1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:10,120
All right, good afternoon, everyone. I call to order. Committee of council meeting, February

2
00:00:10,120 --> 00:00:17,720
18, 2025. First time is adoption of the agenda with an addition, item 5.1 under 8.1 resolution,

3
00:00:17,720 --> 00:00:22,320
closed section 91A. Move second. All those in favor? Post carried. Confirmation minutes.

4
00:00:22,320 --> 00:00:27,000
Move second. All those in favor? Post carried. On the reports, 4.1 is a development variance

5
00:00:27,000 --> 00:00:35,520
permit for 247 to Chilcot Avenue. Mr. Cluchet. Good afternoon, mayor and council. The applicant

6
00:00:35,520 --> 00:00:39,440
Burkill Development Limited has applied for a development variance permit for a lot at

7
00:00:39,440 --> 00:00:48,040
247 to Chilcot Avenue. There we are. The RS-14 lot is located near the intersection of Chilcot

8
00:00:48,040 --> 00:00:52,800
and Hastings Street. The lot is unusual in that it has experienced a lesser degree

9
00:00:52,800 --> 00:00:59,200
of subdivision than the surrounding properties. So has created a peculiar situation where it

10
00:00:59,200 --> 00:01:04,360
borders both Chilcot Avenue to the north and Ogilvy Crescent to the south, as well as an

11
00:01:04,360 --> 00:01:13,400
unopened portion of Lane off of Hastings Street. So the applicant is proposing a subdivision

12
00:01:13,400 --> 00:01:20,240
that would create three RS-4 lots, two smaller lots off of Hastings, yes, sorry, Chilcot

13
00:01:20,240 --> 00:01:25,680
Street to the north, and then a larger lot that would have frontage off of Ogilvy Crescent,

14
00:01:25,680 --> 00:01:34,000
with vehicular access being to be open Lane off of Hastings Street. So due to the

15
00:01:34,000 --> 00:01:39,320
peculiarity of the existing lot in relation to the surrounding blocks, the Ogilvy Crescent

16
00:01:39,320 --> 00:01:44,040
frontage does not meet the minimum subdivision requirement laid out in the zoning bylaw.

17
00:01:44,640 --> 00:01:52,120
The applicant seeks to vary the minimum 9.5 meter frontage to the 7.62 meters available.

18
00:01:52,120 --> 00:02:02,440
The other lot dimensions for the two lots off of Chilcot would meet the bylaw frontage requirements.

19
00:02:02,440 --> 00:02:06,400
So the applicant is also seeking a variance to the maximum permitted floor area ratio

20
00:02:06,400 --> 00:02:12,000
for lots 1 and 2. This is due to changes to the FAR exclusions for basements following

21
00:02:12,040 --> 00:02:24,840
the June 2024 Bill 44 zoning bylaw amendments. This is because the applicant had an application

22
00:02:24,840 --> 00:02:29,560
in progress at the time and the variance would allow them to utilize a design which falls

23
00:02:29,560 --> 00:02:35,920
under the old RS-4 zoning regulations. A variance is required because there is no statutory

24
00:02:35,920 --> 00:02:40,160
in-stream protection provided for subdivision applications in relation to the adoption

25
00:02:40,160 --> 00:02:46,080
of new bylaws. The request would allow for approximately 56 meters squared of additional

26
00:02:46,080 --> 00:02:50,760
floor area within the basements for both proposed lots 1 and 2.

27
00:02:54,760 --> 00:02:59,480
So staff remember the opinion that the proposed variances would have limited to no impact

28
00:02:59,480 --> 00:03:03,560
to the surrounding lots and will allow for the development of a large, unusual parcel

29
00:03:03,560 --> 00:03:09,320
under its existing RS-4 zoning. Staff support consideration of the FAR variance in this

30
00:03:09,360 --> 00:03:13,560
circumstance due to the relatively quick timeline and lack of consultation opportunities provided

31
00:03:13,560 --> 00:03:18,760
by the province in relation to the adoption of Bill 44 requirements. And staff recommend

32
00:03:18,760 --> 00:03:23,400
that committee recommend to council that approval of the issuance of development variance

33
00:03:23,400 --> 00:03:28,280
permit DVP-00103 be considered. Thank you.

34
00:03:28,280 --> 00:03:30,880
Thank you. Councillor Pollock.

