Present: Kelly, Merulla, Pearson, Mitchell, Whitehead, McHattie, Ferguson (arrived late and left early)

Also present: Braden, DiIanni (for item 7.1 only)

Media: Ken Mann (CHML), Kevin Werner (Brabant), Maggie Hughes (CFMU), Matt Jelly (CFMU), CH reporter (for a few minutes only),

CATCH (Don).

Changes to the Agenda:

Add: Item 8.2 "Exemptions to the Minister's Zoning Order Associated with the Greenbelt Protection Act"

Add: Item 11.1: Letter of resignation from Waterdown BIA by councillor Margaret McCarthy

Minutes approved.

4. DELEGATION REQUESTS

4.1 Mr. Lawson Hunter, Hamilton and Region Arts Council, respecting the Carnegie Gallery, Dundas. Supporting Carnegie.

4.2 Mr. Robert Ellison, Hamilton Arts Advisory Committee, respecting the Carnegie Gallery. Supporting Carnegie.

4.3 Mr. Matt Jelly, respecting property standards infractions on the Lister Block property, 30-40 James Street North.

4.4 Mr. Daniel Page respecting Downtown issues, including locations for low cost housing. Ideas.

4.5 Mr. Kevin MacKay, Skydragon Community Development Co-operative, respecting their activities and their interest in the City-owned property at 74 Hughson Street South.

All delegation requests approved without discussion.

5. CONSENT ITEMS

5.1 Demolition Permit - 2744 King Street East (PD04125) (Ward 5)

5.2 Demolition Permit - 2738 King Street East (PD04126) (Ward 5)

5.3 Heritage Permit Application (HP2004-006) under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and Required Approvals under Sections 1.1 and 1.9 of the Heritage Easement Agreement to Permit Alterations to the Designated Property at 315 Dundas Street East ("Drummond House"/ "Chestnut Grove"), Waterdown (PD04130) (Ward 15)

All consent items approved without discussion.

6. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND DELEGATIONS

6.1 Application for Approval of a Draft Plan of Subdivision, Pineway Avenue Extension", for a Portion of the Lands Located at 171 Stone Church Road East, Known as Part of Lot 13, Concession 7, Geographic Township of Barton (Hamilton) (PD04131) (Ward 7) West of Upper Wellington and east of Pineridge Drive. Proponent is Mark Demik. Two lots for single-family homes and two blocks for future development. Total area is 0.2 hectares. 52 letters circulated to neighbours, no responses. No members of the public came forward to address this proposal. The proponent indicated he supported the staff report. The proposal was approved by committee without discussion. Moved by Mitchell, seconded by Pearson.

6.2 Application for Approval of a Draft Plan of Subdivision, "King's View Estates", and Change in Zoning for the Property Located at Part of Lots 31 and 32, Concession 6, Old Mud Street (Stoney Creek) (PD04132) (Ward 9)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Clerk/
agendas-minutes-reports/Planning-Economic-
Development/2004/May18/PD04132.pdf
Proposal is for 15 single-family units in Heritage Green on old Mud Street east of Red Hill Valley. Proponent is Grisenthwaite-Kanuka Ltd. Agents are Johns + Khes Planning Solutions. Area is 0.66 hectares. Staff report presented by Greg Macdonald who notes that zoning is being changed from "Neighbourhood Development" to "Single Residential R3", and that it conforms with the low density residential designation in the west mountain planning district of Heritage Green. "The proposal conforms with and implements the low density residential designation of the approved Albion Neighbourhood plan and the proposed lots are compatible with existing and future planned residential development in the Albion Neighbourhood." Two letters received from neighbours and are attached to the staff report. One letter related to adjacent development. Slight change to wording in (a) (ii) to add "a maximum of 5% of the value"

Whitehead: Notes that there is R3 and R5 zoning in that area. Asks why staff are recommending R3 as opposed to R5 [which is higher density]. Macdonald: "There is a mix of housing types in this neighbourhood. Valleyview on the south side has single detached dwellings and townhouses. There are some semi-detached in the neighbourhood." Points out R3 zoning on Kingview Drive, "R2 zoning, which are even larger lots, on the inside here. Essentially it was a response to the proponent's request for R3 lots and we feel that due to the mix of lots - you can see there's R1s and R2s - it is complementary to the mix of housing types and densities in this neighbourhood." Whitehead: "So staff feel that R3 is the ideal designation for the development, as opposed to an R5?" Macdonald: "We feel R3 represents good planning and we support an R3 zoning in this neighbourhood." Whitehead: "And R5 doesn't?" Macdonald: "The applicant didn't request R5. If through consultation with Traffic [Department] whether they would support the additional driveway accesses to Mud Street, and if the services were available we would consider R5 zoning." Whitehead: Also asks about amendment to (a)(ii). Staff confirms this is consistent with policy.

