Planning and Environment Committee

Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement

Minutes 22 / Procès-verbal 22

Tuesday, 23 November 2004 9:30 a.m.

le mardi 23 novembre 2004 9 h 30

Champlain Room, 110 Laurier Avenue West

Salle Champlain, 110, avenue Laurier ouest

Present / Présent : Councillor / Conseiller P. Hume (Chair / Président)

Councillor / Conseillère P. Feltmate (Vice-Chair / Vice-présidente)

Councillors / Conseillers M. Bellemare, A. Cullen, J. Harder, D. Holmes G. Hunter, H. Kreling

Absent / Absent : Councillor / Conseiller G. Bédard (Regrets / excuses)

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

DÉCLARATIONS D’INTÉRÊT

Councillor Kreling declared a Conflict of Interest on Item 4 as he Chairs the Algonquin College Board of Governors.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Ratification dES procÈs-verbaUX

Minutes 21 of the Planning and Environment Committee meeting held on Tuesday, 9 November 2004 were confirmed.

At the outset of the Meeting Chair Hume began by reading a statement required under the Planning Act, which advised that anyone who intended to appeal the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments listed as Items 33, 4 and 16, must either voice their objections at the public meeting, or submit their comments in writing prior to the amendment being adopted by City Council. Failure to do so could result in refusal/dismissal of the appeal by the OMB.

REFERRALS/deferrals

RENVOIS/reports

1. SIGN BY-LAW Amendment - 1900 dauphin road

MODIFICATION AU RÈGLEMENT MUNICIPAL SUR LES ENSEIGNES - 1900, CHEMIN DAUPHIN

ACS2004-DEV-BLD-0021 alta vista (18)

Deferred from 24 August 2004 meeting

Chair Hume acknowledged there was a Motion to defer the item to 11 January 2005 since the applicant suffered a heart attack. Correspondence dated 19 November 2004 from Al Saunders, Chair, Hillcrest School Council, in support of the application was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.

Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate:

WHEREAS, on August 24, 2004, and November 9, 2004, Planning and Environment Committee approved motions to defer this submission to the November 23, 2004 meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee.

AND WHEREAS, this submission is listed as report one on the Agenda 22 of the Planning and Environment Committee dated November 23, 2004, to amend Signs By-law 36-2000 to allow a moving message centre sign in a District 2 zone.

AND WHEREAS, staff have been informed by the vice principal of Hillcrest High School that as a result of health concerns, the applicant will not be able to attend today’s Committee meeting to present his views regarding the above-noted submission.

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the Planning and Environment Committee request a further deferral of this submission to the January 11, 2005, Committee meeting.

DEFERRAL CARRIED

puBlic works and services

services et Travaux publics

Infrastructure services

Services d'infrastructure

2. TRAIL ROAD LANDFILL LEACHATE AND NEPEAN LANDFILL CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER - RE-OPENING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS

LIXIVIAT DE LA DÉCHARGE DU CHEMIN TRAIL ET EAUX SOUTERRAINES CONTAMINÉES DU SITE D'ENFOUISSEMENT DE NEPEAN - RÉOUVERTURE DU PROCESSUS D'ÉVALUATION ENVIRONNEMENTALE

ACS2004-TUP-INF-0012

At the outset of this item, Councillor Harder presented a Motion.

BE IT RESOLVED THAT Planning and Environment Committee (PEC) recommend the second place alternative, on-site treatment, for the leachate and contaminated groundwater at the Trail Road and Nepean Landfill sites.

R.T. Leclair, Deputy City Manager, Public Works and Services (PWS), Richard Hewitt, Director, Infrastructure Services, PWS, Lloyd Russell, City Treasurer, Ted Woytowich, Project Manager, Infrastructure Services, PWS, Wayne Bennett, Manager, Construction Service, Infrastructure Services, PWS, Greg Ferraro, Project Manager and Partner, Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, Mike Benson, Senior Environmental Planner and Manager, Ottawa Office, Conestoga-Rovers & Associations, George Godin, Manager of Environmental Design Service and Partner, Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, and Dr. Earl Shannon, (expertise – membrane treatment technology) Partner, Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, appeared before the Committee with respect to departmental report dated 9 November 2004. Some of the main points raised by the presenters and not contained in the PowerPoint presentation are outlined below. A copy of the presentation is on file with the City Clerk.

· Commenced in 1991 when stage 3, the first line section of the Trail Road Landfill commenced operation. It was then recognized there would be a need to deal with excess leachate in the future. In 1995 the Environmental Assessment (EA) on leachate management recommended periodic removal of leachate to a central treatment facility by a dedicated pipeline to a Regional or City sewer. At that time no pipeline route was identified.

· 1997 – Design work commenced on pipeline.

· 1998 – Barrhaven residents raised concern relative to a pipeline in their community. Following a public meeting it was agreed the pipeline option would be re-evaluated. A third party was retained to re-evaluate options, with the recommendation that the preferred option was off-site conveyance by pipeline to the Robert O. Pickard Environmental Centre (ROPEC) for treatment and disposal.

· 1999 – Council approved a public consultation and route selection process, which lead (in the following year) to a westerly pipeline from the Trail Road Landfill site. Council did not agree and selected an easterly route to the Stonebridge Pumping Station.

· December 2002 – Design team retained to begin the pipeline design.

· July 2003 – Council directed staff to re-open the EA process and in December 2003 the City retained the firm of Conestoga-Rovers & Associates. October 26, 2004 the recommended solution was a pipeline east on Cambrian to Jockvale and north on Jockvale to tie into the future South Nepean collector.

· Challenge for the Class EA Study was to develop a preferred alternative for the long-term management strategy for Trail Road Landfille leachate and Nepean Landfill contaminated groundwater.

· Leachate is a very common urban effluent; literally generated in every municipality across Canada and North America. In fact, leachate is generated at multiple locations in most municipalities and is neither foreign nor unique to this community. The leading alternatives have been identified as a pipeline for the treatment of these effluents at the ROPEC Wastewater Treatment Facility or on-site. If the ROPEC facility is chosen as the preferred alternative, identified by the study, the treated effluent will discharge to the Ottawa River. If on-site treatment is selected, then the treated effluent will discharge to the Jock River. Regardless of the decision, the leachate must leave the landfill; it cannot remain on the site.

· As part of the Class EA process, a public consultation program was executed that entailed 3 public open houses, 2 of which provided presentations to the public; and 9, Public Liaison Committee (PLC) meetings. The PLC meetings consisted of simple information transfer meetings to extended and comprehensive workshops.

· Evaluation criteria were established as part of the EA process. The criteria were selected from the Class EA guidance documents and consist of 5 primary evaluation criteria in addition to sub-criteria, as outlined in the presentation (Natural Environment, Land Use, Social Environment, Facility Cost and System Performance). Weighting factors were then established through comment sheets provided to the public, the PLC and the Technical Team. 85 comment sheets were completed; 71 by the public, 9 by the PLC and 5 by the Technical Team. The weighting factors were then used in the evaluation of the alternatives. From that evaluation, 8 short-listed management alternatives were identified, which were summarized on the slides provided. 2 were identified as leading alternatives; one of which is identified as the preferred. The 2 leading alternatives are alternative #4, which is leachate treated on-site with the discharge to the Jock River; and, alternative #6, which is leachate and contaminated groundwater piped to ROPEC with discharge to the Ottawa River.

· The comparison and assessment of the alternatives identified various advantages and disadvantages on a comparative basis. A summary of that comparison was provided for alternative #4 and alternative #6.

· The capital cost to build the pipeline to discharge the leachate to ROPEC is lower.

· The operation and maintenance costs for each management system are similar on an annual basis.

· The energy use for a pipeline is lower relative to on-site treatment.

· The ease of operation is simpler for the pipeline relative to on-site treatment. Operating experience – pipeline vs. a treatment facility is higher for pipelines.

· Sensitivity to the changes in the chemistry of the leachate are better handled by the pipeline than by on-site treatment; that is because the leachate and groundwater flow to ROPEC constitutes 0.1% of the flow, so fluctuations in the leachate and groundwater chemistry will be less realized by ROPEC than by an on-site treatment facility dedicated solely to the treatment of the leachate and groundwater. The level of treatment will be higher with on-site treatment vs. that offered at the ROPEC facility, but it is very important to realize both facilities will achieve the discharge criteria for the receiving water course. Due to the sensitivity of the Jock River it is required to treat the leachate and contaminated groundwater at a higher level, preparatory to discharge to the Jock River than it is to the Ottawa River.

· Construction disruption – none to the community for the on-site treatment; some for construction of the pipeline on the roadways leading from the Landfill.

· Alternative Cost Summary – these are broken down into 3 categories – Capital costs; Total Annual Operating, Maintenance and Replacement Costs for One year (O & M); and, 60-Year Total Present Worth Costs, which includes the capital and the 60-year operating costs in present worth dollars.

