION, COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS. SO SPECIFICALLY IN THE ONE ZONE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY THAT DOES ALLOW THESE WORKER ACCOMMODATIONS, WHICH IS THE EIGHT UNITS AS YOU'RE MENTIONING, REALLY THAT STARTED, IT'S AN EVOLUTION OVER TIME STARTED AS HAVING CARETAKER AVAILABLE ON THAT PROPERTY WHERE THOSE BUSINESSES WERE LOCATED.

EVENTUALLY, THAT TRANSITION TO THE OWNER OF THE BUSINESS WANTING TO LIVE ON PROPERTY.

AND THEN EVENTUALLY SOME WERE REQUESTING TO THE MUNICIPALITY THAT THEY HAVE MULTIPLE LOCATIONS ON THEIR PROPERTY FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE THAT WORKER ACCOMMODATION UNIT OR LIVE WORK ENVIRONMENT.

AND WHEN TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTIES, AS WELL AS THESE PROPERTIES ARE ON TRUCK SERVICES SO SEWER AND WATER ARE TRUCKED, THE AVAILABILITY OF A SITE TO PROPERLY SUSTAIN A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF WORKERS ON SITE, AS WELL AS TO MAKE SURE THERE'S NO OVERCROWDING, AS WELL AS OTHER CONCERNS, WHETHER IT BE TRAFFIC OR INTERACTION WITH THE BUSINESS. IT WAS WHAT WAS COME UP WITH AS A REASONABLE NUMBER, AS WELL AS THE WAY IN WHICH THESE DWELLINGS ARE CONSTRUCTED.

SO ONE THING THAT I WOULD SAY IS IN THIS COMMUNITY, AS WELL AS MANY ACROSS THE COUNTRY SHORT TERM ACCOMMODATION FOR WORKERS, WHETHER THAT'S 3 MONTHS, 12 MONTHS, IT'S REALLY HARD TO FIND QUALITY HOUSING FOR WORKERS WHO COME IN MAYBE ARE SEASONAL.

AND SO ONE THING, IN ADDITION TO HAVING THIS CONVERSATION THAT COUNCIL SHOULD BE CONSIDERING IS WAYS IN WHICH WE CAN FACILITATE AGAIN THROUGH THE ZONING BYLAW OPPORTUNITIES TO CREATE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO MEET THAT MARKET DEMAND.

SO THEN OFFSETTING THAT NEED FOR ONSITE WORKER ACCOMMODATION, BECAUSE WE ARE ABLE TO HOUSE OUR WORKERS IN THE COMMUNITY, THEY HAVE GREATER ACCESS TO OTHER SERVICES, BECOME PART OF THE COMMUNITY AND HOPEFULLY WILL MAKE THIS THEIR HOME OVER TIME.

I WILL ASK ROB, HOWEVER, IF THERE'S ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE SITE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

IN 2014-2015, THERE WAS A CONSULTATION DONE WITH SORT OF THE CAM LAKE RESIDENT GROUP, AND AT THAT TIME, SOME CHANGES WERE IMPLEMENTED INTO THE ZONING BYLAW THAT INCLUDED THE CAM LAKE RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY AND THIS EIGHT DWELLING UNIT WORKER ACCOMMODATION CAP.

AND WE'VE PULLED THAT NUMBER OF A FORWARD FROM THE WORK DONE BY STAFF IN 2014 AND 15 INTO THIS ZONING, BUT WE HAVEN'T REVISED IT.

WE FEEL THAT EIGHT SORT OF CAPTURES KIND OF KIND OF A MAXIMUM OR WHAT WOULD BE A REASONABLE AMOUNT ON CAM LAKE PROPERTIES.

AND IF THAT NUMBER WAS TO START TO INCREASE TO 15 OR 20, IT LIKELY WOULDN'T MATCH SORT OF

[00:35:01]

ALL RIGHT, WELL, BASED ON MY RECOLLECTION OF THE DISCUSSION, WASN'T IT A BIT MORE TO DO WITH WHAT THE LOT COULD HANDLE AS OPPOSED TO PUTTING LIKE AN ARBITRARY NUMBER, LIKE AGAIN, WITH ALL ACCOMMODATIONS, THERE'S CERTAIN SETBACKS KNOW SERVICING REQUIREMENTS, THINGS ALONG THOSE LINES.

I THINK THAT THE REQUEST WAS MORE IN THE NATURE OF, YOU KNOW, STILL HAVE ALL THOSE REQUIREMENTS, YOU KNOW, AND IF MY LOT CAN MEET THOSE, YOU KNOW, WHY HAVE THIS ARBITRARY CAP? AND I GUESS THAT THAT RUN TRUE WITH ME BECAUSE I GUESS I THOUGHT TOOK A LOOK AT SOME OF THE LOT SIZES. NOT ALL OF THEM ARE EXACTLY THE SAME.

AND OF COURSE, THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT ARE COLLECTING, SAY, A FEW OF THEM, BUT DOING A SINGLE USE OVER MULTIPLE LOTS.

YOU KNOW, SO AGAIN, I JUST WAS IT MENTIONED ON THE NOTES, AND WHAT SECTION WAS THAT HIGHLIGHTED? MS. BASSI-KELLETT. MS. WHITE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

AND SO, YES, COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS, SOME OF IT WAS BASED ON WHAT THOSE PROPERTIES COULD FACILITATE BASED ON WHAT ELSE IS ON THE SITE FOR THE BUSINESS SIDE OF THAT USE.

AND SO, YEAH, WELL, YOU MAY HAVE A LARGER PROPERTY, YOUR STRUCTURES MAY BE LARGER OR YOUR EQUIPMENT STORAGE OR OUTDOOR STORAGE MAY BE LARGER, WHICH WOULD THEN REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF AREA YOU COULD HAVE FOR, SAY, DWELLING UNITS.

AND YES, I BELIEVE IT WAS IN THIS CHART SUMMATION.

THAT'S ITEM NUMBER 31.

WITH REGARDS TO CARETAKER UNITS AND 12.4 OF THE ZONING BYLAWS.

IT'S EXCELLENT.

I'LL TAKE A QUICK LOOK AT THAT.

MAYBE CIRCLE BACK AROUND, BUT MY NEXT QUESTION WAS ACTUALLY IN REGARDS TO NUMBER 33.

I GUESS SO I CAN UNDERSTAND.

SO THERE'S A RESPONSE THAT'S GIVEN FROM ADMINISTRATION WHEN IT COMES TO TO NOT INCLUDE RELOCATING ALL INDUSTRIAL ACCOMMODATION UNITS.

AND WHEN I READ THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT, IT'S IT'S BASICALLY GIVEN BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, RELOCATABLE ACCOMMODATION UNITS ARE NOT CONSTRUCTED FOR PERMANENT USE, ESPECIALLY IN OUR SUBARCTIC CLIMATE, AND THAT THEY ARE NOT ENERGY EFFICIENT.

BUT AGAIN, I THINK THIS IS KIND OF MAKING SOME ASSUMPTIONS ON A ITEM OR A FULL A FULL CATEGORY OF ITEMS LIKE USING THE WORLD WORD OF A, YOU KNOW, RELOCATABLE INDUSTRIAL ACCOMMODATION UNIT, I DON'T SEE THAT AS A SPECIFIC THING, BUT AS A KIND OF A GENERAL TERM AND A RELOCATABLE INDUSTRIAL ACCOMMODATION UNIT, YOU KNOW VERY WELL COULD BE NET ZERO, COULDN'T IT LIKE IT COULD HAVE, YOU KNOW, A SOLAR PANEL SYSTEM TO IT? IT COULD HAVE, YOU KNOW, A DIFFERENT HEAT SOURCE, YOU KNOW, AND IT COULD BE, IN FACT, YOU KNOW, MANUFACTURED FOR SUB-ARCTIC ENVIRONMENT.

SO I'M JUST SORT OF CURIOUS ABOUT WHY THAT PARTICULAR WORDING BASICALLY A RELOCATABLE INDUSTRIAL ACCOMMODATION UNIT, WAS PARTICULARLY PULLED OUT OR TEASED OUT AS BEING NOT USABLE IN THIS PARTICULAR ZONE.

MS. BASSI-KELLETT. MS. WHITE, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, AND I WILL HAVE ROB PROVIDE MORE DETAIL.

SO YOU ARE CORRECT, COUNCILLORD WILLIAMS IF YOU HAD A CUSTOM BUILT DOWN IN ONE OF THE FACTORIES THAT BUILDS THESE WITH OUR BUILDING BYLAWS SPECIFICATIONS, IT IS THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE TO HAVE IT COME UP HERE AND MEET OUR BUILDING BYLAW.

AND THIS IS DEFINITELY A CONVERSATION TO HAVE AS WELL WHEN WE BRING THE NEW BUILDING BYLAW FORWARD.

WHAT WE ARE SEEING HISTORICALLY IS THESE ARE BUILDINGS THAT HAVE BEEN USED ELSEWHERE OR BUILT TO THE STANDARDS FROM SOME OF THE SOUTHERN PROVINCES.

AND SO WHEN THEY COME IN ARE LOCATED HERE, THEY AREN'T MEETING OUR CURRENT STANDARDS, ESPECIALLY FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND TO HAVE PEOPLE LIVING IN THOSE, WE THEN CAN'T ISSUE THAT OCCUPANCY RATE, WHICH WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR PEOPLE AS A LIVING UNIT.

SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE THIS IS COMING FROM.

AND YES, WE HAVE HAD REQUESTS IN THE RECENT PAST WITH REGARDS TO EITHER BRINGING UP FROM OTHER LOCATIONS OR BRINGING DOWN FROM OTHER LOCATIONS, THESE SORTS OF BUILDINGS.

AND ONE OTHER CONSIDERATION WE DEFINITELY HAD WITH REGARDS TO THIS IS THEY DON'T HAVE THE SAME LONGEVITY AS, SAY, SOME OF THE OTHER MORE PERMANENTLY BUILT DWELLINGS.

SO IF THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN USED ELSEWHERE FOR, SAY, FIVE OR 10 YEARS FROM HERE, THEN WE DO HAVE SOME CONCERN WITH REGARDS TO THEIR CAPACITY TO BE CONTINUED FOR THAT USE.

