Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Nous avons converti notre devanture Bonsoir Bonsoir Je vais afficher l'ordre du jour Très bien Bienvenue à la réunion de la commission d'urbanisme de ce mardi 18 août. Je déclare la séance ouverte. Pouvons-nous procéder à l'appel, s'il vous plaît ?

Monsieur Agarty.

Présent.

Madame Austin. Présent. Monsieur Montiel. Présent. Monsieur Adams.

Présent.

Madame Oupka. Présent. Monsieur Renson.

Présent.

Monsieur Kaplan.

Présent.

Madame Cesario, present, and President Martinez, present.

Thank you all. I am delighted to see that the panel is complete this evening. The first point in the order of the day is the approval of the June 21 verbal trial. I hope you have all been able to consult it. As a reminder, even if you were not there, you had the opportunity to read this verbal trial and vote in favor. Or if you have corrections or additions, this is the time. Ready for the vote? I propose his approval. Thank you, Colin. Anyone to support?

I support.

Thank you, Amy. And Nancy, let's proceed with the vote.

Mr. Agarty.

Yes.

Mrs. Austin. Yes. Mr. Montiel.

For.

Mr. Adams. For. Mrs. Upka. Yes. Mr. Dave. Oh, excuse me, Mr. Renson.

Yes.

Monsieur Caplan. Pour.

Madame Cesario. Oui. Et la Présidente Martinez. Pour. La motion est adoptée. Merci.

Merci à tous. Le point suivant à l'ordre du jour est le forum public. Je ne vois personne dans la salle. Y a-t-il quelqu'un en ligne ? Très bien. Passons à l'audience publique. Dossier numéro 2026 à 06. Non-conforming residential use. This you will do. Thank you.

I beg your pardon, Madam President. Can we have a motion to open the public audience?

Oh, let's forget that. Okay. May I have a motion? I propose the opening of the public audience. I press the motion.

Mr. Agarty? Yes. Madam Austin? Yes. Mr. Montiel?

For.

Mr. Adams?

For.

Madame Oupka. Oui. Monsieur Renson.

Oui.

Monsieur Kaplan. Pour. Madame Cesario. Oui. Et la Présidente Martinez.

Pour.

Merci.

Très bien. Je m'en occupe. Bonjour.

Veuillez lever la main droite. Jurez-vous ou affirmez-vous sous peine de parjure que vous direz la vérité lors de cette procédure devant la Commission d'Urbanisme d'Inglewood ?

Je le jure.

Veuillez indiquer votre nom et votre fonction.

E. Will Charles, urbaniste principal.

Merci.

Très bien. The presentation of tonight will be quite quick. Tonight, we are talking about non-conforming residential uses. To make a little recap, we had a study session with the municipal council last April. We met this commission in July. Then, we attended two district evenings on July 8 and August 12. We tried to go to another one. However, it was cancelled because of the rain, so we could only do two. Regarding the changes in regulations, the first part is essentially to divide this section 1618 C4 in two. One deals with non-residential non-conform uses that will remain as indicated in the current code. And then section C5, which is the part intended for non-conform residential uses, is the one that contains the changes today. The first part provides for a 3-year delay instead of 1 year to obtain a reconstruction permit. Then, you can either restore what exists, or build a new structure if it has been damaged or destroyed. You can do it with the same number of structures or with fewer structures than before. So, no addition, but an equal or lower number. Then, everything relating to the development or applicable design standards, apart from the obvious derogations related to this section, must be respected. And the last point is that after this three-year delay, you will have to comply with the standards if you have not obtained a permit in this interval. Finally, the last point is simply to maintain similar delays for the elements of the section on non-conforming structures. The delay is from one year to three years, otherwise the section remains unchanged. That's all for the presentation. Voici le calendrier des prochaines étapes, avez-vous des questions à me poser? Colin. Une petite question, et je pense que c'est peut-être un point que je n'ai pas saisi. Je ne crois pas me souvenir que nous ayons dit que le non résidentiel ne pouvait pas être reconstruit. Je veux dire, nous avons évidemment parlé de tout le reste. Est-ce bien ce que nous avons décidé, qu'un usage non résidentiel ne pouvait pas être rétabli s'il s'agissait de non résidentiel? Oui. Keep in mind that this section has evolved a little last year concerning non-conform commercial uses. In reality, the only ones who are now entering this section on non-conform residential uses are non-residential uses in commercial areas. It could be, you know, a non-conform use on Broadway or a non-conform use in the industrial area. So, they are the only ones who really enter this category. But yes, the way in which the code is written today and in which it would be maintained, is that if it was destroyed or demolished, you should come back to a consistent use. For example, one of the things that was mentioned with commercial uses, was the ice cream shop, wasn't it? So, tell yourself with this one that if it was damaged or burned, it could not come back. As a use of this type? Yes, the cases we talked about previously. The existing commercial structures, this is how the term was defined. So, yes, like the ice cream shops and the others in residential neighborhoods. They, this is what we now call existing commercial structures. They are therefore excluded from this one. Hum, these are really commercial uses in commercial areas, commercial and industrial uses in industrial areas. Donc, s'il y avait, disons, une fonderie sur Broadway, il n'y en a pas, mais si c'était le cas et qu'elle brûlait, il devrait revenir avec un usage conforme plutôt qu'une fonderie. Est-ce que c'est clair? Donc cet amendement ne s'applique pas au usage non résidentiel dans les zones résidentielles. Exact. D'accord. Oui.