35
00:03:30,880 --> 00:03:37,280
Thank you. Thanks for your report. I'm generally in favor of this. I think it's a good use

36
00:03:37,360 --> 00:03:43,240
of the lot. It's having the access from both sides. I was looking at the technical drawings

37
00:03:43,240 --> 00:03:48,480
and the landscaping plans and everything. The only concern I have is that with the

38
00:03:48,480 --> 00:03:55,480
narrow access on this, when you got highlighted up there, that little yellow part, firefighting,

39
00:03:55,480 --> 00:03:59,840
garbage, stuff like that, it's all going to be fairly straightforward even though they've

40
00:03:59,840 --> 00:04:06,840
only got that very tiny frontage. The two lots on either side, 3237, 3233.

41
00:04:08,040 --> 00:04:14,640
Through the chair. I don't want to speak for fire, but there would conceivably be access

42
00:04:14,640 --> 00:04:22,840
from both the Ogilvy and the open lane portion if firefighting was required, similar for waste

43
00:04:22,840 --> 00:04:30,040
removal. What is being done is that there would be vehicle access for that lot off

44
00:04:30,040 --> 00:04:36,360
of the lane as that is an unopened portion. So eventually the part that you can kind

45
00:04:36,360 --> 00:04:43,360
of see running down would open onto, I believe that's Osborne to the south. So over time, that

46
00:04:44,120 --> 00:04:48,040
whole lane would be open, but at this point, there would just be that one section off of

47
00:04:48,040 --> 00:04:52,160
Hastings and then there would also be access off of the cul-de-sac too.

48
00:04:52,160 --> 00:04:55,600
Yeah, and that lane is going to be developed as those houses get redeveloped, I assume.

49
00:04:55,600 --> 00:04:59,040
Correct. Okay. All this in every other comments. Thank you.

50
00:04:59,400 --> 00:05:06,400
Councillor Dirling. Sorry, I'm confused now. So there is an access point off of Ogilvy.

51
00:05:08,400 --> 00:05:13,680
In the drawing it says there's not. So there would be access for, say, if someone

52
00:05:13,680 --> 00:05:18,400
were delivering or for firefighting, someone could access through, I suppose it would

53
00:05:18,400 --> 00:05:22,880
be a fence or a gate or something, but driveway access would be off of that lane portion

54
00:05:22,880 --> 00:05:28,880
to the off of Hastings. So I'm not in favour of this at all. I don't know why we

55
00:05:28,920 --> 00:05:34,560
would, I get it's an unopened portion of them, but if you've walked at it, which I just did

56
00:05:34,560 --> 00:05:40,280
on the weekend, it literally is in between two houses and it goes onto a super busy area,

57
00:05:40,280 --> 00:05:43,280
which including a telephone pole right in the middle, we'd have to move the telephone

58
00:05:43,280 --> 00:05:49,160
to begin with. That's one thing. But that lane would, in essence, go right between

59
00:05:49,160 --> 00:05:54,320
two people and dump onto what is already a busy Hastings Street. So I'm not sure

60
00:05:54,320 --> 00:06:01,280
why we would put it to a point where we would access that lane. So I'm not in

61
00:06:01,280 --> 00:06:07,400
favour of this because I think there should be access off of Ogilvy. Because if you

62
00:06:07,400 --> 00:06:10,200
look at the drawing, there was one side of the drawing where it says it would be

63
00:06:10,200 --> 00:06:14,160
a parking space. And so if you remove the parking space to the other side, then

64
00:06:14,160 --> 00:06:18,440
that would open up the access onto Ogilvy. And with the two, and it would only

65
00:06:18,440 --> 00:06:23,280
access one house and a basement suite because the other areas would be on

66
00:06:23,320 --> 00:06:28,600
Chilicot. So those are the access points for the two front houses. So to me, it

67
00:06:28,600 --> 00:06:33,200
doesn't make sense to be putting a lane through in between two houses onto an

68
00:06:33,200 --> 00:06:38,160
area, especially that area of Hastings, which is extremely busy with the Townhouse

69
00:06:38,160 --> 00:06:42,440
Complex right across the street where Metro Ford is and everyone turning down

70
00:06:42,440 --> 00:06:46,880
there. So you'd have to help me with this one because I'm right now not in

71
00:06:46,920 --> 00:06:53,200
favour. Through the chair. So because Hastings is a collector road, in the