McHattie: "Question on the HSR comments. They appear to be saying that the area is serviced by a bus. I just wanted to confirm that first." Macdonald: "Other than what comments we received from HSR, my understanding, I believe there's bus service on Paramount there. I have to double check on my HSR comments." McHattie: Notes HSR advocates "higher density residential or mixed use would benefit public transit." [note this is in 6.1 staff report, not 6.2]. "This seems to be a comment being made for a lot of new developments. We seem to be getting a lot of low density development, as we have historically with development across the mountain and areas further up close to Rymal Road and areas like that. . How can we get beyond the point where we're just getting additional low density development? . How can we start mandating either medium density or high density and this idea of mixed use. We know from new planning that's going on everywhere. Mr. Chair you were at the APA [American Planning Association] conference. I'm sure they talked a lot about transit oriented development [Kelly confirms off mic] with the higher densities, and that's certainly what I think is going to come out of the GRIDS discussions. Master Transportation plan meetings that I've been to are talking that way. How do we get at that sort of thing now, for some of the developments that are coming to us here at planning committee?"

Kelly asks Tim McCabe to respond rather than Macdonald "because we're bordering on the philosophical here". Tim McCabe: "I think councillor McHattie's on the right track in terms of GRIDS. It's really going to be the new Official Plan that sets whole new principles for development and part of the intensification study. A lot of municipalities are going to nodes and corridors as a supportive integrated land use transportation system. And through the zoning then you will have intensive, or intense zoning with probably minimum floor space along the corridors and nodes to help support the transit system. You have a case like this and it's really the last missing infill piece in primarly a low-rise subdivision, so you're not going to see that type of change, drastic change in land use when we're just completing the rest of the neighbourhood. But it really is the Official Plan and a new fresh look at increasing densities in appropriate locations and getting on the bandwagon of what these nodes are and the mix of land use both from an employment point of view and a high density residential point of view that's going to help our transit system." McHattie: .I guess I'd hope we could still look at some of these last subdivisions before we get to the new OP. I know the 1995 Regional Official Plan which is still in effect, does talk about compact mixed use. We had that discussion during the ROPA9 urban boundary expansion and we went through all those policies. So there's a lot of great policies in the '95 OP that does allow compact mixed use, and in fact promotes it. So I would hope that we can do that and maybe have some of that reflected in our staff reports as we go through the remaining subdivisions that are being considered.." Kelly: "Thanks councillor, good point."

Public delegations: Kathy Runciman of 192 Athenia Drive. They will have the sewer and storm line go through their side yard. No problem with the development or the zoning. "What we found out kind of after the fact was they were going to be installing a brand new water line which involves cutting through a hedge that we have and digging up our side yard." Spoke to committee when original property applied for a severance in 2002."I wrote a letter saying that we were concerned about the servicing coming in for the new subdivision. And we were told at that time that everything for this development.was coming in off Old Mud. . the Valleyview subdivision which is on the other side of Old Mud, which I can't see has anything to do with us, is going to have this 15 metre easement coming in through the new lot 15 on this proposed subdivision and then coming in through us to connect to a water line on Athenia. I don't see the point. It's on the other side of Old Mud." Husband talked to Gavin Norman at the City who confirmed this. . "Along the back of lot 15 there's an existing swale that goes all the way to lot three, all the way down, and this swale is . probably about 7-8 feet deep. There's a great big sewer grate / culvert. . I can't see anybody wanting to buy lot 15 when its got this huge culvert/ditch. Apparently this is a city-maintained easement. That's a joke. It's never been maintained by the City. We've had to cut the weeds ourselves." Also concerned about kids congreating in this "party central". "That issue was never addressed. Basically we're ticked that we have to have a water line put in when we don't feel it's necessary." New water line "will dig up our whole side yard. We'll lose a 20 foot cedar hedge, and we don't see the point."

