CARRIED

Prior to beginning consideration of the Agenda items, the Committee elected an Acting Vice-Chair, as Councillor Stewart was absent, as advised.

Moved by P. Hume

CARRIED

1. SUMMARY OF ASSIGNED FUNCTIONS OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, SUBDIVISIONS, CONDOMINIUMS, PART LOT CONTROL BY-LAWS, ZONING BY-LAWS, SITE PLANS AND SEVERANCES

- Planning and Development Approvals Commissioner’s report dated

18 January 1999

Andrew Hope, Senior Project Manager, Development Approvals-District 3 and Brian Faddies, Planner, appeared before the Committee on this item. Mr. Faddies provided the Committee with an overview of the appeal of City of Kanata’s Committee of Adjustment’s approval of an application for severance made by the Estate of Edna Maxwell.

He noted since the report was written, staff met with the proponents of the severance and became aware the purpose of the severance was to rationalize the property boundaries of the two dwelling units and to establish a right-of-way. As a result of this meeting, the proponent and Regional staff feel the situation can be resolved by Kanata agreeing to address the minimum lot size in their new Official Plan (which is currently under review); Kanata agreeing to assume the sub-standard public road to be upgraded at a future time should there be future severances or a plan of subdivision put on this land; and also, once the new Kanata Official Plan is adopted, by revising their zoning By-law 74-79 to conform with the new Official Plan.

Mr. Faddies went on to note the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) has scheduled a hearing for 08 March 1999 and, in view of the hearing date, staff and the proponent feel the situation can be resolved at the OMB.

In response to questions from Councillor van den Ham, Mr. Faddies advised staff of the City of Kanata, Public Works Department are generally in agreement with the right-of-way being upgraded at a future time. He confirmed Regional staff were satisfied with the direction the negotiations were taking, noting no further development could occur except by severance or plan of subdivision. At that point a development agreement would have to be registered on title and the road would then be up-graded to Kanata standards.

Councillor Legendre noted the staff report stated the severance was contrary to both the Regional Official Plan and the Kanata Official Plan and he asked if, in addition to the modifications to the new Kanata Official Plan, an amendment to the Regional Official Plan also be necessary. Mr. Faddies advised the way in which the severance did not conform with the Regional Official Plan was that it was not a farm consolidation. However, the lands in the proposed severance are Class 6 soils, while the retained lands are Class 2 and these are going to remain in Agricultural Resource. He said therefore the objection, insofar as the Regional Official Plan was concerned, could be removed.

Brian Ward, appeared on behalf of the Estate of Edna Maxwell and noted the severance was requested in order to carry out a provision of Mrs. Maxwell’s will and enable the appropriate settlement of her estate. He noted Regional staff have advised they do not disagree with the family’s objective but have some difficulty with the method chosen to achieve it.

Mr. Ward, referring to the issues of minimum lot size and zoning, pointed out the property is surrounded by 7 rural subdivisions. He said staff’s solution to bring the lot size around the residence into conformity with the surrounding locations and still allow the maximum retention of agricultural land for the designated heir is acceptable. With respect to the 20 metre frontage not being adequate for access to a Regional Road, the speaker advised that 20 metres is a standard rural road right-of-way width. Mr. Ward went on to explain the frontage at this location exists due to historical circumstances. Mrs. Maxwell’s late father and grandfather donated land for St. Isadore School and St. Isadore Cemetery, both of which took a considerable portion of the frontage of the property away. He felt it ironic that the family’s past generosity to the community has created some difficulties. Mr. Ward stated the staff proposal that the right-of-way be assumed by Kanata as an existing sub-standard public road, may be acceptable to the family, if satisfactory terms for the assumption can be agreed upon with Kanata.

In conclusion, Mr. Ward advised the family has no plans to engage in any future subdivision activity and are only interested in settling the estate. There will be no increase in traffic as a result of this severance (the two residences at this location have been in existence since 1970 and 1990) and he felt the severance would have no adverse effect upon the community. Mr. Ward expressed his support for the staff recommendation to proceed with negotiations with Kanata and to achieve a solution.

