STATEMENT
REQUIRED UNDER THE PLANNING ACT
At the start
of the meeting, Chair Jellett read a statement required under the Planning Act, which advised that anyone
intending to appeal the proposed Zoning By-law Amendments listed as Items 1
through 6 must either voice their objections at the public meeting or submit
their comments in writing prior to the amendments being adopted by City Council
on February 14, 2007. Failure to do so
could result in refusal/dismissal of the appeal(s) by the Ontario Municipal
Board (OMB).
The Chair
also read a statement regarding the proposed Ottawa Brownfields Redevelopment
Community Improvement Plan listed as Item 7.
He advised that if a person or a public body did not make oral
submissions at the public meeting or make written submissions before the plan
was adopted by City Council on February 14, 2007, the person or public body
would not be entitled to appeal the decision of City Council to the Ontario
Municipal Board nor be added as a party to the hearing of an appeal before the
Ontario Municipal Board unless, in the opinion of the Board, there were
reasonable grounds to add the person or public body as a party.
PLANNING,
TRANSIT & THE ENVIRONMENT
URBANISME, TRANSPORT EN COMMUN ET
L’ENVIRONNEMENT
PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE APPROVALS
APPROBATION DES DEMANDES D’URBANISME ET D’INFRASTRUCTURE
1. ZONING - 107 AND 111 WESTHUNT ROAD
ZONAGE - 107 ET 111, CHEMIN WESTHUNT
Moved by Councillor E. El-Chantiry:
WHEREAS the
applicant has asked that consideration of this item be postponed until the next
meeting of the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee;
THEREFORE BE
IT RESOLVED that the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee defer
consideration of the report titled “Zoning – 107 and 111 Westhunt Road”
(ACS2007-PTE-APR-0035) until its 8 February 2007 meeting.
CARRIED
That the
Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend Council approve an amendment
to the former Township of West Carleton Zoning By-Law to change the zoning of
107 and 111 Westhunt Road from MR (Rural Industrial) to MR-14 (Special Rural
Industrial) as shown on Document 1 and as detailed in Document 2.
ZONAGE - 98, RUE KING
That the
Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee
recommend Council approve an amendment to the former Township of Goulbourn
Zoning By-Law to change the zoning of 98 King Street from Future Development
Zone (D-1) to Residential (R-1) and Environmental Protection Area Zone (EPA)
and to rezone from EPA to R-1, as shown in Document 1 and detailed in Document
2.
3. ZONING - 1369, 1378, 1384, 1390 AND 1461 YORKS
CORNERS ROAD
ZONAGE - 1369, 1378, 1384, 1390 ET 1461, CHEMIN
YORKS CORNERS
Ms. L.
Sweet-Lindsay, Planner, outlined the legal process whereby staff had arrived at
the report recommendation. She
explained that, in accordance with the Minutes of Settlement for part of Appeal
No. 47 to the Official Plan dated October 13, 2005, the City had agreed to
amend the Zoning By-law to permit three Country Estate Lots, on the West side
of Yorks Corners Road, with the provision that they would also amend the Zoning
By-law to prevent the construction of homes on the applicant’s lands on the
East side of the road. Ms.
Sweet-Lindsay suggested this was satisfactory to the applicant and to the City.
A copy of her PowerPoint presentation is held on file.
In response to
questions from Councillor Thompson, Mr. T. Marc, Manager of Planning and
Environment Law, explained that staff’s signing of the Minutes of Settlement
did not bind the Committee or Council.
However, he noted that should Council not approve the Zoning By-law
amendment, the appellant would be entitled to re-open the Minutes of Settlement
and pursue the original appeal. He also
confirmed that if Committee turned down the staff recommendation, the appeal
would go back to the OMB.
In response to
Chair Jellett’s question as to why the City had agreed to the Settlement, Mr.
Marc suggested that if staff had signed a settlement, they likely had assessed
the strength of their case and felt a compromise was warranted.
