Mar 14, 2022 Governance & Priorities Committee

PERFECT, OKAY, SO I'LL CALL OUR GOVERNANCE AND PRIORITIES COMMITTEE MEETING FOR MONDAY,

[00:00:05]

[1. Opening Statement:]

FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL, IT'S BEEN THE TRADITIONAL LAND OF THE YELLOWKNIVES DENE FIRST NATION. WE RESPECT THE HISTORIES, LANGUAGES AND CULTURES OF ALL OTHER INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, INCLUDING THE NORTH SLAVE METIS AND ALL FIRST NATIONS AND INUIT WHOSE PRESENCE CONTINUES TO ENRICH OUR VIBRANT COMMUNITY.

MS. BASSI-KELLETT ANYTHING FOR THAT ADD TO THE AGENDA?

[2. Approval of the agenda.]

NO, NOTHING ELSE TO ADD.

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

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

I'M JUST OPENING UP ALL OF MY STUFF HERE.

ITEM NUMBER FIVE.

YES, ITEM NUMBER FIVE, I'D LIKE TO DECLARE.

PERFECT, ANYTHING FURTHER FROM COUNCIL? SEEING NONE.

NEXT, WE HAVE A MEMORANDUM REGARDING WHETHER TO TRANSFER FOUR LOTS ON SPENCE ROAD TO

[4. A memorandum regarding whether to transfer four lots on Spence Road to Habitat for Humanity NWT for a nominal fee.]

MS. BASSI-KELLETT, IF YOU'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE THE ITEM.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR, WITH PLEASURE.

HABITAT HAS A VERY POSITIVE HISTORY IN YELLOWKNIFE OF SUPPORTING FAMILIES WHO ARE SEEKING TO SECURE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND CITY COUNCIL HAS LONG RECOGNIZED THIS AND SPECIFICALLY AMENDED THE LAND ADMINISTRATION BYLAW TO PROVIDE HABITAT WITH RESIDENTIAL LOFTS FOR A NOMINAL FEE. THERE IS THIS OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO SPECIFICALLY FOR HABITAT IN THE LAND ADMINISTRATION BYLAW.

SO TODAY HABITAT IS SEEKING FOUR LOTS AT THIS TIME SO THAT THEY CAN PLAN THE DEVELOPMENT OF FOUR UNITS.

WE HAVEN'T TRANSFERRED MULTIPLE LOTS BEFORE TO HABITAT, BUT THEY DO HAVE A CLEAR PLAN AND FUNDING THAT HAS COME UP THIS TIME FOR FOUR ADDITIONAL HOMES, WHICH DOES REQUIRE THEM TO SECURE THE NECESSARY LOTS TO BE ABLE TO BUILD.

THEY'VE ASKED FOR LOTS ON SPENCE ROAD AND THE CITY DOES HAVE LOTS AVAILABLE THAT CAN BE TRANSFERRED TO HABITAT THERE FOR ADMINISTRATION IS RECOMMENDING THAT GPC AND COUNCIL APPROVED THE SALE OF THE FOUR LOTS ON SPENCE ROAD TO HABITAT FOR HUMANITY FOR A NOMINAL FEE AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE HAVE REPRESENTATIVES FROM HABITAT FOR HUMANITY HERE THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR.

THANK YOU. YES AND I DO SEE THAT WE HAVE ROBERT CHARPENTIER AND DAVE HURLEY.

ROBERT OR DAVE, DID ONE OF YOU WANT TO SAY A FEW OPENING COMMENTS? OVER TO YOU, DAVE. OKAY, WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO YOURSELF AND COUNCIL FOR GIVING US THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY A FEW WORDS TODAY.

MY NAME IS DAVE HURLEY.

I'M THE PRESIDENT OF HABITAT NWT AND WITH ME TODAY IS ROB CHARPENTIER, WHO IS OUR VICE PRESIDENT AND TREASURER FOR HABITAT, NWT.

A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY ABOUT OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CITY AND WHO WE ARE IS THAT [INAUDIBLE] BUILT.

HABITAT NWT HAS BUILT FOR HOMES FOR PARTNER FAMILIES IN YELLOWKNIFE BETWEEN 2013 AND 2021.

THE LAST TWO LOTS THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE CITY WERE DONATED BY THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE.

IN 2021, HABITAT NWT SECURED A FIVE YEAR FUNDING AGREEMENT FROM CMHC TO BUILD TEN FAMILY HOMES AND AS PART OF THIS FUNDING AGREEMENT, WE WILL DO TWO BILLS EVERY YEAR, OF WHICH 5 TO 10 BILLS WILL BE IN THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE.

ALSO IN CONJUNCTION WITH THAT, WE'VE ALSO ENTERED INTO A PARTNERSHIP WITH THE HOUSING CORPORATION, WHICH HAS COMMITTED FUNDS TO ALLOW US TO DO BUILDS.

IN 2021, WE DID A BUILD IN YELLOWKNIFE OUT IN [INAUDIBLE], AND ALSO WE DID OUR FIRST BUILD OUTSIDE THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE, WHERE WE DID A BUILD IN [INAUDIBLE].

IN 2022, WE ARE LOOKING TO DO ANOTHER BUILD IN YELLOWKNIFE IN 22, 23, 24 AND 25 AND ALSO IN 22, RIVER TOWN COUNCIL HAS PROVIDED US WITH A LOT.

SO, OUR BUILD OUTSIDE OF YELLOWKNIFE 2022 WILL BE IN HAY RIVER.

SO, WHEN YOU LOOK AT HABITAT OWNERSHIP, IT'S FIRST OF ALL, YOU HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND THAT WE ARE NOT SOCIAL HOUSING GUYS, WE ARE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

SO, WE PROVIDE A HAND UP TO FAMILIES THROUGH AFFORDABLE HOME OWNERSHIP BECAUSE WE SEE IS TO HELP BREAK THE CYCLE OF POVERTY AND OPEN POSSIBILITIES TO STRENGTHEN CHILDREN FAMILIES IN NORTHERN COMMUNITIES.

WE WORK WITH LOCAL VOLUNTEERS, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, BUSINESSES AND CONTRACTORS TO PROVIDE

[00:05:04]

SURE WE ARE ASKING FOR FOUR LOTS AT THIS TIME AND AS I MENTIONED, WE HAVE RECEIVED FUNDING FROM CMHC AND AS WE ALL KNOW THAT DUE TO THE HIGH COSTS OF REAL ESTATE AND BUILDING MATERIALS, NWT HAVING THE BUILDING LOTS DONATED BY THE CITY IS CRUCIAL TO KEEPING THE HOME AFFORDABLE FOR FAMILIES AND TO BUILD AFFORDABLE HOMES FOR HABITAT NWT.

HAVING FOUR LOTS SECURED FROM THE CITY FOR THE NEXT FOUR YEARS, IT ALLOWS US TO PLAN AHEAD AND FOCUS ON GETTING FAMILIES WHO NEED TO DO AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND WITHOUT DONATION BY THE MUNICIPALITIES, THE COST OF THE HOME BUILD WOULD BE TOO EXPENSIVE FOR OURSELVES AS A SMALL NONPROFIT TO COMPLETE, AND ALSO WOULD PROBABLY MAKE THE COST OF THE HOUSE MUCH MORE AND OUT OF AFFORDABLE RANGE FOR A LOT OF FAMILIES.

SO, IN THE YELLOW KNIFE BUILD, IN 2021, AS I MENTIONED, WE DID A BUILD IN YELLOWKNIFE.

WE HAD 20 FAMILIES, [INAUDIBLE] PUT IN AN APPLICATION FOR THAT.

THIS YEAR, WE HAVE NOW CLOSED OUR APPLICATIONS FOR BUILD IN 2021 AND WE HAVE RECEIVED OVER 50 APPLICATIONS.

SO, IT'S MORE THAN DOUBLED IN ONE YEAR.

SO, OBVIOUSLY THE NEED IS OUT THERE FOR FAMILIES.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DID FIND IN 2021 THAT WE COULD NOT, BECAUSE THE THREE BEDROOM HOMES, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT WE WERE BUILDING BEFORE WAS ABOUT 1200 SQUARE FEET, AND WE WERE GETTING APPLICATIONS FROM LARGER FAMILIES.

SO NOW WE'VE GONE FROM A THREE BEDROOM HOME TO A FOUR BEDROOM HOME.

SO, WE'VE GONE FROM ABOUT 1200 SQUARE FEET TO ABOUT 1500 SQUARE FEET AND SO IT GIVES THE OPPORTUNITY NOW FOR LARGER FAMILIES TO APPLY.

THE ONE THING TO KEEP IN MIND IS THAT HABITAT MORTGAGE PAYMENTS ARE SET AT ABOUT 25% OF THE HOUSEHOLD GROSS INCOME AND ALSO THAT FAMILIES WHO HAVE BEEN SELECTED TO MOVE INTO HABITAT HOUSES HAVE TO DO SWEAT EQUITY, $500 SWEAT EQUITY AND THAT CAN BE DONE 250 BY THE APPLICANTS 250 BY THEIR FAMILY FRIENDS TO HELP THEM OUT AND THAT IS KIND OF THE DOWN PAYMENT ON THEIR MORTGAGE SO THAT WE CAN KEEP THE HOUSES AT AN AFFORDABLE RATE.

SO, THAT'S ABOUT ALL I'M GOING TO SAY RIGHT NOW ABOUT HABITAT, GIVES YOU A SMALL OVERVIEW OF IT, BUT WE WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE THE SUPPORT OF COUNCIL IN PROVIDING US WITH THE FOUR LOTS SO THAT WE CAN MOVE AHEAD WITH OUR PLANNING, FAMILY SELECTION AND PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVER THE NEXT FOUR YEARS FOR FOUR WORTHY FAMILIES WITHIN THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, DAVE.

OPENING IT UP TO COUNCIL, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR HABITAT? AND THEN FOLLOWING THAT WILL ENTER TO OUR DISCUSSION, BUT COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. YEAH, JUST SORT OF CURIOUS WHAT'S SORT OF THE PROCESS OF GETTING THAT LIST OF 50 DOWN TO FOUR? HOW DOES THAT LOOK LIKE, AND HOW DO YOU PICK THE FAMILIES THAT GET TO ENJOY THIS PLACE? OVER TO YOU.

IT IS A VERY COMPLICATED PROCESS.

THE BEST WAY TO DESCRIBE IT, I'LL GIVE YOU A FEW ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, BUT THE BEST WAY TO DESCRIBE IS A VERY COMPLICATED PROCESS.

WE ARE AN AFFILIATE OF HABITAT CANADA AND WE HAVE BEEN SINCE OUR INCEPTION IN 2013.

SO, THERE ARE CERTAIN RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT WE HAVE TO FOLLOW.

WE HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY, AND WE USE THAT FLEXIBILITY BECAUSE OF WHERE WE LIVE.

SO, BASICALLY, WE HAVE THE FAMILY SERVICES COMMITTEE AND ON THE FAMILY SERVICES COMMITTEE WE HAVE FIVE PEOPLE MAKE DIFFERENT REPRESENTATION OF THE COMMUNITY.

WE HAVE LEGAL ADVICE ON THERE, WE HAVE BANKING ADVICE ON THERE, ETC., ETC.

. SO, BASICALLY WE GO WITH THE APPLICATION PROCESS AND ONE OF THE THINGS IS THAT A COUPLE OF BASIC CRITERIA THAT WE HAVE TO DO IS FOR A FAMILY TO APPLY FOR A HOME, THEY MUST HAVE CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF 18 LIVING AT HOME.

SO, IT'S A FAMILY ORIENTED HOUSE A FAMILY WOULD HAVE TO SPEND MORE THAN 30% OF THE GROSS INCOME ON HOUSING, RENT AND UTILITIES AND IN THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE, [INAUDIBLE] YOU CAN APPRECIATE TO GET A THREE BEDROOM HOME FOR A FAMILY OF FIVE IS ABOUT 2500 A MONTH PLUS UTILITIES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SO OUR RENTS ARE OBVIOUSLY A LOT CHEAPER THAN THAT AND THE APPLICANT MUST NEVER DECLARE

[00:10:07]

THEY MUST BE A RESIDENT OF NWT FOR AT LEAST TWO YEARS FOR PRIOR TO THE APPLICATION AND WE HAVE WHAT WE CALL A THRESHOLD, A FAMILY THRESHOLD IN TERMS OF TOTAL GROSS INCOME.

SO, THE TOTAL GROSS INCOME HAVE TO BE BETWEEN $60-97K A YEAR BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY BACK A MORTGAGE.

THEIR MORTGAGES ARE WITH HABITAT NWT.

THEY'RE NOT YOUR CONVENTIONAL MORTGAGE.

WE HAVE OUR OWN MORTGAGE BECAUSE THE MORTGAGE THAT WE RECEIVE FROM THE FAMILIES THAT ARE IN THERE, WE USE TOWARDS BUILDING OTHER HOMES FOR OTHER FAMILIES AND IT GOES THROUGH A WHOLE PROCESS. WE DO CREDIT CHECKS [INAUDIBLE] IT GOES ON AND ON.

THE BEST WAY TO DESCRIBE IT, IT IS NOT AN OVERNIGHT PROCESS.

OUR FAMILIES SERVICES COMMITTEE SPEND A LOT OF TIME IN THE INITIAL STAGES OF EXPLAINING EVERYTHING TO THE FAMILIES AND THE APPLICATION PROCESS, GOING THROUGH IT WITH THEM, GIVING THEM ADVICE AND THEN WHEN THE APPLICATIONS COME IN, THE SERVICES GO THROUGH IT AND THEN THERE'LL BE FURTHER INTERVIEWS, BACKGROUND CHECKS, ETC., ETC.

. SO, IT'S A VERY IN-DEPTH PROCESS THAT WE HAVE FOR THE FAMILY SELECTION.

GREAT, THANK YOU FOR THAT AND THANK YOU FOR THE WORK THAT YOU CONTINUE TO DO.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR PAYNE.

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.

JUST A QUESTION TO DAVE.

DAVE, WHAT KIND OF PROJECT ARE YOU GUYS LOOKING AT DOING? I'M ASSUMING IT'S GOING TO BE STICK BUILT AND NOT A TRAILER AND ARE WE LOOKING AT A LOT OF BLASTING IN THAT AREA? OKAY, TWO QUESTIONS THERE.

NUMBER ONE, LAST YEAR IN 2021, WE MOVED AWAY FROM STICK BUILD.

OUR PREVIOUS HOMES WERE STICK BUILDS AND WHAT WE FOUND, IT BECAME A VERY COSTLY PROCESS AND THEN WITH COVID AND THE COST AND EVERYTHING ELSE, IT WAS PROBABLY GETTING OUTSIDE OF OUR RANGE. SO, WE BECAME WORRIED ABOUT THAT.

SO, WHAT WE DID, WE WENT OUT, OUR WHAT DO YOU CALL IT? OUR BUILDING COMMITTEE WENT OUT AND GOT ESTIMATES AND LAST YEAR, 2021, WE PUT IN TWO MODULAR TRAILERS, ENERGY EFFICIENT HOMES FROM BLACKSTONE, AND THEY WERE HIGHLY RATED.

FAMILIES THAT WE HAVE IN THERE NOW ARE VERY HAPPY WITH THEM AND SO WE WERE ABLE TO GET A GOOD DEAL AND WORK AHEAD WITH IT.

SO, I THINK IT'S PROBABLY SAFE TO SAY WE'LL GO AHEAD WITH THE MODULAR HOMES AGAIN THIS YEAR. WE UNDERSTAND FROM THE FOUR LOTS THAT WE ARE REQUESTING OUT THERE AND WE'RE REQUESTING THESE LOTS SPECIFICALLY, COUNCILLOR PAYNE, BECAUSE AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, WE WANT TO GO FROM A THREE-BEDROOM HOME TO A FOUR-BEDROOM HOME AND THIS WILL ALLOW US TO DO THAT, AND OUR DESIRE IN 2022 IS TO HAVE A FOUR-BEDROOM MODULAR HOME.

WE UNDERSTAND THERE'S PLASTIC OUT THERE.

WE'VE ALREADY GOT COST ESTIMATES ON IT.

WE'VE TALKED TO THE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SO WE KNOW WHAT THE GRADIENTS ARE.

SO, WE WILL BLAST, REMOVE THE ROCK AND DO WHATEVER ELSE WE NEED TO DO TO BRING THEM UP TO WHATEVER IS REQUIRED OF US.

SO, YES, WE'RE PREPARED TO DO THAT.

WE DID IT THIS YEAR, 2021 BOTH IN [INAUDIBLE], AND WE DID IT OVER IN [INAUDIBLE].

SO, WE'RE PREPARED FOR THAT.

THANKS, DAVE AND THESE FOUR LOTS, THAT WAS WHAT WAS PREFERABLE TO YOUR COMMITTEE TO HAVE FOUR LOTS TOGETHER LIKE THIS, RATHER THAN TO THEIR AND TO AND MAYBE SOME OTHER AREAS OF TOWN THAT THE CITY OWNS? YEAH, THERE WERE OTHER AREAS THAT WE LOOKED AT, BUT AS YOU'RE AWARE, WE ALREADY HAVE A HOME OUT THERE IN [INAUDIBLE].

THESE FOUR LOTS HAPPENED TOGETHER.

ONE OF THE ADVANTAGES OF HAVING THEM TOGETHER IS IN THE BLASTING ITSELF AS YOU CAN APPRECIATE. SO, IF WE'RE GOING TO GO IN TO BLAST, WE'LL JUST GO BANG, BANG, BANG, BANG, BANG. IF THESE LIGHTS ARE GIVEN TO US, WE'LL PROBABLY DO ALL THE BLASTING THIS YEAR.

THERE'S A POSSIBILITY WE COULD.

YEAH, DAVE, IT'S ROBERT HERE.

THERE WERE A COUPLE OF REASONS WHY WE ASKED FOR FOUR LOTS RIGHT AWAY.