72
00:06:53,200 --> 00:06:59,320
future, when the lots that are to the south sort of on Hastings would when

73
00:06:59,320 --> 00:07:03,320
they redevelop their driveways, they will have to have their vehicle

74
00:07:03,320 --> 00:07:09,160
access from the lane in order to not have cars backing out onto what

75
00:07:09,160 --> 00:07:13,800
will likely become a busier street. So as part of that long-term plan to

76
00:07:13,840 --> 00:07:19,600
open the lane from Hastings down to Osborne to the south, this would be

77
00:07:19,600 --> 00:07:24,720
the first portion of that. And then as those lots redevelop, the rest of the

78
00:07:24,720 --> 00:07:29,640
lane would be constructed. But we're talking about it could be 30 years

79
00:07:29,640 --> 00:07:33,040
before that happens. I mean, literally, but what I'm talking about is that if

80
00:07:33,040 --> 00:07:36,360
you want to come straight down, that's one thing. But to cut across

81
00:07:36,360 --> 00:07:41,240
because the lane that's there now, if you're coming to Osborne, to cut

82
00:07:41,240 --> 00:07:47,040
across in between the two houses and go that way, if I'm at 3219 or 3324,

83
00:07:47,040 --> 00:07:50,640
whatever it is, I'm not going to go that way. I'm going to go the other way. So to

84
00:07:50,640 --> 00:07:56,600
me, what I'm my concern is, is that 3350 and 3346 in between those two. To me,

85
00:07:56,600 --> 00:08:00,440
that access point should not be an access road. It should be, it should

86
00:08:00,440 --> 00:08:05,320
come off of Ogilvy instead. So I get what you're saying, but we're talking

87
00:08:05,360 --> 00:08:12,280
about, about here and now. And here and now, I'm not a favor of it. So thanks.

88
00:08:12,880 --> 00:08:14,800
Thank you, Councillor Petru.

89
00:08:16,440 --> 00:08:21,920
Thank you. I had kind of similar thoughts to Councillor Darling, not like

90
00:08:22,320 --> 00:08:26,440
totally against the laneway necessarily, but I feel like it doesn't really make

91
00:08:26,440 --> 00:08:33,640
sense to have a laneway to one, I know, in the future, I understand the

92
00:08:33,640 --> 00:08:39,440
logic, but currently to one property, it kind of almost becomes like a private

93
00:08:39,440 --> 00:08:43,400
laneway in a sense. And I feel like just the way the law is, when you look at

94
00:08:43,400 --> 00:08:49,320
that cul-de-sac on Ogilvy, it feels more natural that it would make more

95
00:08:49,320 --> 00:08:54,240
sense the vehicle access point would be there. And it's a cul-de-sac. So is

96
00:08:54,240 --> 00:08:57,280
there a reason why that wasn't the vehicle access point?

97
00:08:59,240 --> 00:09:03,160
There are two, through the chair, there are two large trees that are just

98
00:09:03,160 --> 00:09:08,840
at the corner there on Ogilvy. So the idea was that if the lane were to be

99
00:09:08,840 --> 00:09:12,440
opened as a result of the subdivision, there would be the added benefit that,

100
00:09:12,640 --> 00:09:16,080
you know, if there wasn't a driveway access off of Ogilvy, that, you know,

101
00:09:16,080 --> 00:09:18,080
we could potentially retain those trees.

102
00:09:18,680 --> 00:09:26,320
I see. Yeah, I feel like I would be more in favor of it if the

103
00:09:26,320 --> 00:09:29,400
vehicle access was off Ogilvy. I just feel like it makes more sense.

104
00:09:30,280 --> 00:09:34,680
Trees are important, but every time we develop a property, trees have to be

105
00:09:34,680 --> 00:09:37,480
down, so we need more housing according to the province.

106
00:09:39,400 --> 00:09:41,040
Yeah, so those are my thoughts. Thank you.

107
00:09:41,040 --> 00:09:43,440
Thank you. Councilor Pinner. Thank you.

108
00:09:44,640 --> 00:09:50,600
So just further to that, the recommendation is to open that laneway up.

109
00:09:51,280 --> 00:09:54,920
The developer would be paying for that portion of it, correct?

110
00:09:55,480 --> 00:10:00,200
Correct. If we don't do it, when the rest of those

111
00:10:00,200 --> 00:10:03,560
properties develop, they would have to pay for that, right?