In response to
questions from Councillor Hunter regarding the origins of the matter, Mr. Marc
confirmed that the applicant applied unsuccessfully to the Committee of
Adjustment in 2002. The applicant then
appealed the relevant policies in the Official Plan once it was adopted in 2003
and the present Settlement had resulted from that Official Plan appeal. Mr. Marc noted that the present Settlement
was a compromise – had they been successful in their OP appeal, they would have
achieved the General Rural designation on both parcels and there would be a
much stronger case to proceed with their applications for severance and
re-zoning. As a compromise they gave up
development rights on two lots in exchange for development rights on the other
three.
Responding to
further questions from Councillor Hunter, Mr. Marc noted that the neighbours
were not a party to the Settlement. He
also did not recall the applicant appearing before the Planning Committee on
the issue.
In response to
Councillor El-Chantiry’s questions regarding the Committee’s options, Mr. Marc
re-iterated that Committee and Council had complete discretion to disagree with
staff. However, he noted that could
result in the applicant pursuing the appeal and seeking to have all the lands
re-designated General Rural.
Mr. W. Gunn,
owner of a 2-acre property adjacent to the subject site, addressed the
Committee regarding his concerns with the proposed re-zonings. He suggested that the re-zoning of 1378,
1384 and 1390 Yorks Corners Road to permit the creation of three country estate
lots would negatively impact his property and his operation of a licensed dog
kennel there.
Mr. Gunn
indicated that when he purchased his property, he leased land from the owners
of surrounding properties – to the North and to the South. He explained that when the applicant made
his first application to the Committee of Adjustment for a severance in 2002,
it was for a lot line adjustment that would have added two acres to Mr. Gunn’s
property and create two estate lots. He
noted that at the time of that application, he and his wife agreed to not
oppose it because it would have left a buffer between the properties. He recalled that at the time, the planner
had indicated to him that the chances were slim that the applicant would be
permitted to build houses on those properties.
He also noted that in 2002, the Committee of Adjustment had approved the
severance but refused the creation of two more lots.
Mr. Gunn drew
attention to the fact that there was very little potable water in the area,
noting the nearby trailer park had experienced continued water problems and he
was required to install expensive additional filtration in order to have a
small quantity of potable water. He
also noted that 2-acre severances had already been approved for the two properties
to the East. In closing, Mr. Gunn
expressed concerns with the elevation of the site. He suggested that, as the land was very wet, the applicant would
need to elevate the site 20 feet in order to build anything on it, which would
certainly cause flooding on his own property.
He maintained that nothing had changed on the properties since the
applicant’s original application to the Committee of Adjustment was
refused.
In response to a
question from Councillor Hunter, Mr. Gunn confirmed that he had been a party to
the first Committee of Adjustment hearing and had been kept informed on
everything. He explained that he and
the applicant had a written agreement that there would be a possibility of two
estate lots if the applicant sold him the two acres closest to him and one of
the four acres to the North. He noted
this would give him five acres in total, which would allow him to continue
operating his kennel. Mr. Gunn
explained that he had retired in his house with every intention of living his
life in it, but would be forced to move if Committee approved the creation of
three lots on the existing 6-acre parcel.
Responding to a
question from Councillor Hunter regarding the issue of potable water supply,
Ms. K. Currie, Manager of Development Approvals, clarified that the proposed
re-zoning would allow the possibility of three lots, but would still be
subject to an application to the Committee of Adjustment for the creation of
the lots. She explained that before the
Committee of Adjustment approved the creation of the lots, there would be a
necessity to prove potable water on the properties. Mr. L. Morrison, Manager of Infrastructure Approvals, agreed with
Ms. Currie that it would have to be a condition of severance that they be able
to demonstrate the availability of potable water.
In response to a
question from Councillor Hunter on the issue of importing fill to change the
elevation of the property, Mr. Morrison suggested staff would ensure that
whatever happened on the property did not negatively impact adjacent
landowners. This would be addressed
either at the severance stage or at the building permit stage.