· Capital Cost includes the direct construction costs of the facilities, contractor, overhead and profits; construction contingencies were included for those items that could be priced accurately at this time; engineering and administration costs; and, owners’ fees were included in the capital costs.

· O & M costs included labour of operation for facilities, power requirements to operate the facilities, chemical costs used where applicable and annual reporting for performance, site maintenance and site utility costs; any analytical, laboratory costs were included in the annual operating costs; and, replacement and maintenance costs for the facilities. A good portion of the O & M costs did include the replacement costs and in comparing alternatives you would want to investigate the renewal of the infrastructure and replacement costs over the life-cycle costs.

· Alternative #4 (on-site) – the Capital Cost (all costs included) is $8.2 Million. The first year O & M cost is $604,000; and, the 60-year present worth cost is $21.8 Million.

· Alternative #6 (pipeline) - Capital Cost is $3.8 Million; O & M cost of $590,000; and, a 60-year life cycle cost of $17.1 Million. The pipeline cost includes the cost for treatment at ROPEC.

· On-Site Treatment Scheme – There are 2 facilities; one would treat the Nepean contaminated groundwater, which is a small treatment facility consisting of air stripping that would treat volatile organic compounds (VOC’s) from the Nepean Landfill. The slide illustrated the complexity of on-site treatment. It is an advanced treatment scheme that would involve preliminary treatment that covers metal and solids removal, softens the water and removes the hardness required to maintain the processes downstream. Since there is the requirement to meet very stringent effluent objectives to discharge to the Jock River, the surface water, in meeting the Provincial water quality objectives, would require advanced treatment that would require the removal of total dissolved solids and any trace volatile organics, which would require additional processes that could be granular filtration, reverse osmosis or absorption. The technology applied are all known and proven; the combination of the technologies creates a complex treatment plant. This plant is not readily available off the shelf and would need to be designed appropriately to meet the waste water it is to treat.

· The degree of treatment is driven by the receiving water (Jock River); not the strength of the leachate. The main challenge is to reach the total phosphorous level of .03mg/litre to discharge into the Jock River, which is a very stringent objective.

· The next slide illustrated the location of the following:

· The existing pump station that transfers leachate out of the Nepean Landfill to ROPEC (now hauled by vehicle) – roughly where the on-site treatment facility would be located for the leachate.

· A small treatment plant consisting of air stripping to remove the volatile organics. That would actually treat the contaminated groundwater at 3 litres/second, discharge it to some surface ponds that would infiltrate into the groundwater.

· The leachate treatment plant would discharge its effluent through surface ditches and water off the property along Cambrian Road out to the Jock River.

· The next slide presented the pipeline option, which illustrated ROPEC. The pipeline option would include a pump station at the landfills with an oversized wet well with some aeration facilities to conduct preliminary release of volatile organics in the wetwell and pump in by pipeline to the collection system that would flow by gravity to ROPEC. The on-site treatment would provide a higher level of treatment, by treating water to a much higher level to discharge to the Jock River. ROPEC meets secondary treatment objectives to discharge to the Ottawa River. Mr. Godin pointed out the area of the main lift station for trunk sewers conveying waste water to ROPEC. It is pumped to preliminary treatment facilities that contain odour; ROPEC has granular activated carbon treating their odours; from there it flows by gravity to primary sedimentation facilities – 15 large tanks that remove primary sedimentation. These are covered for odour control. It flows by gravity to the aeration facilities and following aeration to secondary sedimentation and out through chlorine disinfection and then to the Ottawa River. There are also digestion facilities so that residuals removed from the liquid are treated through anaerobic digestion, hauled, de-watered and then disposed off site.

· The opportunity for aligning the pipeline routes was also evaluated as part of this Class EA; all potential routes evaluated in the past were now back on the table in terms of their availability and potential to be recipients of pipeline routes. A total of 8 potential pipeline routes were identified, which were assessed relative to their impact on the environment during their development, whether they be during construction; i.e. construction issues or disruption during construction, proximity of residential dwellings to the pipeline route and other social and natural environment factors. Identified 2 very closely competing routes (routes 5 and 6), which will involve a pipeline route coming from the landfill along Cambrian Road to Jockvale and either up Jockvale to a point just south of the Jock River (route 6) or south to a point at Golflinks Drive. Of the 2 routes, route 6 was preferred on the basis that it affected fewer residential dwellings. The Stonebridge subdivision is on the east side of Jockvale Road. The opportunity for route 6 was occasioned by the construction of the South Nepean collector due to be completed in 2005, just south of the Jock River.

· Mr. Hewitt provided a brief summary of the technical work undertaken. Staff undertook a very detailed and comprehensive evaluation in accordance with the guidelines of the Class EA Process. The preferred alternative arrived at is the pipeline. It is acknowledged that out of the initial 12 alternative, eight were reviewed in detail and 2 were ranked extremely close, as identified in the report. There is a numerical ranking of 9.3 for the pipeline and 9 for the on-site solution. In that vein, it is acknowledged from a technical perspective the 2 alternatives compete very strongly. Both have strengths and weaknesses, but on balance through this process come out to a tie. The one factor that staff could not ignore and struggled with is the cost component. These are preliminary estimates and staff is looking at a cost differential of a 2 to 1 factor of $4+ Million between the 2. On that basis, staff is coming forward with a straightforward technical recommendation.

· Historically, the initial routing as defined (middle 2002) and early 2003, was through the Stonebridge community to an existing pump station. At that time, the route depicted as the preferred alternative was unavailable because the South Nepean collector was at a planning stage. It is now known that collector will be built in 2005 and therefore is an available outlet. That allows for the pipeline routing to be up Jockvale Road to the collector as opposed to travelling through the heart of the Stonebridge community.

· If the on-site solution is the preferred alternative by Committee and Council, there are additional steps. There would be surface discharge to the Jock River, facilitated by a ditch running between the landfill and Jock River. The City would advise residents and landowners along that route, with an additional public meeting. That would be required to move forward to the Environmental Study Report determination.

· In terms of implementation, clearly there is an Environmental Study Report to complete. There is the possibility, with any alternative and through the EA Process, now referred to as Part 2 Orders, formerly known as Bump Up Requests, which have to be considered by the Ministry and unfortunately certainly take a fair period of time for final determination. Once there is final approval, if it is on-site, 2 treatment facilities would be undertaken; one for leachate and one for contaminated groundwater. It was anticipated to have the contaminated groundwater facility operational within one year of final MOE approval. The leachate treatment would take significantly longer; in the range of 2½–years to be operational. With regard to a pipeline solution, the time frame was in the range of 1½ years.

Prior to any questions of staff, Chair Hume received confirmation that from a technical perspective, either option is acceptable for Committee to pursue. The staff recommendation is based on cost. Staff had no alternative but to recommend the lowest cost.

For the record, Councillor Harder complimented those involved in this issue, particularly the staff involved over the last 7 years.

The aforementioned individuals responded to questions posed by Committee members, with the main points summarized below.

· The effluent requirements (Provincial Water Quality Objectives) for discharge to the Jock River are very stringent; particularly stringent is the phosphorous requirement (0.03mg/litre). The City should undertake some treatability studies to demonstrate it can meet this level on a consistent basis. Dr. Shannon has been involved with phosphorous removal technologies for 30 years and 0.03 is very difficult to meet. That is the main factor in the time frame. This requirement is due to the highly sensitive Jock River.

· On the comparison of leachate to sewage, the Trail Road Landfill leachate’s main contaminants are Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD), Ammonia, total phosphorous. Metals levels are very low in this leachate and very comparable to what would be seen in raw sewage entering a domestic waste water treatment facility. There are 2 or 3 VOCs at levels above the current by-law limit for discharge to municipal sewer systems, but in general the leachate would be classified as stronger than domestic sewage with respect to BOD and Ammonia, comparable on metals and slightly higher VOC concentrations. Leachate is around 1,700 BOD vs. domestic waste water at around 300 BOD. The component of the advanced treatment system for on-site would be designed to achieve the low levels of phosphorous needed and also to remove a certain amount of the total dissolved solids. The advanced treatment is not seen at ROPEC.

· EA criteria and sub-criteria were taken directly from the Municipal Engineers Association Class EA Guidance document. They are not unique to this particular study and are used in EAs throughout the Province. The consultants attempted to determine which of the primary and sub-criteria applied in this particular instance and in terms of deriving the weights on each of the primary and sub-criteria, solicited the public for their preferences vis-à-vis natural environment, land use, social environment, facility cost and system performance. PLC was also solicited as part of this exercise. PLC primarily represented the communities of Stonebridge and Barrhaven. They also solicited the Project Team and collectively arrived at a combined weighted average on each of the primary and sub-criteria using all the responses. The weighting was as follows: Facility Cost – 10%; Natural Environment – 26%; Land use – 13%; Social Environment – 33%; and System performance – 17%.

