Common use of Public Hearing Process Clause in Contracts

Public Hearing Process. The applicant’s response to Council’s December 12, 2018 motion results in three changes to the plans advertised and considered at the December 12, 2018 public hearing and the original public hearing in 2014: • the proposed wetland buffer has been increased from 20 meters (65.6 feet.) to 23.5 meters (77.1 feet.) • the proposed commercial building footprint has been reduced by 74.6 square meters (802 square feet); and • 5 parking spaces on the property have been eliminated. Material changes to the development proposal after the public hearing have been identified as being significant enough to necessitate an additional public hearing to ensure the community has adequate opportunity to comment on the merits of the application in context of the proposed changes. The original public hearing was held on June 4, 2014. Three written submissions were provided and two members of the community spoke at the hearing. One of the written submissions was in support of the proposal and two were in opposition. One of the opposing submissions was based on environmental Case 21847: Amending Development Agreement PID ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇., ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Community Council Report - 4 - December 11, 2019 impacts and one was primarily for competitive business reasons. Both speakers spoke generally in favour of the application but noted concerns about risks to water quality. See Attachment E for minutes of that public hearing and copies of the written submissions. One community member spoke at the subsequent public hearing on December 12, 2018 raising similar questions with respect to water quality and adequacy of the 20 meter buffer. No additional public input was received. The changes submitted by the applicant are in direct response to the only issues raised by community members throughout the course of the application. Staff advise these alterations are minor and represent a reduction in development intensity. None of these changes represent fundamental alterations to the proposal previously approved and they are unlikely to generate additional community impacts.

Public Hearing Process. The applicant’s response to Council’s December 12, 2018 motion results in three changes to the plans advertised and considered at the December 12, 2018 public hearing and the original public hearing in 2014: • the proposed wetland buffer has been increased from 20 meters (65.6 feet.) to 23.5 meters (77.1 feet.) • the proposed commercial building footprint has been reduced by 74.6 square meters (802 square feet); and • 5 parking spaces on the property have been eliminated. Material changes to the development proposal after the public hearing have been identified as being significant enough to necessitate an additional public hearing to ensure the community has adequate opportunity to comment on the merits of the application in context of the proposed changes. The original public hearing was held on June 4, 2014. Three written submissions were provided and two members of the community spoke at the hearing. One of the written submissions was in support of the proposal and two were in opposition. One of the opposing submissions was based on environmental Case 21847: Amending Development Agreement PID ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇., ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Community Council Report - 4 - December 11, 2019 impacts and one was primarily for competitive business reasons. Both speakers spoke generally in favour of the application but noted concerns about risks to water quality. See Attachment E for minutes of that public hearing and copies of the written submissions. Case 21847: Amending Development Agreement PID ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇., ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Community Council Report - 4 - October 15, 2019 One community member spoke at the subsequent public hearing on December 12, 2018 raising similar questions with respect to water quality and adequacy of the 20 meter buffer. No additional public input was received. The changes submitted by the applicant are in direct response to the only issues raised by community members throughout the course of the application. Staff advise these alterations are minor and represent a reduction in development intensity. None of these changes represent fundamental alterations to the proposal previously approved and they are unlikely to generate additional community impacts.