[00:40:06]

SO ALL THINGS TO CONSIDER WHEN WE'RE HAVING A CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS, BUT I WILL ASK ROB TO ADD SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

SO THE TERM INDUSTRIAL RELOCATABLE STRUCTURE COMES RIGHT OFF OF RIGHT OFF OF THESE UNITS.

SO IF YOU GO WALK UP TO WHERE THE CURRENT DAY SHELTER IS LOCATED, YOU'LL FIND ON THE SIDE OF THESE UNITS OR THESE CAMP UNITS A CSA STAMP THAT LITERALLY LABELS THESE AS AN INDUSTRIAL RELOCATED STRUCTURE.

AND SO THAT'S WHERE THAT TERMINOLOGY CAME FROM.

AND WHILE WHILE THE DAY SHELTER IS WORKING JUST FINE AS A DAY SHELTER, IT WOULD BE PARTICULARLY CHALLENGING TO APPROVE THAT AS AN OVERNIGHT ACCOMMODATION UNIT.

THE THE THE WAY THE WALLS HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED, THE R-VALUE AND THE INSULATION VALUE, AS WELL AS THE AIR QUALITY VALUE, WOULD BE VERY CHALLENGING TO APPROVE THESE DWELLING UNITS FOR SLEEPING IN OVERNIGHT REPEATEDLY.

AND SO THAT'S SORT OF WHERE WHERE WE'RE DRAWING THE LINE WITH THE ZONING BYLAW IS TRYING TO VERY CLEARLY DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THAT THAT WE DEFINE AS A CLEAR DWELLING UNIT VERSUS SOMETHING THAT IS ONE OF THESE INDUSTRIAL RELOCATABLE STRUCTURES.

YEAH, I CAN DEFINITELY SEE THAT.

THAT'S THAT'S GREAT, ROB, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S ATTACHED TO A CSA STANDARD.

HOWEVER, LIKE HOW OFTEN ARE THESE CSA STANDARDS, YOU KNOW, REVISED? I GUESS MY HESITATION IS, IS I I DON'T KNOW IF I SEE THE VALUE OF PARTICULARLY CALLING IT OUT ON THAT.

YOU KNOW THAT IT DOES NOT BECAUSE, OF COURSE, THAT IT WOULD STILL HAVE TO FORM OF A COMPLETE DWELLING UNIT, WHICH WE SAY EARLIER IN THAT DEFINITION.

AND I WOULD THINK THAT BY THAT, THAT WOULD MEAN THAT IT WOULD HAVE TO ADHERE TO THE EXISTING ZONING BYLAW, YOU KNOW, AND AS WE ALL KNOW, IN THE LIFETIME OF THIS ZONING BYLAW, THAT CSA STANDARD MAY CHANGE OR POSSIBLY COULD BE MODIFIED.

SO SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, I GUESS THIS IS MY MY HESITATION, AS SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, A UNIT WHERE IT CAME OFF THE LOT WITH THAT CSA STANDARD.

BUT THEN IT WAS, SAY, MODIFIED FOR, YOU KNOW, USE SPECIFIC TO NORTHWEST TERRITORIES.

HOW WOULD YOU APPROACH THAT AND WOULD THIS WORDING HINDER THE ABILITY TO HAVE THAT UNIT DEPLOYED? MS. BASSI-KELLETT. MS. WHITE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I WILL ASK ROB TO ANSWER THAT, PLEASE.

THANK YOU. THIS IS THIS IS VERY MUCH AN AGE OLD QUESTION, AND IN NORTHERN COMMUNITIES, THIS DISCUSSION OF TRYING TO FIND WAYS TO REGULATE CAMPS OR NOT REGULATE STRUCTURES OR THESE RELOCATABLE STRUCTURES IS VERY MUCH A COMMON POINT OF DISCUSSION.

IT IS POSSIBLE, CERTAINLY THAT THAT THESE BUILDINGS COULD BE UPDATED TO MEET SORT OF BUILDING BYLAW. BUT I THINK TIME HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT TYPICALLY THE DESIRE IS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY IS TO USE THESE IN EXCHANGE FOR EITHER INVESTING OR USING LOCAL DWELLING UNITS STOCK.

SO AGAIN.

WE'RE PROPOSING THAT CLARIFICATION BE ADDED TO THE BYLAW TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THAT SORT OF THESE DO NOT QUALIFY AS DWELLING UNITS.

OUR RESPONSE WOULD STILL BE THE SAME WHETHER WHETHER THE DEFINITION CHANGES OR NOT, BUT IT'S INTENDED TO PROVIDE CLARITY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY.

OKAY. YEAH.

OK. I THINK I'LL CHEW ON THAT ONE AND REREVIEW ITEM NUMBER 31 AND GO FROM THERE.

THANKS SO MUCH. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL? OR COMMENT OR DISCUSSION.

COUNCILLOR MORSE. I DO.

YEAH, I WANTED I HAD A FEW.

THE MAIN ONE.

SO ITEM NUMBER 26, SOME CAME FROM THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.

THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION, INCLUDING EXPANDING THE DOWNTOWN ZONE ACROSS 54TH SECOND AVENUE A RESIDENT CONTACTED ME ABOVE THIS AND KIND OF LOOKED INTO IT A LITTLE BIT.

AND I WAS A LITTLE BIT SURPRISED THAT AN AREA WITH SO MANY HIGH RISES ISN'T ALREADY CONSIDERED KIND OF DOWNTOWN ZONING.

AND IT'S NOT AN AREA WHICH HAS A LOT OF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

[00:45:01]

THAT KIND OF ENDED UP OUTSIDE OF THE DOWNTOWN ZONE AS IT IS AND WHY THERE APPEARS TO BE MAYBE RESISTANCE ISN'T THE BEST WAY TO CHARACTERIZE IT, BUT JUST THE ADMINISTRATION IS NOT RECOMMENDING A CHANGE.

IT JUST SEEMS TO ME LIKE IF WE'RE LOOKING FOR DENSIFICATION NEAR THE DOWNTOWN, IT'S KIND OF ONE OF THE AREAS WHERE THAT'S ALREADY OCCURRING AND WOULD MAKE SENSE TO HAVE IT THERE.

SO JUST LIKE TO DIG INTO THAT ONE A LITTLE BIT MORE AND LEARN WHY THAT'S NOT RECOMMENDED.

MS. BASSI-KELLETT. MS. WHITE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND I AM JUST PULLING UP MY [INAUDIBLE] EXPLORER.

WHEN WE DID TAKE A LOOK AT THIS AREA, I DO BELIEVE THE MOST, I GUESS YOU COULD SAY THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS ALONG THESE STREETS WAS ACTUALLY ONLY, I THINK A SIX PLEX WAS THE HIGHEST IN THIS AREA.

AND SO IF I LOOK AT 54 HERE AND A CROSS BETWEEN 54, 54TH STREET AND SECOND AVE, THEY ARE MOSTLY LOW DENSITY DWELLINGS.

SO THIS WOULD BE WHERE WE'RE RECOMMENDING THAT RC AND TRANSITION OVER TIME.

SEE IF THERE IS ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT THAT DOES OCCUR, TRANSITION TO MIXED USE AND THEN A REEVALUATION AT THE TIME OF REVIEW.

ROB, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING TO THIS CONVERSATION, BUT WE DID TAKE A LOOK AT IT COUNCILLOR MORSE WITH REGARDS TO THE COMMENT FROM THE CHAMBER.

YEAH, AND THE OTHER COMMENT THAT I WOULD ADD IS THAT SINCE THE BEGINNING OF SORT OF THIS ZONING BYLAW REVIEW AND OUR MESSAGING TO THE PUBLIC THROUGH ENGAGEMENT.

WAS ALWAYS THAT WE WERE RECOMMENDING THAT THE PERIMETER OF THE DOWNTOWN ZONE STAY THE SAME, IF WE WERE LOOKING AT REVISING SORT OF THE DOWNTOWN ZONE SIGNIFICANTLY, I THINK OUR ENGAGEMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN FAR DIFFERENT AND THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN ALSO FAR DIFFERENT ANALYSIS DONE WHEN WE MET WITH THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IN A TWO HOUR STAKEHOLDER MEETING IN JANUARY FEBRUARY OF 21.

AT THAT TIME, THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE DIDN'T HAVE ANY CONCERNS WITH [INAUDIBLE] ZONE BOUNDARY. BUT OF COURSE, TIME HAS GONE BY.

THE CHAMBER NOW HAS A NEW PERSON WORKING THERE AND NEW EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AND THEY'VE COME FORWARD WITH AN OPINION TO TO ADJUST THE DOWNTOWN ZONE.

BUT AGAIN, WE'VE TRIED TO BE CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT THIS ENGAGEMENT PROCESS AND SINCE THE BEGINNING WE SAID THAT WE WERE GOING TO LEAVE THE DOWNTOWN ZONE PERIMETER AS IS, AND WORK ON IMPLEMENTING THE RESIDENTIAL CENTRAL ZONE AROUND IT.

AND SO THAT'S WHAT YOU SEE IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY.

OK. YEAH.

IT JUST. I MEAN, THE MAIN AREA THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT IS BETWEEN 51ST THE KIND OF CORNER OF 51ST STREET THROUGH KIND OF THE 52ND AVENUE AREA BEHIND IT, SO LOTS 5201 THROUGH I THINK 4503 AND BEYOND, AND SO IN THAT AREA, LIKE WE'VE GOT SIR JOHN FRANKLIN HIGH SCHOOL, A COUPLE OF KIND OF HIGH DENSITY BUILDINGS AND THE WATERMARK TOWER.

THERE'S THE OLD [INAUDIBLE] HALL SITE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT WOULD EVER BE DONE WITH THAT, BUT THERE COULD MAYBE BE INSTITUTIONAL USES THERE.

IT JUST SEEMS LIKE AN AREA THAT THAT IS KIND OF IT'S RIGHT ADJACENT TO THE DOWNTOWN CORE, AND IT SEEMS TO MAKE SENSE TO ME THAT ZONING IN DOWNTOWN WOULDN'T NEGATIVELY IMPACT ANYBODY OR CHANGE THE USE PER SAY, BUT MIGHT MAKE IT EASIER IF SOMEONE WAS TO ACQUIRE LAND THERE OR TO USE LAND THEY ALREADY OWN TO KIND OF BUILD AN ADDITIONAL APARTMENT TOWER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

AND IT REALLY RUNS UP RIGHT NEXT TO THE DOWNTOWN ZONE, AND IT JUST SEEMS TO ME TO MAKE SENSE TO CONSIDER IT THERE.