· Alternatives and Cost Summary – The listing of criteria was not in any order of importance. It simply demonstrated the differences between alternative 4 and 6 under each item. The cost with the entire valuation of alternatives (cost and system performance) carried a weight of 27% out of 100%. In reality cost at 10% is typically low and was based on information received from comment sheets from the public. More emphasis was placed on Social Environment, Land Use and Natural Environment for the evaluation.

· Implications for the City’s Capital Budget, if the on-site treatment was approved – the financial comment identified the project balance remaining in that account is $3 Million. Regardless of the option chosen, there will be a requirement for additional funding. If Committee/Council chooses the on-site option, the additional funding requirement is slightly over $5 Million. Staff is currently finalizing the 2005 Capital Budget Estimates and there is insufficient funding for all the planned projects. If Committee wishes this project to proceed, one option would be that other identified projects would drop off. The other option would be that Council could direct the City Treasurer to look for alternative funding to finance the project, as the construction becomes available and not impact planned projects in the 2005 list, look for Debt funding or look for reductions in the Minimum Capital Reserve Balances that Council has directed.

· Councillor Holmes would be looking at a Motion to not bump off other items on the Capital Budget to bring this one forward. Some areas have been waiting 20 years for a specific item on that Capital Budget. The Councillor sought a list of options that would not allow for bump offs. At the request of Chair Hume, Ms. Leclair and Mr. Russell endeavoured to prepare appropriate wording for such a Motion. Councillor Harder agreed such wording would be a friendly amendment.

· Historically municipalities have chosen the pipeline option on specific projects the consultants have worked with. That is not to say it represents a general trend in Ontario or Canadian municipalities. It is very specific to the environmental setting, the availability of municipal infrastructure to deal with the management of leachate and the requirements/desire of that community. Pipelines have been built as part of municipal infrastructure since the turn of the century and earlier. The on-site leachate treatment facilities commenced in the mid-1980s. The first one the consultant was involved with was in 1987, constructed in 1988 (Sarnia, Ontario).

· The on-site treatment facility in Sarnia has access to a large body of water and does not need to meet the phosphorus limitation. Other facilities have been completed since Sarnia, which need to meet low phosphorus levels, but not 0.03. Very few faculties must meet 0.03. Those limits are technically achievable, but usually require some form of membrane, very fine filtration process to achieve that level consistently. The evaluation of pipeline breaks has been considered in this project. Groundwater travels a distance of inches to feet per year. Pipeline breaks, should one occur, will result in a very localized plume around the pipe itself. The majority of material contained in the pipe would flow along the pipe trench since it is a granular filled trench and liquid would follow the path of least resistance. The presence of leachate constituents in the groundwater would then dissipate over a period of time ranging from months to potentially a couple of years or simply be removed during the repair operation.

· There is one other leachate pipeline that originates from the Carp Road Landfill site. That pipeline travels down Carp Road into the Stittsville area and is connected to the City’s sewer system at that location. It is eventually treated at ROPEC. The funding for this particular project is within the city-wide funding since this is not suitable for charges to the water or sewer rate; leachate is part of the solid waste aspect of the environment and would arise out of tax-supported funding.

Chair Hume noted the following Motion and amendment:

Moved by Councillor J. Harder:

BE IT RESOLVED THAT Planning and Environment Committee (PEC) recommend the second place alternative, on-site treatment, for the leachate and contaminated groundwater at the Trail Road and Nepean Landfill sites.

Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:

That Councillor Harder’s Motion be amended by the following:

And that funding in Capital Account #900339, Trail Road Landfill Leachate, be increased to $8.2 million to provide for the construction of the on-site Facility.

And that the City Treasurer be directed to identify a source of funding as the moneys are required, that would not otherwise impact the planned 2005 Capital program.

Chair Hume indicated the Committee was at the point where it could receive public delegations, but found itself in a rather unique situation in that there was unanimity on the Motion, as amended, except for the fact that Councillor Cullen wanted an opportunity to speak to the matter. There were 21 speakers on the Motion, the majority of which supported Councillor Harder’s Motion. Delegations had a right to speak, but if the delegations did not want to speak, but simply indicate their support to have the Committee approve the Motion, they would be registered and their written comments would still form part of the public record. The Chair would proceed through the forms presented and receive the comments, but any individual who wanted to speak, would be heard.

The Committee heard from the following delegations:

Larry Moulds was present and agreed with the Motion. Mr. Moulds provided a written submission that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.

Lisa Hopkyns-Hatt was present and agreed with the Motion.

Wendy Duross was present and agreed with the Motion. Ms. Duross provided a written submission that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.

Don Duross was present and agreed with the Motion. Mr. Duross provided a written submission that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.

Michael Phalen, President, Stonebridge Community Association, was present and agreed with the Motion.

Karen Fowlie was present and agreed with the Motion.

Keith Preston was present and agreed with the Motion. Mr. Preston provided a written submission that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.

Gary J. Hollink was present and agreed with the Motion. Mr. Hollink provided a written submission that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.

Shawn Ryan was present and agreed with the Motion. Mr. Ryan provided a written submission that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.

Bruce Webster, Vice-President, Richmond Village Association, was present and agreed with the Motion. Mr. Webster provided a written submission that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.

Lori Singleton was present and agreed with the Motion.

Lesley Horwitz-Beare was present and agreed with the Motion.

Joanne Taylor was present and agreed with the Motion. Ms. Taylor provided a written submission that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.

Brian Finch, President, Friends of the Jock River, was present and agreed with the Motion. Mr. Finch provided a written submission that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.

Richard Bendall was present and agreed with the Motion. Mr. Bendall provided a written submission that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.

Randy Yu was present and agreed with the Motion.

Patrice Meloshe was present and agreed with the Motion. Ms. Meloshe provided a written submission that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.

Mary Elin Moore, on behalf of the Public Liaison Committee (PLC) was present and agreed with the Motion. Ms. Moore provided a comprehensive written submission that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk, along with a PowerPoint Presentation that is also held on file.

Dennis Pharoah attended the last public consultation meeting and was interested in the delay. He became aware of the pipeline awhile ago, listened to the presentation and opined the pipeline was a very good idea, based on that presentation. He did not understand why PEC did not agree with the staff recommendation. One community is expressing a fear should the pipeline break, but should trust the City to construct a proper pipeline, which is also taking place in West Carleton and Orleans. If it is good enough for the remainder of the City, not to mention all of the other landfill sites, then why is it not good enough for this area? The pipeline makes significantly more economic sense. Staff has stated 0.03 is difficult to achieve, but will endeavour to meet that level. They are saying give us enough money and we’ll attempt to make it work. What if it does not work? The chemistry can change from day to day. If they cannot trust a pipeline, does the community really want the City constructing a sewage treatment plant and discarding this material into the river next to the community? The O & M costs are the same for both systems. The additional funds would more appropriately be spent on ROPEC and maintaining sewer costs, than to serve one large landfill site. If the City is going to construct this facility, why not pipe all the other landfill sites into this facility for the good of the entire community. It was presented the pipeline will be operational in 1½ years, but it will take 3 years for the on-site. The NCC representatives posited at the public meeting that they did not agree with the processes espoused by the consultants. The Councillor pre-empted that debate and asked if attendees were in favour of on-site or off-site. Residents are being placed at risk by delays due to “good intentions” while trucks continue (every 20 minutes) crossing the City endangering the public’s health. The leachate will simply follow along the pipeline if there is a problem; leachate is better than raw sewage. It was recently announced the City is short $6 Million in 2004. Why spend a fortune trying to put tap water into a polluted river.

In response to questions from Councillor Cullen, Mr. Pharoah had a problem in that the City was not doing anything to treat other landfill sites. Municipal sewage is more toxic and a greater danger than leachate and the City would more appropriately spend funds improving ROPEC for the entire community than correcting the problem in this one community. No one has provided information on the quality of the water in the Jock River. The intention is good; if the City will test the Jock River before and after this treatment centre.

Councillor Cullen noted one of the points made by Mr. Pharoah is that the City should be appropriately improving the treatment process at ROPEC. He had understood the City has identified a capital project to move from secondary to tertiary treatment at ROPEC within the City’s long term financial plan, which he would pursue separately with staff.

The following correspondence was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk in support of the On-site Treatment Plant:

· Iola Price, Chair, Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee.

· E-mail dated 22 November from Imran Mirza.

· Letter dated 22 November from Patrice Meloshe and Elmer Tumak.

· Letter dated 22 November from Shawn Ryan and Jo-Ann Taylor.

· E-mail dated 22 November from Christopher Krasilczuk.