FIRST OF ALL, WE KNEW WE HAD THE FUNDING FOR THE FOUR BUILDS AND SECONDLY, IT'S EASIER TO DO THIS ALL AT ONE TIME AND SECONDLY, THERE COULD BE SOME ECONOMIES OF SCALE, AS DAVE MENTIONED, IF WE KNOW WE HAVE ALL THESE LOTS TOGETHER, WE COULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF MAYBE

[00:15:05]

OKAY. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR HABITAT? SEEING NONE.

THANKS AGAIN, DAVE AND ROBERT FOR COMING.

OPENING IT UP TO GENERAL QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, DISCUSSION FROM COUNCIL.

COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.

I'M PRETTY SURE THAT THIS IS THE CASE, BUT THESE LOTS, ONCE GIVEN TO HABITAT, WOULD BE TREATED LIKE ANY OTHER LOTS IN YELLOWKNIFE AND STANDARD TAXATION UPON THOSE, OR IS THERE ALSO A DIFFERENT ARRANGEMENT IN [INAUDIBLE]? NO, BUT I'LL PASS IT OVER TO MS. BASSI-KELLETT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR, AND THANKS FOR THE QUESTION, COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS. KNOW, ONCE WE TRANSFER THE LOTS FOR THE COST OF A DOLLAR TO HABITAT THEY'RE THEN LOTS THAT ARE OWNED BY THE OWNERS ONCE THE CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED AND WE WORK WITH THEM, OF COURSE, TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY CAN SUPPORT THE PAYMENT OF ALL OF THEIR COSTS, INCLUDING THEIR PROPERTY TAXES.

SO, IT'S BUSINESS AS USUAL ONCE THE CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED AND THE FAMILIES HAVE MOVED IN. THANK YOU.

I FIGURED AS MUCH BUT WANTED TO ASK THE QUESTION.

SURE, IT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

COUNCILLOR MUFANDAEDZA. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR, AND THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THE MEMO BEFORE US TODAY.

BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT WE RECEIVE TODAY, I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE TRANSFER.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? COUNCIL MORGAN. THANKS, MADAM CHAIR, AND THANKS TO DAVE AND ROBERT FOR BEING WITH US TODAY. THIS IS AN EXCITING PROPOSAL AND IT'S REALLY ENCOURAGING TO SEE THAT THE LONGER TERM FUNDING FROM CMHC HAS BEEN SECURED AND THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT SEVERAL LOTS TOGETHER.

I DO AGREE THAT IT MAKES SENSE THAT YOU CAN HAVE EFFICIENCIES AND SAVE ON COSTS WHEN YOU CAN LOOK AT ALL THOSE LOTS TOGETHER AND PLAN AHEAD MORE THAN ONE YEAR AT A TIME OR IN ADVANCE. I JUST HAD A QUESTION FOR ADMINISTRATION.

BASED ON THE MEMO, I GUESS POLICIES PERHAPS BEFORE MY TIME AND THAT I DON'T FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT PERHAPS YOU CAN CLARIFY.

SO, THE MEMO REFERENCED A 2014 BYLAW THAT ALLOWS COUNCIL THE DISCRETION TO INCLUDE THE PROVISION OF RESIDENTIAL LAND OR FUNDING TO HABITAT FOR HUMANITY AS PART OF THE 12% FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION FOR NEW SUBDIVISIONS AS AN OFFSITE DEVELOPMENT LEVY OR ONSITE EXPENSE. CAN YOU JUST EXPLAIN THE REFERENCE TO THE 12% FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION FOR NEW SUBDIVISIONS AND JUST GIVE A BIT OF BACKGROUND ON THAT? MS. BASSI-KELLETT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR.

I'LL ASK MS. WHITE TO RESPOND TO THIS, BUT THIS IS ESSENTIALLY TO SUPPORT WITH THE CIVIC STRUCTURES AND COSTS OF DEVELOPING IN A SUBDIVISION.

OVER TO YOU, MS. WHITE.

OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

SO, YEAH, THIS IS A TWO-PART IN THAT PARAGRAPH OF THE MEMO AS WELL.

SO, WE ALSO LOOK AT WHAT THAT 3.5% IS AS WELL.

SO, WE LOOK AT THE TOTAL SALES FROM THE PREVIOUS YEARS AND KIND OF WAY WHERE THE NUMBER WOULD FALL. SO, WHEN WE LOOK AT JUST TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE, 2021 RESIDENTIAL LAND SALES WERE NINE LOTS FOR A TOTAL OF $1,042,000 AND SO IF WE LOOK AT 3.5% OF THAT, THAT'S ABOUT $36,500.

SO, WE TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT PORTION OF THAT WOULD EQUAL INTO THAT 12% FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION. PLUS, WE LOOK AT EACH OF THOSE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES AND WHAT THEY'RE CURRENTLY BEING MARKETED FOR.

SO, WE TRY TO TAKE THE NET BENEFIT OF ALL AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WERE A NUMBER OF YEARS IN THIS 2014 TO 2022 WHERE NO LOTS WERE TRANSFERRED.

SO, THIS WOULD BE ONE LOT PER YEAR OVER TIME AND THE AMOUNT OF MONEY GOES TOWARDS THAT OVERALL CALCULATION.

THANKS FOR THAT AND CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHERE THE 12% NUMBER COMES FROM? THAT WAS BASED ON THE COST OF DEVELOPMENTS LIKE BLOCK 501 WAS KIND OF ONE OF THE FIRST

[00:20:03]

SO, THEN THE PROPERTY DEVELOPER ASKED IF THE CITY WOULD PARTICIPATE IN FUNDING SOME OF THE PUBLIC ASSETS, WHICH IS ROADS, SIDEWALKS, PLAYGROUNDS, ETC..

MS. BASSI-KELLETT FURTHER INPUT ON THAT ONE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR.

THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT.

SO, IT'S A CONTRIBUTION TO THE CIVIC CIVIL STRUCTURES THAT ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT THAT.

MS. WHITE, ANYTHING TO ADD? THE ONLY PIECE I WOULD ADD IS IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A REFERENCE THAT 12% IS IN SECTION NINE UNDER THE LAND ADMINISTRATION BYLAW, COUNCIL DISCRETION WITH REGARDS TO DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTION. THANK YOU.

YEAH, THANKS FOR THAT BACKGROUND.

THAT COMPLETES THE PICTURE A BIT BETTER.

SO, YEAH, I'M DEFINITELY SUPPORTIVE OF THIS PROPOSAL AND LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING MORE FAMILIES BEING HOUSED.

THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR MORSE, I THINK I SAW YOUR HAND GO UP.

WERE YOU LOOKING TO SAY SOME COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? THANKS. NO QUESTIONS, JUST EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THE APPLICATION AND THANKS TO HABITAT FOR ALL OF THE WORK YOU GUYS DO FOR OUR COMMUNITY, I THINK IT'S GREAT AND I'M SURE THAT THIS WILL BE POSITIVE FOR THE COMMUNITY.

THANK YOU.

ANYTHING FURTHER? SEEING NONE.

SO, WITH GENERAL SUPPORT, WE WILL BRING THIS FORWARD TO COUNCIL, WHICH IS MONDAY, MARCH 28TH, AT 7:00 PM.

[5. A memorandum regarding whether to rebate a portion of property taxes for Unit 24, Condominium Plan 2277 (22 Forrest Park).]

ANY QUESTIONS? RATHER ADMINISTRATIVE AND WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO PUSH THE GNWT TO MAKE THE LEGISLATIVE CHANGES SO THAT THIS DOESN'T HAVE TO COME BEFORE COUNCIL, BUT IT COULD BE DONE AT AN ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL.

IT'S A DIFFICULT ONE TO ALWAYS HAVE TO BRING TO COUNCIL.

SEEING NONE, WE WILL BRING THAT FORWARD ON MONDAY, MARCH 28TH.

COUNCILLOR SMITH, YOU CAN COME BACK.

NEXT, WE HAVE A MEMORANDUM REGARDING WHETHER TO AMEND SCHEDULE A OF BYLAW NUMBER 5045

[6. 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.]

GO BACK AFTER OUR DISCUSSION AT GPC LAST WEEK AND TOOK A LOOK AT SOME OF THE WORKER ACCOMMODATIONS AND HAD SOME NOTES ABOUT THAT.

MS. BASSI-KELLETT, ANYTHING THAT ADMIN WOULD LIKE TO TOUCH ON? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR.

THAT'S BASICALLY IT. WE DID APPRECIATE THE KEY ISSUES THAT WERE FLAGGED LAST WEEK BY COUNCIL MEMBERS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS AND THEN, OF COURSE, ADMINISTRATION MADE RECOMMENDATIONS AROUND THOSE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARINGS, THE COMMENTS THAT WERE RAISED.

SO, WE DID HEAR COMMENTS LAST WEEK THAT WERE SPECIFIC TO WORKER ACCOMMODATION AND THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF DISCUSSION AROUND URBAN AGRICULTURE AS WELL.

SO, TODAY WE HAVE PRESENTED A MEMO THAT REFLECTS THE THOUGHT PROCESS THAT ADMINISTRATION TOOK AFTER THE DISCUSSION LAST WEEK.

WE DID ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS FURTHER TO LOOK INTO WHAT WAS FLAGGED LAST WEEK AND AT THIS TIME WE ARE RECOMMENDING NO CHANGE TO THE PARAMETERS FOR WORKER ACCOMMODATION.

REMOVING THE REQUIREMENT OF WORKER ACCOMMODATION TO INCLUDE A COMPLETE DWELLING UNIT CHANGES THE LAND USE AND IT'S A BIG CHANGE THAT WE STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE IN THE BROADER CONTEXT AS A BROADER POLICY DISCUSSION AROUND WORK CAMPS AND AROUND WORKER ACCOMMODATION. WE RECOMMEND STAYING WITH THE EXISTING DEFINITION AND THAT AFTER THE ZONING BYLAW IS APPROVED, THERE CAN BE SOME TIME SPENT SHOULD COUNCIL WISH IN LOOKING AT THESE POLICY DECISIONS, BUT FOR RIGHT NOW WE DO BELIEVE THAT WE CAN ACCOMPLISH HAVING WORKER ACCOMMODATIONS IS NEEDED TO SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL BE GOING ON IN OUR COMMUNITY AND RIGHT NOW WE'RE VERY KEEN TO SEE THE ZONING BYLAW FINALIZED BY COUNCIL SO THAT THERE'S CERTAINTY FOR DEVELOPERS IN THE 2022 CONSTRUCTION SEASON AND BEYOND.

SO, WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO THE DISCUSSION THAT WILL HAPPEN TODAY AND HOPEFULLY WE WILL SEE THIS BROUGHT TO COUNCIL THIS EVENING.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU.

OPENING IT UP TO QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, DISCUSSION.

I DO HAVE TWO AMENDMENTS THAT I BRING FORWARD, BUT I'LL START WITH COUNCILLOR MORGAN AND COUNCILLOR PAYNE. THANKS VERY MUCH.

SO, THANKS TO ADMINISTRATION FOR DOING THE ADDITIONAL WORK TO GIVE US SOME MORE BACKGROUND

[00:25:01]

NO, SO, ADMINISTRATION PROVIDED THEIR PROFESSIONAL OPINION SO IT WOULD BE UP TO COUNCIL TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT.

I DO HAVE ONE AMENDMENT WHEN IT COMES TO WORKER ACCOMMODATIONS, AND I'LL BRING THAT FORWARD WHEN FOLKS ARE READY.

OKAY, JUST A FEW QUESTIONS BASED ON THE MEMO.

JUST SO I UNDERSTAND PROPERLY, IT WAS MENTIONING THAT PART OF THE CONCERN ABOUT SWITCHING FROM WORKER ACCOMMODATION THAT IS A COMPLETE DWELLING UNIT TO WORK CAMPS WHERE THERE WOULD BE A BUNCH OF ROOMS OR DORMS SEPARATE FROM A COMPLETE LIVING SPACE LIKE FOOD SERVICES, ETC.

IT SAYS THAT THEY WOULD HAVE DIFFERENT IMPACTS BOTH TO THAT PROPERTY AND TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. CAN ADMINISTRATION GIVE ANY EXAMPLES TO HELP US UNDERSTAND SOME OF THOSE DIFFERENT IMPACTS AND WHY THEY WOULD IMPACT THE NEIGHBORHOOD DIFFERENTLY? MS. BASSI-KELLETT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE QUESTION.

I'LL ASK MS. WHITE IF SHE CAN RESPOND TO THIS.

GREAT, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE QUESTION.

REALLY, THE COMMUNITY PLAN, IF WE GO BACK THERE, AS I SAY IN THE MEMO, DOES DEFINE SPECIFICALLY WHAT A WORK CAMP IS AND DOES NOT ALLOW IT IN ANY SPECIFIC DESIGNATION WITHIN THAT COMMUNITY PLAN.

SO, LAND USE DEVELOPMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL LAND REALLY SPEAKS TO IN THE COMMUNITY PLAN FOR SPECIFIC DWELLINGS AND IT ENCOMPASSES A VARIETY OF DWELLINGS, SINGLE, DETACHED, ATTACHED, MULTI-UNIT.

IT DOES NOT SPEAK TO THAT DEFINITION OF WORK CAMP AND IF WE THEN GO TO THE ZONING BYLAW, SAME THING WE'RE TALKING ABOUT COMPLETE DWELLING UNITS AND DOES NOT SEPARATE OUT A LIVING ONLY QUARTER I GUESS IS THE BEST WAY TO DESCRIBE IT. CONTINUING ON, WE TALK, WE LOOK AT THE BUILDING BYLAW AS WELL AS SOME OTHER AGENCIES THAT DEAL WITH RESIDENTIAL LAND USES AND SO, WHEN YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT WHAT AN EXAMPLE IS, WHAT THAT COULD LOOK LIKE, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OR LOOKING TO ALLOW THESE USES AS AN ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL USE, THINK ABOUT THEN WHAT WOULD THAT LOOK LIKE? NOT JUST IN KAM LAKE, BUT LET'S THINK ABOUT IN ANY RESIDENTIAL AREA OR ANY COMMERCIAL AREA. IF WE LOOK AT THE ZONING BYLAW ACCESSORY, RESIDENTIAL USES ARE ALLOWED IN MANY DIFFERENT ZONES, NOT JUST THIS ZONE.

SO, LET'S SAY SOMEONE ARGUED THAT IF WE ALLOW IT HERE, THEN IT'S AN ACCEPTABLE ACCESSORY USE. SO, IS THAT SOMETHING WE COULD SEE IN PEOPLE'S BACKYARDS? TECHNICALLY, IF THAT WAS ALLOWED AND SO WE WOULDN'T WANT TO OPEN THE DOOR TO SOMETHING WE HAVE NOT GIVEN A FULL PLANNING ANALYSIS TO ACROSS DIFFERENT ZONES.

SO, MAKING A CHANGE IN ONE ZONE TO SAY, OKAY, MAYBE THIS DOES WORK HERE, WE NEED TO CONSIDER WHAT IMPACT THAT HAS BASED ON THE OTHER PIECES OF OUR ZONING BYLAW.

SO, THAT WOULD BE ONE EXAMPLE THAT WOULD HAVE AN IMPACT THAT WAS, LET'S SAY, NOT INTENDED BY THIS CHANGE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND THE WAY IT'S WORDED NOW, ORIGINALLY WORKERS ACCOMMODATION, ESPECIALLY IN KAM LAKE, THE INTENTION WAS THAT IT WOULD ACCOMMODATE A WORKER WHO WAS WORKING ON THAT SITE WITH THE COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHMENT THAT WAS THERE IN KAM LAKE.

WITH THE CURRENT WORDING, DOES IT MEAN THE WORKERS HAVE TO BE WORKING ON THAT SITE WHERE THEY'RE LIVING, OR CAN THEY BE WORKING OFFSITE OR HOW DO YOU EVEN MONITOR OR ENFORCE THAT? MS. BASSI-KELLETT. MS. WHITE. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

RIGHT NOW, NO, IT DOESN'T MEAN THEY HAVE TO BE WORKING ON THAT SPECIFIC SITE, BUT THEY DO NEED TO BE DOING WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THE BUSINESS THAT IS OPERATING ON THAT SITE.

SO, IF MORGAN CONSTRUCTION WAS AN OWNER OF A PROPERTY AND MORGAN CONSTRUCTION WANTED TO PUT ON THESE WORKERS ACCOMMODATION, THEN THE WORKERS WOULD HAVE TO BE WORKING FOR MORGAN CONSTRUCTIONBUT IT DOES HAVE TO BE RIGHT ON THAT SITE.

THANK YOU. THANKS FOR CLARIFYING THAT AND THEN LASTLY, SO THE PROPOSAL FROM ADMINISTRATION

[00:30:06]

IT ALSO MENTIONS IN THE MEMO THAT THERE'S A MAXIMUM ON LOT COVERAGE ANYWAYS.

DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE EIGHT-UNIT MAX IS REDUNDANT BECAUSE THE RESTRICTIONS ON COVERAGE WILL END UP LIMITING THE NUMBER OF UNITS OR THE AMOUNT OF ACCOMMODATION REGARDLESS OR DOES THE EIGHT-UNIT MAX ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN THE RESTRICTIONS ON COVERAGE? MS. BASSI-KELLETT. MS. WHITE. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

IT'S ACTUALLY A REALLY GOOD QUESTION IF WE PLAY IT OUT.

SO, LET'S TAKE A PROPERTY THAT MAY HAVE A BUSINESS.

THEY HAVE BUILDINGS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.

MAYBE THEY HAVE AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT THAT THEY LIVE IN ON THAT SITE.

THAT 50% LOT COVERAGE GETS USED UP PRETTY QUICKLY.

SO, THE EIGHT UNITS ARE UNLIKELY TO BE DEVELOPED ON THAT SITE, BUT LET'S TAKE A DIFFERENT SITE WHERE MAYBE THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY IS USED FOR PARKING OF EQUIPMENT OR TRUCKS AND THEY HAVE A SMALL STRUCTURE ON THAT SITE.

SO, THAT 50% YOU COULD GET TECHNICALLY GREATER THAN THE EIGHT UNITS AND SO WHAT MAY HAPPEN IS THAT RESIDENTIAL USE THEN BECOMES THE PRIMARY USE BECAUSE IT WOULD BE GREATER THAN THE REMAINDER OF THE PROPERTY BEING USED FOR THE BUSINESS.

