The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

< ‘W‘flm “n“ " ‘ . ' ‘ I? m b" \Lg “ Amati . ‘- fl. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 8, 2009 ' WATERLOO, ONTARIO * $1 INCLUDING GST ‘ fl}... - o I l . . a Q t a . ‘ D Council puts the " ' " clamps on urban , chicken coo s ° ‘ ° p A - , _ - BvGItac MAcDomm He and other members of , " . " ‘~ ChrrmideStagr the group expected 3 mm a ‘ 4 , posed bylaw to allow raising _ ‘ 1- controversial measure chickens topasseasily. g . ' - '« to allow chicken mops “l'm very surprised and ’ [fl ' Waterloo backyards very disappointed in this ., , _ ” failed to pass city council's decision,” Bailey-Dick said. v] ‘ f ‘ approval process on Mon- Despite letters of support , » 2 ‘ .. - f ‘ “a, day. from Liana Nolan, the med- ‘ ' ' 2 \ 3.7 Councillors rejected a ical officer of health for the \~_ 5 ; f portion ofa new animal con- Region of Waterloo, and 'f a trol bylaw that would have noted veterinarians, council '- v ‘ l , ‘ allowed up to 10 chickens to decided to listen to the peo- ‘ . ‘_ ,. be raised on residential lots ple unfamiliar with backyard g ' s " ‘ ' The council did pass a chickens, hesaid. 5 _ a .- . a new animal control bylaw " he voice of fear was 7‘ â€". , 1g _ * _ Monday which strengthened heard very strongly: (It was ‘; A , » , ' , . ,, and changed some of the heard) over the facts over \. Q v‘ “ ' city’s bylaws governing pets staff 's proposed bylaw." he g 1-3...”- - The chicken issue had said. .\,M i, , - been under study by the city _ Before the recommenda- ‘ ’ 1 since last summer, when tion failed, Bailey~Dick told _ _ members of the Waterloo councillors that they were on V ' Hen Association visited “the threshold ofa new reali- council looking for guidance ty that is both insignificant on whether or not they were and at the same time allowed to have chickens as momentous" pets. lithe measure didn't pass. “mm“ Similar measures exist in council would have failed. _ Feeling the bum cities sum 35 Victoria. Bum- he said._ _ Marvin Muschette, left, helps Trevor Z‘rster do sit ups at the track at the Waterloo Memorial Recreation Complex last - 310” BC, Portland, Ore, and Bl" 1‘ was the VOICCS Of Saturday. The two were warming up before doing some running. even New York City, said residents such as John Rid- Matthew Bailey~Dick, a dell that many councillors member of the hen associa- sided with ' “““"“‘"°“"‘”‘ C ill ' ti (1 ’ b ,. , ounc 01° ques OHS ens1ty 01111888 0 O - Jlfiy Iu be , 0‘ BYGIBGMACMALD $165,000 donation to the budget. said Danielle densitybonusing, ‘ it \ GimnideSlaJ new civic square in uptown lngarn.adevelopment plan- "Imagine how it might a“: s r L r r _ â€"‘ _ _ ‘_ ‘ Waterloo. ner with the city. look to some that (the devel- _ _‘ " i "” ity council has official~ Because the developer The city can only seek a oper) came requiring a den- (4 H A h} (3 i: ly approved a new 25- was looking to increase denâ€" donation â€" called “density sity increase. . . and in order ” ,.__ “a, l - storey condo develop- shits. a quirk in the Planning bonusing' like this in very to get that. there's a $165,000 a ' C ' fig 1, i ‘ ment at the corner of King Act allowed the city’s devel- specific circumstances, she gift to the city." he said. ‘l'm ' ' W ' and UniversityAvenue. opment department to seek added. ‘ certain of the nobility of ~‘ “3 r ‘ But the decision came some compensation that While the money is wel~ everyone involved, but I'm a g d / 1! w“ 4,. â€" ~c’ withanodd stipulation. would improve the city. come and was obtained little concerned about the 0677 619 - y , ‘ " ‘ ' As part of the approval The money had ‘to go through a legal process. first time we enter density WWW 5 may"; 1 com h’ ’ rem-«flame; v‘ ' process. the developer has towards acapital project that Count Mark Whaley said bonuses" agreed to fork over a has a line in the city’s capital he was dubious about wmm7 £017,085 ,. Waterloo In-» 7! -; ] '~-s ‘ <_ I!“ 4 {’ *"" - “l - 519.746.2777 . A - cg , f MJorbosoutom g: « k \ mmmumu-mmzooaâ€"zooamv y.” ' LI