Councillor Munter pointed out if the proponent were trying to meet the letter of the Official Plan, in terms of the minimum lot size for this severance, they would have to sever off a larger parcel than what is proposed, which would mean the remaining agricultural land would be infringed upon. The Councillor clarified for the Committee, the appeal would go forward and, the staff proposal as supported by Mr. Ward would be put before the OMB; he indicated he would be putting forward an amendment to the staff recommendation to set out this intent. Councillor Munter felt this to be a good compromise that protects the interest of the Regional Official Plan and allows the family to deal with the outstanding matters of the estate. He urged the Committee to support it.

Moved by A. Munter

That the staff recommendation be amended by adding "and further that staff proceed to negotiate a compromise solution, as per the staff presentation in order to both protect the Regional interest and accommodate the estate of the late Edna Maxwell.

CARRIED

Referring to page 15 of the staff report, Councillor Legendre asked staff to provide an explanation with respect to the extension by the OMB of the Draft Approval for the CMHC, Carson Grove Subdivision. Nick Tunnacliffe, Commissioner, Planning and Development Approvals Department advised this subdivision went to the OMB and they are seized with it. He said the subdivision must have been coming to the end of the draft approval and the developer would have asked for an extension. Tim Marc, Manager, Planning and Environment Law advised it is anticipated this subdivision will be registered by the end of February. Councillor Legendre indicated that he would have appreciated being informed in advance of this, to enable him to answer queries from constituents.

The Committee then considered the staff recommendation, as amended.

That the Planning and Environment Committee and Council receive this report for information purposes and confirm the Planning and Development Approvals Department’s appeal of one severance as noted in Annex V and further that staff proceed to negotiate a compromise solution, as per the staff presentation in order to both protect the Regional interest and accommodate the estate of the late Edna Maxwell.

CARRIED as amended

2. RURAL TOWNSHIPS PROPOSAL - CREATION OF A LAND DIVISION COMMITTEE TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE GRANTING OF SEVERANCES

Nick Tunnacliffe, Commissioner, Planning and Development Approvals Department, provided Committee with a brief overview of the staff report.

Responding to questions from Councillor Legendre concerning the anticipated cost savings that will result from the proposed rural Land Division Committee, Mr. Tunnacliffe noted currently fees are charged which cover approximately 65% of the cost. He said it was his understanding the rural municipalities intend to levy a fee to cover the entire cost, so there will be no cost to the taxpayers. He said however, he could not say with certainty this proposal would be more efficient.

Referring to a letter received from Mayor Glenn Brooks, Township of Rideau (held on file with the Regional Clerk), Councillor Legendre asked staff to respond to the questions (concerning Recommendation 1 of the staff report), contained therein. Tim Marc, Manager, Planning and Environment Law stated the Planning Act does grant authority to the Region to bring local official plans into conformity one year after the Regional Official Plan comes into force (i.e. 28 September 1999), however, this power has never been exercised by Regional Council. He explained the reason for including the provision that the four municipalities bring their Official Plans into conformity with the Regional Official Plan is to avoid any "political unpleasantness" if the Region were to exercise the power. It was felt the Region should give them a reasonable amount of time (i.e. two years) to bring their Plans into conformity and then if they have not done so by that time, the Region would do so at its cost. He said if authority is delegated to the rural municipalities, then of course the Region would no longer have any authority over the Land Division Committee. With respect of question c) of Mayor Brook’s letter, Mr. Marc advised conformity to the Region’s Official Plan was not a requirement of the Township of Cumberland when they assumed responsibility for their Land Division Committee. Mr. Tunnacliffe added the reason for this was that Cumberland had brought their official plan into conformity prior to assuming responsibility for the Land Division Committee.

Councillor Legendre then asked why, when local municipalities are required by law to bring their Official Plans into conformity with the Regional Official Plan, would the four municipalities object to having this provision included in the motion. Councillor Hill responded the four municipalities object to this condition because it has never been imposed on any other municipality and they do not feel it is necessary. Mr. Tunnacliffe pointed out it was staff’s original position that the municipalities bring their Official Plans into conformity prior to delegating authority for the Land Division Committee. The four municipalities did not agree with this proposal and staff felt this was a compromise.