112
00:10:03,560 --> 00:10:06,400
So we're not going to be out any money. Is that correct?

113
00:10:06,400 --> 00:10:10,160
I'm just, I'm just, I'm just trying to get the big picture on why we're

114
00:10:10,160 --> 00:10:12,320
doing this and not coming off of Ogilvy.

115
00:10:13,360 --> 00:10:18,040
Through the chair, just on the focus here, so the two questions that

116
00:10:18,040 --> 00:10:22,320
are directly related to the development variance permit relate to a variance

117
00:10:22,320 --> 00:10:26,360
in lot frontage off of Ogilvy, and the second is relating to the

118
00:10:26,360 --> 00:10:30,040
floor area related to the three houses. Those are the two questions

119
00:10:30,040 --> 00:10:34,240
before committee. Just so we're clear on the ask.

120
00:10:34,240 --> 00:10:37,680
Right. The other discussions that committee members are sharing

121
00:10:37,680 --> 00:10:41,880
with us are actually subject to our subdivision approval officer,

122
00:10:42,720 --> 00:10:45,680
who obviously follows the set plans and such and out of council.

123
00:10:46,480 --> 00:10:49,800
So the conversations that we're hearing are definitely input,

124
00:10:49,840 --> 00:10:54,480
and I'll turn to my, my colleague to see what he wants to say.

125
00:10:55,000 --> 00:10:58,920
We could look at, if I understand correctly, I'm not hearing that

126
00:10:58,920 --> 00:11:01,440
there's an offense to the lane. The idea is, do you hook the lane

127
00:11:01,440 --> 00:11:04,080
instead of the Hastings? Do you hook it out to Ogilvy?

128
00:11:05,360 --> 00:11:09,880
In both cases, we would suggest that the current developer has to

129
00:11:09,880 --> 00:11:12,160
provide the right-of-way. The current developer has to pay for

130
00:11:12,160 --> 00:11:15,840
the cost as part of offsites. The lots further to the south

131
00:11:15,840 --> 00:11:18,840
will eventually redevelop, and when they do, they'll need the

132
00:11:18,880 --> 00:11:21,560
rest of the lane. Those developers will pay for it.

133
00:11:21,960 --> 00:11:25,760
So the short answer, Councillor, is that yes, this developer would

134
00:11:25,760 --> 00:11:28,720
pay for the obligations as part of his offsites. Yes, we could

135
00:11:28,720 --> 00:11:33,120
take that now. And ideally, we have to make sure he has

136
00:11:33,120 --> 00:11:36,000
adequate access in order for the subdivision to occur.

137
00:11:36,760 --> 00:11:39,200
But some of the decisions of whether or not we hook this to

138
00:11:39,200 --> 00:11:41,280
the right or hook this to the left, we could look at during

139
00:11:41,280 --> 00:11:44,280
the subdivision process. Mr. Frederick, am I off base?

140
00:11:45,160 --> 00:11:50,680
So the Chair, I would concur with Bruce's comments. We could

141
00:11:50,680 --> 00:11:53,880
secure the lane off of Ogilvy for now, but in the future, I

142
00:11:53,880 --> 00:11:57,280
think it does set up for ripe potential for that. All the

143
00:11:57,280 --> 00:12:00,480
remaining lots on the south to be able to open the lane, I

144
00:12:00,480 --> 00:12:02,680
think it also improves fire access in the future and

145
00:12:02,680 --> 00:12:04,880
additional infrastructure that needs to go in in the future.

146
00:12:05,440 --> 00:12:08,320
And it is always our intent to remove driveways off of

147
00:12:08,320 --> 00:12:10,680
Collector Streets to make it safe for the residents.