Kelly asks for staff response from "Tony" or "Gavin". Mr. Sergei: "The issue of the waterline comes down to providing water quality and looping but once we undertake a detailed engineering design and see what is the best way of servicing this line, it's possible that we connect" differently to avoid the Runciman property. Runciman says she raised this in the letter she wrote yesterday. Also suggests that if it has to come through the city could use boring techniques rather than trenching to avoid yard disruption. Gavin Norman responds for staff that initial proposal is as Mrs. Runciman suggests but there is another possibility at other end of the street. "When the Valleyview subdivision comes forward with its proposal we'll look at that as an opportunity. It's feasible. It might come to dollars and cents and what makes most sense, but right now we're just protecting an easement to provide for the secure supply of water." Kelly asks if there will be public meetings. Norman says yes. Runciman raises issue of drainage ditch and notes CA request for stormwater management report. Norman: "That's an existing easement with a storm channel that Mrs. Runciman described and that will be maintained as it is. When King's View Estates comes on line with a development application there will be a requirement for a stormwater management plan. We have not seen that yet. That will be something we'll review when that comes in." Runciman: "Isn't that what this meeting is for - the draft plan approval?" Tony Sergei : "These are the conditions that we're establishing before they can proceed with their development at this time. They have to submit these reports supporting their application. So their detailed engineering will be based on their stormwater management report for their site and it may address the existing conditions or whether alternate improvements will be required." Runciman : "I find that odd with your comments that they maintain it and all this kind of stuff. Well if someone's buying lot 15 all of a sudden they're going to have to be tromping into someone's backyard to maintain this easement?" Kelly: "Well they may be. As Mr. Norman said that's yet to be determined. Some investigation has to be done on that and you'll certainly be part of that too." Notes that Bruckler out of town and asks if Runciman has been in touch with him. "I'll certainly make sure that he's aware of your comments and concerns as well. And as our staff move forward on that aspect especially I would ensure that with Councillor Bruckler's help that you're brought into this too so that you're put into the discussion about exactly the location and the reports about the swale at the back. We've got your name. We know where to find you." Kelly asks the clerk to direct these comments to Bruckler's office. No other public delegations.

Kelly: Ms Sarah Robinson, Johns + Khees Planning Solutions are here for the proponents". They agree with staff report. Question for Robinson from Whitehead who notes earlier questions to staff and comments made by McHattie about good planning. "I had asked the questions about R5 as opposed to R3 so that we capitalize on density and the staff were telling me that that wasn't what was requested by your client, so I guess I'm going to pose the question directly to you. Why R3 as opposed to R5?" Robinson: "The ower of the lands decided that R3 would be a better use of the lands. He wanted larger lot frontage and lot area and he decided R3 would be better use rather than R5 which is smaller lot frontages." Whitehead: "And would your client be receptive to R5?" Robinson: "I did mention it to him. He was more receptive to the R3 and we were fine with that so that's what we came in with."

Mitchell : Has three questions. First is wording of when parkland dedication is due - at building permit stage. "Why is that have to be there and what is the difference in the value of the land from one day to the next day?" Greg Macdonald clarifies that this is the policy and value is higher when building permit is issued because lot is fully serviced rather than raw land . Mitchell: "So it's advantageous to the City . to have that in there?" Confirmed by staff. Mitchell also asks about drainage ditch and Runciman's comments. "To hear her say that that ditch is there and it hasn't been maintained in any way is a concern. And the next concern I have is that the applicants must also implement and prepare a lot grading plan. And then we accept it. And I brought this up yesterday in Public Works. They supply one. We go and check it. It's built to the plans. Where in there does it say it has to work. Because once it doesn't work . most of the time it does .. then our system dumps it back on the local residents and says it's a civil issue - sue each other. Well I have a problem with that. Because if the plans are there, and we okay it, and for some reason it does not work properly, I don't think this government should be dumping it back on the local residents and say it's civil - you sue the city; you sue your neighbour; you sue whatever. I want that fixed, and I'm going it get it fixed somehow this year through a bylaw because it's driving me crazy in my ward. Just some comments from staff on that?" Gavin Norman: In fact implementation or execution of the approved plans is one of our biggest concerns and recently in addressing this through draft plan conditions we've included a new conditions which is in the set with Kings View as condition #3. 'That storm drainage, lot grading, siltation and erosion control, and noise control plans be implemented to the satisfaction of the City of Hamilton'. So not that we didn't have that authority before . but now I think that we're just being more clear at the front end that we'll be more vigilant to make sure these are executed properly and we'll be back making sure that these things operate, and that they'll be maintained through construction, and that they'll be restored to their original condition post construction." Mitchell thanks staff and says drainage has to be paid attention to the future.