Attendez, sur quel amendement votons-nous ce soir? C'est

C'est pour l'usage résidentiel non conforme. C'est pour le résidentiel et c'est l'amendement complet. Il ne s'agit pas seulement du délai de construction, n'est-ce pas?

Exact. Il s'agirait de tous ces changements de réglementation. Le 1658 C4 conserve essentiellement cette réglementation telle qu'elle est aujourd'hui. La seule différence est que nous l'avons divisé en non résidentiel et résidentiel. Le résidentiel est la seule partie qui comporte réellement des changements. Can you give us an idea of what has changed or of the added or deleted nuance since the last conversation we had on this subject? Yes, the only thing that has really changed is the structure, hum, what we really talked about and remained the same. So, in reality, the objective is to allow a demolished or destroyed structure to be rebuilt with the same number of units, but without necessarily having to be exactly the same structures as the ones that exist today. You could then rebuild it according to the same dimensional standards as an authorized use. For example, in the R1A area, this would involve a 25 feet back, 5 feet on the sides and 20 feet back, this kind of thing. Or you can simply rebuild what was there before its demolition.

Okay, but I just want to clarify some points. This is not necessarily the case if it has been destroyed by accident. This changes the situation. Thus, a promoter can buy the property, raze one of its buildings and rebuild it. Of course! Now, are there affordable housing subject to restrictions in this ordinance among all the houses you have listed?

It is very delicate and it is probably not advisable to distinguish what is accidentally demolished from what it is voluntarily. You don't really want to encourage accidental destruction of property. That's why they go hand in hand, whether it's demolition or destruction in any situation, whether it's intentional or not.

Well no, of course, but that encourages someone to buy the property, to demolish it and to rebuild it so that it is no longer affordable, isn't it? A restriction or a restrictive clause is linked to the land. Does a restriction mean that we should build something that is affordable? Today, these units, the 200 numbered structures, are non-conforming. These are older duplexes and older houses. Their rent is therefore lower. These are older houses. They are affordable for a first buyer. If we adopt this ordinance, the market value of these properties will increase, thus encouraging owners to sell them and shave them. We know from experience that once shaved, they are rebuilt at a much higher cost and are no longer affordable. I know that you have included this in the strategic plan for affordability, but I'm trying to understand what makes housing affordable in this project.

Of course. In the end, these are non-conforming properties that have additional units in relation to what the area allows. I understand your point of view, namely that those that currently exist are generally at a price lower than what would be rebuilt. But there is not really any way to guarantee that these units can be rebuilt without authorizing, you know, the reconstruction in case of demolition. You know, that's why when this kind of discussion was initially raised, when we talked about it with the council, we had in a way proposed two options, either to authorize only the reconstructions, or to allow, you know, in case of demolition, to build something different. I think an important part that complicates things is the way in which limited extensions work. Currently, in the code, you could use the limited extension to expand up to the same dimensional standards authorized by the area. So, even with the current regulation, you could expand these structures to the limits of the field. It's only if they burn that you can't rebuild them. So that's the big change, the reconstruction.

You don't stop saying burned. Exactly. But it's not just burned, is it?

It's also demolished. Yes.

Exactly. It's also shaved. Exactly. So you had a call from someone who put pressure on the Department of Urbanism. Exactly. It comes from. It is written in your document that you received a call from a owner. Do they fear that their house will burn or do they want to sell their property?