SO, WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE THAT EQUILIBRIUM, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

SO, DEPENDING ON WHAT PROPERTY IS BEING PROPOSED TO HAVE THE WORKER'S ACCOMMODATION.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THAT AND I ASSUME WE'LL HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION IN A MINUTE BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE MAYOR ALTY IS GOING TO PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT RELATED TO THAT.

I DO HAVE AN AMENDMENT I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE A LITTLE BIT LATER, BUT ON A DIFFERENT ISSUE, GOING BACK TO COMMERCIAL RETAIL SALES AND SERVICE IN THE RC-1 ZONE, BUT MAYBE WE'LL COME BACK TO IT AFTER WE FINISH THE DISCUSSION ABOUT WORKER ACCOMMODATION AND MAYOR ALTY'S AMENDMENTS. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YEAH, YOU WANT TO PUT YOUR AMENDMENT IN THE CHAT, BECAUSE WE NEED TO HAVE IT BEEN WRITTEN FORMAT.

GOING TO COUNCILLOR PAYNE NEXT.

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.

SO, LAST WEEK WE TALKED ABOUT IF WE WANT TO CHANGE THE DOWNTOWN OR EXPAND THE DOWNTOWN ZONE TO ENCOMPASS THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE ROAD ON 52ND STREET, WE WOULD HAVE TO OPEN UP THE COMMUNITY PLAN.

NOW, LOOKING AT SOME OF THE NEW BOUNDARIES THAT WE HAVE, WHEN I LOOK OVER TOWARDS THE EXPLORER HOTEL, THAT LOT RIGHT BEHIND THE GM LOT THAT WASN'T INCLUDED IN THE DOWNTOWN ZONE, AND NOW IT'S INCLUDED IN THE DOWNTOWN ZONE AND IT'S ACTUALLY EXTENDED PRETTY MUCH RIGHT TO NIVEN LAKE, ENCOMPASSING THE HOTEL AND THAT BIG EMPTY LOT THAT'S NEXT TO IT AND THE POWER STATION OR WHATEVER IT IS THERE.

SO, DID WE HAVE TO OPEN UP THE COMMUNITY PLAN TO MAKE THAT CHANGE, AND IF WE DIDN'T, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE IN MAKING THE CHANGE TO THE 52ND AVENUE BOUNDARY? MS. BASSI-KELLETT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR.

THANKS, COUNCILLOR PAYNE.

MS. WHITE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

NO, WE DID NOT OPEN UP THE COMMUNITY PLAN.

SO, IF WE LOOK AT THE LAND USE SCHEDULE OF DESIGNATIONS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY PLAN, THOSE LANDS ARE ALREADY INCLUDED IN WHAT IS A DOWNTOWN AREA AND THE USES ARE IN KEEPING WITH WHAT IS IN THE DESIGNATION FOR, IN THIS CASE IT'S THE SAME IS DOWNTOWN CENTRAL RESIDENTIAL.

SO, DEPENDING ON WHAT SOMEBODY MAY OR MAY NOT WANT TO HAVE IN THOSE OTHER ADJACENT AREAS, IT MAY BE PERMITTED, BUT THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE ON A SITE BY SITE BASIS.

THANK YOU.

SO, WE DID CHANGE THE BOUNDARY, RIGHT? THE ONE THAT'S IN THE COMMUNITY PLAN IS DIFFERENT THAN THE ONE THAT'S BEING PRESENTED RIGHT NOW, RIGHT? SO, KNOWING THAT THERE'S INTEREST IN THIS 52ND STREET AREA FOR THE DOWNTOWN ZONE, WHAT DO WE HAVE TO DO RIGHT NOW TO CHANGE THAT?

[00:35:03]

SO, REALLY THE ZONING MAP.

I SEE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

THE LOTS OFF OF HIGHWAY NUMBER FOUR AND LOCATED IN THE COMMUNITY PLAN ON CENTRAL RESIDENTIAL.

HOWEVER, IN THE ZONING BYLAW MAP, THEY'VE BEEN LOCATED IN THE DOWNTOWN.

MS. BASSI-KELLETT, DO [INAUDIBLE] THE SECTIONS? I WILL ASK MS. WHITE IF SHE CAN PROVIDE HER THOUGHTS.

I DO SEE THE AREA THAT YOU'RE SPEAKING TO.

I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK INTO IT A LITTLE FURTHER, BECAUSE YES, IT LOOKS LIKE CENTRAL RESIDENTIAL, BUT I WOULD NEED TO INVESTIGATE A LITTLE FURTHER.

THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

COUNCILLOR MORSE. THANKS.

YEAH, COUNCILLOR PAYNE ACTUALLY KIND OF BEAT ME TO IT.

I WAS SORT OF THINKING ABOUT THIS OVER THE WEEK SINCE OUR LAST MEETING AND ALSO KIND OF NOTED THAT WE'VE MADE ALL SORTS OF CHANGES TO BOUNDARIES OF DIFFERENT ZONES AND SO I WAS CONFUSED AS WELL ABOUT ADMINISTRATION'S ANSWER THAT CHANGING HIS OWN BOUNDARY NOW WOULD ALL OF A SUDDEN REQUIRE US TO OPEN THE COMMUNITY PLAN.

SO, I AM KIND OF CONFUSED NOW AS TO WHY SOME BOUNDARY CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE AS A RESULT OF THE PUBLIC HEARING OR WHATEVER OR ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATIONS, WHY THOSE DON'T REQUIRE OPENING OF THE COMMUNITY PLAN AND THIS SPECIFIC CHANGE WOULD.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE JUSTIFICATION FOR ONE OR THE OTHER, WHY WE CAN MAKE SOME BOUNDARY CHANGES AND IT'S FINE OTHER BOUNDARY CHANGES, WE CAN'T; I DON'T GET IT.

SURE. MS. BASSI-KELLETT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MISS WHITE. THANK YOU.

SO, IN GENERAL, I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

SO, WHAT IS DESIGNATED IN THE COMMUNITY PLAN WOULD BE THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE DESIGNATION FOR SOME PROPERTIES AND THROUGH TIME IT IS THE DIRECTION OF THE COMMUNITY PLAN THAT YOU WOULD ZONE UP TO MATCH WHAT IS IN SOME OF THOSE ZONES.

SO, AGAIN, PERFECT EXAMPLE WOULD BE THE RESIDENTIAL CENTRAL WHICH IS IN THE DOWNTOWN CENTRAL RESIDENTIAL.

SO, RIGHT NOW SOME OF THOSE PROPERTIES MAY BE WITHIN A LOWER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE THROUGH TIME.

AS WE TALK ABOUT TRANSITION AND INFILLING AND DENSIFICATION, THE ZONING COULD ALLOW OVER TIME FOR GREATER DENSITY AND GREATER AMOUNTS OF RESIDENTIAL USE IN THOSE RC OR RC-1 AREAS. SO THEY DON'T NECESSARILY MATCH EXACTLY, BUT YOU CAN WORK UP TO.

SO, IF YOU'RE CHANGING A DESIGNATION, AS LONG AS YOU'RE NOT EXCEEDING WHAT HAS BEEN THAT QUALIFIER OR LET'S SAY DENSITY IN THAT AREA, YOU'RE OKAY TO CHANGE THE ZONE.

THE ZONES CAN CHANGE WITHIN AS LONG AS THE USES ARE DESCRIBED IN THAT DESIGNATION.

SO, YOU CAN MAKE SOME CHANGES, BUT THERE'S OTHERS WHERE YOU CAN'T GO OVER.

SO, THAT'S WHERE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE PROPERTIES ON THE SIX PROPERTIES JUST OUTSIDE THAT DOWNTOWN, BECAUSE THE CHANGE OVER WOULD BE HIGHER THAN WHAT IS CURRENTLY OUTLINED IN THE COMMUNITY PLAN.

SO, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT MAKES SENSE, BUT UP TO AND INCLUDING BUT NOT EXCEEDING THOSE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMMUNITY PLAN.

SO, IF WE WANT MORE, THE COMMUNITY PLAN WOULD HAVE TO BE UPDATED TO REFLECT THAT.

COUNCILLOR MORSE, YOU LOOK PUZZLED.

SO, BASICALLY YOU CAN SCALE DOWN MORE THAN SCALE UP, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? [INAUDIBLE] TAKING THE TIME TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL TO HAVE THAT ANSWER MAYBE IN WRITING OR SHOWING EXAMPLES, SO I CAN KIND OF PONDER IT BETTER THAN IT'S JUST YEAH, I DON'T KNOW.

[00:40:02]

SO, THE RESIDENTIAL SECTION NEAR THE SALVATION ARMY IS CURRENTLY RESIDENTIAL.

IN THE COMMUNITY PLAN, IT IS IN THE DOWNTOWN CORE AND SO IN THE FIRST MAP OF THE ZONING BYLAW, IT WAS ZONED AS DOWNTOWN, WHICH IS HIGHER THAN RC-1 FROM A DENSITY AND COMMERCIAL ASPECT . SO, YOU COULD BRING THAT SECTION DOWN, BUT TO GO TO A RESIDENTIAL SECTION AND SAY WE'RE SCALING UP AND PUTTING IT AT THIS HIGHER COMMERCIAL LEVEL ISN'T SOMETHING THAT THE COMMUNITY PLAN OR PLANNING PRINCIPLES ALLOW AND IT LOOKS LIKE SHE CAN GIVE ANOTHER EXAMPLE.

? I'LL GO TO MS. BASSI-KELLETT. THANKS.

I'LL ASK MISS WHITE; SHE'S OUR RESIDENT EXPERT.

GREAT, SO, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE ANOTHER EXAMPLE.

IF WE LOOK IN THE COMMUNITY PLAN AND NOT TALKING ABOUT RESIDENTIAL DENSITY, IF WE LOOK OUT PAST THE FRAME LAKE AREA, YOU'LL SEE THERE IS AN AREA IDENTIFIED FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT JUST OFF OF OLD AIRPORT ROAD.

RIGHT NOW IT'S ZONED AS IT'S BASICALLY IN HOLDING, RIGHT? SO IT'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT AREA OUT THERE.

SO, IN FUTURE, IF WE WANTED TO DEVELOP, IF COUNCIL DIRECTED TO DEVELOP A COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE OUT THERE, MAYBE A SUBDIVISION, WE WOULDN'T NEED TO AMEND THE COMMUNITY PLAN BECAUSE IT ALREADY WOULD ALLOW THAT THIS WOULD BE A ZONING UPDATE ALONG WITH A PLAN OF SUBDIVISION.

SO, RIGHT NOW THERE'S THE ZONE KIND OF HOLDS THE PROPERTY FOR SOME FORM OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, BUT WHEN THAT COMES FORWARD, THE PLAN, THE COMMUNITY PLAN HAS TAKEN THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AND ALL THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED IS APPROPRIATE ZONING, STILL A PUBLIC PROCESS, STILL GOING THROUGH THE FORMAL STEPS, BUT YOU'RE BRINGING IT UP TO WHAT THAT COMMUNITY PLAN INTENTION WAS FOR A COMMERCIAL USE OR COMMERCIAL DENSITY IN THE FUTURE.

SO AND NO, IT'S NOT SPECIFICALLY WRITTEN IN THE COMMUNITY PLAN, BUT IT IS COMMON LAND USE PLANNING PRACTICE ACROSS ALL LAND USE PLANNERS THAT THE COMMUNITY PLAN OR OFFICIAL PLAN, DEPENDING ON WHERE YOU ARE, REALLY SETS THOSE LIMITS FOR YOU CAN BUILD UP TO BUT NOT EXCEEDING AND THAT'S WHEN AN AMENDMENT WOULD BE REQUIRED SO THAT THE TWO MATCH OVER TIME.

THANK YOU.

[INAUDIBLE] THAT YOU'RE CONSIDERING THAT ONE.

WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT COUNCILLOR.

COUNCILLOR SMITH AND THEN I HAVE COUNCILLOR MUFANDAEDZA.

THANK YOU, I'M PRETTY MUCH IN THE SAME BOAT AS STEVE AND JULIAN AND THIS ONE.

IS THERE NO WAY THAT WE CAN AMEND THE COMMUNITY PLAN TO BE ABLE TO ASSIST IN THIS? BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DENSIFICATION AND WE'RE LOOKING TO THE FUTURE, BUT WE HAVE DEVELOPERS THAT ARE WANTING TO PROVIDE APARTMENTS WHICH WOULD INCREASE THE DENSIFICATION OF DOWNTOWN, BUT WE'RE THE ONES THAT ARE STOPPING THIS, YET WE HAVE NOWHERE ELSE TO REALLY BUILD TO.

WE HAVE NO LANDS THAT WE CAN REALLY ACQUIRE.

SO, WE'VE GOT DEVELOPERS THAT ARE SAYING, HEY, WE'VE GOT AN IDEA, WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO HELP. IT WILL ALSO HELP WITH DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE BEEN BATTLING WITH FOR [INAUDIBLE] DECADES.

OUR DOWNTOWN IS GETTING WORSE AND WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT ARE WANTING TO ASSIST AND BUILD AND CONTRIBUTE TO THIS COMMUNITY AND WE'RE SITTING HERE SAYING, WELL, THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO. SO, WHAT IS THERE THAT WE CAN DO TO BE ABLE TO ASSIST TO THESE DEVELOPERS THAT ARE WANTING TO PROVIDE THIS TO THIS COMMUNITY, TO MAKE IT BETTER, TO MAKE MORE HOMES FOR INDIVIDUALS? WHAT CAN WE DO? WE CAN AMEND THE COMMUNITY PLAN.

WE JUST CAN'T DO IT TODAY.

SO, WE CAN AMEND THE COMMUNITY PLAN, WHICH INVOLVES GOING INTO COMMUNITY CONSULTATION, HAVING A STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING, GETTING BETWEEN SECOND AND THIRD READING.

WE GET THE MINISTER OF MACA TO REVIEW IT AND APPROVE IT, COMES BACK HERE, WE DO THIRD READING, THEN WE COULD UPDATE OUR ZONING BYLAW.

SO, THEN WE WOULD GO OUT TO PUBLIC CONSULTATION, WE'D HOLD A STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING, WE

[00:45:01]

SO, THERE'S NOTHING STOPPING COUNCIL FROM AMENDING THE ZONING BYLAW BESIDES THE FACT THAT IT TAKES SOME TIME.

SO, IF IT'S THE DIRECTION THAT COUNCIL WANTS TO PROCEED AFTER WE APPROVE THE ZONING BYLAW, WE CAN BRING IT FORWARD.

THE THING THAT I WOULD. SUGGEST, THOUGH, IS THAT WE SIT DOWN WITH THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY TO DISCUSS WHETHER THEY WANT US TO FOCUS ON DOING THOSE COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENTS OR IT'S KIND OF NOT ONE OR THE OTHER, BUT THERE'S THE DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE BYLAW THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE UPDATED NEXT TO BE IN LINE WITH THE COMMUNITY PLAN, THE ZONING BYLAW.

THE OTHER ONE IS AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN OUT IN KAM LAKE TO BE ABLE TO PUT THOSE THOUGHTS ON THE MARKET.

SO, THERE ARE A FEW DIFFERENT BYLAWS THAT I THINK THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY IS GOING TO WANT US TO UPDATE AND RC WHICH THE SIX LOTS ON 52ND AVE ARE ZONED ALLOWS UP TO 45 METERS, JUST LIKE THE DOWNTOWN.

SO, I THINK IF WE CAN SIT DOWN WITH THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY AND UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS BETWEEN RC AND DOWNTOWN, WE MAY BE ABLE TO ADDRESS IT WITHOUT HAVING TO DO A COMMUNITY PLAN UPDATE.

SO, WE CAN PUT THE WHOLE ZONING BYLAW ON A PAUSE AND GO UPDATE OUR COMMUNITY PLAN AND AND JUST CONTINUE TO HAVE OUR OLD ZONING BYLAW, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT THE DEVELOPERS WANT.

I THINK THEY WANT US TO APPROVE THE ZONING BYLAW AND THEN WE CAN LOOK AT THAT DISCUSSION ABOUT DO WE NEED TO DO THE COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENTS OR CAN WE ADDRESS THE CONCERNS A DIFFERENT WAY? MS. BASSI-KELLETT, THOUGHTS FROM ADMIN AND I DO KNOW I HAVE TO TAKE A BIT OF TIME TO CONSIDER THOSE LOTS AROUND CHATEAU NOVA AND THE OLD YK MOTORS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR.

ABSOLUTELY AGREED AND CERTAINLY WE KNOW THIS IS A MASSIVE POLICY DOCUMENT.

IT'S HOW WE REGULATE LAND USE.

THERE'S A LOT OF MOVING PIECES TO THIS ONE.

SO, YEAH, WE WOULD REALLY LOVE TO SEE THE ZONING BYLAW ITSELF GET INTO PLACE AND THEN WE WILL COMPLETELY AGREE TO WORK TO ADJUST AS WE NEED TO, TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE MEETING ALL OF THE INTERESTS OF DIFFERENT PARTIES THAT HAVE COME FORWARD TO US.

I'LL ASK MS. WHITE IF SHE HAS MORE TO ADD.

THANK YOU, YES, JUST WITH REGARDS TO COUNCILLOR SMITH'S QUESTION.

MULTI UNIT RESIDENTIAL IS PERMITTED AND THESE PROPERTIES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, WHETHER TO INCLUDE AS PART OF A COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT OR NOT.

SO, WE'RE HAPPY TO SIT DOWN AND UNDERSTAND WITH ANY OF THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IF THEY WANT TO BUILD APARTMENTS, WHY THEY FEEL THEY CAN'T, BECAUSE THAT IS THE INTENT, BOTH OF THE COMMUNITY PLAN AND THE ZONING BYLAW AND BACK TO SOME OF THOSE OTHER PROPERTIES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, I AM REVIEWING WHILE WE SPEAK AND THE OLD YK MOTORS PROPERTY IS INCLUDED IN THE DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL CENTRAL.

