CARRIED

PLANNING ITEMS

At the outset of the meeting, Committee Chair Hunter read a statement required under the Planning Act, wherein he advised that anyone, whose intention it was to appeal Regional Official Plan Amendments 2 and/or 3 to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), must either voice their objections at the public meeting or submit their comments in writing. Failure to do so could result in refusal/dismissal of the appeal by the OMB.

1. PUBLIC MEETING TO CONSIDER
DRAFT REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2 -
TRIM ROAD RE- ALIGNMENT, City of Cumberland

- Planning and Development Approvals Commissioner’s report dated 9 Feb 2000

Don Moxley, Planner, Policy and Infrastructure Planning Division, Planning and Development Approvals Department, provided Committee with a brief overview of the staff report.

Noting one of the recommendations of Schedule 3 was to change an existing 40 metre right of way to 30 metres, Councillor Legendre asked for a reason for the seeming downgrade. He referred to a recent Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) hearing at which the potential for the Kettle Island corridor as a possible future bridge crossing had been discussed, and at which a width of 40 metres had seemed to be at the least, a minimum. Mr. Reid explained one intent of the 1997 Regional Official Plan (ROP) was to widen the existing Trim Road to meet future development requirements, including the possibility of a bridge. In this scenario, a 40 metre right of way would have been protected. In the intervening time, Mr. Reid said the department had completed an Environmental Assessment (EA), which recommended moving the future alignment of Trim Road away from the existing alignment, leaving the existing Trim Road as a local road with an arterial function. Mr. Reid clarified that the Schedule referred to a section of the existing corridor that no longer needed to have the potential to be widened to six lanes.

Responding to further questions from the Councillor regarding the rights of way to be protected in the new realignment, Mr. Reid explained the intention was to define the corridor so that the protection for a six lane arterial would be achieved. He said the specific rights of way would be determined at a subsequent detailed design phase, and noted that in some cases, the width might be more than 40 metres, but would be 40 metres at a minimum.

Committee then heard from the public delegations.

Len Beerschoten, a resident of Talcy Crescent, said he and his neighbours shared concerns regarding opportunities for input into the process. He noted the possibility of the construction of a four or six lane roadway behind their properties, presently farmland, would affect living conditions. He asked what the scope of the EA had been, or whether it had envisioned the possibilities of either a six lane highway or great amounts of traffic coming from Quebec. He argued that, to be useful, both of these conditions would have needed to have been assessed in terms of their impact.

Chair Hunter pointed out it was not normal for persons making presentations to ask questions of staff. However, he noted Committee and staff were trying to help as much as possible and he therefore allowed staff to formulate a response.

Mr. Reid noted the department had planned for the potential of a six lane corridor, and thereby had anticipated great amounts of traffic generated both from within a growing Orleans community, and also from a possible bridge to be constructed at Petrie Island, bringing additional traffic from Quebec. Mr. Reid said the inclusion of a bridge would require modifications to cater to the various movements resulting from a major connection across the Ottawa River. He advised all of these considerations had been fully covered in the EA report completed in 1998.

Mr. Beerschoten noted the report stated an Environmental Study Report (ESR), filed in accordance with the Class EA process, had not received a bump-up request. The speaker said he had not been aware a bump-up request was allowed or even what a bump-up request was. Mr. Beerschoten felt the document contained much that was unclear. Noting the document indicated that interested property holders had been consulted, the speaker said he had not been contacted for his input in any way. He said he had attended an open house session at which attendees had been shown a number of different options, and had been told development would not likely occur for at least ten years. He also said he had no knowledge of any of the information contained in the noise impact analysis. In addition, Mr. Beerschoten was concerned that no one had informed him of the potential for settlement of adjacent homes. He also expressed concern about the statement read by Chair Hunter at the beginning of the meeting, in that he had not been made aware of the need to submit anything in writing, failing which, he believed he would lose his right to appeal.

Chair Hunter explained that speaking at the meeting had gained Mr. Beerschoten the right to appeal. The Chair clarified the provision in the statement was an attempt to stop frivolous last-minute objections from those who might have competing commercial reasons, which could hold up amendments for unspecified lengths of time. He noted the intent was to gather information regarding legitimate concerns so that they could be dealt with in a fair way. Chair Hunter then asked staff to address the speaker’s concerns regarding the potential for settlement of houses and the development’s time frame.

Mr. Reid stated many concerns regarding noise, settlement, impacts on the creek, etc., would be examined in greater detail at the detailed design stage, and had been addressed in a preliminary fashion in the EA report. He explained a copy of the Environmental Study Report, which detailed what had been done thus far, was available for viewing at the Cumberland Town Hall. Mr. Reid outlined that the ESR had been completed after Regional Council had approved the alignment. Upon completion of the report, a Notice of Completion, detailing the next steps with regard to a bump-up, was placed in local and daily newspapers. Mr. Reid said the public had 30 days to voice concerns to the Minister with the alignment as approved. Mr. Reid noted no bump-up requests were received by the specified date of October 23, 1998, after which time, the alignment was assumed to have been approved by the Ministry. He said this is why the department was now in a position to proceed. However, he noted the construction of this roadway was seen to be beyond the ten year horizon, and that there would be many more steps in the process, including public meetings and hearings at the detailed design phase as the construction time frame approached. Mr. Reid said the process would be driven by the rate of the Orleans community’s development.

Chair Hunter pointed out the main purpose of the public meeting was to protect the rights of way so that no development could take place within them, which would make it difficult to build a road in the future.

Mr. Reid confirmed this, noting the ROPA would allow the secondary planning to proceed with the new alignment in place, and would allow for the corridor to be acquired and protected for eventual use as and when required. He said the fundamental reason for the ROPA was to establish the legal basis to protect the corridor and to apply conditions on developers. He explained establishing the alignment would let developers and property owners know the limitations of where development could occur, and would allow the future internal subdivision road network to be determined, so that the whole road network could operate in a satisfactory manner.

The Committee Chair noted it was not unusual to have a lengthy period of time between protection in the Official Plan and the building of the actual roadway and he cited the Blackburn Hamlet by-pass and Hunt Club Road as examples.

As a final comment, Mr. Beerschoten felt that the newspaper publication of such notices was not a sufficient means of notification.