AND IT WOULD BE KIND OF A LOW IMPACT ON RESIDENTS IN THE SENSE THAT IT WOULD IT WOULD KIND OF ALLOW FOR IT. AND I GUESS.

THE QUESTION THAT WOULD COME TO ME LIKE CONSIDERING WE'VE ALREADY GOT THE ANDERSON THOMPSON TOWER, WE'VE ALREADY GOT THE WATERMARK TOWER IN THAT AREA.

I MEAN, WERE THOSE BUILT KIND OF AS DISCRETIONARY USES BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ME THAT ALMOST ALL OF THE USES IN THAT AREA ARE APARTMENT TOWERS.

AND SO IT JUST SEEMS LIKE WE'VE KIND OF LIKE WHEN IT WAS POINTED OUT TO ME, I WAS ACTUALLY KIND OF SURPRISED TO LEARN THAT THAT WASN'T IN THE DOWNTOWN ZONE, JUST BASED ON

[00:50:03]

WELL, THEY'RE IN THERE LIKE CENTRAL RESIDENTIAL, WHICH ALLOWS THE THE TOWER, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DOWNTOWN AND CENTRAL RESIDENTIAL WOULD BE LIKE DOWNTOWN.

YOU CAN HAVE 100 PERCENT LOT SUB COVERAGE.

THERE'S DIFFERENT PARKING.

YOU CAN HAVE MORE COMMERCIAL STUFF LIKE THAT BUT MS. BASSI-KELLETT. MS. WHITE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE QUESTION AND COMMENT, SO YEAH, THIS IS ACTUALLY JUST NORTH OF NORTHWEST OR NORTHEAST OF WHERE I WAS TALKING TO.

SO YEAH, THIS ACTUALLY WOULD BE A GREAT EXAMPLE OF THAT TRANSITION BETWEEN THE LOWER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL INTO THIS RESIDENTIAL CENTRAL WHERE YEAH, YOU HAVE THAT LANDSCAPED AREA, YOU HAVE THE CONNECTIVITY TO THE STREET FOR THE RESIDENTS WHO LIVE THERE.

WE HAVE SOME REALLY GREAT INSTITUTIONAL USES ADJACENT TO IT.

AND THEN YOU TRANSITION INTO ALMOST SEAMLESSLY IN THAT DOWNTOWN, WHICH DOES HAVE SOME DIFFERENT USES, WHICH COULD BE SEEN POTENTIALLY AS CONFLICTING WITH SOME OF THE OUTER USES DOWN 54TH AVE AREA.

SO THIS IS A GREAT EXAMPLE OF THAT TRANSITION.

AND MAYBE ONCE THE ADDITIONAL AREAS THAT ARE PROPOSED TO BE IN THE RC OR RC1 ZONE TRANSITION UP TO WHAT WE'D SAY THIS DENSITY LEVEL, THEN MAYBE THAT MAY BE AN APPROPRIATE TIME TO LOOK AT NOT JUST THESE LANDS AS YOU IDENTIFY COUNCILLOR MORSE, BUT MAYBE SOME ADDITIONAL LANDS, BUT THAT WOULD BE FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD ONCE WE SEE WHAT THAT UPTAKE IS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

HEY, THANKS. YEAH, I MIGHT LOOK INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE.

BUT OK, I'M GOING TO LEAVE THAT ISSUE FOR A SECOND.

THE NEXT ONE, I JUST FOUND THIS A BIT PECULIAR THAT IN IN THE AREAS IN THE NEWLY REVISED BYLAW OR DRAFT BYLAW WHERE DETACHED SECONDARY SUITES ARE CONSIDERED, IF YOU HAVE A GARAGE, THE HEIGHT LIMIT IS DIFFERENT THAN IF YOU DON'T HAVE A GARAGE.

AND I'M JUST SORT OF TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY DOES BUILDING A GARAGE ALLOW YOU TO BUILD OVER THE HEIGHT OF YOUR EXISTING BUILDING? WHEREAS IF YOU DON'T INCLUDE A GARAGE, YOU CAN'T.

IT JUST SEEMS LIKE KIND OF A SORT OF ARBITRARY REASON TO INCLUDE THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION, LIKE IF SOMEONE WANTED TO GET OVER THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION, THEY JUST PUT A GARAGE IN.

BUT WHY DO YOU NEED TO HAVE A GARAGE? I GUESS THE QUESTION I WOULD ASK IS WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE TO THE NEIGHBORS IF THE NEIGHBORS ARE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE WORRIED ABOUT THE HEIGHT, WHETHER OR NOT YOUR NEIGHBOR HAS A GARAGE UNDERNEATH THEIR BUILDING THAT'S NOW HIGHER THAN THEIR OTHER BUILDING, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES THAT MAKE TO YOU? IT JUST SEEMS ARBITRARY.

SO I WAS JUST WONDERING IF THERE'S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE DIFFERENCE THERE.

MS. BASSI-KELLETT. MS. WHITE. THANK YOU, AND IF I COULD ASK WHAT SPECIFIC SECTION YOU'RE LOOKING AT, AND THE REASON I'M ASKING IS.

ORIGINALLY IN THE FIRST DRAFT, WE DID HAVE THAT HEIGHT ALLOWANCE UP TO, I BELIEVE, 12 METERS, WHICH WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT ACTUALLY BE BROUGHT DOWN NOW BECAUSE THE PUBLIC DID IDENTIFY THAT THEY HAD CONCERNS WITH THAT.

AND THE REASON WE ORIGINALLY HAD THE HIGHER HEIGHT WAS EXACTLY, AS YOU SAY, COUNCILLOR MORSE TO ALLOW FOR THOSE WHO HAD A GARAGE TO PUT A SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT ABOVE IT.

SO WHAT WOULD HAPPEN UNDER THE CURRENT REGULATIONS, AS WE'VE AMENDED IT, IS THAT YOU WOULD REQUIRE YOU AS THE PROPERTY OWNER IF YOU HAD A GARAGE, YOU WANT TO PUT A DWELLING ABOVE IT, YOU WOULD NOW HAVE TO COME IN FOR THAT VARIANCE.

SO MAY I ASK WHICH SECTION YOU WERE REFERENCING? SORRY, I'M JUST GOING TO HAVE TO DO A BIT OF SCROLLING HERE IT WAS IN, I THOUGHT I SAW IT IN ALL OF THEM ANYWHERE WHERE THAT WHERE THAT CHANGE WAS MADE, IT HAPPENED TO ALL OF THEM. IT'S JUST SHOWING AS A TRACK CHANGE IN THERE.

THE FIRST PLACE I SEE IT IS IN R2 MEDIUM DENSITY REGULATIONS, BUT IT SEEMS TO BE A CHANGE THAT'S HAPPENED IN ALL OF THEM, AND IT'S WHERE, WHEREVER IT'S DETACHED SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT, NO HIGHER THAN THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING.

BUT WHERE IT SAYS GARAGE, YOU CAN HAVE IT TO A MAXIMUM OF 3 METERS AND NO MORE THAN 3 METERS HIGHER, SO I JUST UNDERSTAND, I GUESS WHERE MY QUESTION IS IS WHY IS THE GARAGE THE DIFFERENCE? MS. BASSI-KELLETT. MS. WHITE. SURE, I'M NOT SURE I'M I'M HONESTLY FOLLOWING, SO MAYBE I'LL LET ROB ANSWER BECAUSE WE HAD, LIKE I SAID, WE ORIGINALLY HAD IT SO THAT THAT HEIGHT COULD GO UP TO THE 12 METERS, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THERE WAS SOMETHING UNDERNEATH IT OR NOT.

AND THEN BASED ON PUBLIC COMMENT THAT THAT WAS TOO HIGH FOR AN ACCESSORY BUILDING.

THAT'S WHY WE'VE PLACED IT IN LINE WITH THE EXISTING HEIGHT OF THE DWELLING THAT'S

[00:55:02]

AND IF YOU WANTED TO GO GREATER THAN THAT IS TO CREATE CONSISTENCY ON THE PROPERTY BASED ON THE CONCERNS IDENTIFIED BY THE PUBLIC.

BUT ROB, MAYBE YOU CAN HELP ME HERE.

YEAH, I THINK WHAT WE'RE SEEING HERE IS, YOU KNOW, WHAT PLANNING IS PROPOSING IS TRYING TO FIND WAYS TO TO INCREASE THAT DENSITY, PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THOSE SECONDARY DWELLING UNITS WITH WITHIN PROPERTIES.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE'RE TRYING TO BALANCE THAT AGAINST THE COMMENTS THAT WE'VE HEARD THROUGH THE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, THE HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS CAN INFLUENCE THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORS.

SO WE'VE MODIFIED THE BYLAW TO SAY THAT IF YOU WANT A SECONDARY SUITE ON YOUR PROPERTY, IT CAN'T BE ANY HIGHER THAN THE EXISTING DWELLING UNIT.

OR IF YOUR PROPERTY HAS A GARAGE ON IT, OR IF YOU'RE PROPOSING A GARAGE, YOU CAN PUT A SUITE ON TOP OF THAT GARAGE, IN ESSENCE, A CARRIAGE HOUSE OR A GARAGE SUITE.

WHEN IT'S COUPLED WITH [INAUDIBLE] BY HAVING A SUITE ON THE SECOND FLOOR, IT'S ALREADY VERY LIMITED IN ITS SIZE TYPICALLY, AND IT'S CAPPED AT 3 METERS MORE.

SO WE'RE ATTEMPTING TO TRY AND CREATE THAT DENSITY, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, TRY AND FIND SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE COMPATIBLE TO THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO YOU'RE VERY MUCH LOOKING AT COMPROMISE HERE.

I GUESS SO THAT PUTS THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF A PRINCIPAL DWELLING IS 12 METERS.

SO YOU CAN GO NO MORE THAT NO MORE THAN 3METERS HIGHER THAN THE PRINCIPAL OF BUILDING TO A MAXIMUM OF 12 METERS, SO THE DETACHED SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT ISN'T GOING TO BE HIGHER THAN THE PRINCIPAL OR THE MAXIMUM THAT A PRINCIPAL DWELLING COULD BE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET A 15 METER HIGH STRUCTURE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

YOU KNOW, THAT ALL MAKES SENSE TO ME.