· Memorandum dated 22 November from the Coordinator, Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) containing a resolution from EAC.

· Letter dated 20 November from Brian Finch, President, Friends of the Jock River.

· Petition signed by the following individuals.

· D. M. and R. F. Marganon

· Sue and Brian Brown

· G. W. Scott

· Peter Malihir

· Shawn Ryan

· JoAnn Taylor

· Greg Singleton

· Laurie Singleton

Councillor Harder presented a massive document that contained over 1,000 pieces of correspondence in support of the on-site treatment facility broken down as follows: A. Letters from Bell-South Nepean Community Associations; B. Letters from the Community and Developers; C. Petitions from the Citizens of Ottawa; and, D. On-Line Poll Results. Councillor Harder pointed out that correspondence continued to arrive in support. A copy of the package was circulated and one is on file with the City Clerk.

The matter returned to Committee.

Councillor Cullen commented that it was interesting PEC found itself with a better solution to treat leachate due to the concerns from this community. ROPEC was never meant to treat leachate. It was intended to deal with sewage; and, what was happening is that those very elements that would be dealt with under advanced treatment through the proposed site at Trail Road are elements, the majority of which pass through ROPEC and are discarded into the Ottawa River. Studies have demonstrated there is a plume of heavy metals along the Ottawa River and the question is whether this is an appropriate manner to treat leachate. He has persistently pointed out that dilution is not the solution. He thanked the public for coming forward and forcing Council to look at better use of technology and form of treatment on-site. It will be more expensive, but it is not a Cadillac approach. Over time it will be found that leachate from the City’s garbage will have an impact on the environment and the City will have to upgrade its methods of treating garbage. In his view the proposal presented by Councillor Harder is a step in the right direction.

Councillor Holmes pointed out that although a great part of this facility is in Councillor Harder’s Ward, it is a City facility. The City will very soon be seized with the issue of organic waste, to reduce the amount taken to the site and to extend its life. The Councillor was interested in moving to on-site treatment since it is a superior environmental solution, but did not want to see any reduction in the Capital Budget nor jeopardize the major items identified therein, many of which have been waiting a considerable length of time to come to fruition. These are equally as important and the rationale for her amendment.

Councillor Harder thanked the Chair (and his staff, Brian MacRae), who over the last year, and previously at the former Environmental Services Committee (ESC) in the first term of Council agreed to open up the EA. Everyone in her Ward and throughout the City thanked ESC and Council for that decision. This has been a lengthy process and become an obsession in her Ward. Since 1997 and early 1998, the on-site technology has improved, while the cost has been reduced. In Council’s first term an Environmental Master Plan was adopted with strong emphasis incorporated into the City’s OP relative to the environment. The technology is available and the time has come to make a decision to proceed. She pointed out that Mr. Pharoah might change his mind if he had seen the PLC presentation that depicted the burst pipe in their area. Having said that, she wanted to thank everyone on the PLC who spent one year of their life working with Conestoga-Rovers and Conestoga-Rovers for their help. There was a fair and balanced approach. And especially to Ted Woytowich and Wayne Bennett, who have been part of this process from inception and admitted the only reason they were supporting the pipeline is financial. She was excited to be moving forward in this direction. She also thanked the Greenspace Alliance of Canada’s Capital and the Friends of the Jock River who have heartily given their endorsement.

On the Motion.

CARRIED as amended

The Committee approved the recommendation as amended.

That Planning and Environment Committee and Council give staff direction to proceed to finalize the Environmental Study Report identifying the second place alternative, on-site treatment, as the preferred method of managing leachate and contaminated groundwater generated by the Trail Road Landfill and Nepean Landfill, respectively, and Route 6 as the preferred pipeline route. The pipeline alternative is proposed to convey leachate and contaminated groundwater in a buried forcemain eastward along Cambrian Road to Jockvale Road and north on Jockvale Road to a tie-in at the South Nepean Collector Phase I, which will be completed in Summer 2005.

And that funding in Capital Account #900339, Trail Road Landfill Leachate, be increased to $8.2 million to provide for the construction of the on-site Facility.

And that the City Treasurer be directed to identify a source of funding as the moneys are required, that would not otherwise impact the planned 2005 Capital program.

CARRIED as amended

Planning and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

Services d’urbanisme et d’aménagement

PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE APPROVALS BRANCH
DIRECTION DE L’APPROBATION DES DEMANDES

D’URBANISME ET D’INFRASTRUCTURE

3. ZONING - 1331, 1341 Howie Road

ZONAGE - 1331, 1341 chemin Howie

ACS2004-DEV-APR-0253 West Carleton (5)

Tim Chadder, J. L.Richards, was present in support of the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 4 November 2004. The Committee approved the recommendation.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former Township of West Carleton Zoning By-Law to change the zoning of 1331, 1341 Howie Road from Mineral Extraction (MX) and Rural Special Zone 9 (RU-9) and HL-1 (Hazard Land) to Rural Country Lot Special Zone 57 (RCL-57) Open Space -3 (OS-3) as detailed in Documents 1 and 3.

CARRIED

4. ZONING - 495 RICHMOND rOAD

ZONAGE - 495, CHEMIN RICHMOND

ACS2004-DEV-APR-0228 Kitchissippi (15)

John Moser, Director, Development and Infrastructure, Planning and Growth Management (PWG), Dennis Jacobs, Director, Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Policy, Grant Lindsay, Manager, Development Approvals, Larry Morrison, Manager, Infrastructure Approvals, John Smit, Program Manager, Development Review, Tim Marc, Manager, Planning and Development Law, and Burl Walker, Planner, appeared before the Committee with respect to departmental report dated 8 November 2004. Following a comprehensive PowerPoint presentation by J. Smit related to both Item 4 (Zoning) and 5 (Site Plan Approval), staff responded to questions posed by Councillor Cullen, with the main points summarized below. A copy of the presentation is on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Smit advised there was a technical Motion that was tabled with the Committee relative to recommendations 2 and 3. Originally, staff included these recommendations in response to the request to reduce yards. Staff had a concern with respect to reducing the yards prior to being in a position to define the most appropriate on-site pedestrian circulation system to ensure an appropriate linkage to the Dominion Transitway Station. The applicant has agreed to defer consideration of the modification to the yards until the City has dealt with determining the on-site pedestrian circulation system through the Phase 2 Site Plan. If the yards are to be modified, these would need to proceed through a Committee of Adjustment (COA) application process. Given that the Committee will no longer be dealing with the request for the reduction in yards, it negates the need for recommendations 2 and 3, hence the Motion to remove those 2 recommendations.

The technical amendment is noted below:

That the rezoning for the property at 495 Richmond Road be amended as follows:

That recommendations 2 and 3 be deleted.

And that no further notice be provided pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act.

· Staff does acknowledge there is an existing traffic concern within the community and it is important those traffic concerns be addressed. It is outside the scope of a re-zoning to require the traffic consultant to undertake an overall area traffic study. There are a number of options that could potentially be reviewed, but that would have to be determined through a very consultative community process. The Ward Councillor is moving to initiate an undertaking for this area to deal with the current problem. The development will add some traffic to local streets; but, from a staff perspective, it is more appropriate to have local traffic using a local road than to intensify and have non-local traffic moving through the community.

· There was an addendum that took into consideration the cumulative impact of adding in 2 other sites in the area, plus the background traffic till the year 2010. When all of that is factored in, there is no doubt there will be increased traffic, particularly on Fraser and Broadview. Discussions that have taken place with Traffic Parking Operations (TPO) have indicated this area is at the top of the list to be studied as far as a wider study of traffic impacts in the future. The recommendations that arose from the traffic study for this site did allude to traffic calming, perhaps looking at some other opportunities to improve traffic flow, but the main one is that the City itself needs to undertake an overall study and that is what TPO are prepared to undertake and will be coming forward with at the 2005 Budget. There was no reference to the widening of Richmond.

· On the matter of the sidewalk connection, staff asserted the Committee must refer to the Site Plan report, which includes a special condition requiring that an on-site pedestrian circulation system be defined and developed as part of the Phase 2 Site Plan.

· Sanitary Sewer Charge on additional sanitary flow – that condition is an old condition from the former City of Ottawa where that City collected a fee to correct problems that existed in the sanitary (partially separated system). There is no capacity issue at the site; as a matter of fact, this site essentially sits on top of the West Nepean Collector Sewer. The flow removal program is referring to the fact that many of the sewer sheds are deemed to be partially separated. In some instances there are no storms sewers in the area, so there may be weeping tiles connected to the sanitary sewer; and, given the age of the system, there is probably infiltration and extraneous flows getting into the sanitary system that should not be there. The funds collected are applied to improve the system by either a) removing that extraneous flow or b) where possible, introduce a separation of the system. As a result of the September 9^th rain event, PWS did not indicate this was a problem area.