148
00:12:11,040 --> 00:12:14,520
No, and there's already a lane there. And that all makes

149
00:12:14,520 --> 00:12:18,920
sense. I don't disagree with that. And it's, you know, I

150
00:12:18,920 --> 00:12:23,920
guess it's the here and now. You know, if those homes that

151
00:12:23,920 --> 00:12:29,120
are there that have that lane there now, and that whole

152
00:12:29,120 --> 00:12:33,600
area is not being changed for another decade, like do we

153
00:12:33,600 --> 00:12:36,240
have, is there anything percolating that things

154
00:12:36,240 --> 00:12:39,320
are going to change in the next little bit? Or are we

155
00:12:40,040 --> 00:12:44,280
I think staff would be reaching to give you an answer to

156
00:12:44,280 --> 00:12:48,920
that. Okay, so, so given that it just, I mean, it just seems

157
00:12:48,920 --> 00:12:52,880
that it makes more sense to have that that lot that that one

158
00:12:52,880 --> 00:12:57,680
that's fronting Ogilvy to that's where that access

159
00:12:57,680 --> 00:13:00,440
would be. And I know that's not what our discussion is, but

160
00:13:00,560 --> 00:13:05,840
it has everything to do with this. So I so that's kind of

161
00:13:05,880 --> 00:13:10,960
where I'm coming from on that. I'll leave it at that. Okay,

162
00:13:11,000 --> 00:13:15,920
thank you. Can Sir Petru. Thank you. Okay, I need to

163
00:13:15,920 --> 00:13:22,560
clarify. So are you saying the laneway that's coming off

164
00:13:22,560 --> 00:13:27,720
Hastings would go all the way through to Ogilvy as an

165
00:13:27,720 --> 00:13:32,640
alternative? Okay, so like that wasn't what I was

166
00:13:32,640 --> 00:13:34,560
thinking, which leads me to another question, which is

167
00:13:34,560 --> 00:13:38,160
maybe gets to more to the root of the problem. If it wasn't a

168
00:13:38,160 --> 00:13:42,680
laneway, if it was just off of the cul-de-sac as it is now, is

169
00:13:42,680 --> 00:13:48,600
that enough frontage there for vehicle access without putting

170
00:13:48,640 --> 00:13:50,960
adding a laneway, like pushing the laneway all the way

171
00:13:50,960 --> 00:13:53,920
through? Apologies to clarify. If I actually understand

172
00:13:53,960 --> 00:13:58,600
the network currently the lane configuration is that L

173
00:13:58,720 --> 00:14:01,880
hockey stick curve just to Hastings. This would be an

174
00:14:01,920 --> 00:14:04,160
access in from Hastings to Ogilvy. There isn't

175
00:14:04,160 --> 00:14:06,560
currently the intention that it would extend through to

176
00:14:06,560 --> 00:14:11,960
Ogilvy. Your frontage issue here is that that bottom corner

177
00:14:11,960 --> 00:14:15,480
when we are there is too narrow. So we need variance

178
00:14:15,480 --> 00:14:19,160
permission from committee to proceed with the subdivision.

179
00:14:20,880 --> 00:14:24,160
We need variance permission from council proceed with

180
00:14:24,160 --> 00:14:27,080
granting the additional floor area. If committee then

181
00:14:27,080 --> 00:14:30,840
wanted to suggest that the staff should go back and look at

182
00:14:30,840 --> 00:14:33,360
this particular connection, we could handle that with our

183
00:14:33,360 --> 00:14:34,560
partners in transportation.

184
00:14:36,560 --> 00:14:39,760
Okay, I still don't think I'm totally following are on the

185
00:14:39,760 --> 00:14:41,760
same page with what you're saying about the laneway

186
00:14:41,760 --> 00:14:44,360
connecting to Ogilvy, but it doesn't matter.

187
00:14:45,760 --> 00:14:47,560
That would be an option. Okay.

188
00:14:52,960 --> 00:14:55,280
The immediate option would be to do the do the lane from

189
00:14:55,280 --> 00:14:58,480
Ogilvy right to the existing lane, what's been secured

190
00:14:58,480 --> 00:14:59,240
and in the future if

191
00:15:00,000 --> 00:15:09,600
So, the lane would go from Hastings to Ogilvy. I know, but that's what you're talking about.