Chair Hunter noted the EA process usually included a mailed notification to neighbouring property owners. Responding to a question from the Chair, Mr. Beerschoten said the only notification he had received within the last two years regarding the EA Process had been a notice of an open house.

Responding to Chair Hunter’s concern regarding notification of the public at the start of such processes, Mr. Reid explained the department had contacted many interested residents. He said notices were delivered at the time of the public meetings, and efforts had been made to alert those concerned that the meetings were taking place and the issue was underway, in addition to which the local Council had been informed.

Addressing Mr. Beerschoten’s reference to the potential for noise, Councillor Legendre noted the staff report stated that mitigation measures would not be warranted. He asked if this was the time to consider the need for such measures, or whether their consideration at a subsequent detailed phase would be more appropriate. Mr. Reid felt early assumptions regarding the need for such measures might be incorrect, and that determinations of traffic volume and its noise implications would be better assessed nearer the time of construction. He noted the present proposal would shift the road away from Talcy Crescent and would place it into a cut which would provide a degree of noise mitigation. He said this was the basis of the conclusion that no noise mitigation would be required. He said future subdivision development would require re-examination of the noise issue, as developers backing onto the future arterial would likely, as a condition of development, have to build noise barriers along the corridor to protect residents from noise.

Responding to another question from Councillor Legendre regarding access onto the future arterial, which was not indicated on the map, Mr. Reid explained that limited roadway access would be incorporated as part of the planning of the future subdivisions. He also confirmed for the Councillor that private driveways would not have road access, although existing houses along the proposed corridor would continue to have such access.

The Councillor felt this might lead to a dangerous situation in future, with the roadway at full capacity, especially if it were to form part of an inter-provincial bridge crossing. Mr. Reid noted the Region could acquire the properties if it wanted to fully prevent such access, but he did not believe such extremes were called for. He noted although it was desirable to limit such access, it was not unusual for some Regional Roads.

Glen Edwards, a local resident maintaining farmland in the vicinity of the subject area, also voiced concern regarding the issue of notification. He said that despite attending open houses and submitting comments in writing, he had received no response, despite his status as a landowner in the area. He said he had received information only after phoning Councillor van den Ham and Messrs. Reid and Moxley. Mr Edwards then asked why staff were proposing to delete the old Trim Road, as he felt the present route was adequate. He said the proposed corridor would cut through scenic development property which included a duck pond, deer habitat, a set of caves and a waterfall. The speaker felt putting a highway alongside this area would have a greater impact on the environment than using an existing roadway. While Mr. Edwards felt a north-south link was needed, he was opposed to its proposed location, which would cut off access to a number of roads used for farm access on either side of Frank Kenny Road. In closing, Mr. Edwards wondered what would become of his property should the Region proceed as planned.

Committee Chair Hunter stated he could not understand why Mr. Edwards had not received notice of the meeting and asked Mr. Moxley to explain.

Mr. Moxley advised staff were using a huge data base that had to be synthesized down and unfortunately, some people were apparently missed. He explained the Planning Act requires that notice of Amendments either be advertised in the newspapers or sent out to landowners and people within 120 meters; Regional staff try to do both. He advised the Planning Act requirements were covered by advertising in the local newspapers and staff did endeavor to deliver to Mr. Edward’s father, a package of information by Priority Post last Thursday.

In response to questions posed by Mr. Edwards and at the request of Chair Hunter, Mr. Reid advised Frank Kenny Road is being upgraded by the City of Cumberland, to develop a major north-south road linking Trim Road at Innes Road with the Vars interchange. He explained the road has been constructed from Innes Road to Navan Road and the second section from Navan Road to the Vars interchange is likely to be constructed in the near future. He emphasized this was an initiative of the City of Cumberland.

Chair Hunter asked, when Frank Kenny Road becomes a completed north-south link, if it would be classed as an arterial road. Mr. Reid replied this was the intention and is reflected in the Regional Official Plan. He noted the Environmental Assessment for that corridor was carried out by the Township of Cumberland several years ago.

Mr. Edwards also had questions about 10^th Line Road and the fact that it "stops dead"; he asked what the Region’s intentions were in this respect. Chair Hunter noted this was not the subject of the realignment but allowed staff to answer the question.

Mr. Reid noted 10^th Line Road interchanges with Highway 174, and connects with Jeanne D’Arc (which runs east and west) and the road that runs easterly to Trim Road. He stated this is where 10^th Line Road was planned to end and there has never been any consideration that there should be a bridge at the end of 10^th line Road. Mr. Edwards felt this should be looked at. He said as a member of the local fire department, he has often had to pull cars out of the fence at the end of the road, because the people did not realize it was a dead end.

Councillor Legendre noted the alignment shown on the map would consume a small amount of Mr. Edward’s property, perhaps 10 to 15%. He noted the speaker had also indicated all of this land has been planned to be subdivisions in the future (although it is agricultural now). He asked what the impact of this alignment would be on the speaker as a property owner. Mr. Edwards replied there would be an increase in traffic and would hamper their ability to get machinery onto the land to remove the crops. He noted as well, the increased traffic volume would also have an impact on agricultural land he owns further down the road.

Councillor Legendre stated he could not see the impact on this property, apart from the 10 to 15% that will presumably be expropriated. He asked staff if indeed this land would be expropriated. Mr. Reid replied this would not necessarily be the case. He postulated that in the fullness of time, developers will probably acquire the farm fields and submit plans of subdivision. At that time, there will be conditions imposed upon those developers to make the property available at no cost or minimum cost to the Region for the purpose of this corridor. Mr. Reid explained this is one of the reasons for determining the corridor, so that it is known what the Region will need and will be able to acquire it when the opportunity arises.

In concluding his remarks, Mr. Edwards stated he did not understand why the Region would even need 10 or 15% of his land, as he felt there was nothing wrong with the existing road and suggested it could continue on as it is.

Lionel Laurin advised he was appearing on behalf of Debbie Wright and Tracy Wright, who own land affected by this realignment, so that they would retain their right to appeal this Amendment to the Ontario Municipal Board, if it is approved. Mr. Laurin began by expressing concern that the Wrights were not notified of this meeting and only became aware of it because Mr. Laurin saw the advertisement in the newspaper and drew it to their attention.