Chair Jellett
noted there were cases in Cumberland where people had filed drainage plans and
then ignored them, resulting in neighbouring properties being flooded. He asked how assurances could be given to
Mr. Gunn with respect to his property not being affected. Mr Morrison explained that at the
development application stage, staff takes a look at the adjacent property to
ensure the integrity of the drainage was maintained for all properties in the
vicinity. However, he admitted there
were occasionally situations where individuals created problems by arbitrarily
filling their properties. He maintained
it was unlikely that Mr. Gunn’s property would not be flooded by the adjacent
property.
Regarding Mr.
Gunn’s Kennel, Chair Jellett wondered whether the warning clause, inserted
through the severance process, would be legally sufficient to prevent
neighbours from complaining and harassing Mr. Gunn about the noise from the kennels. Ms. Enta, Legal Counsel, noted nothing could
be done to prevent people from complaining.
However staff would ensure, through the Committee of Adjustment process,
that the creation of a parcel next door would not be permitted if it were to
hinder Mr. Gunn’s ability to operate his business in any way.
Chair Jellett
wondered if the warning clause would be passed on to anyone purchasing a house
on the proposed lots. Ms. Enta
explained that the intent was to have any warning clauses registered on title. She suggested that any subsequent homeowner,
in doing a title search, would become aware of any restrictive covenant
attached to the property.
Councillor
Thompson indicated he was very familiar with the area and with the water
problems experienced at the trailer park.
He felt Mr. Gunn had legitimate concerns. He noted that water quality issues may be addressed in the
future, therefore he suggested the Committee should not rule on the basis of
water quality.
Councillor
Thompson wondered if Mr. Gunn had spoken with the applicant to see whether he
could retain part of the land. Mr. Gunn
indicated this was originally discussed and a document was signed to allow him
to retain the two acres to the North, and 1 acre to the South, provided he and
his wife did not oppose the severance and provided they removed their kennel
sign. He advised he and his wife were
not amenable to the last condition.
In response to
further questions from Councillor Thompson, Mr. Gunn explained that he owned
two acres but needed five acres for the Kennel license. As a result of agreements with the previous
landowner and the nearby church, he was able to lease sufficient land. He indicated the church was no longer
willing to sell or lease any part of their land, but had granted him permission
to exercise his dogs on their property in exchange for keeping an eye on the
church at night. Mr. Gunn maintained
that, aside from the kennel license, he was most concerned about neighbours
being perpetually upset with him because of the dogs.
In response to
questions from Councillor Thompson, Ms. Enta suggested that because he actually
owned only two acres and the requirement was five, Mr. Gunn was already
contravening the requirements with respect to his kennel license. She suggested she would need to review the
matter further. She also indicated she
could not comment on the validity of any legal documents mentioned by Mr. Gunn.
In response to
questions from Councillor Thompson regarding the drainage of surrounding lands,
Mr. Gunn explained that the large piece of land West of his property was tile
drained and a municipal drain ran through the nearby trailer park.
In response to a
question from Councillor Brooks, Mr. Gunn indicated he had been running a
Kennel since 1971, but that he had been at his current location for eight
years.
Councillor
Thompson clarified that Mr. Gunn had entered into agreements with adjacent
landowners so that he would have sufficient acreage for his kennel license.
In response to a
question from Councillor Brooks, Ms. Currie explained that if Committee
approved the re-zoning, it would go to Council for adoption. If Council’s decision was appealed, it would
then go to the OMB for resolution.
Councillor
Brooks asked whether the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) 2003 applied in this
case, since the initial application was made in 2002. Ms. Currie indicated the 2002 application to the Committee of
Adjustment was no longer valid and this was a current application.
Councillor
Brooks then suggested that if the land was in an agricultural area, it should
fall under the Provincial Policy Statement.
Ms. Currie acknowledged that the land was designated agriculture,
therefore it would be subject to the PPS.
Councillor
Brooks maintained that in light of the last response, Committee could not
approve the staff recommendation. Ms.