Of course. When an amendment to the code is asked, it generally comes from the council, which was the case here. Le Conseil nous demande une séance d'études avec eux, nous leur donnons les informations, puis ils nous demandent de poursuivre ou non les amendements au Code. C'est donc là que nous en sommes aujourd'hui. Oui. Eux, juste pour clarifier, je pense, et comme Brenda l'a souligné, ce avec quoi je suis d'accord, c'est que toute opportunité de préserver des logements abordables existants est fantastique. E. It seems to me that authorizing the reconstruction of a larger number of units on a plot that would not normally or currently allow it, would allow to preserve any chance of approachability. E. You know, if we have 4 units on a plot that only authorizes one plus an accessory housing unit, we allow them to rebuild the number of units that were present. Okay, exactly. So, whatever the number of units currently present on the property, they could rebuild them. Of course, we cannot control the price, the quality, or anything else. But it seems to me that if they can build more units, it is more likely that they will be affordable. On this ground, only one unit on this same property.

Not doing this would force them to demolish four units to potentially build only one.

Exactly, yes. I mean, I appreciate Ms. Oefka's point of view on the fact that it allows this additional possibility where we could intentionally demolish the properties, which would remove them, but this also being the possibilities in case of unintentional destruction. So it's a compromise, and there's not really a good way to separate these two aspects.

Well, how many additional units are possible? Can you clarify the question? Yes, exactly. These are already duplexes. There are already several houses currently on these properties.

Of course.

So, according to your theory, if we authorize the non-conforming character, how many additional properties would that allow? And again, what is the justification for the affordable character here, outside the density? Because it's not the same thing. I think there is also the reality of the missing name. If you have a quadruplex that is perhaps no longer up to the current standards and is demolished, they will rebuild one. They could rebuild a quadruplex, which could be an opportunity for a family that does not need social housing, but is looking for something intermediary, currently unavailable. So I don't think it's just social housing or housing at the market price. There is this missing name, which we often talk about, and this could be an opportunity. This destroys the missing chenon. It is missing. We have this missing chenon right now. If you demolish them, if you demolish them, they will no longer be a missing chenon. They can already do it in the current state of affairs. Buy this property. No, they would not do it. They can. But they would not do it because there is no return on investment. If we vote for it, there will be a return on investment to demolish the duplex of the missing chenon to build luxury houses, because it is not in this bill. If we do that, we will remove the missing name. These apartments are currently affordable. These are also houses for first-class access. Is anyone ready to do that? Someone, they can, but there is no incentive. This gives them motivation, because it increases the market value to sell to a promoter, who then demolishes everything to replace your intermediate-sized duplex with a much larger new house.

This motivation already exists.

No, that's not the case, Karine. I mean, they can't, it's because it's inconsistent. You could not demolish a house to build a single one. You will not obtain this single house starting from two. You will not make your investment profitable. This preserves intermediate-size housing. This preserves the missing home and it is a bill favorable to gentrification. It is for the possessing class. This bill Il m'aide assurément car les loyers augmenteront une fois que ces bâtiments seront rasés. Il y a une incitation à raser ces propriétés car elles ont désormais plus de valeur. Si elles restent non conformes, personne ne démolirait un duplex pour construire une seule maison. Vous n'obtiendrez pas de retour sur investissement. Vous comprenez ?

J'apprécie votre point de vue. Je comprends votre position, mais pourriez-vous nous aider à saisir la logique, car quelqu'un pourrait faire cela dès maintenant. This does not incite anything, it does not add any additional motivation.

Why would someone demolish a 4-unit duplex to build a single house?

Well, why would they do it after that?

Because instead of a 4-unit duplex where you maybe touch $ 1,000 a month, this bill allows you to build 4 city houses for more than $ 700,000 each. So it was an affordable duplex. then you demolish it because, thanks to this text, you can sell each of these duplexes for half a million dollars. It destroys affordable housing, that's what I'm trying to tell you. It's an incitement, it increases the value as was the case for commercial properties. It increases the market value once we get out of the non-conforming category.

Can you help us understand the extent of the phenomenon? How many properties are involved here?

It's in the document. There are some, I can tell you that there are some.

Have you seen the document? There are 200 properties.