Mr. Laurin went on to explain the proposed corridor cuts through the Wright’s farm. He noted they had sold 25 acres of this land four years ago for $7 million. However, because of impediments encountered by the developer, the sale was nullified two and half years later. Mr. Laurin questioned why the Region would choose to cut through this valuable land.

Committee Chair Hunter asked Mr. Reid to explain the rationale for the realignment of Trim road. Mr. Reid advised it was simply a matter of good planning, to put a major arterial around a community, rather than through the middle of it. He said this realignment recognizes the urban boundary is going to extend to the creek and the major swing in the road to the east, will bring this major arterial around the community as much as possible and reduce its impact on the community. He said the possibility that there may be an inter-provincial bridge in this area, made it even more important to route the road around the community. He said recognizing that urban development will occur, staff and the consultants were of the opinion that, instead of widening an existing corridor in the middle of urban development, it would be best to develop a new corridor that will adequately protect the future population and leave the existing corridor to become a local road.

Councillor Munter noted the speaker was quite right on the issue of notification and he said he hoped the Region’s systems for notification could be improved.

The Councillor went on to note the speaker had mentioned the near-sale of 25 acres of the Wright’s land for $7 million and that part of their concern was the loss in value of the land if the road goes through. Councillor Munter pointed out that, given this land will be developed into subdivisions, the value of the land will actually increase if there is better access to roads.

Mr. Laurin said he did not see it this way. He said once the road cuts through the middle of a property, there is no longer access to it and it will not be saleable.

Gus Dhanda advised he lived at 1465 Trim Road, across from Water Street. Mr. Dhanda said he would be directly impacted by this realignment, as the proposed route goes directly through his house. He said he had attended a meeting in December 1997 and a few options were given to him at that time. He said he was not clear when these options could be applied and was before the Committee to clarify this.

Committee Chair Hunter advised for the immediate future and probably for the next 10 years it would basically be life as usual. After that if the property is needed for the road alignment, the attempt will be made to acquire the land by mutually agreeable terms and failing that, there is a process under the Expropriation Act of Ontario to acquire the property.

Mr. Reid added as the project moves into the next steps of more detailed design, issues such as Mr. Dhanda’s would be addressed and options looked as to see if there was any way to avoid expropriation. If however, there is no alternative but to expropriate, then expropriation would take place as the Region got closer to construction. He added, in the Environmental Assessment (EA) report that was dealt with many months ago, it was recognized that property impacts would include five buy outs of residential properties.

Victor Fowler stated he lived at 1379 Talcy Crescent. Mr. Fowler advised he had attended the open house when the EA report was explained and various alternatives were looked at. He said however, the term "bump-up", which had been used earlier in the meeting, was unfamiliar to him. He said he was not aware there was an opportunity to make such a request and in fact, he was not absolutely sure what it meant. Mr. Fowler stated if it meant increasing any element in terms of the environment or reducing noise, his "bump up" request and that of his neighbours, would be that the alignment in the vicinity of St. Joseph’s Blvd. and Queen Street be made further to the east.

Mr. Fowler went on to point out the staff report states it is unlikely there will be significant noise impact. He said he currently finds the noise unsettling, particularly in the summer and he said he was not sure that changing the grade and relocating the road some 40 metres to the east will be a better situation because of the greater number of vehicles and heavier vehicles, that will be using the road. As well, Mr. Fowler noted Mr. Reid had indicated it was premature to address the noise issues at this stage, as further engineering studies will make a determination. Mr. Fowler, therefore felt it was prejudicial for the report to state no noise attenuation measures would be required for existing properties in the vicinity of the proposed improvements.

The speaker went on to address the issue of settlement and noted this was the first time he had heard about this possibility. Mr. Fowler pointed out the area is on a fault line and he said this fact, combined with the cutting and the additional traffic, could increase the likelihood of settlement of these homes and he suggested the analysis should take this into consideration.

Chair Hunter advised settlement is most likely to occur in areas with clay conditions. When the water is drawn down to change the profile of the land in the area, the soil dries out and that causes settlement. He noted before work starts, the Region or its agent would go in and do a pre-work survey of the house and the condition of the foundation, etc. Then, after the work is done they will come back and check again and any repairs or restitution necessary, will be done at the cost of the agency doing the work.

The Chair then asked Mr. Fowler how far east he would suggest the realignment be moved. Mr. Fowler replied a minimum of 60 metres would be sufficient.

Chair Hunter asked staff if this would be possible, to which Mr. Reid replied this would be considered at the detailed design stage. He advised there is already a proposal to shift the alignment a distance of between 60 to 90 metres from the homes at Talcy Crescent. This shift and the fact the roadway is being put into a cutting, thereby reducing the gradient in consideration of heavy trucks, will be positive from the point of view of noise mitigation. Mr. Reid said it remains to be seen whether it will be necessary to refurbish the existing noise barrier but whatever is required will be done at the time of construction.

Councillor Stewart sought clarification on the speaker’s suggestion to shift the road to the east. Mr. Fowler confirmed he was referring to a shift east of the current Trim Road.

Having heard from all public delegations, the matter returned to Committee.

Responding to questions from Councillor Stewart, Mr. Reid confirmed there would not be a great impact on existing residents if the current alignment of Trim Road remained, but as the community develops if the corridor were left the way it is, there would be a six lane road going through the middle of a community. By moving the road, the community will remain virtually all on one side of the road rather than be divided in two.

Councillor Stewart asked where the notion of the realignment was originally conceived. Mr. Reid advised when the Environmental Assessment Study was initiated, the original thinking was that the existing road would be widened. However, during this process staff and consultants came to the conclusion there was a better solution in light of the fact there was a major corridor to the south (i.e. Frank Kenny Road). They felt Trim Road should connect as directly as possible into Frank Kenny Road so that there was a more direct connection from Trim Road right through to Highway 417 at Vars.

Councillor Legendre noted one of the earlier delegations commented on the proximity of the suggested corridor to the creek and that the creek was a beautiful environmental area. He felt the proposed corridor was rather close to the creek and that more distance could have been left between the corridor and creek, while still joining with Frank Kenny Road south of Innes Road. Mr. Reid advised the exact location of the road and the exact distance from the Creek was not yet established but rather, this would be done at the detailed design stage. He noted the proximity of the road to the creek would be controlled by a number of engineering factors, as well as consideration for the natural environment.