SO, HAVING THAT ZONED DOWNTOWN DOES MAKE SENSE.

I AM JUST FOLLOWING UP ON THOSE OTHER PROPERTIES.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COUNCILLOR SMITH? NO, THANK YOU, I JUST HOPE GOING FORWARD THAT WE'RE REALLY WORKING TOWARDS THAT THE IDEOLOGY OF BUILDING A BETTER FUTURE, BUT REALLY WORKING TOWARDS WE WANT THAT REVITALIZATION; WE WANT THAT DENSIFICATION.

WE ARE REALLY STRUGGLING WITH MAXIMIZING OUR LAND BECAUSE THERE'S VERY LITTLE LEFT IN THE SURROUNDING AREA.

SO, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE MAXIMIZING ON WHAT WE DO HAVE AND REALLY WORKING WITH THOSE THAT WANT TO HELP AND PROMOTE AND MAKE THIS AS BEST WE POSSIBLY CAN.

FOR SURE. COUNCILLOR MUFANDAEDZA.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR AND SORRY I HAVE TO BRING EVERYBODY BACK TO THE WORKER'S ACCOMMODATION. I KNOW WE REALLY PASSED, BUT I JUST HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS ON THAT.

UNDER THE DEFINITION, THE DEFINITION TALKS ABOUT THE ACCOMMODATION BEING THAT IT HAS TO BE OF TEMPORARY USE.

SO, MY QUESTION IS AN EXAMPLE OF I DON'T KNOW, THE TEMPORARY STRUCTURE IS WHAT I CALL AN ATCO TRAILER. CAN THEY STILL BE STORED AT SITE IF IT'S A SEASONAL USE OFF SEASON, CAN THEY STILL BE STORED AT THAT SITE? STORED AND NOT USED, YOU'RE SAYING?

[00:50:01]

MS. BASSI-KELLETT. THANK YOU.

MS. WHITE. THANK YOU, I AM JUST GOING TO THAT SECTION RIGHT NOW, ONE MOMENT, AND WHILE I LOOK, I ACTUALLY WILL ASK ROB IF HE KNOWS OFF THE TOP OF IF THAT IS PERMITTED OR NOT. I WILL CONTINUE TO LOOK.

THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE COMMENT.

I THINK IF THE DEFINITION IS AMENDED TO INCLUDE THE PHRASE MUST BE FOR A TEMPORARY USE THEN IT BECOMES CHALLENGING FOR US TO MONITOR WHETHER THE BUILDING IS SITTING THERE EMPTY OR FULL. IF THE DEFINITION IS GOING TO INCORPORATE THAT HARD LINE OF IT MUST BE TEMPORARY. THEN I WOULD SUGGEST IDEALLY IS REMOVED WHEN THAT TEMPORARY PERIOD IS OVER.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THAT.

SO, IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN MAYBE I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT ONLY RECOGNIZING THE COST OF SETTING UP THESE TEMPORARY SHELTERS AND BRINGING THEM IN AND OUT OF A SHELTER . SO, I'M THINKING MAYBE PUTTING FORWARD AN AMENDMENT TO REMOVE THAT TEMPORARY USE.

IF THAT MEANS TEMPORARY MEANS THE SHELTERS HAVE TO BE REMOVED AT THE END OF THE SEASON SO THAT COMPANIES ARE NOT CONSTANTLY TRYING TO REBUILD THESE STRUCTURES EVERY YEAR IS MY THOUGHT. MY SECOND QUESTION IS ON THE STILL ON THE--COULD I JUST JUMP IN FOR A SECOND? JUST WONDERING, [INAUDIBLE] ON PAGE 200 OF OUR GPC PACKAGE, THE KAM LAKE AREA, IT SAYS PERMITTED IS FACTORY BUILT DWELLING SALES AND STORAGE.

JUST WONDERING IF THAT WOULD BE WHAT COUNCILLOR MUFANDAEDZA PERHAPS THAT WOULD CAPTURE WHAT SHE WAS JUST ASKING, THAT YOU WOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE THOSE WINTER CAMPS STORED HERE IN YELLOWKNIFE GO BACK UP THE WINTER ROAD BASED ON THAT USE? MS. BASSI-KELLETT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'LL ASK MISS WHITE.

THANK YOU AND ACTUALLY, IF WE SCROLL DOWN JUST A LITTLE BIT FURTHER ON THE NEXT PAGE, YOU'LL SEE THAT STORAGE FACILITY'S THERE.

SO, IF IT MET THE DEFINITION, POTENTIALLY SHORT TERM STORAGE COULD BE PERMITTED.

AGAIN, IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE PROPERTY, DEPEND ON WHERE WE'RE SPEAKING ABOUT WITHIN THE COMMUNITY, BUT IT DOES APPEAR THERE ARE SOME OPTIONS HERE AND I GUESS I'M JUST WONDERING FOR COUNCILLOR MUFANDAEDZA'S QUESTION THE SECOND PART, COULD YOU EXPLAIN THE QUESTION AGAIN SO THAT I COULD PROPERLY ANSWER, PLEASE? THANK YOU. SURE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

SO, GOING BACK TO MY QUESTION, WE'LL GO BACK TO THE EXAMPLE YOU GAVE, MORGAN CONSTRUCTION, HAS A PROJECT IN TOWN.

SO, THEY SET UP A CAMP AND HAVE THIS TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION SITE.

SO, THEY DO SET UP, WE DO KNOW THAT THEIR PROJECTS ARE GOING TO RUN FOR, SAY, 12 MONTHS.

THEY RUN IT FOR 12 MONTHS, BUT THEY'RE ALSO IN THE PROCESS OF BIDDING FOR ANOTHER CONTRACT THAT SHOULD START MAYBE IN ANOTHER SIX MONTHS.

AT THE END OF THE 12 MONTH PROJECT, EMPLOYEES HAVE LEFT TOWN.

ARE THEY REQUIRED TO REMOVE THIS WHILE THEY WAIT FOR THE NEXT PROJECT TO START, OR DOES THIS BECOME A STORAGE FACILITY FOR THEM UNTIL THE NEXT PROJECT STARTS? MS. BASSI-KELLETT, ARE YOU THERE? YES, SORRY, I DID NOT HEAR YOU, MADAM CHAIR.

MS. WHITE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

SO, IF THE DEFINITION IS CHANGED TO INCLUDE AND IS TO BE A TEMPORARY USE, THEN NO, THAT WOULD NEED TO BE REMOVED AS PER THE TERM.

SO, WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS WE'LL HAVE TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH MORGAN CONSTRUCTION TO SAY, YES, YOU CAN HAVE WHATEVER STRUCTURE IT IS FOR THE TERM OF 12 MONTHS OR SAY IT'S 16 MONTHS AND THEN YEAH, WE WOULD TAKE A DEPOSIT AND MORGAN CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE REQUIRED TO REMOVE IT AFTER A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME, BUT THAT'S NOT CURRENTLY HOW THE DEFINITION IS PROPOSED.

SO, RIGHT NOW THE ANSWER WOULD BE NO, IT COULD BE A FACILITY FOR THEM TO HOLD IT, BUT IF THE DEFINITION IS CHANGED, THEN WE WILL BE REQUIRED TO ENFORCE THAT DEFINITION, WHICH IS

[00:55:03]

THANK YOU. OKAY, YEAH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MY NEXT QUESTION IS ON WORKER'S ACCOMMODATION AGAIN.

SO, SECTION 12.1.3C TALKS ABOUT TO DEMONSTRATE EVIDENCE OF AN ESTABLISHED INDUSTRIAL OR COMMERCIAL USE OPERATING ON THE LOT IN THE FORM OF A STRUCTURE HAVING A MINIMUM OF GROSS FLOOR AREA OF 93 SQUARE METERS.

SO, MY QUESTION I KNOW MS. WHITE TOUCHED ON IT A LITTLE IS COULD A BUSINESS, SO, I JUST WANTED CLARIFICATION ON DOES THE BUSINESS NEED TO OPERATE FROM THAT FACILITY THAT THEY HAVE THE TEMPORARY STORAGE OR TEMPORARY WORKER ACCOMMODATION, OR COULD IT BE AN ADJACENT LOT THAT I THINK EARLIER YOU TALKED ABOUT, MAYBE THEY PARK THEIR EQUIPMENT THERE, MAYBE THEY PARK THEIR STORE STUFF THERE.

CAN THAT STILL BE USED AS THE WORKER ACCOMMODATION OR DOES IT HAVE TO BE ON THE MAIN LOT WITH THE BUSINESS OFFICE SPACE? MS. BASSI-KELLETT. MISS WHITE.

THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE SOME CLARIFICATION.

IF THE COMPANY OWNS MULTIPLE PROPERTIES, THEN TECHNICALLY, AS LONG AS IT WAS IN THE ZONE THAT PERMITS THESE WORKER ACCOMMODATION, IT COULD BE ON ANY PROPERTY THAT WAS OWNED BY THAT COMPANY. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ON THE PROPERTY THAT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING IS, BUT LET'S SAY THEY OWN TWO OR THREE LOTS IN A ROW, WHICH SOME DO, THEN THE ZONING WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE MET FOR WHICHEVER PROPERTY THEY SELECTED TO PUT THIS ON, BUT WHAT I WOULD CAUTION IS THE WAY THAT IT'S WRITTEN NOW.

SORRY AGAIN, TO USE THE EXAMPLE, IF MORGAN CONSTRUCTION PUT UP WORKER ACCOMMODATION AND THEN WAS RENTING IT OUT TO MUFANDAEDZA CONSTRUCTION, THAT IS NOT THE INTENT.

SO, HOPEFULLY THAT PROVIDES SOME CLARIFICATION.

THANK YOU. YEAH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

YOU DID ANSWER MY QUESTION.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

SO, DID I SEE ANYBODY ELSE WITH QUESTIONS? COUNCILLOR MORSE. THANKS, YEAH, SORRY TO BRING THE OLD DEAD HORSE BACK INTO THE ROOM, BUT I'M STILL TRYING TO KIND OF UNDERSTAND WRAP MY HEAD AROUND THIS ZONING BYLAW VERSUS COMMUNITY PLAN SITUATION.

SO BASED ON MS. WHITE'S ANSWERS, I'M JUST LOOKING AT OUR COMMUNITY PLAN AND THEN THE PROPOSED ZONING BYLAW MAP, WHICH I FINALLY GOT IN THE MOST RECENT UPDATED ONE.

IT WASN'T IN OUR PACKAGE TODAY, BUT I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE SECTION.

SO, IF I LOOK AT THE COMMUNITY PLAN, THE DOWNTOWN IS KIND OF A SMALL DEFINED ZONE IN THE COMMUNITY PLAN AND THEN I LOOK AT OUR ZONING BYLAW MAP AND TO THE NORTH WEST, THERE'S THIS WHOLE NEW SECTION OF DOWNTOWN THAT'S BEING ZONED UP INTO THE DOWNTOWN ZONE, BUT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE COMMUNITY PLAN AND IT APPEARS TO ME TO BE GETTING "UP ZONED." SO, IT'S GETTING ZONED FROM A LOWER DENSITY TO A HIGHER DENSITY, EXACTLY AS MS. WHITE SAID WE COULD NOT DO WITHOUT AMENDING THE COMMUNITY PLAN.

SO, AGAIN, I'M ASKING THE QUESTION SPECIFIC TO THIS SPOT HERE NOW AND I'M TALKING ABOUT, I GUESS, THE AREA THAT THE NEW CHATEAU NOVA HOTEL IS ON.

IT GOES UP TOWARDS NIVEN LAKE.

THERE'S A KIND OF A TRIANGLE SHAPED AREA IN THE ZONING MAP AND SO THAT'S BEING UP ZONED PER SE AND SO I'M FAILING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THAT CHANGE CORRESPONDS WITH THE ADVICE WE WERE JUST GIVEN ABOUT 52ND AND HOW THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE A CHANGE TO THE COMMUNITY PLAN, BUT WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED ON 52ND WOULD REQUIRE A CHANGE.

IT SEEMS TO BE CONTRADICTING ITSELF.

MS. BASSI-KELLETT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I'LL ASK MISS WHITE TO EXPLAIN.

GREAT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND I, WHILE WE WERE DISCUSSING ALSO, I KNOW EXACTLY WHERE YOU'RE SPEAKING TO NOW. SO, THIS IS WITHIN THE CAPITAL AREA AND WE ALL KNOW THE USE THAT IS THERE. IT WOULD DEFINITELY BE CONSIDERED A TOURISM SUPPORTED USE, WHICH IS PERMITTED BY THE COMMUNITY PLAN.

SO, WHEN LOOKING AND I'VE REFERRED BACK TO STAFF ON THIS WHILE WE'VE BEEN TALKING, WE TRIED TO FIND SOMETHING THAT WOULD APPROPRIATELY MATCH WHAT HAS BEEN APPROVED THERE.

SO, DEVELOPMENT PERMITS HAVE BEEN APPROVED AND SO THE TWO, IT'S NOT ZONING BEYOND WHAT IS PERMITTED BECAUSE IT IS A USE THAT'S KIND OF IDENTIFIED FOR IN AND AROUND THAT AREA.

[01:00:02]

SO, THERE IS AN, IN EFFECT, DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY.

ROB, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANTED TO ADD ANYTHING THERE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I THINK THE ONLY OTHER THING THAT I WOULD ADD IS THAT THE PROPERTIES THAT WE'RE MENTIONING, WHICH INCLUDE THE EXPLORER AND THE CHATEAU NOVA, ARE ALREADY ZONED DOWNTOWN IN BYLAW 4404.

SO, WHEN WE CRAFTED THE DOWNTOWN ZONE FOR THE NEW ZONING BYLAW, WE SORT OF STUCK WITH THOSE BOUNDARIES, BECAUSE WE DID NOT AGREE WITH SORT OF WHAT WE SAW IN THE COMMUNITY PLAN IS DESIGNATING SORT OF THAT CAPITAL AREA, THAT CHATEAU NOVA AREA AS BEING CENTRAL RESIDENTIAL WHEN IN FACT THE EXISTING ZONING WAS DOWNTOWN.

SO WE REFLECTED THAT IN THE PROPOSED ZONING BEING THE SAME ALSO DOWNTOWN.

I HOPE THAT'S HELPFUL.

MS. BASSI-KELLETT, IF I COULD JUMP IN, SO IS IT BASED ON SECTION 3.2 OF THE COMMUNITY PLAN ABOUT CONTEXT AND STRATEGY FOR AREA DESIGNATION DECISIONS? IS THAT KIND OF WHERE YOU GET THE HISTORICAL PLUS FORWARD LOOKING AND THAT'S HOW YOU CAN HAVE SOME LOTS THAT ARE CENTRAL RESIDENTIAL IN THE COMMUNITY PLAN BUT ZONED DOWNTOWN VERSUS CENTRAL RESIDENTIAL IN THE COMMUNITY PLAN HAS TO REMAIN CENTRAL RESIDENTIAL VERSUS GOING UP TO DOWNTOWN, BUT [INAUDIBLE] BE THAT SECTION THAT SPEAKS TO THESE PLANNING PRINCIPLES? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR.

I'LL ASK MS. WHITE AND MR. LOK TO WEIGH IN ON THIS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO, IF WE GO TO THE SECTION IN THE COMMUNITY PLAN, WHICH BEGINS ON PAGE 21 THROUGH TO 23, THERE ARE SOME DESCRIPTIONS OF HOW WE ARE TRYING TO MATCH AND WORK THROUGH TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE MEETING THE OBJECTIVES AS OUTLINED IN THE COMMUNITY PLAN AND IN THESE SPECIFIC PROPERTIES, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TOURIST USES.

SO, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT'S THE DOWNTOWN OR IT'S THE CAPITAL AREA, THEY ARE PERMITTED AS A USE IN THE AREA.

I DON'T KNOW IF, ROB, MAYBE YOU WANT TO ADD TO IT, BUT I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE ARE COMING FROM AS WELL.

NO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM ME.

ANYTHING FURTHER? IF NOT, I'LL PROPOSE MY TWO AMENDMENTS AND THEN COUNCILLOR MORGAN'S GOT AN AMENDMENT AND SO I DO WANT TO JUST PROVIDE A QUICK MOMENT TO REMIND FOLKS, BECAUSE I KNOW WE HAD SOME QUESTIONS OVER THE WEEKEND.

SO, THE SUMMARY DOCUMENT THAT'S BEEN INCLUDED IN OUR GPC PACKAGES IS A USEFUL TOOL FOR COUNCIL, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT'S THE ACTUAL WRITTEN AND VERBAL SUBMISSIONS.

SO, 127 PAGES OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS THAT WE RECEIVED AND THE 6 HOURS OF VERBAL COMMENTS.

THAT'S WHAT COUNCIL CONSIDERS WHEN DECIDING WHAT CHANGES TO MAKE TO THE ZONING BYLAW.

SO, THE PAST TWO WEEKS AND TODAY IS WHEN COUNCIL SHOULD BRING FORWARD AMENDMENTS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN THE BYLAW.

STAFF HAVE BROUGHT FORWARD IN OUR MEMO, 16 RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS BASED ON COMMENTS RECEIVED AT THE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING AND THEIR PROFESSIONAL OPINION.

SO, COUNCIL MUST NOW REVIEW THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS, DECIDE IF THEY WANT TO ACCEPT OR REJECT AGAIN EACH OF THOSE 16 DIFFERENT ONES AND THEN COUNCIL MUST BRING FORWARD ANY POLITICAL AMENDMENTS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE.

SO, WHAT I'M DOING RIGHT NOW, I'M NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH TWO OF THE AMENDMENTS, SO I'M BRINGING FORWARD AMENDMENTS TODAY.

IF OTHERS HAVE ANY AMENDMENTS WHICH COUNCILLOR MORGAN'S EXPRESSED THAT SHE HAS, TODAY IS THE DAY TO DO IT AND I KNOW WE'RE ALL PASSIONATE ABOUT THIS BYLAW AND WHETHER IT'S RESIDENTS, COUNCIL OR STAFF, EVERYBODY, BUT COUNCIL MUST ADHERE TO THE COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT, THE CITIES, TOWNS AND VILLAGES ACT AND THE COUNCIL PROCEDURES BYLAW WITH RESPECT TO THE CONDUCT OF THE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARINGS AND HOW WE MAKE OUR DECISIONS GOING FORWARD.