In response to a question posed by Councillor Hill, Mr. Tunnacliffe advised none of the municipalities are in conformity with the new Regional Official Plan. Councillor Hill felt this further illustrated why the four rural municipalities should not be singled out by including this condition.

Councillor Legendre then had questions concerning the proposed scenario and the role the Region would play. Mr. Marc advised the authority to grant consents is vested in Regional Council and this has traditionally been delegated to the Land Division Committee. In this instance it will be delegated not to the Rural Alliance but to the four individual Townships, who have agreed to work together to set up one committee (legally it is four committees). The Region can impose conditions on the operation of the Committees and retains the right to appeal any of its decisions.

Councillor Beamish asked if the same condition (i.e. that the four municipalities must bring their Official Plans into conformity with the Regional Official Plan by 31 March 2001) will be applied to all municipalities in the Region. Mr. Tunnacliffe replied this would not happen because there is not an opportunity to do so, as there is in this instance. Councillor Beamish felt all municipalities should be treated the same..

At Councillor Munter’s request, the Commissioner confirmed that a significant proportion of the development that happens in the rural townships is by severance (i.e. approximately 35%) compared to the other municipalities where the majority of development occurs by plan of subdivision. Because the Region has approval authority for subdivisions, it has direct control over the larger planning issues.

Committee Chair Hunter read a motion from Councillor Hill to amend Recommendation 1 by deleting everything after the words "West Carleton" and to delete Recommendation 2.

Councillor van den Ham asked staff to comment on the effect of this motion. Mr. Marc, advised that if, at a subsequent time, Regional Council chose to exercise its authority under Section 27 of the Planning Act, to bring the Official Plans into conformity with the Regional Official Plan, there could be difficulties with the area municipalities (e.g. "political unpleasantness").

Councillor van den Ham indicated he would be supporting Councillor Hill’s motion. He said although it could be a mistake to remove this function from the Region, (in light of the expertise that exists here), the four rural municipalities have indicated they want to look after the Land Division Committee function and they should be allowed to do so. The Councillor indicated he did not feel the Region would encounter any great problem with respect to exercising its authority and he reminded members that Regional staff would still be reviewing the severance approvals.

Councillor Munter stated he would not be supporting the motion. He said he could not understand why the municipalities (as indicated in the letters received from the Townships of Rideau and Goulbourn) were not willing to accept this condition when it is in fact a requirement under the Planning Act. He felt it important to state this on the record to avoid any possible problems or confusion should their plans not be in conformity by 2001 and the Region must exercise its authority to do so.

Committee Chair Hunter said although he would agree that Local Official Plans should be in conformity with the Regional Official Plan, he was not convinced this should be a condition of this delegation of authority. He stated delegating authority to these municipalities to grant severances would not permit them to abuse the system because the policies and regulations of the Regional Official Plan will still apply and in fact, in many cases the local regulations concerning lot creation are more stringent than the Regional policies. Chair Hunter felt that including this condition could only be construed as a "slap in the face" to the four rural municipalities and he indicated he would be supporting Councillor Hill’s motion.

Pamela Sweet, Director, Policy and Infrastructure Planning Division, confirmed at Councillor Legendre’s request the current Regional Official Plan is more detailed than the previous ROP in order that the rural municipalities would not have to address such things as agricultural and wetland policies in their plans. She estimated approximately 75% of the rural municipalities’ Official Plans would be covered off in the Regional Official Plan.

Councillor Legendre advised he would not be supporting Councillor Hill’s motion. He stated although he would have preferred that staff not include such a condition, by removing it at this point, he felt this would "send a signal" to all municipalities that the Region would never carry out its right under the Planning Act to bring their plans into conformity.

Councillor Hume stated it is the Region’s obligation to ensure the local municipalities’ Official Plans are in conformity. He said he could understand why staff have included this condition, because the Region has never exercised its authority to bring local official plans into conformity and he felt the first time the Region attempted to do so, they would meet with great resistance. He pointed out other municipalities (i.e. Cumberland) that have received delegated authority to grant severances have had to have their Official Plans in conformity prior to the Region delegating said authority. The Councillor felt this condition should not be an issue unless the municipalities did not intend to bring their Official Plans into conformity with the Region’s. He urged the Committee not to support Councillor Hill’s motion.