I GUESS WHERE I'M KIND OF A BIT LOST IS WHY DOES THE GARAGE MAKE THE DIFFERENCE? I JUST IT'S IT JUST SEEMS KIND OF ARBITRARY, I GUESS.

AND LIKE, I DON'T KNOW IF MAYBE I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT ADMINISTRATION IS DOING OR IF IT IS ARBITRARY.

THAT'S THE FUNNY THING, BECAUSE I'M KIND OF THINKING LIKE, I'M TRYING TO IMAGINE A SCENARIO. MY NEIGHBOR IS GOING TO BUILD SOMETHING.

THEY PLAN FOR IT TO BE 12 METERS HIGH.

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE TO ME IF THE BOTTOM FLOOR OF IT IS A GARAGE OR NOT? LIKE, I JUST I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS, LIKE, I DID SEE PEOPLE COMMENTING SAYING, OH MY GOD, PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BUILD ACCESSORY BUILDINGS THAT ARE AS HIGH.

AND I KIND OF SAW IT.

I WAS LIKE, OK, I MEAN, I DON'T UNDERSTAND.

I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHY IT WAS SUCH A PROBLEM FOR PEOPLE.

I THINK SECONDARY SUITES ARE GENERALLY CONSIDERED A GOOD THING.

BUT I GUESS THE COMPROMISE HERE, IF I WAS THE PERSON THAT MADE THE COMMENT, I DON'T WANT SOMETHING 12 METERS GOING UP NEXT DOOR AND KNOWING THAT MY NEIGHBOR, ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS PUT A GARAGE AND THEN THEY CAN DO IT.

WELL, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? YOU MIGHT AS WELL JUST LET THEM DO IT ANYWAYS.

WHAT, WHAT? WHAT DOES IT MATTER IF THEY HAVE A GARAGE UNDER IT OR NOT? I MEAN, IF THEY DON'T HAVE A GARAGE UNDER IT, MAYBE IT CAN ACCOMMODATE MORE PEOPLE.

AND SO MAYBE IT'LL HELP DENSIFY BETTER.

SO I'M JUST FAILING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE GARAGE MITIGATES THE SITUATION.

THAT'S AM I EXPLAINING MYSELF CORRECTLY THERE? YEAH. MS. BASSI-KELLETT. MS. WHITE. THANK YOU, COUNCILLOR MORSE.

I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

SO, YEAH, THIS IS REALLY VERY MUCH US TRYING TO PROVIDE A FORM OF COMPROMISE.

YOU'RE RIGHT, THE GARAGE ITSELF, I MEAN, YOUR GARAGE COULD HAVE AN EIGHT FOOT DOOR, TWELVE FOOT DOOR IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THAT GARAGE IS.

AND THEN YOU'RE GETTING THAT BY PUTTING THE GARAGE OR GETTING THAT 3 METER HEIGHT NO MORE THAN 3 METERS HIGHER THAN THE PRINCIPAL DWELLING.

SO I SEE WHAT EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING RIGHT NOW.

AND AGAIN, IT SHOULDN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

IT COULD END UP MAKING A DIFFERENCE.

WE'RE OPEN. THIS IS AGAIN US TRYING TO ADDRESS THE CONCERN, AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING THAT THEN I COULD HAVE THIS HUGE SECONDARY STRUCTURE OVERLOOKING MY YARD AND THIS WAS REALLY US IN THE DETACHED SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT PORTION, TRYING TO KEEP IN LINE WITH SOME OF THOSE COMMENTS AS WELL.

WHEN YOU HAVE A GARAGE UNDERNEATH THE SECONDARY UNIT, THEORETICALLY WITHOUT THE GARAGE COULD BE TWO STORIES HIGH AS LONG, DEPENDING ON WHAT YOUR PRIMARY DWELLING ACTUALLY IS.

THIS WAS TRYING TO GIVE IT A LITTLE MORE AREA OR SPACE.

BUT AGAIN, FOR CONSIDERATION, ROB, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAD ANYTHING ADDITIONAL TO PUT.

NO. OK, SO THAT I DO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, SOMETHING WE COULD WE COULD LOOK AT.

YEAH, I MEAN, IT'S IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A HILL FOR ME TO DIE ON, BUT I I MEAN, I GUESS IT JUST IT JUST STRUCK ME AS A LITTLE BIT ARBITRARY AND I DON'T PERSONALLY, I THINK THAT THE

[01:00:02]

I KNOW THAT A FEW RESIDENTS BROUGHT IT UP, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY NOT SOMETHING THAT I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE PARTICULARLY CONCERNED ABOUT.

AND I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE A ZONING BYLAW THAT'S FLEXIBLE AND PERMISSIVE.

AND, YOU KNOW, IF IF PEOPLE CAN BUILD UP TO 12 METERS AND ALL THEY HAVE TO DO TO DO IT IS TO MAKE A GARAGE, WELL, I DON'T KNOW, AND IT SEEMS LIKE IT DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO ME. I MEAN, IF MY NEIGHBOR HAS A GARAGE OR NOT, OR IF A PERSON'S NEIGHBOR HAS A GARAGE OR NOT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT I EITHER DO OR DON'T LIKE THE 12 METER BUILDING.

AND IF I DON'T KNOW ANYWAYS, I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT.

IT JUST STRUCK ME AS A STRANGE ONE.

THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS FOR NOW.

[INAUDIBLE] GARAGES ALSO HAVE A WHOLE HOST OF CONDITIONS THAT YOU HAVE TO MEET, SO JUST SAYING, OH, I'LL BE ABLE TO GET AROUND THIS BY PUTTING A GARAGE.

YOU'RE NOW GOING TO HAVE TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH A WHOLE NEW SET OF REGULATIONS AS WELL, SO THERE THAT CAN ALSO BE A BARRIER FOR PEOPLE OR LOTS COUNCILLOR PAYNE.

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. A COUPLE OF THINGS.

WE JUST GOT AN EMAIL THIS MORNING.

THE LATEST ONE ABOUT THE 58TH AVENUE AREA AND PEOPLE SEEM TO BE HAVING A REAL, I GUESS THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT THE IDEA OF CONVENIENCE STORES OR OR BARS OR WHATEVER.

I KNOW THAT IT'S PROBABLY NOT THE MOST DESIRABLE NEIGHBORHOOD TO WANT TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT IN. SO WHAT CAN WE DO TO ALLEVIATE ANY ISSUES AND CONCERNS THAT THE RESIDENTS OF THAT AREA WOULD HAVE? WHAT'S STOPPING SOMEBODY FROM BUYING TWO LOTS AND OPENING UP A STRIP CLUB JOINT ON FIFTH AVENUE? YOU KNOW, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S THAT WE WOULD NOT LOOK AT? AND YEAH, I HAVE RECEIVED A LOT OF CORRESPONDENCE ON THIS AREA.

THIS ONE AREA AND NARROW STREETS, IT'S I DON'T THINK IT'S THE MOST IDEAL.

SO WHAT CAN WE DO? IS MY QUESTION MY FIRST QUESTION? YEAH THE ADMINISTRATION IS PROPOSING THAT COMMERCIAL RECREATION AND FOOD AND BEVERAGES SERVICES MOVE FROM PERMITTED TO DISCRETIONARY AND THEN ADMINISTRATIONS ALSO REMOVING THAT CONVENIENCE STORE NOT BE ALLOWED AT ALL.

AND URBAN AGRICULTURE WILL NOT BE ALLOWED AT ALL.

AND THEN THE RESIDENT WAS JUST HIGHLIGHTING THAT THERE WAS SOME OTHER PARTICULAR USES THAT THEY ALSO DIDN'T WANT.

SO I THINK ADMIN SUMMARIZED SOMETIMES VERY HIGH LEVEL.

SO THEN PEOPLE'S COMMENTS, THEY MAY FEEL THAT THEIR COMMENTS WEREN'T BEING ADDRESSED AND THAT WAS MS. WHITE'S POINT EARLIER IS, YOU KNOW, COUNCIL DOES HAVE ALL OF THE DOCUMENTATION FROM RESIDENTS TO TO CONSIDER THOSE OTHER POINTS, BUT MS. BASSI-KELLETT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR.

ABSOLUTELY AND WE HEARD VERY LOUD AND CLEAR FROM 58 AVENUE AND WOULD PROPOSE THAT WE HAVE SOUGHT TO ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS THAT THEY HAD RAISED IN THIS DRAFT MS. WHITE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I WOULD SAY YES, 58, THERE WAS A FEW OTHER STREETS WITHIN AND AROUND THIS NEW PROPOSED RC RC1 AREA, SO IT WAS A CONCERN THAT WE DEFINITELY LOOKED INTO.

WE RESEARCHED, WE HAD THE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WHAT IS AND IS NOT APPROPRIATE AND WHAT THAT COULD LOOK LIKE, WHICH IS WHERE OUR ADMINISTRATIVE RECOMMENDATION COMES FROM.

AGAIN, TRYING TO FIND THAT MIDDLE WHILE STILL ALLOWING OVER TIME SOME TRANSITION TO OCCUR WE'LL MONITOR AND AT THE END OF THE PLANNING PERIOD FOR REVIEW, BRING THAT FORWARD FOR COUNCIL TO MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON ACTUAL FACTS AND TRANSITION THAT DOES OCCUR.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.

YEAH. I THINK THE PEOPLE ON THE STREET ARE VERY THEY SEEM TO BE MORE ENGAGED ON THIS TOPIC THAN A LOT OF OTHER STREETS THAT ARE BEING AFFECTED.

BUT AS LONG AS WE'RE LOOKING AT TAKING CARE OF THESE PEOPLE AND NOT RUINING THE FEEL OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, THE SECOND ONE GETTING BACK TO.

THE DOWNTOWN ZONE POSSIBILITY FOR THE 52ND AVENUE BETWEEN 54 AND 52ND, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE I KNOW THERE'S TALK TALK ABOUT A NEW DEVELOPMENT CLOSE TO WATERMARK TOWER, I KNOW THERE'S TALK ABOUT A NEW DEVELOPMENT UP THE STREET TOWARDS 5ND, CLOSER.