There are therefore a number of these non-conforming cases which, even today, could be reconstructed identically. They were therefore non-conforming or obtained a non-conforming status before CodeNext authorizes things such as accessory housing units in many neighborhoods. For what concerns the list, I do not have it under my eyes. I don't know if you can display this slide, in terms of the number we have found, these are those that would be even beyond what is authorized by the current code. But in terms of this regulation. So once again, it would be about rebuilding the same number of units, no additional units. In addition, dividing the field to allow multiple properties would increase non-conformity, because you would then divide it into several small fields. This would not change anything regarding the property structure. For this part, you would always have the same land for the property. So, it should, you know, if there were 4 units under a single property, there should be 4 units under the new property.

It would just be more expensive. Yes. But as far as limited extensions are concerned today, you can build, you can enlarge these structures to the total limit of the property. Well, just so you know, there are 142 houses or duplexes. 142 houses or duplexes in the list of probable reconstructions listed in the document. So, 73% of them are not people who live in Englewood or belong to people who have a different tax address. Donc la plupart d'entre eux, eux, plus de la moitié, appartiennent à des gens qui ne vivent même pas à Englewood. Donc je ne suis pas vraiment sûr que cela profite à Englewood. I think you should weigh it carefully and really examine the question, but it is definitely a gentrification law project. I'm sorry, if you care about affordable housing, you would. And in fact, this is the question I have for you, Will. Why this rush? Why not wait for us to adopt the updated urban planning? Why not present it after the new urban planning?

You know, we have a lot of amendments. They all have calendars to follow. If we don't have them, if these amendments, the way the process works, is that we have to pass one on before we can pass another on in a similar section of the Code. So that's what happened at the end of last year where we had a bottleneck between those for national laws, those for non-compliant commercial uses and a few others. What really pushed the calendar until today in August and we finally caught up with the things that had to happen in November of last year. So, the more we can advance things, the better it is.

Of course. But in the overall plan, residents have said massively that they wanted to preserve existing affordable housing. This does not seem to be possible if you try to integrate or adopt this amendment in the new updated plan, because people want to preserve affordable housing as they are today. et je ne vois pas un logement abordable. Je ne vois pas comment cela maintient l'accessibilité financière, c'est ce que je veux dire. C'est juste que si vous pouvez avancer cet argument alors je l'approuverai.

Could you perhaps explain the table you have, E, at the end, on the probability of reconstruction? Of course, E, give me a minute to find it here. Okay, thank you. And while he's looking for it. Yes, so, essentially, the number of remaining properties that would be, E, affected by this amendment is 55. E, the initial count was 203, but with the next code, E, 151 of these properties could reconstruct the same number of units, essentially. So, E, that leaves us with about 55 properties that would be.

I want to clarify, do you mean by affordable the concept of missing middle?

Brenda, affordable. Well, affordable means, E, essentially the missing middle income threshold, you know. E, at the moment, a good number of these houses cost about $ 450,000 on the market. You know, renting one of these duplexes costs less than $ 2,000 per month. Uh, everything you demolish will never come back at this price. No matter if it's 4 or 6 units. Any new construction will cost more than $ 2,000 per month of rent. And these houses are sold, these duplexes that are just north of us are sold for an average of $ 670,000. For me, this is not an average income. Well, let's look at the other side of the question. Si l'un de ces immeubles de 4, 6 ou 8 unités est inondé à plus de 60% de ces dommages, le propriétaire actuel, si nous ne faisions pas cela, ne pourrait pas reconstruire ces unités But yes, if 60% are damaged, which does not always happen with a flood. And according to them, I checked the frequency of a fire. A fire that destroys more than 60% of your property occurs during a 30-year mortgage loan. It is 0.005% of probability that this happens. So, this is not a case of fire. It's because someone spoke to the municipal council and wants to sell his property for more. Ils veulent raser ces maisons.

Euh, je ne pourrais vraiment pas soutenir cela.

I have a question that comes back to Colin's on the graph and on his explanation. On the large table, hum, there is this column, probability of reconstruction. So, those with an X and in red are those who have something on the property. Does everyone see which table we are talking about? Yes, okay, everyone is there, sorry, I just want to make sure everyone is okay. Thank you. Yes, so, hum, roughly on this column of probability of reconstruction, there is, unlikely, and, likely. Cela signifie simplement que dans la catégorie « peu probable », il y a des cas où, selon le code actuel, on ne pourrait pas reconstruire ce qui existe sur place. Um, ceux qui sont « probables » sont des cas où tout élément non conforme sur cette propriété pourrait, um, probablement être reconstruit aujourd'hui. This could be, for example, an accessory housing unit or a basement apartment in an R1 area, where HADOO regulations now allow building, while it was not authorized at the time of recording. Hum, so if you, you know, if you go through this list, hum, with, you see, a finer analysis, you could probably delete all those that are likely to be rebuilt. May I ask a clarification question, Brenda? According to what I hear, it seems that your concern is that someone living outside of Englewood owns a four-room apartment building. The idea is that once this is adopted, they will come to demolish an old four-room apartment building, let's call it missing intermediate housing, to rebuild it into a more luxurious building in order to sell it or rent it more expensive. Is that right?