SO, AS PER OUR COUNCIL PROCEDURES BYLAW SECTION 46.1, ONCE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, WHICH WAS MYSELF, CLOSED THE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED BYLAW, NO ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS SHALL BE CONSIDERED BY COUNCIL EXCEPT AT AN ADDITIONAL PUBLIC HEARING CALLED BY COUNCIL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS BYLAW.

SO, FOLKS MAY HAVE REMEMBERED, I DID SAY THAT AT THE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING AND I SAID

[01:05:03]

SO, IN A NUTSHELL, IN ADHERENCE TO THE LEGISLATION, COUNCIL DOES HAVE TO DISREGARD ANY AND ALL CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED AFTER NOVEMBER 27TH, 2021, WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED BYLAW . SO, AGAIN, WE CAN ONLY CONSIDER ORAL AND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS THAT WERE RECEIVED AS PART OF THE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING.

HOWEVER, COUNCIL DOES WANT TO OPEN THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS BACK UP AND HEAR FROM MORE RESIDENTS AND THEN WE DO HAVE TO CALL ANOTHER STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS BYLAW SO THAT IT'S OPEN AND TRANSPARENT.

THEN WE CAN RECEIVE MORE WRITTEN AND VERBAL SUBMISSIONS.

OTHERWISE, WE MUST CONSIDER JUST THE 127 PAGES OF WRITTEN COMMENTS AND THE 6 HOURS OF VERBAL COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED BEFORE THE DEADLINES BACK IN NOVEMBER AND I KNOW THERE AREN'T MANY BYLAWS.

IT'S REALLY JUST THE ZONING BYLAW AND THE COMMUNITY PLAN BYLAW THAT REQUIRE A STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING.

SO, I KNOW THIS PROCESS IS DIFFERENT AND IT CAN KIND OF BE DIFFERENT TO COMPREHEND AND IT'S NOT LIKE OTHER BYLAWS OR POLICIES THAT COME TO COUNCIL.

FOR EXAMPLE, WE'RE DISCUSSING BUSINESS LICENSE BYLAW AND THE FEES AND CHARGES TONIGHT.

NEITHER OF THOSE BYLAWS REQUIRE A STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING, SO WE'LL BE ABLE TO RECEIVE EMAILS FROM RESIDENTS RIGHT UP TO AND INCLUDING EVEN IN OUR MEETING, BUT IT'S NOT THE CASE WITH THE ZONING BYLAW.

AGAIN, I CAN APPRECIATE HOW IMPORTANT THIS BYLAW IS AND HOW MUCH FOLKS WANT TO LOBBY COUNCIL TO ENSURE THAT THEIR VOICE GETS HEARD AND THEIR CHANGES HAPPEN, BUT WE DO NEED TO RESPECT THE LEGISLATION AS IT'S ABOUT ENSURING A PUBLIC AND TRANSPARENT PROCESS AND THAT COUNCIL ISN'T GETTING LOBBIED BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, WHICH EMAIL IS BECAUSE IT'S NOT ON THE PUBLIC RECORD.

SO, JUST A REMINDER TO FOLKS, BECAUSE WE DID GET A LOT OF EMAILS OVER THE WEEKEND AND WE CAN'T LOOK AT THEM.

WE'RE LOOKING AT THOSE 127 PAGES OF WRITTEN COMMENTS AND THE 6 HOURS.

AGAIN, IF PEOPLE WEREN'T PRESENTING NEW INFORMATION, THERE'S NO NEED TO EMAIL US AGAIN BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY RECEIVED THE INFORMATION.

SO, WE JUST HAVE TO GO BACK AND CONSULT THAT.

SO WITH THAT, JUST A QUICK REMINDER ON PROCESS, I WANT TO MOVE MY FIRST AMENDMENT, WHICH IS ABOUT WORKER ACCOMMODATION, AND I'D LIKE TO MOVE THAT.

WE DELETE SECTION 12.1.3C(1), WHICH SAYS A MAXIMUM OF EIGHT DWELLING UNITS.

OH, SORRY. I'VE GOT TO PASS THE CHAIR OVER TO COUNCILLOR SMITH AND THEN I'LL MAKE MY AMENDMENT AND THEN SEE ABOUT A SECONDER AND I'LL SPEAK TO IT.

THANK YOU. MADAM MAYOR.

THANKS, SO I'D LIKE TO DELETE SECTION 12.1.3C(1), WHICH IS A MAXIMUM OF EIGHT DWELLING UNITS, AND AGAIN, IF THERE'S A SECONDER, I'LL SPEAK TO IT.

IS THERE A SECONDER? THANK YOU, COUNCILLOR MUFANDAEDZA.

THANK YOU, SO I APPRECIATE ADMIN'S WORK ON THIS, AND THE ANALYSIS ABOUT THE COMPLETE DWELLING UNITS SO, I APPRECIATE ADMIN'S WORK ON IT, AND SO MY REASON FOR REMOVING THAT MAXIMUM OF EIGHT IS THAT WE DO HAVE THE MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE.

SO, IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO PUT TEN TINY HOMES ON THEIR LOT AND THEY'D STILL BE UNDER THE MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE, I'M OKAY WITH THAT.

EIGHT DWELLING UNITS, EACH DWELLING UNIT COULD HAVE FOUR UNITS, AND SO THAT TECHNICALLY COULD HAVE 32 UNITS AND WOULD BE WAY BIGGER THAN JUST TEN TINY HOMES ON A LOT.

SO, FOR ME, I'M MORE COMFORTABLE WITH JUST GOING WITH THE MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE AS OPPOSED TO DICTATING.

THE MAXIMUM NUMBER, WHICH COULD THEN ACTUALLY END UP WITH BIGGER STRUCTURES THAN WE'D EVEN NECESSARILY WANT.

SO THAT'S WHY I'M PUTTING THE MOTION FORWARD.

THANK YOU, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? COUNCILLOR MORGAN. THANKS, CAN I JUST ASK ADMIN AGAIN THEIR OPINION AS TO THE ADVISABILITY OF THIS AND ANY POTENTIAL SORT OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OR ANY SCENARIOS OF CONCERN YOU MIGHT ENVISION.

MS. BASSI-KELLETT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR.

I'LL ASK MISS WHITE TO PROVIDE SOME THOUGHTS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE QUESTION.

SO, I'M ASSUMING WE'RE STILL TALKING ABOUT COMPLETE RESIDENTIAL UNITS.

SO, I MEAN, THERE IS THE POTENTIAL THAT IF IT WAS A VACANT LOT, THAT IT COULD BE LARGER

[01:10:07]

I MEAN, WE'D HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT ON A SITE BY SITE BASIS, BUT IT IS DIFFERENT.

AS LONG AS IT'S A COMPLETE DWELLING UNIT THAT WE'RE SPEAKING ABOUT, IT IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT IN THE MEMO, WHICH WAS JUST THOSE DORMERS.

SO, THEY'RE DIFFERENT THINGS.

THANK YOU.

SO, I TAKE THAT TO MEAN ADMIN DOES NOT HAVE STRONG CONCERNS ABOUT THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT ? IS THAT CORRECT? MS. BASSI-KELLETT. IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S THE CASE, BUT I'LL ASK MISS WHITE TO REAFFIRM.

SO, IT'S NOT THAT WE HAVE STRONG CONCERNS ABOUT IT.

IT'S JUST MAKING SURE THAT IT IS IN KEEPING WITH THE AREA AND UNDERSTANDING A NUMBER OF PEOPLE COULD HAVE THESE ON THEIR PROPERTIES GREATER THAN EIGHT UNITS.

SO, IF THAT'S WHAT COUNCIL WANTS, THEN THAT'S AN AMENDMENT.

AT THIS POINT, AGAIN, REALLY, IT'S THE COMPLETE DWELLING UNITS AND I UNDERSTAND FROM THE NODDING OF HEADS THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SPEAKING OF.

SO, I'M NOT SIGNIFICANTLY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.

THANK YOU. THANKS FOR THAT, AND SO, KNOWING THAT THERE ARE STILL RESTRICTIONS AROUND LOT COVERAGE AND PERHAPS OTHER CHECKS AND BALANCES IN PLACE, I'M COMFORTABLE SUPPORTING THE AMENDMENT.

THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, DO WE HAVING OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SEEING NONE.

SO, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR AS TO THE AMENDMENT.

OH, SORRY, MADAM MAYOR [INAUDIBLE].

ALL RIGHT, SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENT AS PRESENTED.

ARE THERE ANY OPPOSED? SEEING AND HEARING NONE, AND THE MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

MADAM MAYOR, NEXT AMENDMENT.

THANK YOU, AND I DID WANT TO JUST TOUCH ON JUST PROCESS WISE.

SO, TONIGHT, COUNCILLOR SILVERIO WILL INTRODUCE SECOND READING, SOMEBODY WILL SECOND IT, AND THEN COUNCILLOR SILVERIO WILL BRING FORWARD A LIST OF AMENDMENTS.

SO, IF COUNCIL'S IN SUPPORT OF THE 16 ONES THAT ADMINS BROUGHT FORWARD, HE'LL READ THOSE OUT PLUS THE ONE THAT WE JUST VOTED ON, AND NOW I'LL GET TO MY SECOND ONE.

SO, JUST SO FOLKS KIND OF HAVE A BIT OF AN UNDERSTANDING THERE.

SO, MY SECOND AMENDMENT FOR GPC IS TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF URBAN AGRICULTURE COMMUNITY AND CHANGE IT TO SAY MEANS THE GROWING AND RAISING OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE.

THE USE IS FOR THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF SHARED PERSONAL AND COMMUNITY FOOD OR HEALTH PROGRAMS AND OR LOCAL SALE PRODUCT GENERATED FROM COMMUNITY URBAN AGRICULTURE ACTIVITIES MAY BE SOLD LOCALLY AS A COMMERCIAL PRODUCT AND A.) MAY INCLUDE A GREENHOUSE OR GARDENS.

B.) MAY INCLUDE THE KEEPING OF SMALL ANIMALS, INCLUDING DUCKS, QUAILS, RABBITS, GOATS AND PIGS, AS WELL AS BEES AND INSECTS, AND IF I HAVE A SECONDER, I'LL SPEAK TO THAT.

DO WE HAVE A SECONDER? COUNCILLOR PAYNE. GO AHEAD, MADAM.

THANK YOU, SO I KNOW THERE WERE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT CREATING LARGE SCALE COMMERCIAL AGRICULTURE, BUT THE OTHER THING THAT I HEARD WAS THAT THERE WASN'T CONCERNS ABOUT THOSE KALE AND CARROTS AND STUFF LIKE LE REFUGE IS DOING, AND THE OTHER THING IS IT'S ON THAT SMALLER SCALE AND PEOPLE STILL HAVE TO ADHERE TO SECTION 7.13.2, WHICH TALKS ABOUT URBAN AGRICULTURE AND IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES, URBAN AGRICULTURE COMMUNITIES TALKS ABOUT HOW THERE'S ONLY ONE HEN COOP AND RUN AND THERE'S ONLY ONE BUILDING ALLOWED FOR URBAN FARM ANIMALS, AND THE ANIMALS MUST REMAIN WITHIN THE COOP AND RUN AT ALL TIMES, AND IT SHALL NOT UNDULY INTERFERE WITH THE ENJOYMENT OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES BY CAUSING EXCESS NOISE, ODOR OR DISRUPTION BEYOND WHICH IS TYPICAL IN A ZONE WHICH IS APPROVED. SO, IF YOU DO WANT TO GO HAVE THAT BIG HOG FARM, YOU REALLY WANT TO GO TO KAM LAKE, BECAUSE YOU'RE ALLOWED NOISE, ODOR AND DISRUPTION, WHICH IS TYPICAL IN THE

[01:15:05]

THE NOISE CAN'T BE EXCESSIVE.

SO, I THINK THIS IS A WAY OF ENCOURAGING ENTREPRENEURS TO GROW FOOD FOR OUR COMMUNITIES WHILE BALANCING THE CONCERNS OF NEIGHBORS THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO LIVE BESIDE AN ABATTOIR OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

SO, THAT'S WHY I'M BRINGING FORWARD THIS AMENDMENT.

DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR? COUNCILLOR MORGAN. YEAH, THANKS, I JUST WASN'T TOTALLY I MEAN, I COMPARED THE DEFINITIONS OF WHAT ADMIN HAD PROPOSED AND THEN THE AMENDMENT.

I WAS HAVING TROUBLE SEEING WHAT WERE THE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES.

PERHAPS THE ADDITION OF THE WORD LOCALLY CAN ONLY BE SOLD LOCALLY.

IS THAT THE MAIN POINT OF THE CHANGES? I NOTICED OTHER SLIGHT WORDING CHANGES, BUT I DIDN'T THINK THAT IT WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT IN TERMS OF THE MEANING, BUT CAN YOU JUST EXPLAIN IN TERMS OF THE WORDS YOU CHANGED, HOW THAT'S SIGNIFICANT OR HOW IT CHANGES THE MEANING? YEAH, I THINK ONE OF THE BIG ONES IS POINT WELL, LIKE YOU REFERENCED WAS TO SELL LOCALLY.

SORRY, I'VE JUST ACTUALLY LOST MY AMENDMENT UP AT THE TOP.

YES, THAT IT'S SOLD LOCALLY, AND THEN THE OTHER ONE IS ON POINT A, IT SAYS MAY INCLUDE A GREENHOUSE OR GARDENS, WHEREAS THE DEFINITION THAT'S BEING SUGGESTED SAYS MAY INCLUDE A PERSONAL OR COMMUNITY GREENHOUSE OR GARDENS.

WHEREAS IF YOU'RE GROWING FOOD TO GROW, IT'S NOT REALLY YOUR PERSONAL; IT'S FOR YOUR BUSINESS. SO I THINK IT'S JUST IMPORTANT TO HAVE THOSE DISTINCTIONS.

THE INTENTION IS TO RESTRICT A BIT THE DEFINITION OF COMMUNITY AGRICULTURE SO THAT WE DON'T INADVERTENTLY GET LARGER COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS SORT OF SNEAKING IN UNDER THIS DEFINITION. IS THAT THE MAIN INTENTION? IT WOULD ALSO BE WELL, THE DOMINANT WOULD BE THAT IT WOULD BE PERMITTED IN IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS. SO, THE OTHER THING THAT I'VE HEARD IS SOMEBODY WHO LIVES IN AN APARTMENT BUILDING, SHE RENTS SPACE IN SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AROUND TOWN TO GROW FOOD, AND THEN SHE SELLS IT AT THE MARKET AND ON FACEBOOK AND THAT STUFF.

SO, ALLOWING OPERATIONS LIKE THAT, ALLOWING LE REFUGE TO HAPPEN IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS, BUT NOT ALLOWING POLAR EGGS TO BUY A LOT IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA AND SET UP A BIG MACHINERY.

OKAY, JUST FINAL QUESTION TO ADMIN, WHETHER ADMIN SEES THIS AS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENTIONS OF THE DEFINITIONS THAT LIKE WITH WHAT WE HAD BEEN TRYING TO DO ALL ALONG, OR IF THIS ADMIN SEES THIS AS A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE FROM THE DIRECTION THEY HAD PROPOSED.

MS. BASSI-KELLETT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

AFTER THE DISCUSSION ON THIS LAST WEEK, WE FELT THAT IT WAS IMPLICIT, BUT THIS MAKES IT MORE EXPLICIT THAT SOMETHING LIKE LE REFUGE COULD BE REPLICATED AS A MODEL FOR GROWING FOOD, FOR PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS AND SELL LOCALLY.

SO I'LL ASK MS. WHITE IF SHE COULD SPEAK TO THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE, BUT SHE'LL GIVE HER PROFESSIONAL ADVICE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THE LANGUAGE AS PROPOSED IT DOES.

IT'S IN KEEPING NOT ONLY WITH WHAT OUR INTENT WAS, BUT ALSO THE GROWTH PLAN THAT COUNCIL HAS APPROVED AND IS LOOKING TO PROMOTE.

SO, I'M NOT CONCERNED WITH THE CHANGE TO LOCAL OR THE REMOVAL OF PRIVATE GREENHOUSE OR GARDENS. I THINK IT MEETS THE INTENT THAT WE WERE LOOKING FOR TO SUPPORT LOCAL AGRICULTURE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THAT'S GREAT TO HEAR, AND I'M FINE WITH US BEING MORE EXPLICIT, SO I'LL SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT. THANKS.

DO WE HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR? SEEING NONE.

SO, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENTS AS PROPOSED.

[01:20:02]

I'LL HAND IT BACK TO MAYOR.

THANK YOU. NEXT UP, I HAVE COUNCILLOR MORGAN AND THEN I'LL GO TO COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS AND THEN COUNCILLOR PAYNE FOR AMENDMENTS.

COUNCILLOR MORGAN. SO, I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE THE AMENDMENT AND I CAN EXPLAIN IF I GET A SECONDER THAT COMMERCIAL RETAIL SALES AND SERVICE BE MOVED FROM A PERMITTED USE TO A DISCRETIONARY USE IN THE RC-1 ZONE.

THE SECONDER'S COUNCILLOR SMITH.

COUNCILLOR MORGAN. THANKS, SO I KNOW WE'VE HAD A FAIR AMOUNT OF BACK AND FORTH ABOUT THE RC-1 ZONE AND RESIDENTS HAVE BEEN QUITE VOCAL.