· In response to Chair Hume on the issue of traffic, Mr. Smit averred that if the site were to develop as 100% commercial under the 1.0 FSI, there would be traffic generation comparable to the traffic generated as a result of the rezoning before PEC today; the difference being that it would be commercial vs. residential.

The Committee adjourned from 12:00 till 12:30.

Chair Hume recognized Councillor Little, who presented a Motion, that would be moved by Councillor Harder on his behalf.

Moved by Councillor J. Harder:

be it resolved THAT the applicant (Canderel) be required to pay to the City the sum of $7,500 to go towards a planning study for the Richmond Road Corridor (Churchill to Sherbourne) that will examine future land uses and potential sites for redevelopment as a condition of Site Plan Approval.

AND FURTHER THAT the scope and nature of this study will be determined by the terms of reference to be set at a later date.

AND FURTHER THAT this contribution is made on the understanding that the other two applicants that currently have applications before the City will be asked to contribute a similar amount in order that there are sufficient funds to undertake such an exercise sometime during 2005.

The Committee heard from the following delegations:

Lisa Burke provided a written presentation, in opposition, that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. Ms. Burke addressed the traffic issue and believed a comprehensive traffic management study is imperative should the City permit the rezoning. She provided options such as ‘do not enter’ signs on streets like Golden at Byron, thus prohibiting through traffic; and, to downgrade Broadview from a collector to a residential. By doing this, Ms. Burke explained the Committee would be living up to a number of principles set out in the OP. Ms. Burke stressed the need to implement traffic mitigation measures prior to construction and before there is a child fatality.

As a result of the presentation, Ms. Burke responded to questions from Councillor Cullen, with the following clarification:

· The possible widening of Richmond due to additional traffic and the danger posed to the Byron strip was a concern.

· There has already been increased traffic due to development, specifically the commercial development along Richmond

· If traffic mitigation measures are put in place, personally she was not opposed to development.

As a result of the delegation, staff responded to questions from Councillors Little and Cullen relative to the impact of the widening of Richmond as follows:

· Staff could not comment on the Byron strip for widening purposes, but always looked to the north side of Richmond as properties arose for development. Unless properties come forward for redevelopment, it is a lengthy and time-consuming process to acquire properties required to widen roads. The City would not be looking to expropriate.

· Impossible to firmly state it will happen in the next 5 years, as noted in the OP.

Rosalind Tosh provided a comprehensive written submission, in opposition, that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. Some of Ms. Tosh’ main points are summarized below:

· The possible widening of Richmond can be found in the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Annex A. If land was not taken from the Byron strip, it would have to be taken from the North (495 Richmond), which means the architectural wall planned to front this new development would disappear.

· If it is ensured through legislation today that side yard remain as required under zoning it will not be an issue now or later.

· The closest building is not 17 stories, rather to the east is one storey and to the west is the 2½ storey heritage house.

· The FSI should not be increased by the requested 230%. The 24-storey building may appear to echo buildings to the north and east, but appearance alone is not sufficient grounds for claiming compatibility. Must weigh density not just height to determine compatibility within the surrounding node. The existing high rise buildings (20, 17 and 13 storey) to the north and east co-exist within this node due to their low density. Doubling the density relative to other properties within the node cannot be claimed to be minor or comparable. In fact, there is a steady decreasing of density along Richmond from Tweedsmuir to this property and beyond.

· Neighbouring 1.2 FSI properties prove OP residential intensification and infill goals can be achieved in a manner that respects existing densities and provides a variety of housing types, including high-rises, without creating an urban presence that totally overwhelms.

· Although staff has indicated sewer capacity is adequate, the area has experienced basement flooding problems within the last 3 months (September).

· With regard to building height, the staff report recommends a height limit of 19.3m be imposed on Section B (6-storey Manor House). While it is purported to meet the zoning, she advocated it contravenes the OP in several important areas:

· Declared by NCC to be of a “very different scale” to the adjacent Maplelawn Estate. It violates the OP, which requires the City, when reviewing rezoning applications adjacent to heritage resources, to ensure the proposal is compatible by respecting the massing and profile of adjacent heritage buildings.

· City policy requires that “The City shall ensure that City-owned property which is sold adjacent to a heritage resource, shall be developed in a manner which enhances the heritage resource.”

In closing, Ms. Tosh asked that a height limit be established substantially lower than 19.3m; and, that the site density be maintained at 1.0.

With respect to the Site Plan application, Ms. Tosh provided the following (a copy was circulated and is held on file).

· The NCC is required to ensure Maplelawn is protected and has asked for 2 rows of trees to screen view the Manor House. The applicant claims only one row, the western row, is possible, due to the presence of a watermain; and, has agreed to plant trees of low to medium height because of the proximity to the heritage wall. This negates the City’s ability to approve the site plan.

· Another heritage policy requires a new residential development to be compatible with the scale and character of nearby heritage resources. OP requires the City to ensure the development respects the massing, profile and character of adjacent heritage buildings; and approximates the width of same when constructing new buildings facing the street.

In closing, Ms. Tosh asked PEC to reject the Site Plan Application on the grounds that it fails to meet federal (NCC) or City requirements that it be developed in a manner which enhances or at the least adequately protects and better reflects the adjacent heritage resource.

In response to questions from Councillor Cullen, Ms. Tosh provided clarification on the following:

· Traffic has always been an issue in McKellar and Highland Park as result of Carling and Richmond being north and south boarders. There is significant cut-thru traffic with mitigating measures having far less than perfect results.

· The widening of Richmond Road should not interfere with the heritage garden at Maplelawn. The community did not want to see the amenity space along the Byron strip diminished.

In response to questions raised by Councillors Cullen and Little, staff provided the following clarification:

· A shadow study was conducted for the entire project and the project architect would have some graphic material that identifies the conclusions of that study.

· As a result of changes made to the original proposal, the NCC did provide comments based on the revised applications. A representative of the NCC is present. The concerns raised by Ms. Tosh, shared by many in the community, were met and the NCC is in agreement with approval.

· Councillor Little posited that at the time Council approved the TMP, he was assured by staff that not only would the Byron Strip not be touched, but it would be possible to conduct the required minor widening based on what is already available in the City’s right-of-way (ROW).

Lorne Tosh provided a written submission, in opposition, which was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Tosh’ main comments centred on the following:

· Traffic and heritage issues surrounding the proposed development.

· Not against appropriate and tasteful infill development, which can occur with the current FSI.

· Traffic study claims the existing transportation system can accommodate projected increase – may be true in theory, but not when taking into consideration the essential human factor: 3 schools, 1 street, 3,000+ young students, 4 times/day. The street has already been identified in the traffic study as carrying traffic at the high end for a collector.

· Opportunity to redress the negative impact perpetrated on Maplelawn 20 years ago when the office building was constructed.

· Manor House should not be built any closer than 20m to the sidewalk and 4 storeys high, which would maintain the existing height of adjacent properties and further reduce the negative impact on Maplelawn.

· Profit can be derived by building only the Manor House and leasing revenues from the Coolican Building. Any further profit would be at the community’s expense and that of Canada’s cultural heritage.

· Do NOT approve an increase in density for 495 Richmond.

As a result of the presentation, the delegation responded to questions from Councillor Cullen, with the following clarification:

· There will be a substantial negative impact on the Village of Westboro as a result of the development.

· Most are enthused with the present tasteful development, but are discouraged when there is a potential for overdevelopment especially when taking into consideration the number of sites coming forward for (future) development.

· Does not see Richmond (in Westoboro Village) further widened.

Ann Ransom, member, McKellar Park Community Association, agreed with the views to be presented by Ian Glasgow and Victor Benoit on behalf of that Association.

Ian Glasgow and Victor Benoit, McKellar Park Community Association, provided a comprehensive written presentation, in opposition, that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. The Committee also received a petition filed on behalf of the McKellar Park and Highland Park Communities by Bruce Bergen. Maps of the area were provided, which depicted areas of concern, the principal being traffic. The proposal should not occur in advance of area traffic and planning studies. The main points are outlined below:

· Recognize individual proposals cannot be deferred, but the Association asked that this proposal be denied until there is evidence the infrastructure can support it.

· The main path highlighted on the map is Fraser; the map illustrates the traffic counts (today and 2010). Area traffic is already over capacity. The highest counts are along Broadview, which is carrying twice that recommended.

· The next map illustrated the potential future development. It is the slippery slope of approving one development today adding strain to the infrastructure (Richmond). Sites are in yellow (mid-size sites); the NCC land is also a potential site since it was offered for sale sometime ago, which may still occur and there is the Rogers Cable site.

· Development will add residential units that need to access the Queensway. The most direct path is through the neighbourhood, which is the cut-thru traffic highlighted.