Well, yes, it is because of the cost of construction. Tout ce que vous construisez aujourd'hui sera bien sûr plus cher que ce qui existe actuellement. Ma préoccupation est de préserver le stock de logements intermédiaires, n'est-ce pas? Hum, parce que ce sont ces anciennes maisons qu'un primo accédant peut, peut se permettre d'acheter. Et je regarde cette liste de maisons et j'en cherche quelques-unes, et je me dis, c'est parfait pour un primo accédant. Et je vois, je vois l'idée de tout raser. Je veux dire, nous l'avons vu au nord d'ici. They have, they have razed some residences to build city houses, and I was shocked by the sale price. It's true. So, I don't see at all the financial accessibility result of all this. I have big concerns about this. Hum, and I don't think that's what the residents want. I want, the residents want to preserve affordable houses for the first-hand. And, hum, some of them will be duplexes, but these are, these are correct rents, you know.

I mean, are these duplexes sellable, like these multiple units in the R1 zones? So, whatever the current property structure, it will remain with the adoption of this regulation. So, you know, if it is a single property, it will remain under a single property after that. But some of them may have a mutual wall agreement and two owners or something like that. Yes, and in these cases, it would remain intact. I mean, I understand what Brenda is saying. I think I see the gray area that lends itself to confusion, but it may be what you approached earlier, Will, the fact that we cannot distinguish an intentional demolition from a fire. Is that the problem? Because, for me, is there a way to prevent someone from being encouraged to simply demolish something that is not suitable to rebuild it as identical, but more chic, just to earn more money? Is there a way around this? Because in the end, it comes down to using the rules only to make more profit, rather than creating rules to protect affordable housing. Yes. I mean, not in a simple way. You know, it was a bit the subject of the two options we talked about at the beginning, namely whether it was simply necessary to authorize the reconstruction of the existing or allow a new construction. But again, everything comes back to the way in which limited extensions work today. You can enlarge these structures up to the authorized capacity for a property in this area. So, whether you authorize it or impose a ceiling on a part, you can always build up to this same capacity. It's just a matter of knowing what constraints you want to impose on someone to get there. So, the simplest option, the clearest way to manage it, is to authorize new constructions up to the same density. Eh, all that goes beyond that would remain a situation where we could try to get everything into the same frame with these limited extensions as they exist today. Is it logical? I mean, it is, but from a practical point of view, the idea of ​​taking an old brick structure and saying, well, theoretically, you could add 1500 more feet according to the code. The reality is that doing this without demolishing everything is more expensive than building a new one. I therefore think that the preservation of existing housing effectively dissuades from adding a lot of volume to an old house. There are simply inherent limits to old structures that make it unapproachable or unprofitable. I am not totally convinced in one way or another, but I understand the argument and I wonder if there is a way. My question is, can we dissuade people who do not live here from buying properties, demolishing them and rebuilding them for more? Is there a way to prevent this or not? As I said, it is not simple. There is a defined number of available units, and this is the quantity that can be built. It is therefore not an incitative measure consisting of authorizing an additional density or other. It is exactly the same quantity as what currently exists. So the same number of families, units and houses as there are today. This is what I see from a general point of view. This does not add any right to build on these properties. This gives nothing extra to the promoters. Yes, they can demolish and rebuild, but they could as well empty their houses and install high-end finishes, high-quality landscaping and rent them much more expensive. This can happen today.

In fact, it may be the most profitable way to get a good income on these homes. In this case, we do not need this amendment.

But this amendment also preserves the possibility, for destroyed houses, to be rebuilt with the same number of units. I see this as a protection of the number of units.

Madam President, okay, I, I mean, sorry, who raised their hand?

Pardon?