WHEN I WENT BACK TO THE SUMMARY CHART, JUST PULL IT UP HERE, [INAUDIBLE] SORT OF SUMMARIZED AND EXPLAINED WHAT THE CONCERNS HAD BEEN AND WHAT THE RECOMMENDATION WAS. AFTER HEARING FROM RESIDENTS, THEY PROPOSED SOME COMPROMISE SOLUTIONS, CHANGING SOME OF WHAT HAD BEEN PERMITTED INTO DISCRETIONARY USES, SUCH AS COMMERCIAL RECREATION AND FOOD AND BEVERAGE SERVICES BEING MOVED FROM PERMITTED TO DISCRETIONARY USES BASED ON THE FACT THAT SOME THINGS THAT MIGHT FALL INTO THOSE CATEGORIES COULD BE QUITE APPROPRIATE, BUT MAYBE NOT IN ALL SCENARIOS, AND IT MIGHT BE GOOD TO HAVE ANOTHER LAYER OF SORT OF A CHECK AND TO BE ABLE TO HAVE SOME NEIGHBORHOOD OR PUBLIC INPUT BASED ON WHAT EXACTLY IS BEING PROPOSED AND TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THINGS MORE ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS, AND ADMINS RESPONSE ON THE ITEM OF COMMERCIAL RETAIL SALES AND SERVICE WAS THAT WHILE THEY SUPPORT THIS REMAINING IN THE PERMITTED LIST, THEY SUGGESTED A COMPROMISE COULD BE JUST SWITCHING IT TO THE DISCRETIONARY USE, AND IT DOES SEEM SO, SOME EXAMPLES GIVEN OF WHY IT SHOULD BE PERMITTED ARE THAT IT WOULD HELP, FOR EXAMPLE, PERHAPS HOME BASED BUSINESSES BE ABLE TO SCALE UP INTO MORE FORMAL RETAIL OUTLETS, AND SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT SIMILAR TO A COUPLE OF THE OTHER CATEGORIES THAT WERE CHANGED TO DISCRETIONARY, THERE COULD BE A FAIR RANGE OF DIFFERENT THINGS THAT COULD BE PROPOSED UNDER RETAIL, COMMERCIAL RETAIL, AND SOME OF THOSE THINGS NEIGHBORHOODS COULD LIKELY BE QUITE SUPPORTIVE OF, ESPECIALLY IF IT WAS ALREADY EXISTING AS A SMALL HOME BASED BUSINESS AND JUST WANTED TO SCALE UP A LITTLE BIT.

IN MY MIND, IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS ALREADY COMFORTABLE WITH AND USED TO, THERE PROBABLY WOULDN'T BE THAT MUCH TROUBLE FOR THAT KIND OF BUSINESS OWNER TO GET SUPPORT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL AND BE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH THAT AND FEEL CONFIDENT OR SECURE IN THAT.

I KNOW WE'VE TALKED A LOT ABOUT THE DOWNSIDE OF MAKING SOMETHING DISCRETIONARY USE IS THAT THERE WOULD BE MORE UNCERTAINTY FOR A POTENTIAL BUSINESS THAT WANTED TO START UP AND WHETHER THEY'D WANT TO MAKE THAT INVESTMENT IF THEY HAD THE ADDITIONAL UNCERTAINTY OF MAKING IT DISCRETIONARY, BUT IF A LOT OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS HOME-BASED BUSINESSES SCALING UP, I THINK THERE WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT CONFIDENCE ANYWAY IF THEY'RE ALREADY EXISTING AND JUST CHANGING INCREMENTALLY, AND I THINK THAT THERE'S ENOUGH VARIATION THAT IF THERE WAS SOMETHING QUITE DIFFERENT OR THAT WOULD HAVE LARGER IMPACTS, IT COULD FALL INTO THAT CATEGORY OF COMMERCIAL RETAIL SALES AND SERVICE AND THAT IT COULD REALLY BE A GOOD IDEA FOR THERE TO BE FURTHER REVIEW, HAVE THAT CHANCE FOR PUBLIC INPUT AND REALLY CHECK WHETHER IT'S GOING TO FIT INTO WHAT IS PRIMARILY CURRENTLY RESIDENTIAL ZONES. SO, BECAUSE ADMIN HAD NOTED THAT THIS POTENTIAL COMPROMISE SOLUTION OF PUTTING IT IN THE DISCRETIONARY CATEGORY AND CERTAINLY IT SEEMS VERY IMPORTANT TO MANY RESIDENTS IN THAT RC-1 ZONE, I WANTED TO BRING THIS FORWARD AS AN AMENDMENT.

[01:25:05]

THIS USE DOES NOT INCLUDE AUTOMOBILE SALES, AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATIONS OR FOOD AND BEVERAGE SERVICES.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COUNCILLOR PAYNE. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.

SO, BY PUTTING IT AS DISCRETIONARY USE, IT JUST MEANS THAT IT WILL COME TO COUNCIL AND WE'LL HAVE TO APPROVE IT.

SO, IT'S NOT THAT THESE THINGS WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO BE EITHER IF THE SITUATION WAS, RIGHT? IT JUST WOULD HAVE TO COME TO US.

IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT, IT DOES ADD MORE TIME IN THE PROCESS, AND IF YOU WERE LOOKING TO PURCHASE A PROPERTY, YOU'D HAVE NO CERTAINTY THAT YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO USE THE PROPERTY WITH THE INTENDED USE THAT YOU'RE PURCHASING IT FOR.

MS. BASSI-KELLETT, CAN ADMIN SPEAK TO THE DIFFERENCES? THANKS VERY MUCH. YES, I'LL ASK MS. WHITE TO STEP IN. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION AND IF I COULD POINT TO SOME CLARITY ON THIS.

IF A USE IS PERMITTED, IT'S NOT THAT IT AUTOMATICALLY IS GOING TO BE ALLOWED AS OF RIGHT.

IF IT IS AN INCREASE IN THE INTENSITY OF THE USE, THEN A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IS STILL REQUIRED. SO, GOING FROM A RESIDENTIAL USE TO ALLOWING A SMALL SCALE COMMERCIAL RETAIL OR ANY OF THE USES THAT ARE A HIGHER INTENSITY IN THE PERMITTED USES LIST WILL REQUIRE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, WHICH DOES PROVIDE THAT NOTICE TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 30 METERS. SO, THERE ARE SITUATIONS EXACTLY LIKE WE'RE SPEAKING OF WHERE THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED. THAT WOULD BE AT THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER LEVEL FOR APPROVAL, BUT THERE'S STILL THAT PLANNING PROCESS, THAT PUBLIC PROCESS, EVEN THOUGH IT'S UNDER THE PERMITTED CATEGORY, MOVING IT INTO THE DISCRETIONARY, THEN YES, BRINGS IT TO COUNCIL.

SO, COUNCIL WOULD BE MAKING A DECISION ON EACH ONE OF THESE ITEMS GOING FORWARD.

SO, THAT'S KIND OF THE DIFFERENCE, BUT CHANGING OF USE TO A GREATER INTENSITY WILL REQUIRE A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT'S DISCRETIONARY OR PERMITTED.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

BUT THIS WOULD ADD MORE LIKE FOR THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THAT AREA, IT WOULD ADD A BIT MORE SECURITY TO THEM, KNOWING THAT IT'S JUST NOT AUTOMATICALLY GOING TO BE APPROVED AND THAT THEY'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOICE THEIR CONCERNS TO US, SORT OF ? IT WILL, AND COUNCIL DOES HAVE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN MAKING THOSE DECISIONS CERTAIN THINGS. SO I KNOW THERE'S BEEN THINGS IN THE PAST THAT PEOPLE SAID, "I DON'T LIKE THOSE TYPES OF PEOPLE." "IT SHOULDN'T BE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD." COUNCIL CAN'T SAY, OH, YES, YOU'RE RIGHT, WE'RE GOING TO DENY THIS DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.

COUNCIL CAN ONLY APPROVE AND DENY DEVELOPMENT PERMITS BASED ON THE CRITERIA SET UNDER DISCRETIONARY USE.

SO, MS. BASSI-KELLETT COMMENTS ON THAT ONE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'M SURE [INAUDIBLE] DOES BRING THESE ISSUES FORWARD TO COUNCIL TO MAKE THOSE KINDS OF DELIBERATIONS ON OFTEN WHICH CAN BE QUITE NUANCED.

I'LL ASK MISS WHITE TO STEP IN AND PROVIDE HER COMMENTS.

THANK YOU, AND THE INTENT OF HAVING THE ADDITIONAL POLICIES WHICH AREN'T IN THE ZONE IS SO THAT THERE IS STILL THAT PUBLIC PROCESS, AGAIN, WHEN WE'RE CHANGING THE INTENSITY OF A PROPERTY. SO, THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT WOULD STILL BE REQUIRED, BUT IT WOULDN'T GO THAT ADDITIONAL STEP OF GOING BEFORE COUNCIL BECAUSE AS WAS SUGGESTED BY MAYOR ALTY, THE SAME PLANNING POLICIES APPLY, WHETHER IT'S A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT WITH ADMINISTRATION OR A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT WITH COUNCIL.

THE SAME REVIEW HAS TO TAKE PLACE.

ONE JUST ADDS THAT EXTRA STEP AND POTENTIALLY ADDITIONAL TIME BY GOING TO COUNCIL.

THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS ON THIS ONE.

FOR MYSELF, I PREFER TO KEEP IT IN THE PERMITTED USE, AND

[01:30:02]

IT WAS A SANITARY MOVEMENT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE 19TH CENTURY, AND IT WAS AN EFFORT TO DECREASE THE SPREAD OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES.

THAT WAS THE DOMINANT VIEW ABOUT THE POPULATION CONCENTRATION AND THE PROXIMITY BETWEEN BUSINESSES AND HOMES WAS UNHEALTHY, AND SO THEY REALLY WANTED TO KEEP HOMES AND BUSINESSES SEPARATE BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO LIMIT HUMAN EXPOSURE TOXIC CHEMICALS AND BIOLOGICAL AGENTS, IMPROVING ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND PROTECTING PUBLIC HEALTH, AND OVER TIME, ZONING BYLAWS HAVE ALSO BEEN USED FROM A GENDER AND RACIAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT.

IF FOLKS ARE LOOKING TO LEARN MORE ABOUT HOW ZONING BYLAWS DISADVANTAGE WOMEN, AND PARTICULARLY WHEN IT COMES TO BUSINESS, A GREAT BOOK IS INVISIBLE WOMEN DATA BIAS IN A WORLD DESIGNED FOR MEN BY CAROLINE CRIADO-PEREZ AND IT'S A LOT ABOUT CLASS AND ETHNICITY, INCOME, NEWCOMERS, RACE AND GENDER.

BY ALLOWING PEOPLE TO HAVE A BUSINESS AND HAVE A HOME ON THEIR SAME PROPERTY, THEY'RE ABLE TO REDUCE THE COST OF LIVING.

THEY'RE ABLE TO INCREASE THE LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS FOR THEIR BUSINESSES, THEIR OPERATING COSTS DECREASE, AND THEY WON'T HAVE TO SIGN A BIG COMMERCIAL LEASE WITH HEAVY OVERHEAD WHILE THEY SEE IF THE BUSINESS IS ACTUALLY GOING TO WORK.

THEY CAN BE CLOSER TO FAMILY, WHETHER IT'S CHILDREN OR AGING PARENTS IN THE HOME AND WITH COMMERCIAL RETAIL SPACE IN THE RESIDENTIAL AREA, IT LIMITS SCALE.

WALMART'S NOT LOOKING TO MOVE INTO OUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, BUT OUR LOCAL OWNERS ARE LOOKING TO WHETHER IT'S A TWO STOREY HOUSE THEY'VE GOT THEIR HOUSE ON ONE HALF AND THEY'VE GOT THEIR BUSINESS ON THE OTHER.

I THINK OF CANADIAN PIZZA FOR THOSE WHO'VE BEEN HERE FOR A WHILE, WHICH IS BARREN GROUND, IT WAS HOME ON ONE SIDE, BUSINESS ON THE OTHER, AND SO FOR MYSELF, I THINK THERE'S ALSO LIMITS TO PARKING THAT HAVE TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.

SO, I FOR MYSELF WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE THE ENTREPRENEURS.

I'D LIKE TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO CREATE MORE LIVABLE COMMUNITIES, AND SO I IN SUPPORT OF SO I WON'T BE SUPPORTING THE AMENDMENT AS PROPOSED AND I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP IT IN THE PERMITTED USE.

SEEING NOTHING FURTHER.

CORRECT? YEP.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF MOVING COMMERCIAL RETAIL SALES AND SERVICE FROM PERMITTED TO A DISCRETIONARY USE IN THE RC-1 ZONE.

TWO. ALL THOSE OPPOSED, AND THAT FAILS WITH COUNCILLOR MORGAN AND PAYNE IN FAVOR.

THAT BEING SAID, OF COURSE WE'LL STILL HAVE SECOND READING TONIGHT AND AMENDMENTS CAN BE MADE. NEXT I HAVE--OH, SORRY, WE'VE ACTUALLY REACHED OUR 90 MINUTE MARK.

SO, I WILL COME BACK IN 10 MINUTES WITH COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS AND THEN COUNCILLOR PAYNE.

SO, COME BACK AT LET'S ROUND IT TO AN EVEN 1:40 P.M..

PERFECT. WE WILL RECONVENE, AND UP NEXT, WE HAVE COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS. COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS, DO YOU WANT ME TO READ OUT YOUR PROPOSED AMENDMENT? GO FOR IT. SURE, I CAN HANDLE THAT IF YOU WANT ME TO.

SO, YEAH, JUST A LITTLE BIT FURTHER TO SOME OF OUR DISCUSSIONS ON WORKERS ACCOMMODATION.

I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO REVISE THE DEFINITION OF WORKER'S ACCOMMODATION TO MEAN THAT WORKER'S ACCOMMODATION MEANS A FACILITY CONSTRUCTED TO PROVIDE HOUSING FOR WORKERS, TYPICALLY FOR RELATED BUSINESSES, FOR AN APPROPRIATE PROJECT.

THE REASON I WANTED TO KEEP IT SIMPLE THERE.

SORRY, I'LL WAIT TILL I GET A SECOND BEFORE I EXPLAIN.

SECONDER WITH COUNCILLOR MUFANDAEDZA.

OVER TO YOU, COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS. EXCELLENT, SO THE REASON I WANTED TO SORT OF SIMPLIFY IT BECAUSE I ALSO I FEEL THAT THE IN THE FORM OF A COMPLETE DWELLING UNIT IS SORT OF TAKEN ALREADY COVERED UNDER SECTION C, THE TWO I'S SO [INAUDIBLE] WHEN IT SAYS PERMITTED DWELLING UNIT TYPES INCLUDE SINGLE DETACHED DWELLING, FACTORY BUILT DWELLING AND THE FACTORY BUILT DWELLING IS WHAT I WAS

[01:35:02]

SECONDER DWELLINGS AND DWELLINGS ATTACHED TO A UNIT.

MY OTHER FRAME OF THINKING ON THIS ONE IS AT THE END OF THE CURRENT DEFINITION IS, IS THAT IT'S USED FOR TERM OR SEASONAL PURPOSES.

I DIDN'T WANT TO CLOSE THE DOOR. SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, A BUSINESS DID GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF CREATING ONE OF THE OTHER TYPES OF WORKER ACCOMMODATION UNITS, LIKE A SINGLE DETACHED OR A SECONDER DWELLING OR SOMETHING THAT IS CONNECTED TO A PRE-APPROVED BUILDING THAT THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO ALWAYS HAVE IT BE TEMPORARY.

SO I FEEL THAT SIMPLIFYING THAT DEFINITION AND WITH HAVING C(2) DOWN THERE REALLY DOES KIND OF GET EVERYTHING THAT I THINK THAT ADMINISTRATION WAS LOOKING FOR AND THAT AND ALSO WITH LISTENING TO THE CONCERNS FROM THE PUBLIC.

THANK YOU. QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, DISCUSSION ON THIS AMENDMENT ? FOR MYSELF, I APPRECIATE COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS BRINGING FORWARD.

I THINK FOR CLARITY, I DO WANT TO KEEP THE TERM SEASONAL PURPOSE AND COMPLETE DWELLING UNITS, YES, I THINK IT COULD BE REDUNDANT BASED ON SECTION 12.

HOWEVER, IF WE ADD WORKERS ACCOMMODATION IN OTHER UNITS OR A SITE SPECIFIC, I THINK HAVING THE COMPLETE DWELLING UNITS IN THE DEFINITION COULD HELP IN CASE THEY DON'T CAPTURE THAT IN THE FUTURE THAT WE WERE DEPENDING ON 12.1.C(2).

SO, FOR MYSELF, I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THE DEFINITION AS PRESENTED IN FIRST READING.

ANYTHING FURTHER TO THE AMENDMENTS? COUNCILLOR MORSE. YEAH, I'M JUST SORT OF I GUESS IT'S TOUGH DEALING WITH ALL THESE AMENDMENTS KIND OF HAPPENING AT THE LAST MINUTE AS WE'RE LOOKING AT ALL THIS, BUT I'M SORT OF FAILING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS HERE.

LIKE CAN COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS SORT OF FURTHER EXPLAIN WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT IS AND WHAT HE'S TRYING TO ACHIEVE? COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS. YEAH, THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, AND THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO FURTHER EXPLAIN. YEAH, I THINK IT'S JUST ABOUT GETTING TO A SIMPLER DEFINITION WITHOUT HAVING TO PUT THE ONUS DIRECTLY ON THAT IT'S A COMPLETE DWELLING UNIT.

I THINK THAT AS AS WE TALKED ABOUT IN PREVIOUS GPC DISCUSSIONS NEW TECHNOLOGY, NEW OPPORTUNITIES FOR FACTORY BUILT DWELLINGS, I THINK COULD COULD COVER THAT, AND I THINK CALLING OUT SPECIFICALLY IN THE DEFINITION, A DWELLING UNIT REALLY BRINGS UP A VERY SPECIFIC USE AND IS MORE IN LINE WITH, SAY, SINGLE DETACHED OR LIKE A DETACHED SECONDARY DWELLING. THE OTHER PART OF THE AMENDMENT, WHICH WAS TO THE TEMPORARY USE, IS THAT SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, A WORKER OR A COMPANY WAS TO PUT UP A SINGLE DETACHED OR A SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT, HAVING IT BE ITS PURPOSE FOR A WORKER'S ACCOMMODATIONS AND NEEDING IT TO BE TEMPORARY WOULD THEN NEGATE THE BUSINESS CASE FOR THEM TO DO SO.