· 495 Richmond developed in the future becomes part of the community (local), but today it is outside of the community and thus cut-thru. The turn restriction highlighted on Fraser attempts to solve the problem and is ineffective. The community has asked for enforcement. Police were on site over a 3 day period and issued 75 tickets. During the Delcan study additional violations were observed.

· The other issue related to local (residential) traffic is that it creates traffic origination/destination throughout the day. Business development is typically a.m/p.m. Traffic accessing the Queensway from the north side of Richmond would be cutting through the community. The future solution is some form of traffic management.

· The report mentions there is no impact on the adjacent community, whereas the Association submits it does exist on the traffic level.

· The report states there is no City cost. In fact, there is traffic management, ensuing changes and site costs. The pedestrian walkway is a cost in that the linkage over the NCC lands may not necessarily be assumed by the NCC.

· The Association would like to maintain the FSI gradient. The 24-storey building is higher than neighbouring buildings and out of character. A lower density (1.0) would create a lesser impact on the neighbourhood.

· The traffic report states the east/west corridor is Richmond and is of sufficient capacity to cope with the traffic. With the development of the business community in Westboro and narrowing to a single lane in each direction, creating additional capacity on either side it, will create a bottle neck, with the flow going elsewhere, which is undesirable.

The delegation and staff responded to questions posed by the Committee with the following points clarified:

· NHA – Nepean High School; BES – Broadview Elementary School; NDHS – Notre Dame High School.

· The Max guidelines referred to in the documents were TAC Guidelines used across the country and the City. The traffic impacts are above what the City considers to be the maximum guideline in the City’s own planning. All the land along Richmond is built up with the exception of the NCC site although there are parking lots. The sites depicted on the second map were posited to be potential sites.

· This proposal generates cut-thru on the weekend as well as during the week. Residential traffic is preferred based on the existing density.

· On a local street, 100 vehicles/hour both direction is used as a guideline. Broadview is shown as a collector in the OP at 300 vehicles/hour. Sherbourne immediately north of Carling would have a capacity of 1,200 vehicles/hour and is not meeting the 1,200 at this point. When looking 10 years in the future, that is a cumulative impact; the map figures take into consideration this development, 2 others, plus the background growth in traffic. Looking at each project individually, 10 years out, they are not significantly adding to the road system, particularly the background growth, which does not include these developments.

· Developments in the inner parts of City are eyed with a view to their proximity to the transitway, with this site within 300m walking distance. These are areas that all 3 OPs identify as ideal and where the City should be encouraging more intense development to support its investment in the transit system. The site is in close proximity to the Ottawa River recreational pathway system, which provides direct access for cyclists to the downtown.

Matthew Smith provided a handwritten submission, in opposition, that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. The main points are copied below:

· Contrary to what is claimed, the 24-storey does not qualify as mixed use. As far as intensification, it is unnecessary since there are already 3 immediately to the east. The height is particularly excessive and will dominate the skyline and infringe on residents’ privacy.

· The close proximity to Maplelawn Estate (heritage) is also disturbing.

· Greatest consequence is the increase in vehicles and adverse traffic impact. Canderel’s study dismissed the problem stating increased traffic will disperse through existing streets. A proper study should have been conducted during the school year.

· Golden is the first street east of the site; it is one of the streets that connects Richmond and Byron; and, proceeds almost to Carling at the south. There are 20 children who will be placed at added risk and hundreds more on adjoining streets.

· Golden is only 7m (22 feet) wide, with no curbs or sidewalks. If cars are parked on the street, 2-way traffic is impossible. In the winter, snowbanks reduce the width further. Golden is also a favoured route for those walking to Westboro Village, Richmond, buses, transitway, the river pathways and the Highland Park Lawnbowling Club. This community attempts to reduce its dependency on the automobile.

· Recent changes to local streets and businesses have forced traffic around the Richmond and Churchill intersection. First, the proliferation of outdoor clothing and gear stores has made a ”Mecca” of the area. Most drivers know to avoid the area by cutting through side streets (like Golden) to access Churchill, Carling and the Queensway.

· Secondly, there were permanent changes to the eastbound Richmond that specifically encouraged traffic to detour onto Golden; this includes the removal of the right-turn lane at Churchill and a new dedicated right-turn lane from Richmond onto Golden. The proposed entrance from the east end of 495 Richmond will create a problem that will result in Golden being the only release valve. If the City wants to discourage vehicles from using Richmond, why create a second entrance?

In response to questions posed by Committee members as a result of the presentation, staff advised the Traffic Management Study for the area will be conducted by PWS and it is anticipated every effort is being expended to ensure it will be approved in the 2005 Budget. It is unknown if funding has been set aside for future implementation. That would need to be discussed with TPO, which would conduct the overall study before deciding on what would be implemented.

Keith Carlson, Director for Traffic, McKellar Park Community Association, provided a written submission, in opposition, that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Carlson was unable to address the Committee.

Wanda Manning addressed PEC in opposition. The main points of her presentation are noted below:

· Grave neighbourhood traffic concerns and the proposed development will exacerbate an already treacherous situation. At least 2 studies were conducted; July and September, on the traffic flows; pedestrian traffic has not been addressed.

· As a small community, it is easy to walk from point A to point B and it is already dangerous to do so at certain times of the day or year.

· Most of the side streets do not have sidewalks and are very narrow. Highland, between Dovercourt and Avondale, barely allows cars to travel, let alone a fire truck, if cars are parked on the street. Any traffic increase is not acceptable.

· Studies assume vehicles obey traffic laws, which is not the case with impatient drivers.

· School parking on Broadview is limited, with U-turns on side streets, turning around in driveways, etc.. Traffic is already a problem.

· 2 children have been struck in the vicinity of the school, one at a crosswalk and another riding a bike near a cross walk. These are locations with safety measures in place. It is a matter of time till someone is seriously hurt.

In response to questions posed by Committee members as a result of the presentation, staff advised Golden, Briarwood, Highland etc., are rural cross-section streets and not the typical urban standard streets; the majority of streets in Westboro are without curbs and open ditches along the sides. The pavement widths of the majority are less than the typical 9m standard for a local road.

Dr. Doron Nussbaum provided a comprehensive written presentation, in opposition, but had to leave. The submission was circulated and a copy is held on file with the City Clerk.

Steven and Dora Mozes indicated support, but did not wish to speak.

Christine Kelly provided a written submission, in opposition, that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. Ms. Kelly’s main points are noted below:

· Broadview is a local collector road, meant to filter traffic into and out of the neighbourhood for a destination within the neighbourhood. Residents of the future tower accessing the Queensway cannot be considered local traffic. It is not a Major Collector Road similar to Carling or Richmond.

· The Delcan study issued on April 30^th states that Broadview, given its collector function and design, as well as its location immediately opposite the site driveway will carry the majority of the traffic to/from the south. It also states non-local traffic is projected to rise approximately 29-46% (unacceptable); that is thru-traffic driving from point A to point B, not stopping within the neighbourhood. These drivers can be characterized as less careful perhaps than residents.

· Delcan recommended the Comprehensive Area Management Traffic Study be completed to objectively quantify the contribution of local and non-local traffic volumes. She did not see the rush in approving the rezoning when traffic experts have identified a need for the study.

· In closing, insufficient planning has taken place in the Westboro area to justify more than doubling the density and rezoning before PEC. It is inappropriate and irresponsible to approve the recommendation without the requisite planning.

Chris Jalkotzy provided a written submission that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. The main points of his submission are noted below:

· The issue of the pathway is being reasonably addressed. Somewhat concerned the City is not attempting to arrive at the neighbourhood use for such a pathway and to that extent he suggested PEC adopt an amendment requesting the developer to conduct a survey of the community, illustrating the various paths, conducting a demographically representative sample to arrive at potential use of the pathway; and, therefore decide whether it is most important for this development specifically or to the community. He also suggested negotiating with the NCC to ensure the path is plowed.

· Commercial – somewhat satisfied in the discussion with the planners that there is commercial potential for the property abutting Richmond. He provided 3 reasons why that is desperately important. As the planner on the project or the development authority, he would have insisted and not have approved development of this site without the commercial component. He understood the community’s concerns, but in creating the streetscape, commercial is a critical component and actually makes for a safer street.

· The notion that the properties can be used and designed to be accessible from the street is important. He would like to see the Condominium Association by-laws required to incorporate some sort of notification there is an opportunity for the owners to use their property for commercial purposes, which sends a clear message on the City’s part that application for commercial use of those properties would be welcome.