Currie indicated she would need to go back to review the specific dates and how
this matter related to the PPS. She
noted staff had not viewed it as conflicting with the PPS but advised she would
confirm that.
Councillor
Brooks suggested this should be confirmed before Committee made any decision
and he suggested deferring the item to the next meeting.
Mr. Patrick
Thompson was present on behalf of the applicant and indicated they would
not object to a deferral. Mr. Moser
indicated staff also had no concern with a deferral.
Moved by
Councillor G. Brooks
That the
Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee defer consideration of the report until
its 8 February 2007 meeting.
CARRIED
That the
Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend Council approve an amendment
to the former Osgoode Zoning By-law to change the zoning of 1378, 1384 and 1390
Yorks Corners Road from RU - Rural Zone to CE - Country Estate Zone and of 1369
and 1461 Yorks Corners Road from RU - Rural Zone to RU (X) - Rural Exception
(X) Zone as shown in Document 1 and as detailed in Document 2.
ZONAGE - PARTIE DU 6010, PROMENADE KNIGHTS
That the
Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend Council approve an amendment
to the former Osgoode Zoning By-law to change the zoning of part of 6010
Knights Drive from Rural (RU) and Hazard (HAZ) to Country Estate (Exception
XX), CE(EXX) and Open Space 2 (Exception YY), O2(EYY) as shown in Document 1
and as detailed in Documents 2 and 3.
5. ZONING - PART OF 2123 DEVINE ROAD
ZONAGE - PARTIE DU 2123, CHEMIN DEVINE
That the
Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend Council approve an amendment
to the former City of Cumberland Rural Zoning By-law to change the zoning on
part of Part of 2123 Devine Road from GR, General Rural to Rs3(H1), Residential
Serviced Three - Holding Zone as shown in Document 1.
6. ZONING - 5396
DUNNING ROAD
ZONAGE - 5396, CHEMIN DUNNING
That the
Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend Council approve an amendment
to the former City of Cumberland Rural Zoning By-law to change the zoning of
part of 5396 Dunning Road from "MX" Mineral Extraction to
"GR" General Rural as shown in Document 1.
PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY
Politiques d’urbanisme, d’environnement et
d’infrastructure
7. OTTAWA BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGY AND
BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
STRATÉGIE DE RÉAMÉNAGEMENT DES FRICHES INDUSTRIELLES
ET PLAN D'AMÉLIORATION COMMUNAUTAIRE POUR LES FRICHES INDUSTRIELLES
Moved by Councillor E. El-Chantiry:
That the
Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee approve the following proposed
technical amendment to recommendation 3 of the report titled “Brownfields
Redevelopment Strategy and Brownfields Redevelopment Community Improvement
Plan” (ACS2007-PTE-POL-0003):
Direct staff to make the necessary text modifications to the Brownfields
Redevelopment Community Improvement Plan (August 2006), as shown in Document 2,
to reflect the new definitions and approval requirements resulting from the
January 1, 2007 proclamations of Bill 130 and Bill 51 before the plan rises to
Council for adoption by by-law and; that a by-law be enacted to adopt the
revised Ottawa Brownfields Community Improvement Plan.
Mr. D. Jacobs,
Director, Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Policy, began by introducing
the project manager for the Brownfields project, Mr. J. Phelan, Planner. He explained that the purpose of the report
was to seek approval for the Brownfields Redevelopment Strategy, Brownfields
Community Improvement plan, and various other actions to implement the
strategy. He then provided a detailed
presentation in which he provided an overview of the report and its
recommendations. A copy of his presentation
is held on file.
Councillor
E-Chantiry wondered how the strategy would provide a financial incentive to
properties in the downtown core that were already subject to a development
charge exemption. Mr. Jacobs explained
that if an application came forward on an area that had development charge
exemptions for another purpose, then other tax-based programs would be used to
offset the cost of remediation.
Councillor
El-Chantiry also wondered if the Brownfields program would in any way address
contaminated properties owned by the City, should they require clean up. Mr. Jacobs suggested the City was
responsible for cleaning up its properties, whether they were being developed
or not. However, he suggested the
proposed Brownfields project would address sites like the Bayview yards, where
the City could partner with a private sector developer and use this program as
an offsetting feature to get the property cleaned up at no cost to the property
taxpayer.