Councillor Legendre questioned the reason for going so far east. Mr. Reid explained staff want to have the road go around the urban community that will develop over to the creek. He said the creek would be part of the urban community and there would be a delicate balancing act between property for creek versus property for urban development with the road dividing them.

Councillor Legendre said he was mystified that the physical presence of the creek would be preserved but that it would perhaps be made an undesirable place to be if 20 metres away, there is a continuous stream of semi-trailers. He questioned why the road would not be further away from the creek so that it could remain a usable feature. Mr. Reid said those were precisely the considerations that will have to be taken into account in determining how close the roadway should be to the creek to ensure that a balance is achieved.

Councillor Stewart said she believed that in looking for the common good, staff were on the right track, as there will always be some winners and losers. She said she was concerned about the potential impacts on Cardinal Creek. The Councillor recalled what happened to Sawmill Creek when the Region put in the Transitway and hugged it so close that they actually straightened out some meanders in the creek which was absolutely unnecessary. She expressed the hope that a natural feature such as this creek would be respected in the choosing of the final corridor.

Councillor Stewart went on to say her other concern was with the notification process. She said she realized that under the Planning Act, staff had done the minimum required and perhaps even gone beyond that but she questioned whether that was truly enough. Councillor Stewart felt that to effect major changes to private property without informing the property owner, defied logic. She said she hoped that in going to one City, there would be a more comprehensive notification policy.

Committee Chair Hunter indicated he would dissent on the staff recommendation. He voiced a concern that the realignment was largely based on the premise that increased traffic would result from a bridge which he did not think either should, or would ever be built, therefore he did not believe Committee and Council should do anything to aid its construction. The Chair felt the Kettle Island corridor would be a better location for an interprovincial bridge than the Petrie Island corridor. Further, reflecting the comments of property owners who had noted the possibility of financial losses associated with the redesignation of land from urban to parkland, the Chair felt it was unfair and improper to take away this potential property investment from individuals who had had such an expectation for a number of years.

Councillor Hill said that in light of views expressed by the public delegations, she too would not support the staff recommendation.

Councillor Legendre said he would support the recommendation, with the proviso that the plans and positioning of the road were only conceptual, allowing for the possibility of alternate alignments in the vicinity of Innes Road and away from Cardinal Creek, which would be included in a future report to Committee, with a more detailed study.

Mr. Reid confirmed this would not be the final design, and that the purpose of the ROPA was to allow staff to proceed with confidence into the detailed design of the alignment and to address the issues expressed by those concerned, in greater detail.

In closing, Councillor Legendre expressed disappointment with the Committee Chair’s view regarding the interprovincial bridge corridor. He felt the choice of the Petrie Island corridor made more sense, noting the Region had already paid for a study in which it had participated, in cooperation with the National Capital Commission (NCC) and the Communauté Urbaine de L’Outaouais (CUO).

The Committee then considered the staff recommendation.

That, having held a public meeting, the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council enact a by-law to adopt draft Regional Official Plan Amendment 2 to the 1997 Regional Official Plan, attached a Annex A to this report, and that staff be directed to issue the required Notice of Adoption.

2. PUBLIC MEETING TO CONSIDER
DRAFT REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT 3 - Palladium auto-park

- Planning and Development Approvals Commissioner’s report dated 9 Feb 2000

Judy Flavin, Planner, Policy and Infrastructure Planning Division, Planning and Development Approvals Department, provided those in attendance with a PowerPoint presentation which highlighted the staff report.

Regional Chair Chiarelli noted the explosion of growth in the western part of the Region, and asked if the rate of this growth, estimated at 26,000 jobs for the current year, was greater than that anticipated in the 1997 Regional Official Plan (ROP).

Pamela Sweet, Director, Policy and Infrastructure Planning Division, Planning and Development Approvals Department felt the department was only now coming to terms with this information, using data gleaned from the recent Malone Givens Parsons (MGP) Corel Area Study (discussed at the Committee’s meeting of 8 Feb 2000), and from recent employment locational analyses and land use studies. She felt results might show that growth was in advance of that predicted in the 1997 ROP, but said she could not immediately answer this question with certainty.

Nick Tunnacliffe, Commissioner, Planning and Development Approvals Department, said the ROP was premised on 8,000 to 9,000 new jobs a year over a 20 year period. He noted there would be fluctuations within this time period, and felt it was necessary to balance the good years with those less bountiful.

Chair Chiarelli asked if, given the present rate of growth, the Region would have to accelerate its decisions regarding infrastructure to accommodate what was in excess of the ROP’s projected 8,000 or 9,000 person-per-year job growth rate.

Mr. Tunnacliffe said it was Council’s function to respond to such trends at budget time, with staff bringing forward proposals based on analyses of demands for land, etc., which would in turn require more infrastructure. Responding to another question regarding whether this growth would require an extraordinary response from the Region, the Commissioner felt it was prudent to remain vigilant. He said he had discussed the issue with the Chief Administrative Officer in terms of a possible approach, but that this was a difficult year, given that the Region was in the hands of a Transition Board.

Chair Chiarelli then commented that it was hard to imagine the lands around the Corel Centre as agricultural land that would ever be farmed. He questioned whether or not the Region should be more practical in terms of land use for lands that have been designated as rural lands.

Mr. Tunnacliffe said the 1997 Official Plan reexamined the classification of the Region’s land. As a result, land on the south side of Highway 417 was changed from Agricultural to General Rural, as it did not meet the requirements for an Agricultural designation. The Commissioner noted that in this specific area, the only Agricultural land is that north of Highway 417. As to the question of whether or not it should be farmed, Mr. Tunnacliffe suggested the land could likely be farmed by renting it out, noting much of the farmland in Ottawa-Carleton is now rented.

Councillor Munter said he understood that if the ROPA application had been put forth on its own, without the Corel Area Study to be reconsidered at a future date, staff would recommend against the Auto-Park application because of issues involving rural servicing, the urban area and an adequate supply of urban land. He asked staff to clarify that Committee was being asked to defer the application to allow for a greater study of the merits of the application in the overall context of land use issues in the Corel Area.

Ms. Sweet noted the staff report’s conclusion on page 33 of the agenda raised three issues; that of the timing of the application related to ongoing studies; concern over the precedent this would set for urban servicing to the rural area, and the effect of the proposal on Official Plan policies regarding development of appropriate uses in the rural area.