AND WOULDN'T IT MAKE SENSE TO BE ABLE TO I MEAN, IF THESE IF THESE DEVELOPMENTS ARE IN

[01:05:03]

YOU KNOW, WE'RE LOOKING AT INCREASE DENSIFICATION.

AND THESE TWO DEVELOPMENTS COULD HAVE SIGNIFICANT INCREASED DENSIFICATION OF DENSITY IF IF WE'RE ALLOWED TO AND YOU KNOW, I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF OLDER BUILDINGS IN THIS AREA, AND, YOU KNOW, MAYBE SOME OF THESE BUILDINGS WOULD BE SLATED FOR DEMOLITION AND REBUILD OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS.

SO WOULDN'T IT MAKE SENSE TO HAVE IT THAT THEY CAN EASILY USE MORE OF THEIR LOTS TO TO BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH SOME, I I WOULD SEE IT AS POSITIVE DEVELOPMENTS IN THAT AREA. MS. BASSI-KELLETT. MS. WHITE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE QUESTION.

AND SO AS WE SPOKE TO EARLIER, THIS AREA DOES ALLOW FOR WHAT IS POTENTIALLY BEING PROPOSED IN AND AROUND THOSE AREAS UNDER THE RESIDENTIAL CENTRAL ZONE DESIGNATION.

ONE OF THE REASONS THAT YOU KNOW WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING TO REVITALIZE YOUR DOWNTOWN AND YOUR DOWNTOWN AREA THAT WE'RE WANTING TO HOLD THAT DOWNTOWN ZONE LINE AT THE MOMENT IS WE DON'T WANT TO DILUTE IT BY EXPANDING IT TOO MUCH UNTIL WE SEE WHAT THE RESULT IS OF SOME OF THE REALLY, REALLY SIGNIFICANT CHANGES WE'VE MADE TO THAT DOWNTOWN ZONE.

FIRST AND FOREMOST, ALLOWING THESE NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND I KNOW THE ONES YOU ARE SPEAKING TO COUNCILLOR PAYNE. WE DON'T FEEL THAT THE RC ZONE IS IN ANY WAY GOING TO IMPEDE THEM.

THEY DO ALSO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR VARIANCES, WHICH WE'RE WORKING AND ABLE TO WORK WITHIN BOTH THE CURRENT BYLAW OR THIS NEW ONE TO ALLOW THOSE TO HAPPEN, WHETHER THEY'RE IN THE DOWNTOWN ZONE OR WHETHER THAN THE RC ZONE THE DENSITY WILL STILL BE THERE.

WHICH WE WILL SUPPORT BECAUSE THAT IS AS PART OF OUR COMMUNITY PLAN DECISIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, WHETHER IT'S AT THE STAFF LEVEL OR TO COUNCIL NEED TO CONFORM TO THAT PLAN. AND THAT IS ONE OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE PLAN.

SO I FEEL THAT REGARDLESS OF THE ZONE THEY'RE IN, THEY ARE BEING SUPPORTED BY OUR POLICY DOCUMENT AS WELL AS THIS PROPOSED ZONING BYLAW DOCUMENT.

THANK YOU. OK, THANK YOU FOR THAT.

NOW. SO WE HAVE DEVELOPERS THAT ARE ASKING FOR THIS TO BE ZONED DOWNTOWN, DT. SO IF DEVELOPERS ARE ASKING FOR IT THEN YOU KNOW, WHY WOULDN'T WE WHY WOULDN'T WE ADDRESS THERE? IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF PUSHBACK HERE FROM THE CITY, AND THIS IS JUST A FEELING I'M GETTING, BUT I'M NOT REALLY UNDERSTANDING THAT PUSHBACK WHEN THIS THIS AREA HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BE LIKE COUNCILLOR MORSE TALKED ABOUT THE [INAUDIBLE] SPOT LAND AND, YOU KNOW, INSTITUTIONAL USES.

I MEAN THIS THIS AREA HAS A REALLY HIGH POTENTIAL OF BEING SOMETHING PRETTY, PRETTY COOL IN THE FUTURE WITH THAT LAND BEING USED AND YOU KNOW.

WHY, WHY WAIT TO SEE WHAT THE RESPONSES ARE GOING TO BE FROM THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY WHEN YOU ALREADY HAVE MEMBERS OF THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY RIGHT NOW WANTING THIS CHANGE AND IT IS RIGHT ACROSS THE ROAD LIKE YOU LOOK AT THE CATHOLIC SCHOOL BUILDING, YOU KNOW, ALL THESE BUILDINGS RIGHT ALONG AND THEY'RE ABLE TO BUILD OUT FURTHER AND YOU KNOW.

IS AND TO MAKE CHANGES.

WOULD IT BE AS EASY AS MAKING AN AMENDMENT TO THIS WHEN THE TIME COMES? MS. BASSI-KELLETT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, I WILL HAND THIS TO MS. WHITE, I THINK PART OF OUR CHALLENGE IS WITHIN OUR OVERALL TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR WHEN WE STARTED DOING THIS WAS TO KEEP THAT LINE WHERE IT IS FOR THE DOWNTOWN CORE AND TO REALLY LOOK AT HOW WE COULD MAKE THE RESIDENTIAL CENTRAL MORE ROBUST AND INTO MORE OF A TRANSITIONAL AREA.

SO THAT'S NOT PART OF WHAT WE HAD LOOKED AT.

I WILL TURN THINGS TO MS. WHITE AT THIS POINT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND I WOULD AGREE, YES, THAT'S PART OF IT, AS WELL AS WITH ANYTHING AND ANY CHANGES IN LAND USE PLANNING, YOU DO WANT TO MONITOR AND EVALUATE OVER TIME TO SEE THE RESULTS, AND WE WOULDN'T WANT TO DISCOURAGE SOME OF THE CHANGES WHICH WE'RE

[01:10:03]

AND ONE OTHER THING I'LL SAY, WHICH MAY NOT BE A POPULAR COMMENT, BUT I'M GOING TO SAY IT ANYWAYS IS WHEN WE DO LAND USE PLANNING, WE DON'T DO IT FOR SPECIFIC PROPERTY OWNERS.

WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE WHOLE AREA, THE WHOLE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD AND PROPERTY OWNERS CAN CHANGE THROUGH TIME WHILE THOSE DEVELOPMENTS WILL BE THERE, YOU KNOW, 50 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD. AND AGAIN, THAT GOES BACK TO THE MONITORING COMMENT OF, LET'S SEE THE CHANGES, LET'S SEE HOW THOSE TRANSITIONS WORK.

WE'RE NOT SAYING NEVER.

WE'RE JUST SAYING, LET'S EVALUATE THROUGH TIME.

AND I THINK ROB HAS ONE ADDITIONAL POINT TO MAKE.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

YEAH, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT.

CERTAINLY, WE'VE BEEN IN DISCUSSION WITH DEVELOPERS ABOUT SOME OF THESE PROJECTS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, LIKE THE WATERMARK, YOU KNOW, AND WHERE WE FIND OURSELVES IN THIS TRANSITION IS THAT WE'RE WE'RE EVALUATING THESE DEVELOPMENTS WITH THE EXISTING ZONING BYLAW AND WE'RE EVALUATING THESE DEVELOPMENTS WITH THE PROPOSED ZONING BYLAW.

AND WE ARE CERTAINLY FINDING THAT THE RESIDENTIAL CENTRAL ZONE, NOT THE RESIDENTIAL CENTRAL ONE, BUT JUST THE RESIDENTIAL CENTRAL ZONE, IS ACCOMMODATING THESE DEVELOPMENTS QUITE WELL. IT IS NOT FUNCTIONING AS A BARRIER.

IT'S IN FACT MEETING THE NEEDS OF THE DEVELOPER TO ALLOW THEM TO GO AHEAD.

WE'RE ALREADY SEEING THAT TEST, EVEN THOUGH THE BYLAW HASN'T BEEN ADOPTED YET.

WE'RE STARTING TO DO THAT REVIEW PROCESS.

OK, THANK YOU.

AND, YOU KNOW, I RESPECT EVERYTHING YOU GUYS ARE SAYING.

AND MAYBE I'LL SAY SOMETHING THAT'S UNPOPULAR, BUT I'M GOING TO SAY IT ANYWAY.

OUR JOB AS CITY COUNCILLOR IS TO LISTEN TO THE RESIDENTS AND THE RESIDENTS INCLUDE THE DEVELOPERS UP HERE. SO IF WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING OUR JOB AS COUNCILLORS, WE HAVE TO BRING THIS FORWARD AND WE ARE THE ONES THAT WILL BE TAKING THE BRUNT FROM FROM THE PUBLIC. AND I DON'T SEE THIS AS A BIG ASK.

AND I, YEAH, I'M INTERESTED TO SEE WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE THINKS ABOUT THIS, BUT I KNOW WHERE I STAND ON THIS AND I'LL KEEP PUSHING FORWARD.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MS. BASSI-KELLETT. I KNOW THE CHAMBERS REQUEST WAS ORIGINALLY FROM 54TH STREETS ALL THE WAY UP 52ND AVE.

AND YES, THOSE PROPERTIES FROM 54TH ALL THE WAY TO 51ST STREET ARE MORE SINGLE FAMILY. BUT WONDERING ABOUT JUST THE SIX PROPERTIES, WHICH ARE THOSE MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS ON JUST THE OTHER SIDE OF 52ND AVE.

FROM 51ST STREET TO 44TH STREET, THERE'S SIX MULTIFAMILY ONE TWO THREE FOUR AND WATERMARK, I THINK IS TWO LOTS FIVE AND SIX.

WHETHER WE CAN HAVE A BIT OF AN ANALYSIS ON JUST THOSE SIX PROPERTIES GOING INTO THE THE DT. AND SO WHAT'S THE THE DIFFERENCE FROM THE DT TO CENTRAL RESIDENTIAL SO THAT WE CAN HAVE THAT UNDERSTANDING BECAUSE THERE IS THERE'S DIFFERENCE IN IN SITE COVERAGE, THERE'S DIFFERENT IN PARKING, THERE'S DIFFERENT STUFF THAT THEY HAVE TO HAVE COMMERCIAL ON THE FIRST FLOOR VERSUS CENTRAL RESIDENTIAL, SO WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE BY BY THE END OF IT'S OUR NEXT GPC OR OUR NEXT COUNCIL MEETING WHERE WE DISCUSS THIS TO HAVE THAT ANALYSIS ON THOSE SIX PROPERTIES.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR.