Councillor
Jellett asked, in the case where there was a limited pot of money and there was
a queue, whether the City would clean-up its own property first or someone
else’s property. Mr. Jacobs indicated
because the Brownfields projects were borrowing against tax revenues that would
be generated by the development of the site, the money that would be used to
support a development project would be different from the money the City would
have to spend to clean up a property it owned.
In response to a
question from Councillor El-Chantiry, Mr. Jacobs advised that similar programs
had been initiated in Brantford, Cambridge, Chatham-Kent, Cornwall, Guelph,
Kingston, Kitchener, and Hamilton.
Councillor
Hunter suggested that, in a tight budget year, the proposed $35,000 addition
the Financial Services budget was problematic.
He asked if applicants could be charged an administrative fee in order
to recover costs, resulting in a net zero impact to taxpayers. He wondered why the Planning Department’s
cost-recovery policy did not apply to Brownfields. Mr. Jacobs responded this was directly related to the fact that
the Brownfields Redevelopment Strategy was an incentive program to encourage
development. Staff felt it was a
relatively minor cost to absorb in order to encourage the redevelopment of some
significant sites in the city.
Responding to a
question from Councillor Hunter, Mr. Jacobs explained the number referenced in
the report with respect to expected applications was based on the experience in
other municipalities.
In response to
further questions from Councillor Hunter, Mr. Jacobs confirmed that any
Brownfields development that has not yet reached building permit stage, such as
100 Landry, would be eligible to apply to be part of the strategy. He suggested that, other than the Landry
site and one other proposal, he was not aware of any applications where the
proponent was coming forward with a contaminated site and seeking clean-up
costs. He suggested that most of the
developers were waiting until the strategy was in place so they could gauge
whether or not it made a difference with going forward
In response to
Councillor Hunter’s question regarding whether parking lots would be eligible,
Mr Jacobs confirmed there were probably a wide range of sites that could
potentially come forward. He suggested
that if Brownfield costs are identified, through soil testing, the preparation of
a record of site conditions and a remediation solution, the developer would
make an application when they were filing their development proposal.
Responding to a
question from Councillor Hunter with respect to vetting or auditing of costs,
Mr. Phelan explained staff had discussed the matter in terms of making sure
there was a transparent public process.
He indicated the City would need to see invoices that were third-party
verified and a legal agreement would need to be approved by Council as part of
the package going forward setting out the terms and conditions. He maintained this was one on the
cornerstones of the project.
Councillor
Hunter was concerned by the potential for abuses, even if invoices were
required. He gave the example of an
applicant who finds out his bill for clean-up was $500,000 and asked the
contractor to invoice him for $900,000.
Therefore, he asked for more information with respect to third-party
verification. Mr. Jacobs explained that
the third-party verification would use recognized professionals in the
environmental remediation business to ensure consistency. He suggested there were benchmarks that
could be used to compare the costs of removal of fill and the tipping fees
associated with that. He affirmed Mr.
Phelan’s statement that an adequate audit process would be in place to verify
claims.
Councillor
Brooks agreed that the City had a responsibility to clean up the environment
wherever and whenever it could. He also
agreed that benchmarking was important for measuring success. He expressed concern about handing over
subsidies to developers, and he suggested that, if it made financial sense,
developers would develop the sites without a subsidy. He noted that he was also troubled by the development charge
exemption in the downtown core, passed by the former Regional
Municipality. He felt this had cost the
City millions of dollars. While he understood the philosophy of encouraging
downtown intensification, he wondered why it was necessary, if in fact the core
was as attractive as some people believed it to be. He wondered about the cost of debt financing associated with putting
off collecting tax revenue, noting that on an annual basis, the City was paying
approximately $90M to service its debt.
He suggested the problem with intensification within rural villages was
that they were on well and septic systems.