Councillor Munter noted these issues would no longer be relevant if the surrounding lands became part of the urban area. The Councillor then asked if the whole 2,000 acres were redesignated Urban, whether the Region would have to re-orient its infrastructure plan, to accommodate unplanned or unforeseen projects. He said he was not opposed to this idea, but felt it was important to recognize these requirements. He noted the report’s mention of impacts on the Signature Ridge pumping station which would necessitate an upgrade ahead of schedule. Councillor Munter presumed that if the overall development of the Corel Area proceeded, this upgrade would form part of the larger discussion regarding sewage capacity. Ms. Flavin said this was so, and that a comprehensive approach would determine the most effective way of servicing the larger area.

Councillor Munter said approval of the ROPA would mean that immediate decisions would have to be made regarding sewage capacity and controls. He noted the possibility that in six months’ time, these decisions might be superseded by different decisions about sewage capacity arising from Committee and Council’s determinations about what to do with the Corel Area Study. Ms. Flavin said the department would have to plan for the requirement approved by the Committee and have this in order until there was another direction .

Councillor Munter also noted that most of the report’s "Comments from the Circulation" were either opposed to the application or indicated concerns. He pointed out that even some of those who were in favour had provisos, such as an owner of land south and west of the subject site who wanted access from his land to Palladium Drive across the south side of the subject site. He also noted the Corel Centre was in favour, as long as there were limits on restaurants and no competition for parking revenues. The Councillor asked if the draft Amendment that was circulated had taken these objections into account.

Ms. Flavin explained the proposed amendment reflected what the applicant had requested in terms of area and uses. She noted approval of the amendment would also approve the secondary uses outlined in the staff report, including a farmers’ market , car wash and two restaurants. She noted issues such as the request for an access road would be addressed either through the subdivision or site plan process at a later date. Ms. Flavin noted staff had tried to address some of the Corel Centre’s concerns through the provision that none of the secondary uses on the site could exceed the development of the automotive uses. Ms. Flavin explained the amount of development of each type was specified in the amendment, so that if the amendment were to be recommended for approval, the uses were strictly defined. She noted development would not be as "free range" as that allowed under a General Urban designation.

Councillor Munter pointed out the Corel Centre had questioned the need for additional restaurants, requested this be reviewed, and, if permitted, the restaurants be reduced in size and allowed only after auto dealerships were established on the site. The Councillor noted these concerns had not been addressed or accommodated in the amendment.

Chair Hunter asked staff to expand on the view that if expansion was warranted, many of the elements in the Palladium Autopark amendment would not be required. Ms. Flavin explained the amendment to the permitted uses in the General Rural area would no longer be required, as this would be an Urban Area and the question of use in the Rural Area would no longer be an issue. In the same vein, she offered that the extension of central services to the Rural Area would no longer be a relevant issue either, leaving staff to examine the question of land use.

Chair Hunter said this would presume that a study proving expansion was warranted had been completed and accepted, and also that a ROPA enacting the expansion had been passed. He noted the area was still considered Rural Area until the ROP designated it Urban Area. Ms. Flavin concurred, stating staff could only work within the Plan as it stands.

Committee then heard from public delegations.

Bruce Finlay, Planner, City of Kanata. Mr. Finlay advised the City of Kanata has many concerns with respect to this Amendment. He noted when the item was before Kanata Council on 9 February 1999, their position was the application was premature (because of the Corel Centre Study on urban expansion) and as well, they were concerned with the impact the proposed development would have on the servicing capacity within the Terry Fox business park.

Mr. Finlay went on to note, when the recommendations of the Corel Centre Study were received last November, the City bought into many of the recommendations made by Malone Givens Parsons (MGP) and, although the study made reference to automotive uses, it goes on to indicate there is potential for employment land. The City of Kanata believes that is a far larger and better goal to strive for at this point. As well, the MGP report suggests the development of a business park on the north side of the 417 is very sensitive to things like the gateway image of the area, design and conflicts in use. Kanata believes the issues surrounding these elements need to be addressed in a comprehensive manner.

The speaker advised the recommendation adopted by Kanata Council on 25 February 1999, was that the proposed amendment was premature. In the second review of it, having received the recommendations of the MGP report, the City believed the proposed Regional Official Plan Amendment for the auto park is inappropriate as it seeks to treat the use as an exception to the rural policies when it is sufficiently large and close to an urban area, that it should be considered as part of the urban area. It is also identified as a component of the entertainment and ancillary uses immediately adjacent to the Corel Centre in that study and encompassed as part of the overall urban expansion envisaged by that study. As well, the amendment extends urban services to the site contrary to the intent of the servicing policies of Section 10.3.3 of the Regional Official Plan and in advance of the identified servicing studies that have been requested by Regional Council in respect to the Corel Centre Study. Mr. Finlay explained Kanata’s third concern was that the servicing alternative suggested by the amendment is for an off-peak sewage system rather than addressing a long term permanent goal or solution. The City believes that the servicing issues surrounding this particular amendment would be better addressed as a comprehensive permanent servicing solution for this whole study area.

In conclusion, Mr. Finlay advised the City agrees with the Regional staff recommendation on this draft Regional Official Plan Amendment and he requested the Committee support that recommendation.

Jean-Yves Laberge, Vice President and General Manager Turpin Group introduced the following delegations, Jeff Mierins, representing the John Mierins Group, Dave Durette representing Tony Graham Group, Ted Fobert, Fotenn Consulting and Dale Craig, President J. L. Richards and Associates Mr. Laberge advised his group represented 13 automotive dealerships covering 36 acres of land and employing close to 600 employees, with a combined annual real estate and payroll tax (excluding income tax) of close to $4 million.

In providing a bit of background, Mr. Laberge explained in the late 1980’s, planning for the future, he started to investigate the possibility of purchasing land in the west end. He said they looked at many pieces of land in the City of Kanata but unfortunately, Kanata was not too receptive to them. On September 14, 1990, after several site inspections, they were offered (on behalf of Terrace Investments) a 100 acre site (less the land required for Palladium Drive, that was to be built later). Mr. Laberge advised the 100 acres was too large for just his dealership and so they joined forces with John Mierins and Tony Graham, as they were also looking for dealership land for the future. The Agreement of Purchase and Sale was made on 22 November 1991 (before the Ontario Municipal Board decision was released) but, because of numerous delays with the Palladium project, the actual closing date of the transaction was 4 July 1994.