SO, SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, THERE'S A LARGE ESTABLISHED COMPANY THAT DOES MOVES GROUPS IN FROM TIME TO TIME. MAYBE IT WOULD MEET THEIR BUSINESS MODEL TO HAVE MORE OF A PERMANENT DWELLING FOR WORKERS ACCOMMODATIONS, OR MAYBE THERE'S A BUSINESS THAT SIMPLY WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE WORKER ACCOMMODATIONS, THEN I'D LIKE TO KEEP THAT DOOR OPEN FOR THEM.

CALLING IT OUT FOR SPECIFICALLY TERM IS DOESN'T MAKE SENSE FOR BUSINESSES TO BUILD SINGLE DETACHED DWELLINGS FOR SIMPLY A TERM OR A SEASONAL PURPOSE.

IT BECOMES EVEN LESS ECONOMICAL FOR THEM TO DO SO.

SO, THAT WAS THE REASONING THAT I WANTED MY AMENDMENT.

ANYTHING FURTHER? COUNCILLOR MUFANDAEDZA. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, AND THANK YOU, COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS, FOR BRINGING THIS AMENDMENT FORWARD, AND I'M DEFINITELY IN SUPPORT OF THE AMENDMENT.

[01:40:03]

SO, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT TEMPORARY OR FOR SPECIFIC PROJECTS, WHERE DOES THIS PUT THESE TRUCKERS? SO, FOR THAT REASON, I WOULD BE SUPPORTING THE AMENDMENT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

COUNCILLOR MORGAN. THANKS, SO, THE WAY THE DEFINITION IS NOW DOES NOT REQUIRE IT TO BE A TEMPORARY USE.

IT JUST SAYS TYPICALLY FOR BUSINESSES FOR AN APPROPRIATE PROJECT TERM OR SEASONAL PURPOSE, BUT IT'S NOT REQUIRING IT TO BE A TEMPORARY USE.

SO, I DON'T SEE THAT AS A BARRIER, AND THEN I THINK WE HAVE TO KEEP IN THE PART ABOUT IN THE FORM OF COMPLETE DWELLING UNITS BECAUSE AS I UNDERSTAND THE WAY IT ADMIN HAS EXPLAINED IT, THAT'S THE MAIN THING THAT SEPARATES WORKERS ACCOMMODATION FROM GETTING INTO WORK CAMPS, AND WE'VE HEARD A FAIR BIT FROM ADMIN ABOUT THE DANGERS OF NOW SORT OF SWINGING OPEN THE GATES TO WORK CAMPS AND THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN CONTEMPLATED IN THE COMMUNITY PLAN AND WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A WHOLE OTHER INVESTIGATION INTO THE IMPLICATIONS OF THAT ANYWAY AND SO, THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT, I MEAN, SOMETHING LIKE AN ATCO TRAILER IS CONSIDERED A COMPLETE DWELLING UNIT. SO, IT'S NOT EXCLUDED BY THAT AND THAT WE HAVE TO SAY A COMPLETE DWELLING UNIT SO THAT WE'RE MAKING IT CLEAR THAT WE'RE NOT ALLOWING WORK CAMPS AT THIS POINT. THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.

SO, I WOULD PREFER TO KEEP THE DEFINITION THE WAY IT IS, AND AGAIN, IT'S NOT SAYING THAT HAS TO BE TEMPORARY, BECUASE THAT WAS IN THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT THAT COUNCILLOR KONGE BROUGHT FORWARD LAST WEEK, BUT WE'VE NOT BROUGHT THAT FORWARD.

SO, IT'S NOT CURRENTLY SAYING IT HAS TO BE A TEMPORARY USE UNLESS I'M MISTAKEN, THEN MAYOR COULD CORRECT ME ON THAT.

MS. BASSI-KELLETT, 'WANT TO WEIGH IN ON THAT ONE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

COUNCILLOR MORGAN IS IS IDENTIFYING ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT WE HAD FLAGGED ON THIS, THAT THERE IS A BROADER DISCUSSION TO BE HAD ON WORK CAMPS, I WOULD CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND IF THAT IS AN INTEREST. THERE'S A LOT OF ISSUES, A LOT OF POLICY ISSUES AROUND THAT WE WOULD WANT TO THINK ABOUT.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, WE WERE HOPING THAT THE WORKER ACCOMMODATION DEFINITION MAKING IT CLEAR THAT THERE IS THAT ABILITY FOR IT TO BE TEMPORARY.

THEY ARE COMPLETE DWELLING UNITS WOULD MEET THE NEEDS THAT ARE IN PLACE AT THIS POINT IN TIME. I'LL ASK MS. WHITE IF SHE CAN SPEAK TO THIS FURTHER.

THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND.

SO, I GUESS JUST TWO POINTS TO BRING UP IS A FACILITY IS NOT SPECIFICALLY DEFINED AND IT DOESN'T MEET UNDER THE DEFINITION OF A DWELLING, AND AS HER 12.1.3C SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED DWELLING TYPES FOR THAT ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL USE ARE LISTED THERE, AND AGAIN DOES NOT TALK TO A FACILITY AND A FACILITY COULD BE ARGUED TO BE DIFFERENT THAN A FACTORY BUILT DWELLING. SO, I THINK I UNDERSTAND THAT COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS WAS SPEAKING THAT THESE ATCO TRAILERS, WHICH CAN BE COMPLETE UNITS BECAUSE YOU CAN GET THEM WITH THE DWELLING SPACES AS WELL AS THE KITCHEN AND WASHROOM AND LIVING AREA SPACES.

THOSE WOULD BE THAT FACTORY BUILT DWELLING BUT NOT CALLED A FACILITY.

SO, THAT WOULD BE MY CONCERN IS, YEAH, YOU'RE TAPPING INTO SOMETHING THAT'S NOT DEFINED, WHICH COULD THEN BE CONSTRUED TO BE A WORK CAMP.

THANK YOU. ANYTHING FURTHER, COUNCILLOR MORGAN.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE.

TO THE AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION TO SAY WORKERS ACCOMMODATION MEANS A FACILITY CONSTRUCTED TO PROVIDE HOUSING FOR WORKERS, TYPICALLY FOR RELATED BUSINESSES, FOR AN APPROPRIATE PROJECT.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

OPPOSED.

THAT'S APPROVED WITH COUNCILLOR MORSE, MORGAN AND MAYOR ALTY OPPOSED.

COUNCILLOR PAYNE, IF YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE YOUR AMENDMENT.

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.

[01:45:03]

MY AMENDMENT IS GOING TO BE TO MOVE THE BOUNDARY OF THE DOWNTOWN ZONE, TO INCLUDE THE LAKE SIDE OF THE ROAD ON 52ND STREET FROM WATERMARK LOT TO 51ST STREET.

THANK YOU, DO I HAVE A SECONDER? COUNCILLOR SILVERIO.

COUNCILLOR PAYNE, DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO IT? YEAH, I THINK IN THE FUTURE, IF WE'RE GOING TO I KNOW THAT WE'VE MOVED THE DOWNTOWN ZONE A COUPLE OF TIMES JUST FROM THE COMMUNITY PLAN TO THIS NEW ZONING BYLAW, AND I JUST ANOTHER ONE THAT'S A PARK PLACE.

WE'VE JUST ADDED, WE CAN INCREASE [INAUDIBLE] DOWNTOWN ZONE TO INCLUDE PARK PLACE, AND THAT WASN'T IN THAT ZONE BEFORE WITHOUT HAVING GO INTO THE COMMUNITY PLAN.

SO, MAYBE IN THE FUTURE, IF WE COULD, INSTEAD OF HAVING A ZONE CUT RIGHT DOWN THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF A ROAD, ACTUALLY LIKE AN ALLEYWAY TYPE THING, I DON'T KNOW, IT'S JUST MY THOUGHTS ON IT, BUT YEAH, I'M HOPING THAT WE CAN GET SOME MOVEMENT ON, ESPECIALLY WITH INTEREST IN THESE AREAS AND A FEW OLD BUILDINGS IN THAT AREA TOO, THAT I WOULD IMAGINE OVER THE NEXT 5 TO 10 YEARS THERE COULD BE A POSSIBILITY OF REBUILDING.

SO, IT GIVES THESE THESE LANDLORDS AN OPPORTUNITY TO INCREASE CAPACITY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

JUST LOOKING TO CIRCLE BACK ON THIS ONE, AND SO I'M LOOKING AT OUR CURRENT ZONING BYLAW, AND SO I SEE THE DOWNTOWN IN OUR CURRENT ZONING BYLAW, AND THE DOWNTOWN IN OUR PROPOSED BYLAW IS VERY SIMILAR MINUS THERE'S A [INAUDIBLE] ALMOST...

YEAH, SO THAT'S WHERE SOME OF THOSE, LIKE THE EXPLORER HOTEL, CHATEAU NOVA, THE OLD YK MOTORS, PARK PLACE, THEY'RE ALL CURRENTLY DOWNTOWN AND BEING PROPOSED TO CONTINUE TO BE DOWNTOWN IN THE COMMUNITY PLAN.

THEY'RE IDENTIFIED AS CENTRAL RESIDENTIAL.

THE REASON THAT THOSE ONES CONTINUE TO BE DOWNTOWN, AND THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THOSE LOCKED ON 52ND AVE WOULD BE A COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT IS BECAUSE THERE ARE THOSE LOTS ON 52ND AVE CURRENTLY AREN'T DOWNTOWN WHEREAS ALL THOSE OTHER ONES ARE CURRENTLY DOWNTOWN AND THE RECOMMENDATION IS KIND OF MAYBE "GRANDFATHERING" THOSE TO CONTINUE TO REMAIN DOWNTOWN. MS. BASSI-KELLETT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR.

YES, I'LL ASK MISS WHITE TO RESPOND TO THIS, BUT I THINK A REALLY IMPORTANT POINT THAT PLANNERS HAVE CERTAINLY BEEN TALKING TO US ABOUT DURING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ZONING BYLAW IS AROUND SCALE AND SCALING THINGS ADJACENT TO DIFFERENT ZONES AS THEY MEET UP.

SO, CENTRAL RESIDENTIAL DOES ALLOW FOR 45 METER HIGH BUILDINGS SIMILAR TO DOWNTOWN.

THAT IS POSSIBLE IN THE ZONE RIGHT NOW.

SO, WE DO THINK THAT HAVING THAT CONNECTIVITY TO THEM BE ABLE TO SCALE DOWN THE FURTHER WE GET INTO CENTRAL RESIDENTIAL IS SOMETHING THAT COULD SERVE THE PURPOSES FOR THE PERIPHERY AROUND WHAT IS NOW THE DOWNTOWN.

I'LL ASK MS. WHITE TO ADD TO THIS.

THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND.

SO, THE PROPERTIES ARE NOT THAT COUNCILLOR PAYNE IS SUGGESTING ARE NOT CURRENTLY ZONED UNDER THE CURRENT BYLAW AS DOWNTOWN ZONE.

THE PROPERTIES THAT HE'S IDENTIFIED THAT ARE ZONED IN THE NEW ZONING BYLAW, WHICH WOULD BE IF YOU'RE DRIVING NORTH TOWARDS NIVEN, PAST THE LEGISLATURE ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE, THOSE ARE CURRENTLY ZONED DOWNTOWN AND WE'RE LIKELY ZONED DOWNTOWN PRIOR TO THE NEW COMMUNITY PLAN BEING PUT IN PLACE, AND SO REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU PULLED BACK THAT DOWNTOWN ZONE OR NOT, THOSE PROPERTIES ARE DEVELOPED.

THEY HAVE DEVELOPMENT PERMITS AND THE RESULT WOULD JUST BE MAKING THEM LEGAL [INAUDIBLE] COMPLIANT, BUT TO MOVE THE ZONE SOUTH FROM THE DOWNTOWN TO ENCOMPASS THE LANDS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AROUND 52ND, THAT IS, AS MAYOR ALTY POINTS OUT, UP ZONING, BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T BEEN PREVIOUSLY ZONED IN THE DOWNTOWN.

UNFORTUNATELY, I WAS NOT HERE A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO WHEN THE ZONING WAS DONE ORIGINALLY FOR THESE PROPERTIES, SO I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHY THEY WERE THAT WAY, BUT GOING FORWARD, WE

[01:50:05]

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? IS IT KIND OF CLEAR ON THE DIFFERENCE ON WHY THOSE LOTS OF 52ND AVE ARE BEING PROPOSED TO REMAIN CENTRAL RESIDENTIAL AND WHY THERE'S SOME LOTS IN THE DOWNTOWN? HOW SOME LOTS IN CENTRAL RESIDENTIAL ARE BEING RECOMMENDED TO CONTINUE TO BE DOWNTOWN BECAUSE THEY'RE CURRENTLY ZONED DOWNTOWN AND THERE'S SOME LOTS IN THE COMMUNITY PLAN THAT WE MIGHT HAVE TO BRING UP A FEW MAPS TO SHOW FOLKS THE DIFFERENCE.

COUNCILLOR PAYNE. YEAH, LIKE I'M UNDERSTANDING WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT WHEN I'M LOOKING AT THIS AREA IN THE 52ND AREA, WE'RE LOOKING AT ACROSS THE ROAD.

IT'S NOT LIKE THERE'S AN ABUNDANCE OF RESIDENTIAL AREA.

IT'S APARTMENT BUILDINGS.

IT'S MORE OF WHAT WE'D WANT TO PUT IN THERE.

WE'RE INCREASING DENSIFICATION.

IF IT'S IN THE RC OR IN THE DOWNTOWN ZONE LIKE WE'RE LOOKING AT POSSIBLE RETAIL IN THE BOTTOM FLOOR, LIKE BEING ABLE TO BUILD UP TO THAT SIDEWALK TO [INAUDIBLE], BUT IT JUST FEELS LIKE [INAUDIBLE] ON GETTING THIS AREA REZONED, AND I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING WHY.

IT SEEMS LIKE IT CHECKS BOXES OFF LEFT, RIGHT AND CENTER TO WHAT WE WANTED FOR THE DOWNTOWN AREA, INCREASED DENSIFICATION POSSIBLY MORE RETAIL AREA IN A BOTTOM FLOOR LIKE IT HITS EVERYTHING, AND WE HAVE BUSINESSES THAT WANT TO OR DEVELOPERS THAT WANT TO DEVELOP DOWNTOWN. IT'S NOT LIKE WE HAVE AN ABUNDANCE OF PEOPLE KNOCKING ON OUR DOOR WANTING TO DEVELOP UP HERE, LIKE AND THESE ARE COMMUNITY PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN HERE FOR A LONG TIME AND HAVE BUILT A LIFE HERE.

SO, THAT'S JUST MY VIEW.

I'M NOT I'M NOT LOOKING AT OFFENDING ANYBODY WITH ANYTHING I'M SAYING.

I'M JUST REALLY UNDERSTANDING THAT IF THIS IS NOT ABLE TO BE DONE, I CAN UNDERSTAND I'D LIKE TO HAVE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO WHY WE CAN'T DO THIS AT THE TIME AND WHEN WE CAN DO IT.

JUST TO NOTE, SO IN THE RC WHICH THESE SIX PROPERTIES ARE PERMITTED USES ARE ARTISAN STUDIO, COMMERCIAL ENTERTAINMENT, COMMERCIAL RECREATION, COMMERCIAL RETAIL SALES AND SERVICE, COMMUNITY RESOURCE CENTER CONVENIENCE STORE, DAYCARE FACILITY, 45 METER MULTI UNIT APARTMENT FOOD AND BEVERAGE SERVICE, HOME-BASED BUSINESS HOTEL, RELIGIOUS AND EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS MEDICAL AND HEALTH SERVICES MOTEL OFFICE PERSONAL SERVICES PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FACILITY AND LABORATORY SHORT-TERM RENTAL ACCOMMODATIONS.

URBAN AGRICULTURE, COMMUNITY AND URBAN AGRICULTURE COMMERCIAL.

FROM LAST WEEK'S PRESENTATION, THE TWO DIFFERENCES THE DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL VERSUS DOWNTOWN VERSUS RESIDENTIAL CENTRAL IS DOWNTOWN HAS A MINIMUM COVERAGE OF 50% FOR NON RESIDENTIAL USES WHERE RESIDENTIAL CENTRAL DOESN'T HAVE A LOT COVERAGE MINIMUM.

THERE'S A MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE IN THE DOWNTOWN WHICH COMES WITH PAIN JUST MENTIONED HOW YOU CAN BUILD ALL THE WAY TO THE SIDEWALK.

MAXIMUM HEIGHTS, THE SAME IN DOWNTOWN AND RESIDENTIAL CENTRAL, BUT DOWNTOWN HAS A MINIMUM HEIGHT OF TWO STORIES, WHEREAS CENTRAL RESIDENTIAL HAS NO MINIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS.

SO, THERE'S ALSO OPEN PARKING THAT'S ALLOWED IN DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL CENTRAL.

YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE 0.8, I THINK, SPOTS FOR EVERY ONE UNIT OR SO.

SO, THERE IS A BIT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS, AND THERE'S NOT THAT THIS CAN NEVER HAPPEN. IF WE WANT TO UPDATE THE COMMUNITY PLAN TO MOVE THESE SIX UNITS INTO THE DOWNTOWN AND THEN REZONE AND ALLOW THEM TO BE DOWNTOWN, THAT IS AN OPTION,

[01:55:03]

IS THERE ANYTHING FURTHER ON THIS ONE? QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, CONCERNS? COUNCILLOR MORSE. YEAH, I JUST GUESS I'M LOOKING FOR A RESPONSE FROM ADMINISTRATION ON THIS. COUNCILLOR PAYNE MENTIONED HE WANTED SOMETHING IN WRITING.

I JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR ON WHETHER COUNCILLOR PAYNE'S AMENDMENT IS ACTUALLY POSSIBLE WITHOUT GOING AND CAUSING AMENDMENTS TO THE COMMUNITY PLAN BECAUSE IF SO, LIKE, ARE WE POTENTIALLY--I GUESS THE QUESTION HERE IS, IS THIS AMENDMENT THAT'S BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD ACTUALLY POSSIBLE TODAY? ARE THE IMPLICATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH IT GOING TO STOP US FROM DOING IT? AS IN DO WE HAVE TO DO THE COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT FIRST? I'M JUST CURIOUS ABOUT THAT, WHETHER WE'RE GETTING A BIT AHEAD OF OURSELVES OR NOT, BECAUSE I THINK THAT I'VE FINALLY GOTTEN CLEAR ON THE JUSTIFICATIONS FOR THIS, AND I DO APOLOGIZE FOR THAT, BUT THIS IS QUITE A COMPLEX THING TO BE CONSIDERING ON THE FLY.

SO, IT'S TAKEN A FEW EXPLANATIONS FOR ME TO GET IT, BUT YEAH, I JUST WANTED COMMENT FROM ADMINISTRATION AS TO WHETHER IT'S ACTUALLY POSSIBLE TO DO THIS AMENDMENT AS WRITTEN.

MS. BASSI-KELLETT. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT'S NOT BECAUSE IN THIS CASE WE WOULD NEED TO AMEND THE COMMUNITY PLAN, WHICH IS AN EXERCISE THAT REQUIRES US TO GO THROUGH A PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN SEEK THE APPROVAL OF THE MINISTER OF MACA.

SO, THAT WOULD HOLD UP THE ZONING BYLAWS APPROVAL AND WE WOULD BE CONTINUING TO OPERATE UNDER THE FOUR 4404, THE EXISTING ZONING BYLAW FOR A PERIOD OF TIME, WHICH AGAIN WE HAVE SOME INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN OUR CURRENT THAT ZONING BYLAW AND OUR NEW COMMUNITY PLAN, MANY OF THEM. SO, IT PROLONGS THAT DISCOMBOBULATION.

WE WOULD REALLY LOVE TO SEE THE ZONING OF BYLAW APPROVED, BUT I WILL ASK MS. WHITE IF SHE CAN SPEAK TO THIS, BECAUSE IT IS THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE AROUND WHETHER THIS DOES REQUIRE A CHANGE TO THE COMMUNITY PLAN ITSELF OR NOT.

MS. WHITE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YES, SO IT IS OUR COMBINED OPINION THAT, YES, A COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT WOULD BE REQUIRED IN ORDER FOR ANY ZONING IN THIS AREA, AND I BELIEVE IT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER THAT IF THAT IS THE ROUTE, THEN THE REMAINDER OF THE BYLAW WOULD NEED TO BE PUT ON HOLD UNTIL THIS MOVES FORWARD OR YOU COULD DO IT SEPARATELY.

SO, APPROVE THE ZONING BYLAW NOW AND THEN DIRECT STAFF TO INITIATE AMENDMENT TO THE COMMUNITY PLAN OF WHICH THERE MAY BE OTHER ITEMS AS WELL TO INCLUDE FOR CONSIDERATION.

THANK YOU. OKAY, THANK YOU. APPRECIATE THAT CLARIFICATION, AND I DO THINK WE KIND OF HAVE, AT LEAST FOR MY PURPOSES, SOME CLARITY ON THIS.

I FEEL LIKE I'M KIND OF COMING AROUND SOME MORE UNDERSTANDING ON THE THINGS THAT I WAS FINDING CONFUSING ABOUT THIS AND THE DIFFERENCES.

SO, CONSIDERING THAT THIS COULD POTENTIALLY DELAY APPROVAL OF THE ZONING BYLAW, I THINK THAT ALONE IS ENOUGH FOR ME TO KIND OF TAKE PAUSE ON THIS AND CONSIDER WHETHER I FEEL IT'S NECESSARY TO OPEN UP THE COMMUNITY PLAN.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO, BUT I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD PERHAPS LOOK AT SEPARATELY, AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, I DON'T KNOW IF COUNCILLOR PAYNE WANTS TO RETRACT THE MOTION OR IF HE'S GOING TO STAND WITH IT, BUT IT DOES SEEM TO BE A FAIRLY HIGH IMPLICATION TO HOLD UP THE WHOLE ZONING BYLAW AND THEN GO THROUGH A COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS WHILE WE KIND OF ANSWER THIS QUESTION, AS OPPOSED TO STARTING WITH THE COMMUNITY PLAN PROCESS AS A SEPARATE PROCESS AFTER APPROVING THE OVERALL ZONING BYLAW.

SO, I'LL LET COUNCILLOR PAYNE CONSIDER THAT.

I MYSELF, I THINK, WON'T VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT FOR THOSE REASONS.

THANKS . COUNCILLOR PAYNE. CAN WE GET LIKE AN ESTIMATED TIMEFRAME

[02:00:07]

MAYBE IT'D BE A LITTLE FASTER WITH AN AMENDMENT, BUT I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE CONSIDER APPROVING THE ZONING BYLAW AND THEN SITTING DOWN WITH THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS TO SEE IF REALLY THE COMMUNITY PLAN NEEDS TO BE OPENED UP OR WHETHER THE CURRENT ZONING BYLAW, WHICH IS DIFFERENT THAN THE ZONING BYLAW THEY'RE UNDER TODAY, WOULD ACTUALLY MEET THEIR NEEDS, BECAUSE IF YOU NEED A VARIANCE, A VARIANCE IS GOING TO BE WAY FASTER THAN UPDATING OUR COMMUNITY PLAN AND THEN UPDATING OUR ZONING BYLAW.

YOU HAVE TO DO FIRST READING, A STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING, COME BACK FOR SECOND READING STORY, THEN GET MINISTER OF MACA'S APPROVAL, THEN COME BACK TO COUNCIL FOR THIRD READING PLUS STAFF, HAVE TO DRAFT IT AND DO COMMUNITY CONSULTATION.

SO, YOU ARE LOOKING AT COUPLE OF MONTHS FOR SURE.

MS. BASSI-KELLETT ANY TIME FRAME FOR AMENDMENT ON THAT THOUGH? THANKS VERY MUCH.

COUNCILLOR PAYNE, HOLD ON 2 SECONDS AND WE'LL SEE.

MS. BASSI-KELLETT DID YOU HAVE ANY.

CAN YOU HEAR ME OR? YEAH, YOU'RE A LITTLE--IT'S FUNNY, YOUR INTERNET'S GENERALLY, LIKE, PERFECT, EXCEPT TODAY, BUT, HOLD ON ONE SECOND, AND MS. BASSI-KELLETT WILL ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.

THANK YOU. AS COUNCIL MEMBERS KNOW, WE'VE GOT A REALLY INTENSE AGENDA FOR 2022, AND SO WE WERE PLANNING ON, OF COURSE, DOING WORK AROUND AREA DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR KAM LAKE.

WE WERE LOOKING AT BEING ABLE AS WELL TO DO THE DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE BYLAW OVERHAUL, AND SO IF OPENING UP THE COMMUNITY PLAN IS A PRIORITY OF COUNCIL, WE WOULD SEEK YOUR DIRECTION ON THAT AND WE WOULD SEE WHAT HOW WE NEED TO TRIAGE AND WHAT ORDER NEED THINGS NEED TO HAPPEN WHEN IT COMES TO THE DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE PIECE OF THINGS.

SO, WE TAKE YOUR DIRECTION. OTHER THINGS WOULD MOVE DOWN LOWER ON THE LIST, OF COURSE, BUT WE WOULD CERTAINLY LOOK FOR DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL ON THAT.

THANK YOU.

YEAH, SO, JUST TO BE CLEAR FOR COUNCIL, WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND IS IF CITY STAFF GO CHAT WITH THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SINCE THIS WAS THEIR SUBMISSION AND GET SOME CLARITY ON WHETHER UPDATING THE COMMUNITY PLAN IS THE TOP PRIORITY OR WHETHER THE DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE BYLAW AND THE AREA DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR KAM LAKE ARE OUR HIGHER PRIORITY, AND IS THERE A WAY THAT WE CAN WORK IN OUR SOON TO BE CURRENT ZONING BYLAW TO ADDRESS ANY ISSUES OR CONCERNS THAT THOSE SIX LOTS MAY HAVE? COUNCILLOR PAYNE, ANYTHING FURTHER? AM I ABLE TO SPEAK NOW? YEP.

YEAH, SO, I WOULD IMAGINE.

ARE YOU ABLE TO HEAR ME? YEAH, I WOULD IMAGINE THAT THESE DEVELOPERS THAT ARE [INAUDIBLE] DEVELOPING THESE LOTS ARE PROBABLY WANTING TO GET SOME PLANS MADE OR ADVANCED PLANS MADE. ARE WE GOING TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH THEM SOON? IF THAT'S THE CASE, THAT WE CAN HAVE THAT, I WILL REMOVE THAT AMENDMENT.

FOR SURE. THERE IS ONE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ALREADY UNDERWAY AND SO THAT ONE IS BEING ANALYZED UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING BYLAW, BUT YES, IF THERE'S THE OTHER DEVELOPER, THEN I THINK ADMIN'S INTERESTED TO SIT DOWN.

LIKE ALL DEVELOPERS, YOU REACH OUT TO PLANNING AND LANDS.

YOU SET UP A MEETING AND THEY'LL DISCUSS THE ANY CONCERNS, ISSUES OR THINGS THAT THEY SEE

[02:05:03]

MS. BASSI-KELLETT ANYTHING FURTHER FROM STAFF ON THAT ONE? THANKS VERY MUCH. NO, WE'RE VERY INTERESTED IN TALKING WITH ANY DEVELOPER OR ANY INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPER THAT HAS AN INTEREST, AND SO WE'LL CERTAINLY WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S A CONTEXT THAT CAN BE SUPPORTIVE OF PLANS THAT DEVELOPERS HAVE ON THE GO WITH PROPERTIES THAT THEY OWN.

SO, HAPPY TO HAVE A CONVERSATION AND I'M SURE WE CAN FOLLOW UP WITH COUNCILLOR PAYNE OFFLINE TO GET ANY DETAILS.

THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR PAYNE, JUST TO CONFIRM YOU'RE REMOVING YOUR MOTION? YEAH, OKAY, PERFECT.

NODDING HEAD. SO, THAT ONE'S REMOVED.

I DON'T THINK I HAVE ANYBODY ELSE IN THE LIST OF SPEAKERS. NO.

ANYTHING FURTHER? QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AMENDMENTS? CLEAR AS MUD. OKAY, SO, TONIGHT, COUNCILLOR SILVERIO, YOU'RE UP FOR READING.

SO, I DIDN'T HEAR ANYBODY OPPOSE.

WELL, OKAY, SORRY, WE'LL AMEND URBAN AGRICULTURE COMMUNITY, WHICH WAS RECOMMENDATION B IN THE MEMO, AND THEN A-L WILL COME FORWARD TO COUNCIL TONIGHT AS RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS SINCE I DIDN'T HEAR ANYBODY OPPOSED TO THOSE, AND THEN COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS AMENDMENT WAS ALSO--COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS AND MY OTHER ONE ABOUT WORKER'S ACCOMMODATION WAS APPROVED.

SO, THAT WILL COME FORWARD AS RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS SO WE CAN CHOOSE TO--COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS. YES, MADAM CHAIR.

SORRY FOR THE INTERRUPTION.

I JUST HAD A QUICK QUESTION ABOUT THE PUBLIC THAT ARE TUNING IN.

WILL THE PACKAGE BE UPDATED TO REFLECT THE TWO AMENDMENTS THAT WERE ADDED TODAY, OR HOW WILL THOSE BE HANDLED FOR THE PACKAGE THIS EVENING? MS. BASSI-KELLETT ARE WE ABLE TO TRY TO ADD AN APPENDIX IN THE--IT WON'T BE IN THE PACKAGE, BUT IT WOULD BE IN APPENDIX AS ON THE WEBSITE.

IF IT READS OUT WHAT COUNCILLOR SILVERIO IS GOING TO READ.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR.

YES. WHAT WE'LL DO IS WE'LL ADD THESE MOTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN PASSED BY GPC TODAY AS AN ADDENDUM FOR THIS EVENING'S PACKAGE.

THANK YOU. THAT'S THE WORD I WAS LOOKING FOR: ADDENDUM.

SO, IT'LL BE THERE AS AN ADDENDUM, AND SO AS A COUNCIL WE CAN CHOOSE TO VOTE ON IT AS A BLOC. IF THERE'S ANYONE IN PARTICULAR THAT YOU WANT TO CALL OUT, WE CAN ALWAYS PUT THAT ONE ASIDE, VOTE ON A BLOC AND THEN GO BACK TO VOTE ON ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR AND IF THERE'S ANY FURTHER AMENDMENTS TONIGHT, AGAIN, THEY HAVE TO BE IN WRITING, BUT JUST CIRCULATE THAT TO YOUR COLLEAGUES WITHOUT ANY FURTHER DETAIL, JUST YOUR AMENDMENT.

WITH THAT, ANY QUESTIONS ON PROCESS TONIGHT? SO, LOOK FOR THAT ADDENDUM.

WITH THAT, WE WILL GO TO OUR NEXT ITEM, A MEMORANDUM REGARDING WHETHER TO AMEND BYLAW

[7. A memorandum regarding whether to amend By‐law No. 5008, a by‐law to amend Business Licence By law No. 3451, as amended, to regulate short‐term rental accommodations to ensure the definitions of hotel, motel and short‐term rental accommodation are consistent with Zoning By‐law No. 5045.]

MS. BASSI-KELLETT, IF YOU'D LIKE TO REFRESH OUR MEMORY, THIS WAS PRE-COVID.

FEELS LIKE LIGHT YEARS AGO.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR.

YES, IN ORDER TO ALIGN WITH THE ZONING BYLAW, OUR PARAMETERS FOR SHORT-TERM RENTAL ACCOMMODATIONS NEED TO BE UPDATED IN THE BUSINESS LICENSE BYLAW SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY LEGISLATIVE INCONSISTENCY ACROSS THE BOARD.

SO, IN ANTICIPATION OF THE ZONING BYLAW GOING FORWARD TO COUNCIL TONIGHT, WE DID WANT TO BRING FORWARD THE CHANGES TO THE BUSINESS LICENSE BYLAW CONCURRENTLY.

THE ADMINISTRATION IS PROPOSING SOME AMENDMENTS TO THE BUSINESS LICENSE BYLAW THAT WILL BASICALLY ALIGN THE TERMS CONTAINED IN THE ZONING BYLAW FOR SHORT-TERM RENTALS.

YOU WILL RECALL THAT IT'S CHANGING FROM BED AND BREAKFAST TO SHORT-TERM RENTALS, TO BROADEN THE SCOPE, TO INCLUDE AND ENSURE THAT WE'RE LEGISLATING AND INCLUDING AIRBNBS,

[02:10:02]

THIS IS WHAT WE HAD DESCRIBED BACK IN 2019, AND SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GIVE THAT SAME TIME FRAME NOW, OF COURSE, FOR EVERYBODY TO ADJUST.

NOW, OUR NEXT STEPS ON SHORT-TERM RENTALS, OF COURSE, WILL BE TO WORK ON HAVING THE FULL CLARITY FOR OPERATIONALIZING THEM AND THROUGH OUR REGULATORY FRAMEWORK AND PROCEEDING TO ADVANCE THE ACCOMMODATION LEVY.

YOU MAY REMEMBER THAT ONE AS WELL.

THAT OF COURSE IS INTENDED TO FUND OUR DESTINATION MARKETING ORGANIZATION, BUT THE ACCOMMODATION LEVY WAS VERY IMPORTANT FOR US TO HAVE A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD THAT TREATED B&BS AND SHORT-TERM RENTALS EQUITABLY.

SO, THAT'S THE REASON WE'RE BRINGING THIS FORWARD TODAY TO ALIGN WITH THE ZONING BYLAW AND BE ABLE TO PROCEED ON THIS FRONT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS? COUNCILLOR MORGAN. THANKS.

I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM. I THINK THERE WAS A TYPO IN PAGE ONE OF THE MEMO UNDER 2I, BUT IT'S A RATHER IMPORTANT ONE BECAUSE IT CHANGES THE DEFINITION.

UNDER 2I THE DEFINITION OF SHORT-TERM ACCOMMODATION RIGHT NOW IN THE MEMO, I BELIEVE THIS IS DIFFERENT FROM HOW IT'S ACTUALLY WRITTEN IN THE BYLAW, BUT IT SAYS SHORT-TERM RENTAL ACCOMMODATION MEANS DOT, DOT, DOT WHERE PERSONS MAY RENT A PORTION OF ALL THE PREMISES, AND I THINK IT'S SUPPOSED TO STAY A PORTION OR ALL OF THE PREMISES.

CAN I JUST GET CONFIRMATION ON THAT? MS. BASSI-KELLETT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND I'M SORRY.

I'M JUST I'M SEEKING CLARIFICATION.

YOU'RE ON PAGE 239 OF THE PACKAGE, COUNCILLOR MORGAN.

238. OKAY, I'M LOOKING AT UNDER THE RECOMMENDATION IN SECTION.

SUPER, OKAY, AND 2I.

FOR THE DEFINITION OF SHORT-TERM RENTAL ACCOMMODATION.

ACTUALLY THE DEFINITION'S STRAIGHT FROM OUR ZONING BYLAW.

SO, WE WILL HAVE TO UPDATE IF IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE AN OR.

MS. BASSI-KELLETT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT.

YES, THAT'S A TYPO THAT WE'LL NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CORRECT.

THANK YOU. THANKS.

SO, WE'LL BRING THAT FORWARD, THE AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING BYLAW AS WELL.

ANYTHING FURTHER FROM COUNCIL? SEEING NONE.

SO, WE WILL BRING THAT FORWARD TONIGHT.

LAST.

.. JUMPING AROUND, SO MANY PAGES.

LAST ONE IS MOTION TO MOVE IN CAMERA, A MEMORANDUM REGARDING WHETHER TO APPOINT MEMBERS

[IN CAMERA]

IF I CAN GET A MOTION TO MOVE IN CAMERA.

MOVED BY COUNCILLOR MUFANDAEDZA SECONDED BY COUNCIL SILVERIO.

ANYBODY OPPOSED? SEEING NONE. I'LL SEE YOU IN 2 SECONDS.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.