Madam Sori has raised her hand for a while. It doesn't matter. Amy, then Eric. One of the things that struck me after reading the text is that if they are not consistent and there are 5 units on a property while only 4 are authorized, why not authorize the 5? Because if we authorize the 5, it would create smaller units, which would then allow 2. Keep what worries Brenda, that is to say a smaller size, and there would then be the possibility of having units at a lower price, rather than at a higher price due to the density. So why would we not want to authorize the reconstruction of what already exists?

I. Yes, I am only the staff, so I simply provide the information on which these regulations are based, based on what was said at our last meeting at the council. So that's what you have in your eyes. E. But yes, the number of units would remain the same. Noah, then Eric, we will return to Brenda. E. So I still have trouble understanding how it interacts with. Non-conforming commercial uses, in the sense that, when I read the way in which paragraph 4 is now written, any non-residential structure, etc., it seems to me to refer to commercial structures. So, can you explain again why you say that it does not apply? Yes, the main reason is the terminology that we have modified in recent months concerning these structures. The ones we discussed last year, and at the beginning of this year, have gone to what we now call existing commercial structures. So, instead of being a non-conformity, these are now a conformable use for these properties. They have, you know, design standards that apply purely to these 12 properties. This part now really refers to non-residential uses, i.e. non-conforming in its commercial and industrial properties. So, it could be, you know, I gave the example of the foundry on Broadway, but it could also be a heavy industrial use on an I1 property. So, these are things where it is probably more logical, if they were demolished, that they disappear, because the reason why they are not authorized in these areas is generally due to some kind of damage. We have had a few of them on Broadway over the years, such as those that emit a lot of smell, a lot of noise and that kind of thing, where it is a non-conform use that must remain. But, you know, if it ever had to be removed, it would probably be the right time to seal and install something else instead. So, okay. Thank you. Yes, it was Eric.

Yes. So, I just want to point out that there are three of my houses on this list. You have the 3853 South Logan, the 4295 South Clarkson, which is my main residence, and the 4245 South Delaware Street. All are single-family houses with a historical remit. So, if something had to happen to one of them, I could, I could always build. I can't build more than I could. You can always build an accessory housing unit, a house. In fact, you could always build a house. Yes, you could. In fact, you would lose your historical value, but there is actually no loss here. Everyone is allowed in your area to build a house. So, there is no net gain here. There is no loss. That's exactly what I'm saying. You do not get, you have nothing to gain for most of these properties where I see a green box and which are likely to be rebuilt. There are not these properties with a higher value because you could have an existing house that you could rent in addition to the main house. Until the changes brought by Title XVI, you could build an add-on, but if you did, you were forced to live in the main unit or in the accessory unit. New? No?

Yes.

Well, what happens is that you can't have short-term rent, that's where you get confused. You don't have to.

No, I'm not mistaken. Brenda, I'm not mistaken.

It doesn't matter. What matters right now is that tomorrow, if your house burned down, you could rebuild a house without any changes. It doesn't even affect that. That's right.

And that's my point, that what we're talking about today doesn't affect the vast majority of the properties that we see here in this picture.

No, but what it does, and here's the point. Here is my question for you. You have cited, not you, but the staff has cited that this is in accordance with the strategic plan of approachability and I still do not see it. In what way does this amendment concern not only the preservation of development rights after demolition and not the guarantee of approachability? I would say that forcing a lower density on properties that currently have a higher density is a problem that would affect approachability.

I appreciate what you say, namely that there is a potential for these properties to be demolished, then potentially rebuilt with a more expensive unit. But in the end, those with a higher number of units also mean that there is now a greater obstacle to want to rebuild, unless something happens. So, some of them are like a 12-unit building in the underground districts. There is not much incentive to demolish it and rebuild it when there is already this number of units in place. So, it's really just to protect these units if something happens to them.

There is no incitement. You said, I'm sorry. Uh, I think we've done a lot of back and forth on this subject. Uh, Brenda, do you feel like you've expressed your concerns about this subject well? If you want to present a motion. No, no, that's not what I'm saying. I want to make sure you had the opportunity to share your opinion on this subject, then we can do an informal survey to see if other people have one. No, that's right. Thank you. Everything is fine for me.

Okay. E. Just a quick question, I suppose. So, the next steps, we vote for or against the approval, then it goes to the council to make the final decision? Is that right? Exactly. Yes. So, after this, it will come back for the conclusions of facts, then the three usual steps of the council. Public audience, first reading, second reading. Okay. I just wanted to say that there will be other opportunities. I think, for us, you know, to give our opinion. But I find that these are excellent conversations and honestly, Brandon, you make me think a lot. You know, to things that I may not have thought about before. I think the process we discussed seems logical to me, but I also understand some of your concerns. E. Je suis plutôt à l'aise avec ça et je pense que c'était votre question. Alors merci. Super. Amy.