192
00:15:09,600 --> 00:15:13,640
In the future, eventually. Okay. That's not what I was thinking. I was

193
00:15:13,640 --> 00:15:18,800
thinking that the lane would stay as it is and vehicles would just access off the cul-de-sac

194
00:15:18,800 --> 00:15:24,040
like all the other properties on that street. But with the variants, does the frontage

195
00:15:24,040 --> 00:15:28,480
allow enough space to have a driveway and space for a vehicle to get in? Like, I don't

196
00:15:28,480 --> 00:15:43,640
know. I don't know what that is. A 7.62 meter could allow for vehicle access, yes. I think,

197
00:15:43,640 --> 00:15:48,840
if I may, I think there may be a little bit confusion about Ogilvy versus Osborne. Osborne

198
00:15:48,840 --> 00:15:55,680
is the street, sorry, in this image it's cut off, but to the south, sorry, whereas Ogilvy

199
00:15:55,680 --> 00:16:04,760
is the cul-de-sac here. From my understanding, what is currently on the table for the subdivision

200
00:16:04,760 --> 00:16:11,360
is to bring the lane through to the property line where that red is, and then eventually

201
00:16:11,360 --> 00:16:19,160
it would go down to Osborne. I don't, there's not a, at least to my knowledge, a current

202
00:16:19,160 --> 00:16:23,040
consideration that we would bring the lane sort of straight across to Ogilvy if that

203
00:16:23,040 --> 00:16:27,720
is what the councillor is referring to. That was so, what you just said is what I thought

204
00:16:27,720 --> 00:16:31,920
to. I never was thinking the lane would go all the way through. Also, I heard that somewhere

205
00:16:31,920 --> 00:16:37,680
and then I was like, wait, did I totally misunderstand? Yes, sorry, hopefully to clarify that. Yes,

206
00:16:37,680 --> 00:16:43,320
so that's not being considered. What is being considered is the portion from Hastings

207
00:16:43,320 --> 00:16:48,200
to the property line that is shown on the map there. Yes. And then it would go

208
00:16:48,200 --> 00:16:53,800
to the south. Yes. Okay, so for me, speaking for myself, I would, I know this isn't the question

209
00:16:53,800 --> 00:16:58,720
on the table, but I would not like the vehicle access to be off the lane to this property.

210
00:16:58,720 --> 00:17:02,680
I think it makes more sense for it to come off Ogilvy if the variance still allows

211
00:17:02,680 --> 00:17:08,760
for enough space for vehicle access and that can be a later down the road conversation

212
00:17:08,760 --> 00:17:13,640
then I'm happy. Through the chair, I'm certainly hearing

213
00:17:13,640 --> 00:17:18,560
good direction from committee. I would still put the two questions. My recommendation is

214
00:17:18,560 --> 00:17:24,520
we consider the two questions around the variances and direct staff to explore different ways

215
00:17:24,520 --> 00:17:31,480
to handle the lane issue. Thank you. I was just conferring with the corporate officer

216
00:17:31,480 --> 00:17:45,240
to that end. Is that how they do it in Calgary? I can explain. I heard and I accepted it was

217
00:17:45,240 --> 00:17:56,600
Glenn's fault. That rings true to me. Councillor Darling. So just to confirm, so where that

218
00:17:56,680 --> 00:18:02,760
lane, where the future lane down to Osborn, right now it's all backyards. So there's no

219
00:18:02,760 --> 00:18:06,680
lane there. I just want to make everyone understand there's no lane there. It's all backyards.

220
00:18:06,680 --> 00:18:11,320
So if we're going to reconstruct, when we decide to construct that lane, we're going to plow

221
00:18:11,320 --> 00:18:15,240
right through everyone's backyard that has it right now. Just so everyone's, I want to be

222
00:18:15,240 --> 00:18:20,680
very clear on that. I get that. I get it. I know what you're saying. That section that

223
00:18:20,680 --> 00:18:24,680
you're talking about would not be touched until those owners came forward with an application

224
00:18:24,680 --> 00:18:30,920
for those lands. Absolutely. Right. So my point is that we're doing, it would be the, so the variance,

225
00:18:31,720 --> 00:18:34,840
the variance I don't have an overly a problem with, but my question is,

226
00:18:35,880 --> 00:18:39,320
because I do not, I don't want this to go ahead if it's going to go on Hastings.

227
00:18:40,920 --> 00:18:45,160
So my question is, what's the process then? So if we were to say the variances,

228
00:18:45,160 --> 00:18:48,840
we accept the variance, then what happens after that? When would it come back

229
00:18:48,840 --> 00:18:52,120
potentially for, that's what I'm confused by. There's a couple of things. So

230
00:18:52,680 --> 00:18:58,120
so a question in front of us is a variance to our zoning bylaw, which I think we all

231
00:18:58,120 --> 00:19:02,520
understand. In fact, the question right now in front of us is whether we recommend to council

232
00:19:03,240 --> 00:19:10,200
that those variants be considered. So this discussion has obviously brought to light

233
00:19:10,200 --> 00:19:16,600
a concern around where the axis is going to be. Now council would not normally consider that

234
00:19:16,600 --> 00:19:22,120
question. That would be approved by the approving officer of subdivision. So now

235
00:19:23,400 --> 00:19:31,000
the two are have somewhat been tied through this conversation. So what I recommend is that

236
00:19:31,720 --> 00:19:37,560
we forward this with the recommendation to council where it will be considered.