He pointed to Hillside Gardens in his ward, where there was ground
contamination due to septic systems. He
noted they had not received subsidies to clean-up that contamination whereas
urban Brownfields would be eligible for subsidies.
With respect to
intensification in villages, Mr. Jacobs referenced the Official Plan (OP),
noting that the City would not encourage intensification if it could not be
supported by the privately provided services.
Responding to
questions from Councillor Brooks, Mr. Jacobs suggested that if an owner of a
village property wanted to develop the site and it was an eligible Brownfield,
the City would consider their eligibility of some form of incentive. However, he noted there would also be a
development review process to ensure the proposed development was sustainable
within the private service context.
Councillor
Brooks drew parallels between urban development and rural village
development. Mr. Jacobs noted that
within the inner-city, services were already in place; services that had been
paid for by the property owners at the time of their installation. However, in villages where services were not
in place and there was a need to put in services from a public safety
perspective, a local improvement by-law would be needed to pay for those
services.
The Committee
then voted on the report recommendations.
1.
Approve the Ottawa Brownfields Redevelopment Strategy,
as shown in Document 1;
2.
Enact a by-law to designate the following as the
“Ottawa Brownfields Redevelopment Community Improvement Project Area”:
a. the
area within the “Urban Area Boundary” as designated in the City of Ottawa
Official Plan (2003), as amended from time to time; and
b. the areas designated “Village”, in the City
of Ottawa Official Plan (2003), as amended from time to time;
3.
Direct staff to make the necessary text
modifications to the Brownfields Redevelopment Community Improvement Plan (August
2006), as shown in Document 2, to reflect the new definitions and approval
requirements resulting from the January 1, 2007 proclamations of Bill 130 and
Bill 51 before the plan rises to Council for adoption by by-law and; that a
by-law be enacted to adopt the revised Ottawa Brownfields Community Improvement
Plan;
4.
Approve
the guidelines for the Development Charge Reduction Program Due to Site
Contamination, including requirements for applications received prior to
January 16, 2007, as shown in Document 3;
5.
Approve
the concept of the Nicholas-Mann Gateway project as a signature brownfields
redevelopment project, as shown in Document 4; and, direct staff to prepare a
request for funding to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities under the
Green Municipal Funds to obtain a grant to undertake a sustainable community
planning study for this area;
6.
Delegate
to the Director, Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Policy the authority
to approve project feasibility and environmental site assessment grant applications,
subject to an annual reporting to Council;
7.
Establish a Municipal Leadership revolving fund
(capital account) to help implement the Brownfields Redevelopment Strategy
funded in the future from the 30% property tax increment that is retained by
the City as a result of properties participating in the Rehabilitation Grant
program;
8.
Direct staff to report back to Council prior to
the 2008 budget process on the outcomes of the 2007 program; and
9.
Refer the $35,000 annual cost to administer the
property tax assistance programs by the Revenue Division of the Corporate
Services Department to the 2007 budget process.
LOST
YEAS (2): B. Monette, R. Jellett
NAYS (3): G.
Brooks, E. El-Chantiry, G. Hunter
ADDITIONAL ITEM
ARTICLES SUPPLÉMENTAIRES
8. UPDATE ON
COMPLETING RURAL BROADBAND
MISE À JOUR SUR L’ ACHÈVEMENT DU RÉSEAU À LARGE BANDE DANS
LE SECTEUR RURAL
Chair Jellett
referenced a memo from Mr. M. Murr, Manager of Economic Development, circulated
to Committee members at the start of the meeting with respect to an update on
completing rural broadband coverage. He
noted that, should Committee wish to discuss the matter, a motion would be
required to add the item to the Agenda.
Councillor
Brooks felt broadband was very important in the rural area, therefore Committee
should vote to add the item to the Agenda.