J'ai juste une dernière question, car j'ai beaucoup hésité après avoir lu tout cela, réfléchi et discuté. Si vous avez un quadruplex sur E, n'importe quelle propriété actuellement et que vous voulez construire. Un duplex avec deux ados. Dans cette zone non conforme, est-ce que ce serait toujours autorisé?

Oui. Donc, E, pour le 1658C5B. Units can be built in the same number of structures or less. So, if you had a quadruplex at the moment, you would rebuild this quadruplex. If you had a triplex and an adductor, you could build either a triplex and an adductor, or a quadruplex.

I thought I knew the answer. I just wanted to clarify because we went around in circles, and I just... Thanks. But if you had a quadruplex, you couldn't build a city house. Sorry, you couldn't put a duplex and two ados detached? Yes, you could.

Correct. The same number of structures or less compared to what exists today. Structures, however. So if it's a quadruplex, it's a structure. Correct.

So it could be a co-propriety of four units if, e, if it was allowed on four levels.

Yes, I mean, in the end, there are height limits. That's right.

Okay. But it could be four units on top of each other. It doesn't need to be identical. Okay.

Quelqu'un de ce côté-ci? Très bien. Eux, faisons une motion pour eux pour approuver.

Nous devons voter la clôture de l'audience publique. Oh, oui, désolé, si vous avez posé toutes vos questions, le personnel.

Oui, très bien, passons à la motion de clôture.

Eux, je propose de clore l'audience publique. Je seconde la motion.

Monsieur Agarty. Oui. Mrs. Austin? Yes. Mr. Montiel? For? Mr. Adams?

Uh, no.

To close the public audience. To close the public audience. Thank you. Mrs. EPKA? Yes. Mr. Renson?

Yes.

Mr. Kaplan? For? Madame Sarriot. Yes. And President Martinez.

The motion is adopted.

Three steps. Very good. Yes, the audience is closed. Other discussions that will not include, who? Colin. As if you knew. I was just going to press the button. I've been thinking about it for a second. I think the reality is that there was a gap in the code that allows, I think, to fill. Is it perfect? I don't know if it is. I don't know if anything can be perfect, but I think it offers a structure that our teams can follow in the event of destruction or demolition of a property. It provides them with directives, and it guarantees that they can be reconstructed into quadruplexes if necessary. Or whatever the type of unit, you know, it may be more expensive, but it at least offers the opportunity to have another quadruplex. So that's how I see things. Your viewer is on. What? Do you have a comment? I just wanted to add, Bren, that I really appreciate your feeling and I completely agree with everything we can do to preserve existing affordable housing. I think it works in both ways. I think, yes, some could be demolished to build expensive things, but it also preserves the possibility of maintaining an equivalent number of units. E. I also think that there are probably tools and more effective measures to preserve affordable housing that we should talk about and that the council should examine rather than simply, you know, the non-conforming uses. E. Yes, that's my opinion. Anyone else? No. E. I just wanted to. Let's say that in view of this table on the probability of reconstruction, we are talking about a very small number of properties. Once again, it is similar to what we were talking about concerning non-conforming commercial uses. So, according to my understanding, and someone should correct me if you do not agree, the green column essentially indicates that these properties would not need this change to be reconstructed. The only properties for which this change would have an impact on their right to reconstruction would be those marked as unlikely. And, you know, I didn't count, but there are 55 in red. So, it's a small number of properties. And I agree with Aaron to say that I think. that preserving the possibility of rebuilding in case of demolition with the same number of units, without going back to a lower number, is preferable. Even in light of the possibilities that Brenda has raised, which are quite legitimate. But this is how I perceive the balance. Eric.