237
00:19:37,560 --> 00:19:43,560
And in the interim period between now and that council consideration, staff bring forward to us

238
00:19:43,640 --> 00:19:53,800
reflecting on the discussion, more details and information around an access point that is not

239
00:19:54,440 --> 00:19:59,800
off of Hastings, which I have heard is is the concern at this point. What happens 30 years from

240
00:19:59,800 --> 00:20:05,640
now? If you follow in Councillor Penner's footsteps and you're here 30 years from now to

241
00:20:05,640 --> 00:20:10,680
determine where the lane goes and where it doesn't, then God bless you. You can decide

242
00:20:10,680 --> 00:20:16,840
it then. So we probably shouldn't get ourselves too far down that rabbit hole. And let's just deal

243
00:20:16,840 --> 00:20:20,680
with this property and what's in front of us. So I think that that's probably

244
00:20:22,120 --> 00:20:28,840
as a direction, a way to go with this. If that satisfies everyone. So I'll finish the

245
00:20:28,840 --> 00:20:35,320
speakers list and then in terms of process, I think that in my view that Councillor Garling

246
00:20:35,320 --> 00:20:41,640
allows, doesn't get into a situation where you say, okay, yeah, I'm good with this, but then

247
00:20:41,640 --> 00:20:46,360
you never see it again and you don't know what the decision has been on the access point.

248
00:20:47,480 --> 00:20:52,040
The decision can ultimately be made with that information at that council meeting.

249
00:20:52,040 --> 00:21:00,040
Okay. And last point is, and this is a great example of how the loss of public hearings

250
00:21:00,040 --> 00:21:07,320
and public input is, this is a great example of forever changing a neighbourhood in how you,

251
00:21:07,320 --> 00:21:11,800
in just literally by one decision on how that particular area of that street is going to

252
00:21:11,800 --> 00:21:17,720
look in the future. Here's a great opportunity for people to be able to come and share their

253
00:21:17,720 --> 00:21:21,480
points of view and why, whether they're for against whatever it is. And that's now not

254
00:21:21,480 --> 00:21:27,800
part of the process, which is a real shame. So I think that's a, this is a prime example.

255
00:21:27,880 --> 00:21:31,640
And it has nothing to do with anybody, any staff member, anything like that. This is a prime example

256
00:21:31,640 --> 00:21:36,760
of why people should have input in what their neighbourhoods look like in the future,

257
00:21:36,760 --> 00:21:42,280
now and in the future as well. I think that's a fundamental. If you buy a home and you should

258
00:21:42,280 --> 00:21:44,840
be able to have some sort of say of what your neighbourhood is going to look like in the

259
00:21:44,840 --> 00:21:49,400
future, that right now has been taken away. Thanks. Thank you, Councillor Pinner.

260
00:21:50,280 --> 00:21:58,120
So just to, you know, 30 years from now, the reason why I did ask the question is because

261
00:21:58,120 --> 00:22:03,320
trying to get, you know, when you make decisions and say, okay, so you kind of do this in isolation.

262
00:22:03,960 --> 00:22:09,240
If we knew that, that the rest of Hastings was getting developed the next couple of years,

263
00:22:09,240 --> 00:22:14,120
then I just would go, yeah, it's fine. But we don't know that. And that's why I asked the

264
00:22:14,120 --> 00:22:18,600
question. And I do appreciate the Mayor's comments on that. But, but as Councillor

265
00:22:18,600 --> 00:22:28,280
Darling said, this will change that. It'll change the, where those two homes on either side,

266
00:22:28,280 --> 00:22:36,280
north and south of the laneway. It'll change their home, the feel of their home for a reason

267
00:22:36,280 --> 00:22:41,480
that I'm not willing to support at this time. Once that all gets redeveloped, yeah,

268
00:22:41,480 --> 00:22:44,360
we're going to put the lane in there and all the trees are going to come out and,

269
00:22:44,360 --> 00:22:47,240
you know, that's just the way it's going to go. But do we really need to do it today?