Moved by
Councillor G. Brooks
That the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee
approve the addition of this item for consideration by the Committee at this
meeting, pursuant to Section 81(3) of the Procedure By-Law (Being By-Law
2005-431): Update on Completing Rural Broadband
CARRIED
Mr. D. Moodie,
Rural Affairs Officer, provided a detailed overview of the update contained in
Mr. Murr’s memo to Committee with respect to completing broadband coverage in
Rural Ottawa and responded to members’ questions on same. A copy of the memo is held on file.
In response to a question from Councillor Brooks, Mr.
Moodie confirmed that he had been working very closely with Economic
Development staff on this project and he reviewed the composition of the
evaluation committee that would review the proposals.
Councillor Brooks felt rural broadband had been a long
time coming and that, with Council’s support, it had come a long way.
In response to a question from Councillor El-Chantiry, Mr.
Moodie explained that the RFP had not been issued until November because it was
a complex document with a lot of technical requirements. Therefore, it took some time for staff to
pull the report together.
Councillor El-Chantiry echoed Councillor Brook’s comments
with respect to the project having come a long way and thanked Mr. Moodie for
the update.
Councillor
Hunter wondered if there was any flexibility on the 100% target, noting it was
a fairly high goal. Mr. Moodie
explained that the RFP review would provide significant weighting to the
maximum amount of coverage possible.
The goal is for every rural resident to be able to access the
service. However, he admitted it was
possible that none of the providers would come forward with a proposal for 100%
coverage. In that regard, staff would
be flexible.
Councillor
Hunter noted there were large rural areas without any houses, therefore it
would not make sense to insist on 100% coverage in those areas.
In response to
questions from Councillor Brooks with respect to the type of technology to be
used, Mr. Moodie indicated the RFP process had not predicated any particular
technology. It had set the goal at 100%
and asked the providers to outline how they would get there.
Responding to a
question from Chair Jellett, Mr. Moodie explained the project timelines had
been predicated on getting forward to Council in March with the proposal from
the preferred partner so that construction could begin as soon as the frost was
out of the ground in the spring. He
noted the RFP deadline had been moved from January 8 to January 22 because of
some pushback from vendors, however staff had been pulling some of the slack
out of the process in order to meet the March timeline for reporting to
Committee and Council.
OPEN MIKE
TRIBUNE LIBRE
Mr. K. Visvanatha, resident of Rideau-Goulbourn,
indicated he was an electrical engineer, living in Ottawa for approximately 20
years. He had worked at Nortel and JDS
and, since leaving JDS the previous summer, he had been trying to create a
business in renewable energy. He had
formed a company called “Sun to Grid” with the objective of collecting solar
energy, converting it to electricity, and selling it to the power grid. With the help of a PowerPoint slide
presentation, Mr. Visvanatha discussed: the premise of his business; his
intention to install solar panels and other related facilities and equipment on
his property; the implications of the type of technology he would be using; and
the zoning issues that prevented him from moving forward. A copy of his presentation is held on
file.
Mr. Visvanatha acknowledged that his property had to be rezoned
before he could move forward. However,
he was concerned with the time needed to process and obtain approval for a
re-zoning application because he had secured the financing, he had bought land,
and he was working with Hydro Ottawa and Hydro One on a connection impact
assessment. Therefore, the zoning issue
was a stumbling block and time was of the essence. In closing, he asked for the Committee help.
Responding to a question from Chair Jellett, Mr. Moser indicated
he believed the new zoning by-law would resolve the presenter’s problem. However, he noted the new by-law would not
be finalized and approved for some time yet.
He outlined some possible means to resolve the issue.
A discussion ensured amongst Committee members and staff with
respect to the regulations in Goulbourn and the reasons for same as well as the
various avenues available to Mr. Visvanatha and the implications of each in
terms of time and cost.
In closing, Committee members recommended that Mr. Visvanatha file
an application to have his property rezoned and staff offered to process the
application as expeditiously as possible, once it was filed.
ADJOURNMENT
LEVÉE DE
LA SÉANCE
The meeting adjourned
at 11:45 a.m.
Original signed
by Original
signed by
Marc Desjardins Rob
Jellett
Committee Coordinator Chair