Mr. Laberge stated that since the mid 1990’s, they have actively pursued rezoning of this land and, despite overwhelming support from people who have seen this proposal, the group has run into numerous roadblocks. He opined their project was in keeping with the current development mode but in view of years of investment in both time and money, he asked that the Committee consider this application on its own merit and not defer it once again. Mr. Laberge stated this project is a sound business decision, good for the community and good for the dealerships and he urged the Committee to support it.

Mr. Fobert then provided an overview of his clients’ proposal (a copy of the Power Point presentation used by Mr. Fobert is held on file with the Regional Clerk). He noted the concept proposed provides a unique "one stop" shopping opportunity for automobile purchases in a prestige campus setting. It also results in the scale of economy that provides the opportunity to share services such as administration, financing, insurance and leasing and operating costs for such matters as security, advertising, shuttle bus service, dealing with efficient disposal of waste materials and also building and landscape maintenance.

Mr. Fobert expanded on the history of the project, noting in the early 1990’s, discussions were held with officials at both the Region and the Township of West Carleton that confirmed this site was ideal for the auto-park. In fact, West Carleton in 1996 passed a motion supporting the concept in principle and formal applications for the Local Official Plan Amendment and the zoning by-law were filed in February 1997.

Since that time, Mr. Fobert noted these applicants have been delayed on three separate occasions. First, once the application was filed, they were told to wait for the new Regional Official Plan, which would re-designate the site from Agricultural to General Rural to permit the proposed use. Then, as a result of studies carried out in November 1997, it was discovered the land did not have sufficient on-site private water and so a Regional Official Plan Amendment to access Regional water and provide sanitary sewers to the site was required (this was filed in August 1998). Finally, his clients were asked to delay to await the Corel Centre Study, which was approximately 6 months late in arriving.

The speaker went on to say the Corel Centre Study was released in December, 1999 and the findings strongly support economic growth in the vicinity of the Corel Centre, including automotive retail as a component of the leisure, sport and entertainment option. Mr. Fobert noted however, the staff report is recommending once again to defer a decision on the Palladium Auto-Park for at least another eight months until September 2000. He said his clients feel this further delay is unnecessary as there is sufficient information to make a decision now and they feel their proposal should be judged on its own merits. As well, they are concerned that, despite the best efforts to fast track the study of the Corel Centre area lands, it could result in further delay.

Mr. Fobert pointed out existing infrastructure is available adjacent to the site. The Palladium Drive Interchange is under-utilized at present; Regional Water is available on Huntmar Road; and, there is spare sanitary capacity in the pipe serving the Corel Centre. He felt therefore the Auto-Park could proceed on the basis of existing under-utilized infrastructure without jeopardizing either the existing or the future lands in Kanata or the expanded urban boundary. In addition, Mr. Fobert stated the development charges and taxes collected from this development will contribute to the cost of new infrastructure which will be necessary for the expanded urban area and noted the Auto-Park is more than willing to pay its fair share towards infrastructure costs associated with an urban expansion.

With respect to concerns raised that the proposed use would not be suitable for this gateway location, Mr. Fobert noted the site is virtually obstructed by the first overpass at the Palladium Drive Interchange as one travels east along Highway 417. As one passes the overpass, the low profile nature of the buildings will not hinder the Corel Centre and high quality design and landscaping of the site will be imposed as a result of requirements of the automobile manufacturers and also design guidelines that will be included in the Local Official Plan Amendment.

In concluding his remarks, Mr. Fobert stated the Auto-Park is a unique use suited to this remnant highway parcel and will complement the Corel Centre. The Auto-Park is supported in the Corel Centre study and is an industry which is an integral part of the leisure, sport and entertainment market. He urged the Committee not to delay the land use approval for this site but rather he requested that the Committee recommend that Regional Council approve ROPA 3.

Addressing the servicing issues, Mr. Craig informed Committee his firm (J.L. Richards) was the engineering consultants for the infrastructure and the mechanical-electrical services for the Corel Centre and were asked by the Palladium Auto-Park to ascertain the viability of this development with respect to servicing. He noted, as pointed out by Mr. Fobert, the lack of available groundwater led to the conclusion that the extension of services to the site would be necessary and his firm was asked to look at the feasibility of doing this, with no negative impact on other development or the requirement for the use of capacity in the area.

Mr. Craig advised the water services in the area are adequate as there is a 300 millimeter watermain that completely encircles the Corel Centre and it has adequate capacity for servicing this site. With respect to the sewer servicing, Mr. Craig noted the unique nature of the sewage flows at the Corel Centre, make it appropriate, from a technical point of view, for this development to connect into the Corel Centre’s system. He explained the Corel Centre flows go to the Signature Ridge Pumping Station with a capacity of 48 litres per second for the Corel Centre itself plus additional capacity for the undeveloped lands in that area. As a result of monitoring actual sewage flows at the Corel Centre, Mr. Craig advised there are two peaks for sewage flows from the Corel Centre and they occur between the first and second periods of hockey games and between the second and third periods. This peak is about 35 litres per second. Between the end of the first and the start of the third periods the flow drops off to 11 litres per second and at other times, the flow from the site is virtually negligible. A shut off valve will be installed to control the sewage coming from the Palladium Auto-Park and the flows will be monitored downstream in the pipes and as they approach the maximum allowable peaks, through a radio relay it will shut off the valve that allows the sewage to flow from the Auto-Park. There is sufficient storage capacity within the pipes in the Auto-Park to handle all of the build up and then as soon as the 15 minute peak has passed this amount of temporarily held back sewage can drain into the pipes. Mr. Craig stated this system would allow the peak capacity that is provided for, and required to be available to, the Corel Centre not to be exceeded by this development.

Councillor Munter questioned the delegations as to whether the important part of this development was the automotive part as opposed to the farmers market, restaurants, gas bar etc. and whether they would be agreeable to deferring the latter portion of the development. Mr. Laberge replied the gas bar is extremely important as the dealerships will need to have access to a gas station and he suggested it would also be useful to people attending at the Corel Centre. With respect to the restaurants, Mr. Laberge agreed these could be deferred, noting the entire project would take between five and ten years to complete, so the restaurants could be at the tail end of the project.