270
00:22:47,800 --> 00:22:51,560
And that's really the, that's my comment. Thank you.

271
00:22:51,560 --> 00:22:54,360
Okay. Thank you. Councillor Pollock.

272
00:22:55,400 --> 00:22:59,880
Just speaking to the recommendation, you know, we, there's more than one conversation this morning

273
00:22:59,880 --> 00:23:04,120
about giving the money from the federal government on the housing accelerator fund.

274
00:23:04,760 --> 00:23:07,240
And thanks again to Brissons staff for all the hard work on that. But there's

275
00:23:07,240 --> 00:23:10,440
targets to be met. And this is, the end of the day, this is two additional

276
00:23:10,440 --> 00:23:15,000
housing units to add to that total, right? So, and I think it's two more

277
00:23:15,080 --> 00:23:20,200
single family dwelling units. So, I strongly in favour of this. Thank you.

278
00:23:21,160 --> 00:23:26,840
Okay. Thank you. So, you're going to move the recommendation and add a third bullet,

279
00:23:26,840 --> 00:23:31,960
which is direct staff to provide information on access options. Okay. And that will capture

280
00:23:32,680 --> 00:23:37,400
the discussion that's happened here and we can consider at council. Okay. Does that work

281
00:23:37,400 --> 00:23:41,000
for everyone? Work for staff? Okay. It's been moved, seconded. All those in favour?

282
00:23:41,000 --> 00:23:47,560
Opposed? Carried. Okay. 4.2. Housing target progress report. Mr. Mayor.

283
00:23:50,760 --> 00:23:52,440
There you go. You can add three to the number.

284
00:23:58,280 --> 00:23:59,000
Good afternoon.

285
00:23:59,000 --> 00:24:04,120
There you go. Maybe.

286
00:24:05,880 --> 00:24:11,400
Mayor West, on July 24th, 2024, the Ministry of Housing issued a housing target order to

287
00:24:11,400 --> 00:24:17,240
Port Coquitlam, which came into effect on August 1st. The order sets out a five-year

288
00:24:17,240 --> 00:24:26,120
housing target of 2,279 net new completed units by July 31st, 2029. The order further

289
00:24:26,120 --> 00:24:31,960
specifies annual housing targets, reporting periods and process and performance indicators,

290
00:24:31,960 --> 00:24:37,960
which will be used to measure annual progress. The city's reporting periods run on an annual

291
00:24:37,960 --> 00:24:41,560
basis with a one-time six-month interim reporting period.

292
00:24:45,400 --> 00:24:50,520
As noted in the report, the city has taken a number of actions to help enable the supply

293
00:24:50,520 --> 00:24:54,520
of additional housing within the community to align with meeting the housing target.

294
00:24:55,240 --> 00:25:00,440
While the number of net new units was quite modest in the six-month period, staff note there

295
00:25:00,440 --> 00:25:05,720
is a significant amount of volume for projects in stream, including current development

296
00:25:05,720 --> 00:25:09,640
applications, issued building permits and development under construction.

297
00:25:10,760 --> 00:25:14,760
In accordance with the Housing Supply Act, staff recommend receipt of this report

298
00:25:14,760 --> 00:25:18,680
and direct staff to submit the housing target interim progress report

299
00:25:18,680 --> 00:25:21,560
to meet the requirements set out by the province. Thank you.

300
00:25:21,880 --> 00:25:28,600
Okay, thank you very much. I don't believe there's a lot to say at this point. As you know,

301
00:25:30,600 --> 00:25:39,240
six months is too early, I think, to offer a fair assessment given the short period of time

302
00:25:39,240 --> 00:25:43,720
and the fact that we've got a number of things in the queue. But I appreciate that

303
00:25:44,680 --> 00:25:50,360
this is a requirement of the province. So I'll have much more commentaries,

304
00:25:50,360 --> 00:25:54,920
I'm sure members of council will, when we are at our 12-month point.

305
00:25:55,880 --> 00:25:59,960
So can someone move the recommendation? Move? Second? All those in favor? Post? Carried.

306
00:25:59,960 --> 00:26:11,480
Thanks. Any resolution to close? Second? All those in favor? Post? Carried. Thank you.