WE'LL CERTAINLY ENDEAVOR TO LOOK INTO THIS, TO LOOK INTO WHAT SOME OF THE ISSUES ARE AROUND SOMETHING LIKE THIS, AND WE WILL SEEK TO REPORT BACK TO POSSIBLY IF IT'S POSSIBLE TO GPC ON THE 21ST.

AND IF NOT, WE'LL HAVE IT IN ADVANCE OF COUNCIL'S DISCUSSION ON THE 28TH.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL? I WILL START WITH MINE THEN.

YEAH. FOLLOWING UP ON COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS, I HAD A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT THE WORKERS ACCOMMODATION, AND SO I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, DO WE WANT THE WORKERS ACCOMMODATION TO BECOME A PERMANENT FACILITY THAT WOULD STAY ON THE LOT? OR ARE WE HOPING THAT IT'S THEY BUILD IT, THE PROJECTS OVER THE TERMS OVER AND IT LEAVES? BECAUSE IF IF WE ARE HOPING THAT IT'S JUST FOR THE PROJECT, I I WOULD SUPPORT HAVING THE RELOCATABLE INDUSTRIAL ACCOMMODATION UNITS THAT MEET OUR BUILDING BYLAWS.

SO I GUESS.

[01:15:01]

WE KNOW THAT IN A PERFECT WORLD, WE WOULD HAVE WORKERS THAT ARE COMING IN TO WORK ON LARGE SCALE PROJECTS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY OR ADJACENT TO THE COMMUNITY THAT THEY WOULD COME AND STAY HERE.

WE KNOW THAT'S NOT ALWAYS POSSIBLE.

WE KNOW AS WELL THAT THERE ARE SOME RISKS TO WORKER ACCOMMODATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED IN REPORTS SUCH AS THE MURDERED AND MISSING INDIGENOUS WOMEN AND GIRLS, THAT THERE IS A CORRELATION THAT'S BEEN FOUND IN THAT REPORT BETWEEN WORK CAMPS AND SOMETIMES THE WAY THAT WOMEN ARE TREATED IN COMMUNITIES.

SO IT'S A VERY COMPLEX ISSUE.

IT'S A PUBLIC POLICY ISSUE FOR SURE, AS WELL AS A PLANNING ISSUE.

AND THAT'S CERTAINLY WHAT OUR PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS SOUGHT TO ADDRESS TO FIND A WAY FORWARD THAT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IF WE HAVE A LOT OF PROJECTS GOING ON AT ONE TIME, WE CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO JEOPARDIZE THOSE PROJECTS AND TELL PEOPLE, SORRY, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO WAIT, BUT WE'VE GOT TO FIND A WAY FORWARD.

THAT'S GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE KIND OF ACCOMMODATION THAT IS A COMMUNITY BUILDER THAT BUILDS COMMUNITY AND CREATES AND CONTRIBUTES TO COMMUNITY.

SO ON THAT NOTE, I WILL TURN THIS TO MS. WHITE TO SPEAK TO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

AND IF WE TAKE A LOOK AT THE DEFINITION, IT SAYS TYPICALLY RELATED BUSINESS OR APPROPRIATE PROJECT TERM OR SEASONAL USE.

SO REALLY, THAT WAS KIND OF WHERE WE WERE GOING WITH IT.

BUT I AGREE THAT AS A GENERAL GOAL AND OBJECTIVE, WHAT WE SHOULD BE LOOKING TO DO IS CREATING WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY HOUSING UNITS THAT SUPPORT THESE JOBS SO THAT WHEN THEY DO COME UP THAT THOSE PEOPLE CAN STAY HERE AND CONTINUE ON IN ADDITIONAL JOBS, DEPENDING ON THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS THAT THEY'RE INVOLVED IN, THAT IS DEFINITELY A POSSIBILITY.

SO THIS GOES BACK TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND CREATING.

LESS STEPS IN PROCESS FOR THOSE TYPES OF USES TO BE ESTABLISHED, AND ALSO THAT WE WOULDN'T WANT ONE OF THESE ON ONE PROPERTY, THEN MOVE TO ANOTHER, THEN MOVE TO ANOTHER AS WELL. SO KEEPING THAT IN MIND, ALSO, ROB, DID YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION? NO FURTHER COMMENT. OK.

AND SO THEN MY MY NEXT QUESTION IS WON'T THE WON'T THE ACCOMMODATION UNITS HAVE TO MEET THE BUILDING BYLAW, AND IF A RELOCATED INDUSTRIAL ACCOMMODATION UNIT CAN BE ENERGY [INAUDIBLE] WHY WOULDN'T WE? WE ALLOW IT BECAUSE AGAIN, IT MUST BE FOR A TERM, SO IT SHOULD BE ABLE TO MOVE INTO YELLOWKNIFES, SERVICE TERM, MEET THE NEEDS OF OF THE INDIVIDUALS LIVING THERE, BE GOOD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND THEN BE GONE IN TWO YEARS TIME.

SO JUST WONDERING WHETHER THE UNITS WILL HAVE TO MEET THE BUILDING BYLAW AND WHETHER OUR CONCERNS ABOUT THE SUITABILITY OF LIVING CONDITIONS AND BEING ENERGY EFFICIENT WOULD ACTUALLY BE ADDRESSED IN THE BUILDING BYLAW VERSUS THE ZONING BYLAW MS. BASSI-KELLETT. MS. SWAGIT. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

AND OUTSIDE THE PUBLIC POLICY CONVERSATION, TO DATE, IT HAS BEEN DIFFICULT.

WE'VE SEEN SOME OF THESE INTO THE COMMUNITY AND THEY DON'T MEET THAT ENERGY EFFICIENT STANDARD. THEY, THE CODE THAT THEY ARE BUILT TO APPEARS TO BE ALBERTA, WHICH IS NOT THAT SUBARCTIC, WHETHER IT'S THE INSULATION, WHETHER THERE'S ALSO THE ISSUE OF THE OFFICE OF THE FIRE MARSHAL, WHICH WE'RE NOT A PART OF.

BUT THAT'S ANOTHER STEP THAT WOULD NEED TO BE ADDRESSED IN ALLOWING THESE UNITS TO BE USED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES.

SO YES, IT'S SOMETHING WE DO HAVE A STANDARD IN BOTH THE CURRENT AND THE PROPOSED BUILDING BYLAW, BUT AT PRESENT IT'S A DIFFICULT STANDARD FOR THESE TYPES OF STRUCTURES SPECIFICALLY TO MEET.

ROB, I SAW YOU HAD A COMMENT AS WELL [INAUDIBLE].

SURE. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT.

WHEN THE CAM LAKE INDUSTRIAL AREA WAS FIRST OPENED UP TO ALLOW A CARETAKER SWEET WAY BACK IN THE DAY, THE IMMEDIATE RESPONSE WAS A NUMBER OF CAMP LIKE UNITS OR CAMP STRUCTURES WERE LOCATED ON THESE PROPERTIES, AND THESE WERE STRUCTURES THAT WERE BUILT IN SORT OF 1970S STANDARDS, SORT OF THOSE OLD ACRO LOOKING UNITS IN THE 1990S AND AT THE TURN OF THE CENTURY, WE FOUND OURSELVES IN A REAL CLEANUP EFFORT BECAUSE THEY HAD BECOME REAL FIRE HAZARDS AND THEY WEREN'T FULL DWELLING UNITS, AND YET THEY WERE BEING USED AS DWELLING

[01:20:02]

BUT THEN THE REALITY IS IS THEY BECOME SOMETHING FAR DIFFERENT.

AND SO IS THE THE ISSUE THAT ONCE WE ISSUE A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW THE WORKER ACCOMMODATION, EVEN IF IT HAS A CLAUSE THAT IT'S ONLY VALID TILL NOVEMBER 1ST, 2024 THAT DAY COMES THEY DON'T TAKE IT OFF AND WE HAVE NO MECHANISM TO GET THEM TO REMOVE IT.

MS. BASSI-KELLETT. MS. WHITE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE QUESTION.

SO WE COULD BUILD IN WHETHER THAT'S A MONETARY GUARANTEE FOR THE REMOVAL THROUGH A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

THERE IS OPTIONS AVAILABLE, BUT AT PRESENT THERE'S IT'S DIFFICULT TO SAY TO THE PERSON WHO'S BUILDING IT THAT WITHIN THREE YEARS AND UNTIL THEN, YOU MUST PUT DOWN X DEPOSIT NOW. IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE WOULD BE OPPOSED TO, AS, SAY, A TEMPORARY USE, WHICH WOULD PUT ADDITIONAL STRENGTHS IN PLACE FOR THE MUNICIPALITY TO HAVE THOSE USES OR STRUCTURES REMOVED. BUT YEAH, AS A PERMANENT PERMITTED USE, IT DOES GET A LITTLE DIFFICULT.

ROB, WOULD YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION? NO ADDITIONAL COMMENT.

SAME COMMENT AS I HAVE.

OK. AND THEN I WAS JUST WITH THIS CAM LAKE SOUTH ALLOWS SHORT TERM ACCOMMODATION AND PEOPLE CAN HAVE AN UNLIMITED NUMBER OF UNITS.

SO THEN I JUST THINK THAT EVERYBODY IS GOING TO TURN TO CAM LAKE SOUTH AND THAT'LL BE THE NEW WORK OR ACCOMMODATION WORK AROUND IF WE'RE LIMITING WORKER ACCOMMODATIONS AND CAN LEAD TO EIGHT. SO.

YOU KNOW, IS THAT HOW WE WANT TO USE OUR.

IS THAT THE BEST LAND USE IS? IS. MOVING THEM REALLY FROM CAM LAKE TO CAM LAKE SOUTH.

THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I'M GRAPPLING WITH.

AND YEAH, AND THEN I JUST THINK OF LIKE WHEN STANTON CAME FORWARD, THEY WERE LOOKING FOR A CAMP TO ACCOMMODATE UP TO ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY WORKERS, AND THEY WERE ABLE TO FIND SOMETHING. SO HAVING THE MAX OF EIGHT ALL OF A SUDDEN.