Whitehead: "Right on the heels of councillor Mitchell. I just took some pictures of Diamond Court and it's exactly the same thing. So there's a fundamental issue with respect to how we enforce (tape interruption). area that's been flooded. It's a new subdivision in Ward 8 and again I guess they're being told that they will have to address it with their neighbours. And I know that you have to have a grade approval, is that correct Gavin? And it has to be signed off by the City and you hold approvals back?" Kelly directs question to Tony Sergei: "With all applications under a subdivision agreement they're required to post securities with each individual lot and prior to the building department accepting them, the professional engineer has to submit as constructed elevation confirming that the lots have been graded to the approved drawings and conform to the relative nature of the stormwater management report." Whitehead : "It sounds all fine and good, but in practice it's not. The reality is that we're still having people put out a fair amount of money . and then end up dealing with pressures because whatever plan they put forward doesn't work, and then the residential owner ends up taking action in their own hands and devise their own plan which ends up impacting on neighbours. So we have a fundamental problem with grading issues. I would certainly hope that on this one, not only is the language strong enough, but that we have stronger recourse so that we don't let it slip to the point where neighbours have to fight neighbours with respect to water issues."

Kelly: "What I'd like to do members of committee is keep our eye on the ball here, , and I think what were talking about here is things that can probably be brought up under new business, if we're going to talk about revisions of existing policies and staff work on this. Let's deal with the issue at hand which is this application and see if we can just move through the agenda if we could. Councillor Mitchell ON THIS MOTION?"

Mitchell says he will move motion but has quick suggestion. "Before the city takes back some of these drainage works that a letter be sent out to the local residents and the councillor so that the people that live there, that we know for sure that it's working before we take it back into ownership of the city. I think that's the least we can do because the people that live there know best because they see it in every single rainstorm."

Seconded by Pearson. Carried.

6.3 Application to Amend Ancaster Zoning By-law No. 87-57 and for Approval of Draft Plan of Subdivision for Lands Located at 452 and 462 Hamilton Drive, Part of Lot 39, Concession 3 (Ancaster), Owners - Nicolina and Salvatore Chiarelli (PD040133) (Ward 12) 12 single-family dwellings on 1.82 hectares in Ancaster at Garner Road and Hamilton Drive. Extension of Millers Pond subdivision to the west.

Jason Thompson presents the staff report in powerpoint (see http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Clerk/
agendas-minutes-reports/Planning-Economic-
Development/2004/May18/PD04133.pdf)
" ... there's a block known as block 13 which is taken into the Big Creek valley lands - that's the top of bank - and it's been identified by the Grand River Conservation Authority. . Subsequent to this report staff and the applicants have had further discussion with the residents and it's been agreed to shift street A further north approximately 3 metres to provide deeper lots to the south side of street A and to facilitate the future extension of the street to Hamilton Drive. . There's an existing house here, and it was determined that the setbacks might not be quite adequate enough so the shift was aligned to allow this development to occur and the extension out to street A to Hamilton Drive. This would also allow for this block 14 to shift further north. It's a three metre reserve that would need to be lifted once the land is developed in future. . three blocks that were zoned from agriculture A-261, the first block being rezoned to a residential R2 zone which would take into account the existing single detached dwellings there. The block 2 would be rezoned to an R3 sites-specific zone which is R3-509 to take into account a reduced front yard lot frontage. Block 3 would be rezoned to an R3-510 zone and it is zoned to allow a deeper rear yard setback. It's actually a no-build setback as required by the Conservation Authority, increasing the required setback from 7.5 metres to 9 metres. And then block 4 would be rezoned to a public open space O2 zone to continue trail linkage from the Millers Pond plan of subdivision and to eventually link up with Hamilton Drive."

Kelly asks for public delegations. There are none. "Mr Peter Ashenhurst, the agent is here. Peter are you okay with the staff report." Agrees (off-mic).