Councillor Munter then asked if it would be a problem if the auto dealership portion of the development were approved and the rest of the development was deferred for six months. Mr. Laberge said this would not be a problem, but he stressed he did not want the Auto-Park to "get caught in the bigger picture" and be deferred again, as he felt it could take up to two years to deal with the Corel Centre lands.

Mr. Fobert pointed out the development will also require a Local Official Plan Amendment and a zoning by-law (which will set specific requirements with respect to sizes, numbers, types, etc.), which will take an additional six months before it receives approval from the Region. He speculated as well, the first site plan would be before the new City of Ottawa.

Councillor Legendre questioned why the group did not look for land for this project within the urban envelope. Mr. Laberge advised it would be too expensive, noting the rent factor that a dealership can support is predetermined. He stated they were able to negotiate an acceptable price for the subject land, Terrace Developments agreed to help them navigate the process and the agreement stipulated that if they were not able to obtain the rezoning within a certain amount of time, part of the cost of the land would be reduced substantially and in fact it has been reduced.

Councillor Legendre noted Mr. Fobert had mentioned in his presentation that the site would not be visible coming from the west, because of the overpass. The Councillor said he could not believe there would not be huge signs going up to inform about the approaching Auto-Park. Mr. Laberge advised the manufacturers do not permit dealerships to put up their own signs; all of the signage is done by the manufacturers.

Responding to questions posed by Committee Chair Hunter, Ms. Flavin advised that Regional staff first became aware of this potential development in March 1997, when the Township of West Carleton indicated they had received applications and on an informal basis asked Regional staff to comment on them. Regional staff indicated that the development would be an appropriate use in the rural area provided it was scaled back in size and that it was developed on private services.

Wayne Patterson, advised he was a resident of West Carleton and stated he had no personal interest in the Auto-Park. He said he had been following this proposal over the last few years, along with the Corel Centre Study and had attended meetings in West Carleton where Cyril Leeder had indicated this development could have the Corel Centre’s extra sewage capacity. As well, he noted the Township of West Carleton was in support of this proposal. He said it would appear only the City of Kanata was against it.

Mr. Patterson went on to note the $25 million Palladium Interchange is not fully utilized and yet Kanata wants to spend millions of dollars to put one at Castlefrank Road. The speaker felt the Auto-Park would save area residents much time and effort, as they could purchase their cars and have them serviced there instead of having to travel down the Queensway to Bells Corners or St. Laurent. The additional traffic would be out further than the congested Centrum Mall. With respect to this being the gateway to Kanata, Mr. Patterson felt the Auto-Park would certainly look better than the Spratt pit or the Carp Landfill Site. Mr. Patterson stated he fully supported this proposed amendment and hoped the Committee would not defer it.

Having heard from all delegations, the matter returned to Committee.

Committee Chair Hunter noted it was his understanding from the way the recommendation was written, that staff were asking for a deferral because the application was premature and staff would report back in September 2000, on this proposal in the context of proposed amendment for urban expansion in the interchange area. He said however, from points that were made during the staff presentation, he was of the impression that staff would recommend that this not proceed as an amendment even in September but that it wait until the amendment to expand the Corel Centre area is completed and passed. He asked staff for comment on this.

Ms. Flavin advised one option would be that staff, having been directed to bring an expansion amendment back to the Committee (if justified) in September, could structure that amendment in such a way that there is specific reference to the Palladium Auto-Park. Another option could be to actually bring two amendments, one addressing the Palladium Auto-Park and the other addressing the Corel Centre lands. The purpose of that approach would be to disengage the Auto-Park from the approvals procedure for the larger area.

Responding to further questions from Chair Hunter, Ms. Flavin stated if the option to include the Auto-Park in the Corel Centre urban expansion was chosen, there would be specific provisions relating to the Palladium Auto-Park so that in the event there are appeals against the larger amendment, the elements that pertain to the Palladium Auto-Park could potentially be "carved out".

Regional Chair Chiarelli asked if staff were to "carve it out" in September, would the development be serviced in the same way that is proposed now. Ms. Flavin advised that assuming the site would be included within the urban boundary, then it would receive full urban services. She said she did not anticipate there would be any delay in servicing. The longer term servicing strategy might be reworked in the fullness of time as development occurred but if the site was ready to go in the short term, the servicing could go as proposed.

Committee Chair Hunter advised that Councillor Munter had moved the staff recommendation and Councillor Hill had put forward a motion to approve Regional Official Plan Amendment 3. The Chair noted that as the staff recommendation dealt with deferral, it would take precedence.

Councillor Hill stated in light of the time invested in this project (i.e. ten years), she was recommending approval of this amendment. She said it is inevitable that the urban boundary is going to be expanded as a result of the Corel Centre Study and she saw no reason to defer this proposal for another six months. The Councillor also noted that the loss of civil service jobs in Ottawa-Carleton necessitates the Region to encourage job creation. She said this is an excellent opportunity to bring in a lot of jobs, both construction jobs initially and long term jobs once the businesses are built. The development will also provide the Region with revenue from the development charges and taxes. Councillor Hill opined this had been delayed long enough and nothing would be gained by deferring this matter for six more months. She felt it was very important for the Region to send the right message to those who want to bring business to Ottawa-Carleton and she urged the Committee to support her motion.

Councillor Munter stated on the issue of general development in the area around the Corel Centre, he said it was necessary to understand that if those 2000 acres go ahead, it will require the Region to dramatically change its priorities for infrastructure. He said he was not necessarily opposed to this but stressed the importance of ensuring the prioritization of the servicing of these lands. The Councillor went on to say he was very concerned this development would be approved and the rest of the Official Plan would not be changed. He felt it important that the Committee recognize that in the City of Kanata, with the exception of March Road, the transportation capacity is the same today as it was ten years ago, despite remarkable growth and despite the addition of these 2000 acres. The infrastructure must be there to support the development.

With reference to the discussion about how long the proponents have waited, Councillor Munter noted that when they bought these lands, it was well ahead of when they were planning to develop them. They were looking to the future. He noted they indicated to him that the market in Kanata is not quite there even today. He said if the market were there in 1991, these people would have bought a different parcel of land that had the designation and the use, that they could proceed with quickly.