Councillor Hill pointed out the Regional Official Plan only received approval on 28 September 1998 and none of the local municipalities are 100% in conformity with the Regional Official Plan. She indicated her displeasure with the Region "singling out" these four rural municipalities by requiring them to bring their plans into conformity within two years and stated if this is what staff want, they should bring forward the same recommendation for all eleven municipalities. She asked that the Committee support her motion.

Councillor Munter then put forward a motion to add wording that would clearly set out the Region’s intent to ensure all local municipalities’ official plans conform to the Region’s and it is prepared to exercise its authority to do so.

The Committee then considered the motions before it.

Moved by B. Hill

That Recommendation 1 be amended to remove that portion beginning "after the Region has received resolution from these municipalities" and that Recommendation 2 be deleted.

CARRIED

YEAS: D. Beamish, M. Bellemare, B. Hill, R. van den Ham and G. Hunter....5

NAYS: P. Hume, J. Legendre and A. Munter.....3

Moved by A. Munter

That the following be added to the amended Recommendation after the words "West Carleton"; "...with the clear understanding that it is the intent of Regional Council to ensure that all local official plans conform to the Regional Official Plan and that the Region is prepared to use its authority under the Ontario Planning Act to accomplish this legal requirement."

CARRIED

The recommendation as amended was then considered.

That Planning and Environment Committee recommend to Council that authority to grant severances be delegated by by-law to the Townships of Goulbourn, Osgoode, Rideau and West Carleton with the clear understanding that it is the intent of Regional Council to ensure that all local official plans conform to the Regional Official Plan and that the Region is prepared to use its authority under the Ontario Planning Act to accomplish this legal requirement.

CARRIED as amended

BUDGET

3. 1999 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT BUDGET REVIEW

-1999 Draft Estimates tabled with Regional Council 25 November 1998

-Committee Co-ordinator’s report dated 28 Jan 99

At the outset, the Committee heard from the following delegation.

Chris Bradshaw, Ottawalk, provided a written copy of his presentation, which is held on file with the Regional Clerk.

Mr. Bradshaw stated he was before the Committee to address issues related to implementation of Regional Official Plan policies. He commended the Department on the light-rail pilot project and their review of regional road design guidelines that will implement the "feet-first" hierarchy of the Plan on regional rights-of-ways. However, he urged the Committee to support a more active approach in addressing land use changes needed to make the strategy work, by firstly not deleting the planning position needed to implement the transit-oriented street patterns. Secondly, he asked that the Committee direct staff to begin a program of working with municipal planning departments to bring the message about the transit-oriented street patterns strategy to community groups and industry associations. He stressed the importance of involving the residents of the Region in the much necessary land-use shifts in order to put the community vision into practice.

In closing, Mr. Bradshaw asked that the Committee direct staff to hold a meeting each fall with the community groups to discuss its work plan and budget, well in advance of the Committee budget review.

Prior to the staff presentation, Councillor Bellemare referred to page 70 of the Draft Capital Estimates and declared an interest, noting his spouse is employed by a sub-contractor of Teranet.

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS (PLANNING)

Nick Tunnacliffe, Commissioner, Planning and Development Approvals and Kathryn Ennor, Manager, Finance and Operations appeared before the Committee. Mr. Tunnacliffe provided Committee with an overview of the Planning and Development Approvals (Planning Section) budget with the aid of a slide presentation. In concluding his remarks, the Commissioner referred to the supplementary report (Item 5 of the agenda) which outlines the impact of the budget reductions on Planning programs. He noted the reductions (of seven positions) will result in reduced levels of service in some areas and reduced ability to respond to emergency and ad hoc items, however, the core mandate of the Department (e.g. Official Plan, Master Plans, Environmental Assessments, development approvals, deploying GIS, and surveys and mapping) will continue to be taken care of.

Councillor Hume noted the Region has had a 0% budget increase policy in place since 1993; he asked the Commissioner to explain the cumulative effect the reductions have had on the Planning and Development Approvals budget. Mr. Tunnacliffe advised that over $2 million in cuts have occurred since 1993.

