The documentation is difficult to read. I wish you could write summaries that didn't feel so liable-protecting in it's specificity and ambiguity in language, depending on the case. Sorry if this doesn't make sense... I just find the summaries still too difficult to wrap my head around.

That said, I appreciate the removal of most minimum parking requirements. I do with more was being done, for example lessening visitor parking, especially in downtown. Also it appears many areas are still zoned conservatively in a way that discourages densification. While you're getting public consultation, I'd appreciate if the city staff were more build were their proposals. You can always scale things back. These current proposals feel unambitious, which limits the productivity of a first draft proposal.

Otherwise, thanks so much for ALL of the resources. I don't have time to look them all up, which is why i want the summaries to be done better [everyone under the age of 60 who isn't rich, has a job and doesn't have time to peruse all of the documents and resources, so technically without better summaries, this draft is STILL not accessible. Although it would be accessible, if we lessened the burden of work culture, ie. 4-day work weeks, but that is outside the scope of the city. ... although they could provide such benefits to their own employees, which i would recommend... sorry for the rambling...]

navigation of the zoning document window is bad. the docxument is in sections and the naviation allows us to jusmp to a page. useless..

the zoning draft document window is MUCH too small.

I am extremely grateful the city is making an effort to intensify. Low density is extremely expensive to maintain infrastructure for, and strongly encourage the use of a car for the majority of trips, further increasing maintenance costs because of higher road width and large surface parking lots. I do, however, believe this draft is not nearly ambitious enough.

First of all, neighbourhood zones are far too restrictive in terms of allowed density. N1 and N2 zones are limited to 8.5m building heights, and all neighbourhood zones have at least some setback requirements further limiting density.

Because of these restrictions, it is highly unlikely that many new homes will be built in most suburban neighbourhoods, which actively lose money for the city in their current state.

Minimum height requirements should never go below 4 stories in any part of the city, and setback requirements should be removed in most cases.

Another issue I have with this draft is that N1-N4 zones are also not allowed to have businesses. This means that many residents will likely have no choice but to drive even for the simplest of errands, or at least be strongly encouraged to do so, further reducing density and increasing infrastructure costs by requiring wider roads and more parking.

Mixed use zones seem to be almost exclusively placed along major arterials with a lot of motor traffic, making them an unpleasent place to live, work, and shop.

I understand the concern with an increase in car traffic from businesses, but instead of banning businesses from neighbourhood zones, maybe the city should instead consider limiting parking. That way, we can have more mixed-use zones that are car-free or car-light.

Finally, the character of the neighbourhood should be removed as a consideration in the zoning by-law. This is an incredibly vague and subjective term, and any new building is likely going to make at least one person upset.

Whenever change happens, there are always those who are unable to accept it. And unfortunately, those people tend to be the loudest. But with enough political willpower, we can make these changes happen.

This new zoning by-law will be a turning point for our city: will we continue like other cities, unwilling to intensify our financially insolvent suburbs because of opposition from a few residents, only building more car-dependent sprawl and highrises along major arterials with little in between, and remaining a boring and unpleasant concrete jungle, or will we make drastic changes that no other city is willing to do, building beautiful dense, mixed use, walkable neighbourhoods which pay for themselves, and become one of the greatest and most livable cities in Canada?

If this passes as presented it will result in Ottawa losing millions in HAF funds and result in a a housing catastrophe greater then any Councilor can imagine.

This zoning does not match the regulation put forth by the official plan and opens Ottawa to millions in lawsuit or ZBA after the 5 year grace period,

As for the issues, MTSA not implemented, Downtown zoning still restricted to low-rise against official plan, Sherborne not mixed use, and etc.

Council must reject staffs plan.

The new draft and the interactive map are easy to read and understand. I feel like the zoning could be more consistent and realistic. For example, many lots on Fisher, which is a busy street, are zoned N3B. Whereas the local streets like Dorchester, Emperor, etc are mostly zoned N4. Some less busy streets like Sunnyside are zoned CM. It's not clear what is the criteria to set these zones. If we want a walkable neighborhood, I think we should allow more commercial uses along Fisher as this area does not have a lot stores.

Thank you for creating this easy-to-understand tool. I have a few questions regarding the new zoning bylaw. In most suburb areas the maximum height is 11m under the current zoning, and it will be reduced to 8.5 m in the new zoning. On 7108 Notre Dame Street in Orleans, for example, the Zoning changes from R2N to N1B. Both of these changes are heading wrong direction if we are talking about increasing housing.
On two large lots in Bells Corners, 510 and 512 Moodie Drive current zoning is R1FF and it changes to N2E, while this is a step up in density, I think the change should be more significant. These lots are extra large, surrounded by R3 and R4 lots on all 4 sides, located on the main street, and can be efficiently redeveloped into small or midrise apartment buildings.