· Traffic – what makes streets function and viable alternatives is density of use. What discourages drivers from using other neighbourhood streets is an area-wide traffic calming approach not that which has taken place in these neighbourhoods; i. e. stop signs, bump-outs but a much more comprehensive approach. PEC is listening to experts and the community and looking for advice on who can advise on the effects on the neighbourhood. From research conducted as an Urban Planner, community concerns for the most part are almost invariably borne out and the factual and scientific approach used (traffic experts and planners) are abysmal at predicting how things will develop in communities. The community tends to be much more knowledgeable. This is the perennial debate between traditional and scientific knowledge. An Area Redevelopment Plan (ARP) needs to be completed.

Don Sproule provided a written submission, in opposition, that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. The main points are noted below:

· Proposal is taking the community from underdevelopment to hyperdevelopment. To ask for an FSI increase of 230%, is uncalled for; could set a precedent. The proponent should live within the constraints of the current zoning. The Manor House lives within the constraints, and although he does not like everything about it, he supported it.

· He objected to the development on traffic grounds.

· On the question of residential vs. commercial, a commercial building would be capped at 7-8 storeys and not 24 storeys. The development must be looked at in its totality.

· In conclusion, the proposal is not infill, but overkill and will destroy the community.

Henri Glouchkow addressed PEC, in opposition. The main points are noted below:

· Lived in the neighbourhood for 35 years and seen the downtown area sprout up with high-rises to the point where there is barely any greenspace.

· Due to the fact there are buildings in the vicinity of 24 storeys is not the standard that should be set for Westboro Village. The developer states 6 storeys is on a human scale. Is 24 storeys on human scale? Human scale is 2 or 3 storeys.

· When looking at the development being squeezed onto this site, it begged the question of parking and appeared to be overkill. Should respect the river view.

· Traffic is a City issue. There should not be such increase in development and traffic without solutions in place. Where will all the vehicles park?

In response to questions from Councillor Cullen, Mr. Glouchkow agreed with previous presenters that most streets do not have sidewalks; residents must be very careful in winter. Mr. Glouchkow did not understand the potential in the OP to have 2 lanes on Richmond; will there be 2 lanes through Westboro with no parking on either side? Does that make sense in a village? There is already a huge bottleneck in Westboro during rush hour to turn onto Woodroffe. Where will vehicles go?

Responding to a question from Councillor Cullen relative to the parking to accommodate on site, Mr. Walker advised that both the Manor House and Phase 2 (24 storey tower) will have underground parking; the existing Dennis Coolican building also has underground parking. In total, there will be 370 spots on site, which exceed zoning by-law requirements.

Gary Ludington addressed PEC, in opposition. The main points are summarized below:

· Live southeast of the site on Tweedsmuir. There are a number of catch phrases used in the report such as main street designation, transit station, intensification, general urban area, compatibility, OP, etc. According to the report, being compatible means being mutually tolerant and capable of coexisting in harmony in the same area. Another part refers to more intense development around the transitway so as to promote communities in which car ownership is not required. The OP ensures new housing is sensitive to and improves the physical character of the neighbourhood.

· Outlined the number of developments in the area since 1999, all of which are compatible and comply with the OP. However, they all required rezoning.

· In 2000, there was a Secondary Review Plan for Westboro. In 2001 PEC cancelled it, without good planning reason. If the Secondary Plan had gone forward in 2001 there would probably have a been a few residents attending this rezoning application, but not the number present today.

· The City is tearing the very fabric that makes the community unique; he supports change, but also supports good planning, which is not taking place. The community is being spot-rezoned.

· The infrastructure is old and not built for such intensification. Can PEC be sure the rezoning is really the correct course of action without the proper study of the infrastructure and a community design plan? The challenge is to focus on the need for a comprehensive study that will address traffic issues for the neighbourhood as a whole.

· Allow the Manor House to proceed, but refuse the rezoning.

Heather Glouchkow addressed PEC in opposition. The main points are outlined below:

· Agreed with the presentations by previous speakers.

· It is easy to look at things theoretically and not listen to the community. When looking at map, the logical way to travel through the neighbourhood is Fraser or Broadview. Although, she does not live on Fraser, she has seen an incredible increase in traffic. Area streets are too dangerous and not built for that level of traffic.

· It is important to use the Transitway, but there is a problem with the transitway in that it is east/west, but traffic flows are not solely east/west.

Bruce Patrick, Traffic Committee, McKellar Park Community Association, addressed PEC in opposition. The main points are noted below:

· 25 year-resident of Fraser. Addressed the safe passage to the Dominion Transitway Station; the City places great emphasis on public transit, yet there is no safe lighted access to the station especially in light of last year’s tragedy on the Eastern Parkway. He urged quick action on behalf of the safety of the City’s commuters, which should happen regardless of development at 495 Richmond.

· There will be a significant increase in cut-thru traffic, due to the residential element of the project, particularly on weekends.

· Since the summer he has been working with the Traffic Division, Ottawa Police. 2 peak hour enforcements of the restricted turn onto Fraser were coordinated and the officers were overwhelmed. 75 motorists were ticketed inside of 2 hours. Enforcement has been unable to curtail the illegal traffic flow.

· Delcan study does state peak volumes are double the respective guidelines for both Fraser and Broadview.

· In summary, both police and residents acknowledge an existing problem particularly on Fraser and Broadview. There appears to be no compelling reason to approve the rezoning application prior to an overall City-sponsored traffic study.

Jean H. Kroes, Past President, Highland Park Ratepayers Association, provided comprehensive written comments that were circulated and are held on file with the City Clerk. The main points are noted below. Mr. Kroes also submitted a letter on behalf of the Association dated 10 November 2004 specific to the Site Plan application and copied a letter addressed to Burl Walker that attached a petition signed by 150 of its members with a covering letter to PEC specifically outlining comments in objection to the rezoning.

· Provided a photograph of the site and its environs from the Quebec side, which dispute claims the proposal will fit within the neighbourhood character.

· The proposal blends into 25% or less of the neighbourhood. 75% of the neighbourhood surrounding the Coolican building is 3 storeys in height.

· With regard to traffic, he doubted purchasers of $300-850,000 apartments would utilize the transitway since their employment will not be within the transitway destinations.

· Re-emphasized the issues raised by Mrs. Manning.

· Council completed the OP and established guidelines for the City. Those guidelines should be adhered to and the 1.0 FSI maintained for the subject site.

· Reiterated the request that until a community study is completed for the area, do not rezone the site.

Barry Hobin, B. J. Hobin and Associates, Bev Jensen, FoTenn Consultants, Wayne Jennings, Canderel, and Ron Jack, Delcan.

Ron Jack presented the following information on traffic issues.

· The information from transportation impact studies has been utilized by many delegations, some correctly, some not and staff has used the information in its recommendations. Disagreed with a previous speaker that stated these studies do not hit the mark. Delcan has conducted a wide range of transportation studies and all have been quite helpful and accurate to address problems and monitoring after the fact.

· Richmond, adjacent to the site, is 4 lanes. The proposal does not trigger any widening of Richmond. The traffic patterns from the proposed residential development are quite different from those related to the current office building. There is a reasonable amount of thru traffic related to the current office building. Residential traffic will travel to jobs around the City in a different manner. There will be much more use of Richmond, east/west, than there is from the current office building. There will certainly be some movement to and from the South as well. The traffic patterns are significantly different approaching and leaving the site. As mentioned, office is primarily a weekday event and residential does have weekend traffic, whereas office does not.

· The total traffic from the new project in the a.m. peak is estimated at 100 vehicles/hour and in the p.m. 140 vehicles/hour; that is split in three directions – east/west on Richmond, south towards the Queensway and beyond. That equates to an additional 50 vehicles/hour each east and west, approximately one more per minute and 40 +/- vehicles/hour to/from the South using various routes. The estimated impact on Broadview in the peak hours is 20 vehicles/hour and 10 +/- vehicles on Fraser. There is certainly an increase on community streets; if Fraser has 100 vehicles/hour now, 10 more vehicles is 10% increase, Broadview has 600 vehicles/hour, 20 additional vehicles would equal 5%.

· There was reference to guidelines as capacities on roads. Capacity is the wrong term; capacity is how much traffic a road can carry and these roads can carry more volume than existing. That is not the point, you do not want them to carry their capacity.

· Guidelines were identified in the former Ottawa OP as to what the different types of roads should carry. Small local residential streets should be 100 +/- vehicles/hour. Most local streets in this community carry that or less; Fraser carries approximately 100/hour. That is compatible with adjacent land uses and not the capacity of the road.

· Collector roads, from a land use/compatibility perspective range from 300–1,200 vehicles/hour due to the wide range of collector road types. Some are residential streets that collect traffic from local streets and connect to an arterial and would tend to be at the low end (300). Other collector streets like Broadview with institutional use (3 or 4 schools), not solely residential, tend to have a higher volume for obvious reasons. Broadview carries 400-600/hour, depending on the section. Other collectors that are less residential in nature carry up to 1,200/hour. These are guidelines to match acceptable volume with adjacent land use.