Councillor Munter said staff are basically saying it is necessary to plan this development, in conjunction with the rest of what is proposed to occur. He felt this was the responsible and right thing to do and this was why he was supporting the staff recommendation.

Councillor Legendre indicated he too would be supporting the staff recommendation. He said he wanted to make it clear to the proponents, that the concept is a good one but in his view it is transportable (i.e. it could be moved to any 85 acre parcel of land in Ottawa-Carleton). Referring to Mr. Laberge’s comment that urban land would be too expensive, the Councillor noted that if the urban envelope is expanded to include the subject lands, it will acquire the same value as those within the urban envelope. He suggested the proponents at that point might decide there should be another use for these lands, given its higher value. The Councillor pointed out there is currently within the urban envelope, a 40 year supply of such lands. He noted Council, in the Regional Official Plan, made a conscious decision to grow in not out, to put stop to unaffordable urban sprawl.

In concluding his remarks, Councillor Legendre stated his opinion that this proposal should be considered in the context of the Corel Centre Study, as it will look at not only expansion of the urban envelope around the Corel Centre but also it will look at the impact of doing so on all of the other available lands in Ottawa-Carleton.

Councillor Stewart stated she would be supporting Councillor Hill’s motion. She said she did not think the Region could make investors wait indefinitely and, noting that Ontario is booming, she felt it necessary to be able to make quick decisions if the Region is going to continue to expand, grow and prosper. The Councillor stated if this is the gateway to the Corel Centre, and they are in support of this, that was good enough for her. She felt the Auto-Park would be an excellent land use for this area and she could not see any reason to delay it, even for a short period.

Councillor Bellemare noted the staff report looks at basically three issues. He felt the first issue of servicing was adequately addressed by the developers by the fact that both water and sewer would be piped in at the developers’ cost. The second concern that permitting servicing would constitute an exception to servicing policies in the "rural" areas, Councillor Bellemare felt a case could easily be made that the Corel Centre area is already an exception to any other rural area in the Region and for this reason, Committee and Council have directed staff to draft an amendment that would expand the urban area. On the issue of the appropriateness of this development, he noted the Corel Centre area study is dealing on a theoretical basis (e.g. what type of development should be allowed, what should the boundaries be, what are the infrastructure needs, etc.). He said looking at the proposed development, it is evident this is compatible with what the Region wants to see in the area. He felt it would be ridiculous to tie this proposal to the Corel Centre area, only to subsequently come back and determine whether or not this process should be considered separately from the larger Corel Centre area. The Councillor indicated he would be voting against deferral and in favour of proceeding with this proposal.

The Committee then considered the staff recommendation, to defer.

Moved by A. Munter

LOST

NAYS: D. Beamish, M. Bellemare, B. Chiarelli, B. Hill and W. Stewart…..5

YEAS: G. Hunter, J. Legendre and A. Munter…..3

Councillor Munter stated it was clear this item was headed for approval but he felt there were a number of issues that should be addressed. He asked staff for their opinion on whether there were things that should be included in the amendment. Ms. Flavin advised the amendment as proposed was extremely specific and said her professional view was that it would dictate some of the elements for the detailed zoning by-law and site-plan. She said she would like an opportunity to review the amendment to see if, for example, some of the figures could be taken out of the different clauses and perhaps not specify the uses in such detail.

Councillor Munter said if the will is to proceed with this amendment, he would like to see staff bring forth an official plan amendment that approves the permitted use and addresses the kinds of issues that staff have spoken about. Committee Chair Hunter pointed out the Amendment was included in the report, attached as Annex A. He noted it was prepared by staff to reflect the applicant’s proposal but not recommended by them.

The Committee then considered the Motion put forward by Councillor Hill.

Moved by B. Hill

CARRIED as amended

YEAS: D. Beamish, M. Bellemare, B. Chiarelli, B. Hill, G. Hunter and

W. Stewart…6

NAYS: J. Legendre and A. Munter…..2

3. TOWNSHIP OF OSGOODE

OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 6 - VILLAGE OF GREELY

- Planning and Development Approvals Commissioner’s report dated 7 Feb 2000

Councillor Legendre noted the staff recommendation was asking the Committee to lift a deferral and approve an Official Plan Amendment. He noted the main intent (page 44) is to preclude random subdivisions on private wells and septic, in the absence of understanding the servicing impact on the whole area. He went on to note that staff have indicated that given the size and location of the parcel, this would not prejudice the whole area. He said he found this rather confusing and asked that staff clarify this.

Nigel Brereton, Senior Project Manager, Development Approvals, drew the Committee’s attention to the map on page 47 of the Agenda. He noted the entire area of deferral was outlined in black, while the subject area is solid black. Mr. Brereton advised that staff are of the opinion, because of the area’s small size and location, the deferral can be lifted without prejudicing the study that Osgoode will undertake for the rest of the area. The small black area (the subject area) will still have to go through its own servicing study.

Councillor Legendre stated he could not understand what would be gained by lifting the deferral on this area, given that before any subdivision approval is granted, the Region will still have to be satisfied (in terms of hydrogeology and septic systems) that there will be no adverse impact on development in the deferred area.

Responding to further questions from Councillor Legendre, Mr. Brereton advised the overall study would be started in about a month’s time and would be completed before the end of this year. He advised that lifting the deferral on the smaller piece of land would buy them about six months time.

The Committee then considered the staff recommendation.

Councillor Munter tabled the following motion, for discussion at the next Planning and Environment Committee meeting.

Moved by A. Munter

WHEREAS larger-scale development in suburban and other outlying communities often displaces wildlife; and

WHEREAS it is consistent with the Regional Official Plan’s "design with nature" provisions to consider such impacts as part of the development process; and

WHEREAS it is inevitable that construction will occur on lands designated and approved for development, thus requiring some planning for how such construction can be made to be as least-disruptive as possible;

BE IT RESOLVED THAT regional planning staff be directed to consult with stakeholders such as the Ottawa-Carleton Homebuilders Association and the Ottawa-Carleton Wildlife Centre on a protocol to be included in the development/subdivision approval process to minimize needless injury and death of wildlife; and

FURTHER THAT staff report back within 90 days on a proposed policy.