Yes. I would just like to point out that in the R2B zones, let's look at, for example, the 1990 South Lincoln Street. It's R2B. There are three main units. The current code in R2B would authorize two main units and three add-ons, one of which can be detached and the other two should also be internal. So, the current code actually allows you to build more units in case of destruction or demolition. And you can observe this for any of the R2B zones you see there. I'm not sure about the R2A. I don't think we can ask Will now, but I think it is. I think it is. If I was a promoter and I had an R2B field with 3 destroyed units, and I could rebuild 5 units, I would rebuild the 5 units. Well, you have just made a remark. You have pleaded against us. You are doing this because it is the current code. If it is not compliant, you must build according to the current code. If the current code authorizes your 5 units, then we do not need this bill. You see? So, if the intention of Title 16 was really to put non-conformities in conformity. This is a solution to bypass the Title 16 code. Then, you know, sorry, it helps as a owner. I am part of the class of owners. I really thought it was very important for those of you who defend affordable housing to be careful about what this bill is really going to do, because it will certainly encourage demolitions, even if it is only 55 properties. And even if it is only 55 properties, it is still 55 housing that will be more expensive after the promoters have bought them, left vacant for 3 years and benefited from this lower value by amortization while they demolish another. I therefore do not see this as a preservation of affordable housing at the end of the account. Thank you, I'm done.

Very well, let's move on to the vote or to a motion followed by a vote. Okay, I propose to approve, I suppose, for a moment, the amendment to the text for non-conform residential use cases 2026 to 2026.

Je seconde.

Merci Michel et Colin.

Monsieur Agarty. Oui. Madame Austin.

Oui. Monsieur Montiel.

Oui.

Monsieur Adams.

Oui.

Madame Upka. Non. Monsieur Renson.

Oui.

Monsieur Kaplan. Madame Cesario. Oui.

President Martinez.

Oui. La motion est adoptée. Présent. Nous passons ensuite au choix du personnel.

Oui, merci. Nous avons un point. Le personnel souhaitait évaluer l'intérêt de la Commission pour une formation générale sur les rôles et responsabilités. Jackson would make a legal overview, an examination of the development process, and really everything that could interest the Commission. Obviously, I am new to this position. I don't know when it was done for the last time. But we wanted to come and see you to see if you would be interested.

Very well, thank you. Yes, I would like that this includes contributions from the Commission on the questions it could have concerning our roles, our duties, our limits, and that we collaborate to establish an order of the day. Okay. Great. Nancy.

Just a reminder that this meeting will take place on Wednesday because of the Labor Day. So it will be on Wednesday September 9th. If you already know that you will not be able to attend, send me an email or let me know, it would be perfect.

Are we talking about the next meeting for this or any future meeting? I can't get involved for the next meeting.

Yes, okay.

Mais, Président Martinez, je prendrai contact avec vous pour établir ensemble un ordre du jour global pour cette formation et nous pourrons commencer à préparer ce document. Nous ne l'avons pas encore préparé. Hum, nous voulions d'abord nous assurer que vous étiez tous intéressés, puis nous reviendrons vers vous avec une date précise. Parfait. Merci. Euh, très bien. Hum, nous passons au choix du conseiller Jackson.

Génial. Merci. Regarding our September 9 meeting, at the moment, only the presentation of the conclusions was planned, which we can do online according to our new policy. But we have received new directives from the Council on the regulation of data centers, so I was planning, if possible, to present something concrete to you during this September 9 meeting. Évidemment, si vous ne pouvez pas être présent en personne, nous pouvons tenir une réunion virtuelle pour approuver les conclusions. Si vous pouvez être présent, alors j'aimerais fixer cela au 9 septembre. Hum, je ne sais pas comment nous voulons évaluer la disponibilité de chacun. Si vous pouvez en parler maintenant, nous pourrons nous faire une idée. Euh, si vous préférez simplement envoyer un email à notre administratrice, Madame Fenton, cela convient aussi.

Oui, peut-être que Nancy, si tu pouvais envoyer un questionnaire sur qui peut être là le 9, ce serait parfait. Merci beaucoup. Very good. E, choice of commissioners. Let's start here with Colin. Nothing today, thank you. Hum, nothing for me. It was just nice to have everyone in the room today. Brenda.

Hum, yes, just for information, on August 10, the council received the investment budget if anyone wants to know how it was settled. Hum, just a few points. Hum, it seems that we are going to redo one of the three elevators of the Civic Center. The big budget posts, the parking is still planned for 1.7 million, but the ... what am I talking about? The project of a complete street in Hampton, they are not going to move forward with that. So, uh, you might want to take a look at it. What have they added here? The TASER equipment, the small dry-quick place will pay for it instead of asking for it at the EDDDA. And the rest seems identical. In case you are curious, this comes from the 10 August study session.

Thank you Brenda, David, Michel, Karl, everything is fine. Very well, thank you. On this, we can end the session. Thank you all.