Joelle Kovach

The meeting adjourns at 9:50 p.m, 5 hours and 20 minutes after it started. Thank you for joining me for this entirely human-generated news (no artifical intelligence involved in this live-tweet, I promise).

It carries 8-3 to remove building height restrictions in the OP, as well as to remove angular plane requirements. The dissenting votes were from Bierk, Lachica and Riel.

Yes. Mayor Leal mentioned that, saying he would prefer they use the term non-market, but then that opened a discussion about whether that might mean a private developer looking to build affordable housing would be frozen out.

They vote 7-4 to uphold the chair's ruling - so the amendment proposed by @alexbierk.bsky.social is set aside. Voting against the chair's ruling are Bierk and Lachica, as well as @mattcrowley.bsky.social and Coun. Riel

Now he and Parnell are arguing about whether this is contrary to the earlier resolution of council previously. Parnell is calling it a reconsideration - @alexbierk.bsky.social challenges the chair.

Parnell is asking where this amendment came from. She's saying there's concern about amendments and delegations coming to councillors during meetings from the outside... @alexbierk.bsky.social takes exception to that, saying he wrote it. He says he didn't know he was under investigation.

Parnell spoke over @alexbierk.bsky.social
"You talked about respect earlier and now you're cutting me off," says Bierk. "Fair enough," says @alexbierk.bsky.social

Yet another amendment now from @alexbierk.bsky.social ... His amendment is to nvmd the removal of building height and removal of requirement for angular planes and have staff rethink it, and come back with other options.

Thank you!!!!

Chair Parnell allows him to change his vote. Which means her ruling holds. Voting to uphold her ruling are Baldwin, Duguay, Parnell, Beamer, Haacke and Vassiliadis. WHICH MEANS that Riel's idea for another round of consultaitons is nixed.

They voted just now to uphold the chair's ruling to toss out the amendment from Riel, and it lost 5-6 ... but Duguay said right away he voted the wrong way (meant to vote to uphold the ruling, but he voted not to uphold it).

@alexbierk.bsky.social also objects to Parnell calling this redundant and slowing down the process.

Riel is challenging the chair on that. "I don't think the consultation process was fulfilled... It's part of the process. It doesn't slow up the process one bit.... This is for them (the public) - it's not just for developers."

Chair PArnell is ruling the proposed amendment from Riel out of order: "We do have a timeline - there will be continued consultation."

"I'm satisfied the consultation has been more than adequate. This is a process that cannot afford delays," Duguay says. (Remember: there's an election in a year).

Duguay also feels the city has done consultations - maybe some people feel they're not heard. Maybe they're not getting their way - but that doesn't mean they were given chance to speak up, Duguay says.

So Duguay doesn't think the timeline ought to pause now to add more consultation as suggested by Riel. "I think the matter of building height and angular plane - it's not new to this council chamber. It's been discussed before."

Duguay asks Appleby whether there will be more consultation, between now and the time the final bylaw is presented to council in the spring. Appleby says yes.

Riel says he wants "to give people a fair chance" to speak up about concerns such as building heights: "The people who live here should help shape how Peterborough grows."

The idea is to make the CPPS "reflect what people want," Riel says. Not just what developers want.

Riel is arguing now that the public has not felt consulted. He's got a further amendment to add now, that council direct staff to hold another round of consultations before the final CPP bylaw comes forward for approval.

The amendment is carried unanimously.

There's an amendment on the floor now from @mattcrowley.bsky.social; it suggests that affordable housing be included in the list of options that city council could consider, in exchange for taller building heights.

**Please go watch the Jays - I have you covered here! You can check in later to see what you missed from your general committee meeting, Peterborough. **

Noted - I did not understand that correctly... anyone who's reading, please note that correction.

If a developer wants to offer other types of benefits for the community in exchange for added storeys, Kimble says that would require city council approval.

Carolyn Kimble now is saying the bylaw will prescribe limitations for building heights city staff could potentially approve. They'd have the ability to exchange building height for affordable units or additional parkland: "That's it."

Appleby says that's correct, that it doesn't stop tonight.

Leal asks Appleby whether the public consultation stops tonight - he's suggesting not.

Brad Appleby, the city urban planner, says tonight is just one step in the process - that the fine details of the bylaw will be an important moment for people to pay attention and speak up.