THEY WOULD HAVE THE WORKER CAMPS ALL OVER THE PLACE AS OPPOSED TO IN ONE LOCATION WHERE [INAUDIBLE] WAS PROPOSING TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS ON TRAFFIC BY HAVING JUST ONE BUS, COME PICK EVERYBODY UP AND GO TO TO THE JOB SITE.

SO THAT ONE, YEAH, I'VE GOT TO THINK ABOUT A BIT MORE ABOUT.

WHETHER WE NEED A MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS OR WHETHER IT CAN BE ADDRESSED IN A IN A DIFFERENT WAY OF LIKE IT'S YOU'VE GOT MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE ALREADY, AND AND WE DID HAVE WORDING IN OUR CURRENT BYLAW ABOUT WHEN REVIEWING APPLICATIONS FOR WORKERS ACCOMMODATIONS, SPECIAL CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO WATER SUPPLY FOR FIREFIGHTING PURPOSES. FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM FOR THE BUILDING.

AND COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USES.

SO PERHAPS AND I DO THINK OF THE DIFFERENT PROPERTY SIZES OF THAT GSL PROPERTY IS QUITE LARGE AND FLAT VERSUS ONE DOWN THE STREET FROM CORONATION DRIVE IS KIND OF BIG HILL AND STUFF. SO ONE LOT COULD FIT MORE THAN EIGHT I FEEL VERSUS ANOTHER.

AND WHETHER JUST EXTRA WORDING TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION OR WHETHER IT'S THROUGH THE BUILDING BYLAW TO ADDRESS THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND IF IT IS CONCERNS ABOUT TRAFFIC AND STUFF LIKE THAT, WHETHER THERE'S OTHER REGULATIONS THAT WE CAN HAVE IN PLACE.

UM, I DON'T KNOW IF MS. BASSI-KELLETT OR IF ADMIN HAS ANY THOUGHTS OR COMMENTS ON THAT, MS. WHITE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

REALLY, IT WOULD BE.

I THINK MAYBE A LARGER CONVERSATION OF WHAT IS WHAT IS THE GOAL COUNCIL IS IS LOOKING TO ACHIEVE HERE BECAUSE MAYBE THERE'S A DIFFERENT CONTEXT OR WAY IN WHICH WE COULD ACTUALLY HOPEFULLY ACCOMMODATE WHAT YOU'RE SPEAKING OF, MAYBE BY MAKING A SITE SPECIFIC PROCESS BE REQUIRED FOR THESE TYPES OF USES.

AND AGAIN, THIS WAS NEVER PART OF WHAT WE CONSULTED WITH THE PUBLIC ON.

[01:25:02]

SO THAT WOULD REALLY BE MY RECOMMENDATION SO THAT WE'RE NOT EITHER CREATING A POLICY OR A REGULATION THAT IS GOING TO BE DIFFICULT TO ENFORCE OR SOMETHING THAT IS SO RELAXED THAT IT REALLY DOESN'T MEET THE INTENT OF WHAT COUNCIL IS SEEKING.

SO I THINK THAT'S REALLY WHAT MY ADVICE WOULD BE IS THAT THIS SHOULD BE A LARGER CONVERSATION. OK.

THANKS. I'LL HAVE TO.

YEAH, I THINK ABOUT ALL THIS STUFF.

WELL, WE HAVE REACHED OUR NINE MINUTE MARK AND I DO HAVE A FEW MORE QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS, SO LET'S TAKE A 10 MINUTE BREAK AND COME BACK AT 1:41.

SO I'LL CALL OUR MEETING BACK TO ORDER MS. BASSI-KELLETT MY NEXT QUESTIONS WE'RE AROUND URBAN AGRICULTURE COMMERCIAL IN THE RC AND RC1 ZONE. AND SO I APPRECIATED ALL THE COMMENTS FROM RESIDENTS AND I REALLY HEARD THE CONCERNS ABOUT THE PIG FARMS AND LIVESTOCK, BUT HEARD A LOT OF OR THE PEOPLE WERE SUPPORTIVE AND JUST FOOD THAT GROWS.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, AND WE'VE GOT GOOD EXAMPLES OF THE FAR WREATH FARM ON 53RD STREET, THE REFUGE FARM AND DR.

ADAMS GREENHOUSE ON 49 A AVE.

AND E-I-E-I-O FARM ON 51 A AVE, AND SO WE'VE ACTUALLY GOT YELLOWKNIFE EXAMPLES OF URBAN AGRICULTURE COMMERCIAL IN THESE ZONES, AND THEY'RE NOT HOME BASED BUSINESSES BECAUSE THEY DO HAVE EMPLOYEES WHO WHO LIVE ELSEWHERE.

SO WONDERING WHETHER IT'S JUST A CHANGE OF THE URBAN AGRICULTURE COMMERCIAL DEFINITION, SO IT'S NO KEEPING OF SMALL ANIMALS AS REFERENCED IN B ARE ALLOWED IN THE IG IN RC ZONE OR WHETHER WE ACTUALLY HAVE.

THE CONDITIONS LIKE ON PAGE ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY THREE OF OUR MEMO, SORRY.

LET ME GRAB THAT ONE. IN SECTION 7.13 .2B, IT'S TALKING ABOUT HOW IN ALL ZONES THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL NOT GENERATE ODOR, WASTE OR VISUAL IMPACT BEYOND THE GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ZONE.

SO THAT WOULD MEAN THAT A FARM IN RESIDENTIAL AREA WOULD BE HELD TO A MORE STRINGENT OR A HIGHER BAR VERSUS CAM LAKE.

IS IS THAT KIND OF THE CORRECT READING OF 7.13.2B MS. BASSI-KELLETT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR, AND I KNOW THIS HAS BEEN A REALLY INTERESTING ONE FOR US.

WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS ON THIS WITHIN ADMINISTRATION AS WELL AS HEARING WHAT THE PUBLIC HAS HAD TO SAY AS WELL AS COUNCIL MEMBERS.

AND SO WE DO KNOW THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF OTHER PARAMETERS AND REGULATORY BODIES THAT WOULD HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY ABOUT COMMERCIAL FARMING OF ANIMALS WITHIN THE CITY ITSELF.

AND SO THERE ARE SOME OTHER CHECKS AND BALANCES THAT ARE INVOLVED.

BUT CERTAINLY, WE WOULD NOT WANT TO LIMIT SOMEONE TO HAVE A COUPLE OF CHICKENS IF THEY WERE AT THE E-I-E-I-O FARM OR THE REFUGE.

BUT WE COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE WHEN RESIDENTS OF 58 SPEAK TO NOT WANTING TO HAVE A PIG FARM BESIDE THEM.

AND THAT'S CERTAINLY NOT ANYTHING THAT WE WOULD ENVISION ON THIS.

SO CAN WE FIND A WAY THROUGH THAT'S GOING TO ENABLE SMALL URBAN COMMERCIAL AGRICULTURE TO CONTINUE IN A WAY THAT'S APPROPRIATE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHILE RECOGNIZING THAT COMMUNITY AGRICULTURE IS CONTINUING THROUGHOUT? WE DEFINITELY WANT TO LOOK AT THIS.

SO MS. WHITE AND HER TEAM HAVE BEEN EXPERTS ON THIS.

I'LL ASK HER TO SPEAK TO THIS.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE QUESTION.

YES, AND IN ALL OF THE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT URBAN AGRICULTURE, ALSO REMEMBERING THAT WE HAVE THE CITY'S URBAN AGRICULTURAL PLAN AND THE DIRECTION THAT WE REALLY WANT TO SEE THIS COMMUNITY TO GO INTO THE FUTURE.

SO KEEPING THAT IN MIND AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION THAT INFORMED THAT I THINK THE IT'S NOT AN EASY ANSWER, BUT A SIMPLE ANSWER WOULD BE TO INCLUDE IN THAT DEFINITION, NOT WITHIN

[01:30:01]

SHOULD COUNCIL DETERMINE THAT? URBAN AGRICULTURE COMMERCIAL IS PERMITTED IN THAT ZONE.

SO, SO THAT'S A PREVIOUS QUESTION FOR COUNCIL TO DISCUSS.

OR ALTERNATIVELY, IF WE LOOK AT 7.13.

2E, IT ALSO HAS VERY SIMILAR LANGUAGE MAYOR ALTY TO WHAT YOU WERE SPEAKING TO AND B FOR SPECIFICALLY RESIDENTIAL ZONES, SO WE COULD IT COULD GO EITHER WAY OR YOU COULD DO BOTH IF YOU WERE CONCERNED AS A FOR RESIDENTS IN THESE AREAS TO DO BOTH.

NO, WE'RE NOT INTENDING IN ANY WAY FOR LARGE LIVESTOCK OPERATIONS TO OCCUR IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA. AND AT PRESENT, YOU KNOW, THOSE AS THE CITY MANAGER IDENTIFIED THOSE REGULATIONS OUTSIDE REGULATION JUST WOULD NOT ALLOW THAT AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.

YEAH, AND THE OTHER ONE I WAS LOOKING AT WAS 7.13.2E AND SEEING RESIDENTIAL ZONES, URBAN AGRICULTURE COMMERCIAL AND COMMUNITY.

AND THESE ARE ARE THE PARAMETERS TO AGAIN, ARE WE GOING TO GET A PIG FARM IN THE MIDDLE OF DOWNTOWN? NOT LIKELY, BUT I CAN APPRECIATE THE CONCERN.

AND. BUT YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT BASED ON THE CONDITIONS OF 7.13.2. SO AT THE END OF THE DAY, I WANT TO ENCOURAGE THE FOOD AND AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY, WHICH IS WHAT COUNCIL SUPPORTED WITH OUR FOOD CHARTER.

AND THAT STRATEGY AND I HAVEN'T AS THE HEAD OF THE COMPLAINTS DEPARTMENT, I HAVEN'T HEARD A CONCERN ABOUT ANY OF THOSE, THOSE URBAN AGRICULTURE, COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES THAT HAVE BEEN OPERATING FOR THE PAST FEW YEARS.

SO I DON'T WANT TO TURN THEM INTO LEGAL NON-CONFORMING AND ALLOW NOBODY ELSE IN THE AREA TO DEVELOP. SO IF WE REMOVE A URBAN AGRICULTURE COMMERCIAL? UM, BECAUSE WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT A PIG FARM.