Ferguson: ".this has been a long time coming. Issues with the GRCA - those have all been resolved. I'd like to thank Mr. Ashenhurst for his cooperation and I'll move the recommendation." Seconded by Whitehead.

McHattie: Has read the report but "just wanted to understand the environmental aspects of this subdivision request, or the potential concerns. I understand that the Grand River Conservation Authority has asked for a setback having to do with the Big Creek valley lands. . first off is there an ESA here as recognized in our Official Plan...? Thompson: "Not a recognized ESA. Hazard lands and a flood plain." McHattie: "When we set the width of the wildlife corridor. GRCA decision, but I'm trying to get a handle on how wide that corridor should be. And it seems to me that there should be criteria established that actually sets the width of the corridor based on the wildlife function that is being sought. . What are we expecting to happen in that wildlife corridor. What function are we trying to preserve with the width of the corridor? . Those are the kind of things that I think we need to identify in our reports. We are setting aside, but I think it would be very difficult for this committee to make a decision on whether it's wide enough unless we had some decision points or some discussion in the reports. . So if it's 10 metres wide we can expect to have movement of certain species; if it's 20 metres wide we can expect to have movement of other species. And it really depends of course on what species are in that area. What are we trying to achieve with the width of that corridor. These are details and we don't often get down to this level of detail, but from an ecological functioning perspective, we lose these functions over a period of time, subdivision by subdivision. They tend to be cumulative effects which are very difficult to deal with but unless we have a sense of what the goals are, to protect that natural area overall we end up killing it with the death of a thousand cuts. That's how it happens. A number of subdivisions go in and eat away at the function of that area. . species nesting there . These are the types of questions that often come up at the ESAIEG [Environmentally Significant Area Impact Evaluation Group] committee. We don't receive the ESAIEG minutes here at this committee and I guess that's a request I'd like to talk about as well. I think we should receive the ESAIEG minutes. . committee has biologists and hydrologists on it, expertise that we can't afford to have on staff. . Maybe I can ask if in this case any of that thinking occurred and maybe I can follow up just with a request" for ESAIEG minutes. Coveyduck: No problem forwarding minutes "as long as you appreciate that the comments are providing advice to staff. We do though provide the comments in each application."

McHattie apologises for taking committee through this on a specific application and says he supports its approval but wants committee to get into this kind of discussion about rationale for buffer widths. "So can I understand for this particular development why we chose this particular width?" Thompson: "With respect to this in conversation with the GRCA and walking the site and determing the top of bank, the main concern of the conservation authority was the erosion of that top of bank and its impact on the Big Creek tributary that runs through there. It really wasn't looked at from an animal, wildlife species perspective. The 9 metres was determined as a setback through geological and technical studies determining that the rate of erosion over time, if we allowed structures to encroach any closer than 9 metres, would negatively impact the Big Creek valley lands." McHattie suggests in future should provide more rationale. Asks "is this a proposed ESA, has it been examined as a natural area? . or is it just simply a floodplain?" Thompson says it was recognized as hazard land and doesn't know if it's proposed as an ESA. Coveyduck: "I'm not aware that it's being proposed as a future ESA". Notes some recommendations came forward in the past 18 months "and this one was not included."

Merulla asks if there is a need for a resolution to get the ESAIEG minutes. Coveyduck: "We'll just forward a copy by email after each meeting . and we'll continue to put comments in the report". Merulla: "Whe we refer to the environment and ecological issues, it's so broad and general that we don't have the details surrounding what impacts. . if we could have a category just to give a brief synopsis of the impacts, it would be greatly helpful to me. Is there any merit in pursuing that?" Kelly : "I'm wondering if the first step might be just to get the information and then from that information we can determine just how useful that is and if we need to be specific that might just be the next step." Merulla agrees. Kelly: "Lets get the information and then we'll all run to Brian to ask what this means."

Ferguson: "Jason answered the question. Conservation's mandate is watershed management, period. And the top of bank setback. This is the top of the crick bank. This is the top of the slope and they can't build within seven metres of that. That's what this application refers to."

Whitehead: "I think councillor Merulla makes an excellent point. . why we don't have a specific section on environmental impacts for each and every proposal that comes in with one or two or three lines or incorporate the minutes. You say you want to phase it in. I don't see why we can't do that now. We're doing it basically with everything else. Why don't we throw a subset with environmental impacts into the report." Kelly refers to Coveyduck. Coveyduck: "That's actually a really good suggestion. Staff is in the process corporately at looking at a full report format review and I think council and committee had already suggested some additional changes to the report format so we could take that into consideration when were looking at putting environmental impact heading in the reports." Kelly: "We've had some discussion - Ms. Coveyduck and Al Fletcher - about the whole way that we're doing reports. So I think it's very timely that we have this discussion at this point. We'll see what we can do to incorporate those."