Councillor Legendre, referring to the proposed reduction of one staff person from the Transportation Planning section, asked how it was decided that the position in support of the Travel Demand Management (TDM) was the position to be cut. Mr. Tunnacliffe advised the subject position does work on a number of areas in addition to TDM, such as the Sidewalk Priority Program and Investigation into Greenhouse Gas Initiatives. He explained staff are proposing the Environment and Transportation Department establish a unit which will operationalize and apply policies that are developed (in the Planning and Development Approvals Department). Pamela Sweet, Director, Policy and Infrastructure Planning Division, added other Planners within the Division will be working on TDM, for example, the Sustainable Transportation Planner).

The Councillor stated he was troubled by this proposed cut, stressing the importance of Travel Demand Management for the future. He indicated he was considering putting forward a motion to retain this position and to direct that a cut be made to the Finance and Operations Division instead.

In response to questions from Councillors van den Ham and Legendre concerning the increase in 1999 Salaries, Wages and Benefits to the Geomatics Section (page 29 of the Operating Budget), Mr. Tunnacliffe explained this could be accounted for through the increase in pay in the Union agreement and as well, this item includes temporary salaries.

Councillor van den Ham indicated he would be moving the Planning and Development Approvals (Planning Division) Operating Budget, as amended by the Budget Sub-Committee report.

Councillor Munter submitted a motion to retain the position in Transportation Planning. He stated this is an extremely important function and felt the long term consequences of neglecting this area are serious.

Chair Chiarelli questioned how this position would be funded (i.e. tax increase or cuts in other areas). Councillor Munter stated he would like to see the Provincial Government pay for the shortfall of services and referred to comments made by the Chair at the Transportation Committee meeting, that it appears funding will be coming from the Province to pay for the downloading shortfall.

Councillor Legendre suggested a friendly amendment to Councillor Munter’s motion that cuts be found elsewhere in the Department to fund this position. Councillor Munter agreed to this amendment.

In response to questions from Councillor Legendre concerning the impact the cutting of the Transportation Planning position will have on the Greenhouse Gas Initiative and the Sidewalk Program, Mr. Tunnacliffe advised the cut would likely result in delays, but work would still continue on these initiatives. He pointed out the Greenhouse Gas effort is currently bogged down in Federal/Provincial negotiations and until the Region knows what the parameters are, there is no point in "spinning our wheels". Once the parameters are set, then the appropriate resources can be put to this program.

The Commissioner noted the Sidewalk Priority Program is a similar situation, in that sidewalks are a local responsibility. He referred to the Regional Official Plan policy which states the Region would like to get sidewalks on Regional roads where there are no sidewalks, however, the area municipalities are not willing to cooperate on this at this time. He said in order to carry through on this policy, it will be necessary to either obtain agreement from the local municipalities or have the legislation changed, both of which will take time.

Following up on this issue, Councillor Hume asked staff to clarify who owns the sidewalks on Regional roads. Mr. Marc advised sidewalks on Regional roads are owned by the Region, however, maintenance (and the liability for failure to maintain) lies with the area municipalities. Councillor Hume then asked if the Region decided to proceed with sidewalks on Regional roads, could it assume the responsibility for maintaining them. Mr. Marc advised he would look into this and get back to the Councillor.

Councillor Hume expressed his opinion that the Region should be taking back everything associated with Regional road allowances, including maintenance and the revenue sources. This would resolve the restriction problems the Region currently faces.

Chair Hunter stated he would not be supporting Councillor Munter’s motion, noting all of the policies, plans, etc. coming forward have regard to the "walking, cycling, transit first" policy in the Official Plan, as a matter of course. He said therefore, he could not see a need for a position specific to this policy.

The Committee then considered the following motion.

Moved by A. Munter

LOST

NAYS: M. Bellemare, B. Hill, P. Hume, R. van den Ham and G. Hunter.....5

YEAS: J. Legendre, A. Munter and R. Chiarelli.....3

There being no further amendments, the Committee then considered the Planning Divisions, Operating Budget.

Moved by R. van den Ham

That Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council approve the Planning and Development Approvals Department (Planning Section) 1999 Draft Operating Budget, as reduced by the Budget Sub-Committee report in the amount of $458,000 (Program Adjustments/Reductions) and $51,000 (Purchased Services Reductions).

CARRIED as amended