WE'RE THROWING THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATHWATER ON THIS, AND SO MY HOPE IS THAT WE HAVE, WELL, NOT MY HOPE. I WILL BE PROPOSING THAT WE ADD URBAN AGRICULTURE COMMERCIAL BACK TO THE RC AND RC1 ZONE, BUT ADDRESS CONCERNS ABOUT THE LIVESTOCK AND.

MY ONE CHALLENGE ABOUT SAYING BEES NOT ALLOWED IN THERE IS ACTUALLY BEES, AND WE'VE HAD RESIDENTS OF THE TRAIL'S END AREA THAT THEY WANT TO HAVE URBAN AGRICULTURE, COMMUNITY BEES, BUT WE'VE ALREADY HAD URBAN AGRICULTURE, COMMERCIAL BEES IN THE RC ZONE AS WELL.

SO I WANT TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS ABOUT THOSE BIG PIGS AND COWS, BUT NOT LOSE SIGHT OF THE FACT THAT PEOPLE ARE SUCCESSFULLY GROWING KALE AND CARROTS AND BEETS THAT AREN'T IMPACTING THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE MORE PEOPLE BECAUSE IT IS.

IT'S NOT A I DON'T THINK IT'S A AN INDUSTRY THAT THAT MAKES BECAUSE THE OTHER CONCERN I HEARD ABOUT RC1 WAS THAT PEOPLE DIDN'T WANT IT TO HAVE NOBODY LIVE IN THOSE AREAS ANYMORE, THAT THEY WERE ONLY GOING TO BE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES.

AND THE THING WITH URBAN AGRICULTURE COMMERCIAL IS THAT WE SEE PEOPLE ARE LIVING ON THE PROPERTY AND FARMING ON THEIR PROPERTY.

AND THAT'S THE WAY THAT FARMING IS FEASIBLE IS BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT THE COST OF YOUR LIVING AND YOUR COST OF YOUR BUSINESS ALL WRAPPED INTO ONE.

SO I GUESS WHETHER ADMINISTRATION COULD DO SOME ANALYSIS TO SEE IF IF CLAUSES IN 7.13 ARE ADDRESSING THE NEIGHBORHOOD, CONCERNS OF BIG LIVESTOCK OR WHETHER WE SHOULD GO WITH.

CHANGING THE DEFINITION, WHICH DOES MEAN THAT PEOPLE AREN'T GOING TO BE ABLE TO SELL THEIR EGGS AT THE FARMER'S MARKET OR HAVE BEES.

BUT RECOGNIZING THAT WE DO HAVE TO HAVE THOSE TRADE OFFS.

MS. BASSI-KELLETT THOUGHT FROM ADMIN ON ON WAYS TO PROCEED.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR, AND ABSOLUTELY I MEAN, WE WANT TO FIND THE RIGHT BALANCING ACT, AND I THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THAT WOULD PRECLUDE A PIG FARM FROM BEING IN RC1.

A LOT OF THINGS THAT ARE WITHIN CITY CONTROL.

SOME THINGS THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF CITY CONTROL.

THOSE ARE THE REGULATIONS.

BUT WE'LL ABSOLUTELY TAKE A LOOK AT 7.13.2 WEIGH OUT ALL OF THE FACTORS IN THIS BECAUSE CERTAINLY WE DO WANT TO ENCOURAGE AND WHEN WE DO SEE EXAMPLES OF WHERE THIS WORKS RIGHT NOW, AND WE'RE REALLY PLEASED TO SEE SOME OF THOSE URBAN FARMS THAT ARE CONTRIBUTING TO

[01:35:02]

WE DO WANT TO ENCOURAGE THAT GOING FORWARD IN A WAY THAT WORKS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AND COME BACK.

YEAH THANKS. I BELIEVE IT'S MY FINAL QUESTION.

YES, WORKER ACCOMMODATIONS, THE URBAN AGRICULTURE WAS ABOUT GREENHOUSES, SO.

APPRECIATE THAT IN PEOPLE'S FRONT YARDS.

THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE LIKE ALL MS. BASSI-KELLETT YOUR MICROPHONE STILL ON CITY SERVICES LIKE WATER AND SEWER, SO WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE GREENHOUSES THAT CAN'T BE MOVED PLACED ON TOP OF THAT BECAUSE WE NEED TO ACCESS IT AT MINUS 40 TO MAKE IT FIX.

IT'S GOT TO GO QUICKLY.

BUT THERE'S OTHER PARTS IN YOUR FRONT YARD THAT WOULDN'T BE OVER CITY INFRASTRUCTURE AND COULD, I THINK BE A GOOD LOCATION MIGHT HAVE THE MAXIMUM SUN ON THE PROPERTY.

SO JUST I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND ARE GREENHOUSES PROHIBITED IN THE FRONT YARD, OR ARE PEOPLE ALLOWED TO GET A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW IT IN YOUR FRONT YARD AS LONG AS IT'S NOT ON TOP OF CITY INFRASTRUCTURE AND NOT BLOCKING SIGHTLINES FROM A TRAFFIC PERSPECTIVE, ET CETERA, ET CETERA? SO JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND A BIT MORE ABOUT GREENHOUSES IN THE FRONT YARD.

MS. BASSI-KELLETT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR.

MS. WHITE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE QUESTION, IT'S A IT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION BECAUSE WE'VE ACTUALLY HAD THIS COME UP A COUPLE OF TIMES.

SO WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT GREENHOUSES, I'M SPECIFICALLY RIGHT NOW SPEAKING TO GREENHOUSES THAT QUALIFY AS A STRUCTURE UNDER THE BUILDING, THE BUILDING.

SO THOSE, YES, THEY WOULD HAVE TO MEET AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY MEET THE SETBACK FROM THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY, MAKE SURE THEY'RE NOT OVER OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE, NOT INTERFERING WITH DRAINAGE.

IT WOULD NEED TO BE REVIEWED IF THAT WAS GOING TO BE PLACED IN THE FRONT YARD AND IT WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO MEET THOSE SETBACKS.

A VARIANCE WOULD HAVE TO BE APPLIED FOR.

WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE POP UP TENT TYPE, WHILE DEPENDING ON THE SIZE, WE DO DISCOURAGE THEM BECAUSE THEY CAN BE A SAFETY HAZARD.

THERE ARE WAYS AND MECHANISMS TO PUT THEM IN PLACE SO THAT THEY ARE PROPERLY SECURED.

HOWEVER, AS THE MAYOR ALTY IDENTIFIED, THEY WOULD BE REMOVED IN THE WINTER.

SO SHOULD THERE BE A BREAK? WE WOULD HAVE EASY ACCESS TO THAT INFRASTRUCTURE, WHICH IS UNDERNEATH.

THE OTHER PIECE TO THIS I GUESS DISCUSSION IS IN ADDITION TO GREENHOUSES ONE MECHANISM AND I KNOW I MYSELF USE IT AS DO A NUMBER OF MY NEIGHBORS IS HAVING THE IN-GROUND OR BOXED GARDEN, WHICH YOU COULD EASILY PUT ONE OF THE TUBES OVERTOP AND THE ROSE AND GARDEN THERE, WHICH ARE ALSO REMOVABLE, BUT THEN ALSO FORM PART OF YOUR LANDSCAPING, WHICH WOULD GIVE YOU POTENTIALLY A SIMILAR AREA TO THE AREA THAT YOU COULD HAVE AS A GREENHOUSE.

AND THAT WOULD BE A HAPPY MEDIUM.

BUT IF WE'RE TALKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THOSE STRUCTURES THAT MEET THE DEFINITION UNDER THE BUILDING BYLAW? YES, A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT SHOULD BE APPLIED FOR.

THOSE SETBACKS DO NOT MEAN THAT IT'S TO HAVE PROPER REVIEW BASED ON A SITE SPECIFIC AREA AND IN NO WAY ARE WE TRYING TO DISCOURAGE AGRICULTURE ON PEOPLE'S PROPERTIES.

IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, WE ALSO HAVE TO LOOK OUT FOR PUBLIC SAFETY AS WELL.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO GREENHOUSE THAT WOULD TRIGGER THE BUILDING BYLAW, IS THAT SOMETHING KIND OF LIKE BIGGER THAN YOUR AVERAGE SHED? MS. BASSI-KELLETT I'M SEEING NODDING HEADS, BUT MS. WHITE. YES, SO GREATER THAN THAT ONE HUNDRED AND SEVEN SQUARE FEET.

SO YOU WOULD HAVE TECHNICALLY REQUIRED TO HAVE A BUILDING PERMIT IF IT'S NOT STRUCTURE, SAME IF YOU WERE BUILDING A SHED OR ANYTHING GREATER THAN THE 10 BY 10 SQUARE FOOTAGE.

AND IT WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE SIDE SET BACK OR FRONT YARD SET BACK ALL OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS. ALTERNATIVELY, SOME DWELLINGS WOULD ALLOW FOR OR HAVE AN ALLOWANCE WITHIN WHERE THE CURRENT FRONT WALL OF THE DWELLING IS AND BE SET BACK FROM THE ROAD THAT YOU COULD ALSO LOOK AT SOMETHING LIKE A DECK WITH A SUNROOM.

THOSE KIND OF ENCLOSED PORCHES WOULD ALSO HAVE DIFFERENT RULES AND REGULATIONS, WHICH WOULD BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THAT AGRICULTURAL USE.

OK. THANK YOU.

UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, DISCUSSION FROM COUNCIL? SEEING NONE.

[01:40:03]

COUNCILMAN MORGAN'S POINTS ABOUT DEVELOPMENT PERMITS, I THINK WE COVERED IN THE QUESTION, BUT IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE THAT HAVE BEEN CAPTURED, BUT YEAH, WE'LL COME BRING THIS FORWARD TO GPC ONE MORE TIME WITH A BIT MORE ANALYSIS TO ADDRESS THOSE THAT WE CAN DO SOME CHANGES BEFORE BRINGING IT TO COUNCIL FOR A SECOND READING.

SOUND LIKE A GOOD SUMMARY.

PERFECT. AGREED.

WITH THAT. WE WILL GET A MOTION TO ADJOURN MOVE BY COUNCILLOR PAYNE AND SECOND BY COUNCILLOR MORGAN. ANYBODY OPPOSED? SEEING NONE. SEE EVERYBODY AT 7:00 P.M.

TONIGHT.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.