McHattie: "I don't want to get into a debate about the Conservation Authorities role. I know that through their legislation they're focused on top of bank issues and flood and fill regulations, but they do get involved in commenting on a lot of other things, ecological criteria and that sort of thing. They've got a biologist on staff and they also work with the department of Fisheries and Oceans on fisheries issues. I know that they are involved in a lot more than just top of bank, although that's specifically that's what their legislation is all about. Councillor Ferguson is right on the legislation aspect." Kelly: "Good discussion, good debate. Motion has been moved by Ferguson seconded by Whitehead. All in favour. Carried."

6.4 Ms Kathy Drewitt, Hamilton Downtown BIA respecting parking in the Downtown. (Delegation request approved May 4, 04)

While waiting for powerpoint setup, Whitehead notes that the mayor is present "and with the successful election of Andrea Horwath there will not be a political representative to represent the downtown area. And this would be an appropriate time to raise that." He has talked to Merulla and they are "prepared to put our names forward to support the linkage for the downtown . for the time being." Ask that this be incorporated into the minutes. Kelly: "Actually councillor, the mayor and I and a number of other people I'm told on council had discussions about this and I'm understanding, Mr. Mayor, this will be dealt with at Strategic Planning and Budgets tomorrow afternoon." Merulla: " . I think it's important that we recognize some of the demographic similarities between some wards and I would be more than willing to take on some of the workload as well." Kelly reiterates being dealt with tomorrow. DiIanni: "I did want to touch on this tomorrow and I want to make sure that we have administrative support for the residents and businesses in Ward 2 as well as some political support as well. I appreciate the spirit of helpfulness and I think it's going to have to be a team effort of some sort. I'll come forward with some suggestions tomorrow and see what happens." Kelly confirms it's at 1:30 pm.

Drewitt: would welcome discussion on representation "because we are already at this point feeling quite a gap at the loss of Andrea." She draws attention of committee to impact of road construction work on downtown businesses especially on downtown parking. BIA formed in 1982 bounded by Main, McNab, Rebecca and Mary and including 285 businesses and "I'd say 80 to 100 property owners". Construction June 1 to November on Hughson, Rebecca and King William. One-third of 150 on-street meters won't be accessible, plus a 50-space lot on Hughson North. Expansion of fire station on John, so temporary station on parking lot and occupying 40 spaces. Expansion of old BofM building at Main and James will eliminate 20 spaces permanently. Need for cleanup of alleyways and signage to allow access to other areas. Total of 145 parking spaces eliminated during construction period. BIA doing special promotions to draw people downtown. Asks council to convert empty lots into parking areas to reduce pressure. Suggests lot on Rebecca and Catharine for 100 spaces, plus King and James south near Pigott building for another 80 spaces. Asks that council adopt policy allowing free two hour parking on remaining 80 downtown metres during the construction period. "Each metre downtown generates approximately $535 a year" so she calculates cost of free metres for half year as about $21,200.

Pearson asks about ownership of Rebecca lot. Response is off-mic. Kelly asks Coveyduck to comment. Coveyduck notes that there is a bylaw prohibiting more surface parking lots in the downtown. She suggests that committee refer this issue to the staff for a report, "including any revenue losses from meters, the impact of longer-term parkers parking in those meters instead of there being turnover which is really what we're hoping for for the businesses, as well as issues with the zoning". Merulla indicates he will support the request from the BIA and moves to refer it to staff. McHattie also supports it and notes city spending dollars to improve the downtown and should continue the investment. Whitehead asks "is there enough parking now to accommodate the needs of the downtown businesses?" This should be considered in report. Can there be temporary parking lots set up to get around existing rules? Kelly notes that policies were put in place "for the best of reasons, because what was happening is that buildings were being torn down and turned into parking lots. We put that bylaw in as an interim measure, years ago". Request for staff report moved by Merulla, seconded by McHattie. Carried.

7.1 2003 Annual Economic Review (ECO04005)

Continue to Part 2