no minutes available
April 10, 2025
Meeting of the Island Park Community Association
Resolutions Passed
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Island Park Community Association Board of Directors, on behalf of its membership, shall formally call on the proponents of the Matthew Perry House development to protect the greenspace and locate the Matthew Perry House development on the parking lot. – PASSED
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Island Park Community Association Board of Directors, on behalf of its membership, shall formally call on the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre to suspend all lease negotiations with respect to the Matthew Perry House development until a full, independent alternative site assessment locating the development on the parking lot has been completed and publicly shared. – PASSED
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Island Park Community Association Board of Directors, on behalf of its membership, shall formally call on the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre to suspend all lease negotiations with respect to the Matthew Perry House development until an independent traffic study has been conducted on Byng Avenue and Island Park Drive and publicly shared. – PASSED
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Island Park Community Association Board of Directors, on behalf of its membership, shall work cooperatively with the impacted residents and stakeholders to engage with the proponents to develop and implement a plan for transparent and meaningful consultation between the community and the proponents with full consideration given to the environmental, social, safety, and infrastructural impacts of the proposed development, and shall formally call upon the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre to suspend all lease negotiations until a suitable consultation plan has been implemented. – PASSED
***EDITORIAL NOTE: These meeting minutes were prepared by the office of Councillor Jeff Leiper. The meeting invitation was only circulated to those living on the west-side of Island Park Drive between the 417 and Harmer Ave S. Community members had asked that this meeting not proceed until a consultation plan was in place. Councillor Leiper refused to postpone the meeting. Proponents outnumbered residents at this meeting approximately 2:1.***
Tuesday April 29
7-9pm
Fisher Park School
Attendees present at 7pm start: Jeff (Kitchissippi Ward Councillor), Alice (Councillor’s Office), Cody (Councillor’s Office), Cara (ROH CEO), Volunteer (ROH Client Advisory Council), Volunteer (ROH Family Advisory Council), Andrea (ROH Communications Team), Stéphane (OCH CEO), Brian (OCH Chief Officer Community and Tenant Support ), Baron (OCH Director of Development), Chantal (OCH Communications Team), Patrick (Hobin Architecture), Anthony (CAPSA CEO), Caitlin (MPF ED), Kelly (MPF Consultant), Mark (Salus CEO), Mary (Rideauwood CEO), Bill (Acting President, IPCA), a total of 6 residents were present at the 7pm start, with a few others arriving later; in total, about 10 residents were present.
Seating was set up in a circle format. Jeff welcomed everyone and suggested that we take a moment to go around the circle and make introductions.
Patrick (Hobin): After the intros, presented a new option for moving the building overtop of existing ashplant that could be better utilized while still maintaining existing parking. These revisions would see the building closest to the IPD residents moved considerably further away from their property lines.
Resident: Appreciates the changes but wants to continue pushing for further changes: wants to know if they could move the wing of the most southerly building further away from the IPD residents?
Resident: Traffic concerns, wants to know if Byng Dr is public, private, or NCC?
Patrick (Hobin): The traffic study will capture those details.
Jeff: Asked Patrick to explain the site plan process for residents, and potential timeline.
Patrick (Hobin): The stages include a design brief, landscape design, civil design, noise report,traffic report, servicing, geotech, and so forth.
Bill (IPCA): Still pushing to have the project moved entirely overtop of the existing parking lot. Questioned cost of building new parking structure.
Patrick (Hobin): Adding $5M cost makes the project not viable.
Resident: IPD residents want to be treated like neighbours. Social media comments have been hurtful. Feels that there has been a lack of communication. Neighbours want to be included in events like the groundbreaking ceremony and fundraiser.
Jeff: Reminded group that MPH can build as-of right, but there are practical concerns that can still be discussed like building placement, lighting, and landscaping.
Resident: MPH partners said they were committed to consultation.
Bill (IPCA): Neighbours aren’t feeling like consultation is happening. Bill is upset that the IPCA letter dated April 14, which set out resolutions, has not been answered by Cara (ROH). Has questions around funding and who the residents will be (in addiction recovery and/or just people who need affordable housing). Bill also has questions around how parking location was decided.
Cara (ROH): MPH/ROH have made huge compromises with this new building placement proposal, parking for ROH staff will be displaced for at least 3 months. The changes have been made to respond to the immediate neighbours’ concerns.
Resident: Wants time to digest the changes. Upset with how things are going.
Resident: At this point, noted (and was upset) that an ROH volunteer was talking to Jeff while another resident was talking.
At this point, tensions become heated in the room. Jeff called for a 30 second break. A resident left at this point.
After the break:
ROH Volunteer: Explained what he was talking to Jeff about. Is concerned that if sufficient parking isn’t provided on site, parking will be moved onto neighbouring streets. Will the community be okay with that?
Resident: Neighbours feel they are being mis-labelled as NIMBY even if they are asking simple questions. Looking for mutual respect.
Resident: IPCA proposing formal community consultation. Wants to be part of the conversation. Says it hurts when Cara (ROH) says it’s not a public space. A neighbour paints and takes care of the tennis courts.
Resident: We are on board; we just need to be part of it.
Bill (IPCA): Wants to develop a consultation plan.
Kelly (MPF Consultant): What does a proposed consultation plan look like?
Resident: A consultation plan includes a clear understanding of who is part of the conversation. The lack of info has created fear for the neighbours.
Anthony (CAPSA): Apologized for not looping community in earlier, partners are now fully committed to engaging, can we collectively move forward? Message of atonement. Let’s reset.
Cara (ROH): The partners are being fully transparent. ROH/MPH is not hiding anything.
Resident: When did lease negotiations start?
Cara (ROH): ROH got approval to move forward at the end of January, the lease itself will take a very long time to negotiate. It’s a complex and ongoing process.
Resident: Wants lease negotiations to stop.
Cara (ROH): Responded no, that will not be happening.
Stéphane (OCH): Perhaps setting a roadmap of engagement is appropriate, and setting a plan to share milestones along the way.
Stéphane (OCH): We need to understand each other, and then we can advance. Having said that, neighbours need to understand that some things won’t be subject to change/open for discussion – for example – the legal parts of the lease. Suggests we move on and perhaps keep a smaller group discussion going forward. Don’t live in the past – let’s move on.
Bill (IPCA): A roadmap of engagement is what he wants.
Brian (OCH): Crime prevention through environmental design is part of this project.
Bill (IPCA): A key ask of the IPCA is that irrevocable steps are not taken without community consultation.
Kelly (MPF Consultant): We need to define what consultation means to everyone at the table, including the point of view of both residents and the partners. She’s hearing lots of anger, resentment and big feelings in the room. Suggests as a next step: reflection – and then establishment of the next steps.
Stéphane (OCH): At this time, much of the discussion has been around geospatial/location issues. Realizes there are questions around funding model/sources – however, that information is not currently known.
Cara (ROH): Invited residents to put forward a consultation plan.
Bill (IPCA): Asks ROH to commit to stop lease negotiations. Cara says no, that won’t be happening.
Resident: Neighbours are not denying that there is a need for this type of housing and services. Resident wants a consultation plan in place before any further discussions go on. Resident wanted Jeff to cancel/postpone the meeting tonight.
Caitlin (MPF): Spoke up, trying to explain where Cara is coming from.
Bill (IPCA): IPD residents feel dismissed and not respected. Angry he didn’t get a reply from ROH to IPD letter.
Resident: Has questions around Rideauwood and MPH funding.
Mark (Salus): Asked for trust on clinical services and expectations. He’s hearing questions around 2 things: location of buildings and services to be provided. And hearing request for consultation. These things are all getting confused together.
Mark (Salus): The process of raising funds and building out these services is established. The partners are all experts in their respective fields. He can’t speak today to where the funding will be coming. That’s not how the process works.
Mark (Salus): Willing to engage in conversations about the research that will be undertaken.
Resident: Feels like MPH is on the third lap of the race and IPD residents are just joining in at a later lap. Hard to build trust at this point.
ROH Volunteer: Asks: are residents objecting to the building, or what is going to happen in and around the building after it’s built? Can I get a copy of the opposing pamphlet that was distributed to neighbours? Thinks that MPH has moved the building based on comments/concerns expressed to date by the neighbours. Says transparency works both ways. Common Sense Planning Coalition brochure included misinformation.
Resident: Is this new drawing moving the building simply a proposal, or the new official design? Can I get a closer look?
Stéphane (OCH): Important to note that plans are subject to constraints. Sometimes those constraints don’t become known until later in the process (i.e. unknown utility/infrastructure issues that may unexpectedly arise). The plan shared tonight isn’t final. Engagement will evolve. Let’s work on building trust and confidence.
Jeff: Our office intended to do a second meeting, but there might not be an appetite for that. A more productive way forward may be for the community to propose a consultation plan and send it to MPH partners for their review. Will let IPD neighbours work directly with MPH partners.
Meeting ended.