Ms. Jenson provided a PowerPoint presentation that addressed the planning principles and objectives.

· Reiterated the history and size of the development that led to the recommendation before Committee, including the public meetings and discussions leading thereto, as contained in the departmental report.

· Confirmed the commitment to provide a pathway and connection to the Dominion Transitway Station on behalf of the developer and required under site plan condition. That will be dealt with in its completeness in the Site Plan process for Phase 2.

· In terms of the next layer and the neighbourhood considerations, there is focus and support for Main Streets. Main Streets in the OP and the most recent ‘Where Will We Live report’ have been specifically identified as where intensification should occur. This site was identified in that report. It would be totally inappropriate to propose this on the south side of Richmond in the lower density communities. It is on the north side of an arterial, close to the transitway, well removed from any impact on a lower density portion of the community.

· The proposed tower is not out of character with the 3 in the immediate vicinity of this site and can be accommodated on Richmond.

· As required and suggested in terms of compatibility of development, there is a transition of height between the phases, with the lower profile building at Richmond, with improved streetscaping and a more pedestrian experience.

· In terms of sensitivity to Maplelawn, the removal of the 20-storey tower in proximity to Maplelawn, the distance and separation between that development and the proposed development are sufficient, as well as the design of the first phase in terms of character.

· In terms of the principles and additional studies, it is unfortunate some of the studies were not completed earlier to make this an easier process.

· Fully support that a community development plan should be completed to integrate and deal with changes this community is experiencing. With respect to the development plan, those would refine broader policies the OP already establishes.

· From a traffic prospective, Candarel has been supportive of undertaking broader traffic study by the City and is willing to participate in further studies, but the existing zoning on the site would generate slightly more traffic than the proposal rezoning.

· Encouraged PEC to recognize that Candarel has undergone a consultation process and been very responsive in terms of amending the application and addressing issues raised.

Mr. Hobin provided details of the application.

· The next pressure for this neighbourhood is for residents to remain in the global neighbourhood because there are housing options. There is a huge demand for residents who want to remain in Westboro but have no options. Looking at condominiums in Ottawa where the predominant market is plus 55, there are not many that encourage walking. The notion of making this friendly to the community is important. Housing diversity is a major part of this.

· In developing the site plan, there are some significant constraints on site. There is a major trunk sewer that goes to the west end of the Manor House, which guarantees the site will separate from Maplelawn. In the central area there is a parking garage that accommodates 200, which eliminates the possibility of developing other house types. It was important to create a building along Richmond with a sense of scale that reinforced the streetscape and then to concentrate the remainder of the development in the north east corner, which has the least impact.

· There are shadowing studies available through the entire year.

· The tower has the smallest footprint for any building in this neighbourhood (8,000 square feet).

· The building on Richmond is a significant element since it sets up the rest of the site. The site plan introduces an additional entrance; both entrances have the same character with the stone gates that pick up on detailing from the Maplelawn garden. Mitigated access and egress issues with respect to Richmond by introducing a separate entrance. The building that has formed part of the site plan application is stepped. This mitigates the height and creates a strong 4 level limit. The units on the upper floors will have enlarged balconies which allow views over Maplelawn and the Ottawa River. The building is a combination of stone and masonry with large windows facing towards the village and the river. The stone wall that forms the edge is territorial to set up the edge of the building and lines up with the Maplelawn garden stone wall, preserving both.

· The issue of parking was questioned; a significant initiative was to green the centre of the site which is currently a vacant parking lot; all parking will be underground. The minimum requirement in the zoning by-law is substantially less and there is the potential to provide less but the proponent is listening to purchasers on the number of parking spaces desired. The minimum would be one per one ratio.

As a result of the presentation, the delegations and staff responded to questions posed by the Committee with the clarification summarized below:

· P. 76, Special Condition 10 – The centreline of Richmond is approximately 7.5m from the existing property line. This is standard condition. If there is a need for a few more inches, then that will have to be conveyed. There is no road widening required.

· There are unequal widenings along Richmond and a functional plan was completed that illustrated certain jogs to avoid impediments. Staff did not have specifics on how that will occur. It falls more appropriately into a capital project, which is a PWS initiative and subject to an EA.

· The graphs presented by delegations were not taken from Delcan’s material. Numbers may have been extracted from the report. The max guideline reflected the OP and numbers did illustrate Broadview and Fraser are above recommended TAC guidelines.

· P. 62 – traffic study findings and recommendations - suggest some form of traffic signal control is desirable to improve safety and reduce delay although the warrants would not be met for the City to install a traffic signal. The Broadview intersection and this site intersection would benefit from traffic signalization and it would benefit the north/south pedestrian crossings across Richmond to the pathway and transit station.

· Shadowing impact of the Manor House on the Maplelawn garden – Mr. Hobin explained that the building was extensively modeled through the critical periods of time. Slides of shadowing were demonstrated that verified there is virtually no impact.

· The landscaping proposed has been vetted by the NCC. It has been the subject of extensive conversation since it is a heritage wall, and on one hand someone is saying I want a tree, but on other hand, do not want it to undermine the wall. The material chosen has been vetted by Douglas and Associates, the landscape architects

The Committee also received the following correspondence that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.

· Communication dated 23 November 2004, from John Blatherwick, President, Woodpark Community Association Inc., in opposition.

· E-mail dated 22 November 2004, from Wendy Pell, in opposition.

· E-mail dated 22 November 2004, from David Flemming, President, Heritage Ottawa, stating concerns with the proposal.

· E-mail dated 22 November 2004, from Robin Goodrich, in opposition.

· E-mail dated 22 November 2004, from Bruce Elliott, in opposition.

· Submission from Pat Barnhouse, in opposition.

· E-mail dated 19 November 2004, from Don Paskovich, in opposition.

· Submission dated 19 November 2004, from Bruce Littlejohn, in opposition.

· Letter dated 18 October 2004, from Kathy Lawrence, Chairperson, Broadview School Council, in opposition.

Chair Hume closed the Public Meeting and the matter returned to Committee.

Staff responded to questions posed by the Committee and Councillor Little with the main points summarized below:

· There have been informal discussions and the NCC indicated acceptance to the idea of formalizing the path from the site to the Dominion Transitway Station. There is an informal path presently used and residents have indicated it is not well maintained in the winter and not lit, with issues of security. This is contemplated to be pursued through the Phase 2 site plan and there will need to be discussions with Canderel to determine who will assume the responsibility for the cost associated with the formalization of that path. Those negotiations have not commenced. The NCC currently runs recreational paths that are in close proximity to the site. The focus is the onsite system, but clearly there is an opportunity it might serve the larger community.

· The planning study referred to was revisited by PEC (PDC) in 2001 and the decision was taken that it would not be part of the departmental work program. This area was studied as part of the neighbourhood planning studies undertaken by the City a number of years ago and the key principles of the Westboro Neighbourhood Plan have been included in the former City of Ottawa Plan. The Plan foregone in 2001 was related more specifically to Richmond.

· The other developers were Domocile and Charlesford. Councillor Little indicated he did not have an opportunity to discuss the Motion with those developers.

· When applications are received, there is an obligation to bring them forward to Committee and Council for decision. If a study is underway, applications would be dealt with differently. When there is no study, staff will bring forward applications and these are dealt with similarly as today.

· Whether $22,000 is sufficient to conduct this study would depend upon its scope. Councillor Little had indicated his interest was in completing some background work and involving the community in one or two-day design charrettes, looking at opportunities along the street and follow up with a report back. It might be possible within this funding, based on the availability of resources to accomplish same.

Councillor Hunter raised a point of order relative to withdrawing Recommendations 2 and 3 and asked if these were before PEC or already withdrawn. Mr. Marc advised there is no formal process in the Procedure By-Law that addresses the withdrawal of recommendations or the withdrawal of a report. It is typically dealt with by the consent of Committee. Given that normally happens as a matter of course, it would be his inclination, subject to the Chair’s ruling, that if a Councillor wanted recommendations 2 and 3 properly before the Committee, the Councillor would simply Move recommendations 2 and 3 be approved. Councillor Cullen posited since the report has been circulated and published, is there not an obligation to amend the report. Mr. Marc reiterated the Procedure By-Law is silent on this issue and he was going forward on what he has observed to be the practice at Committee where if staff withdraws an item, it is simply withdrawn.

Moved by Councillor A. Cullen:

That recommendation 2 and 3 be approved; and, that the requirements set out in Recommendation 3 be satisfied within three years of approval of Recommendation 1, failing which this approval will lapse.

Councillor Cullen understood from the staff perspective that the genesis of the original recommendations before Committee related to side yards etc. and staff is satisfied that is not required. He did believe the community has a clear interest in ensuring a pedestrian network is put in place to accommodate, not only residents who will be living on this site, but also existing residents. It only makes sense that if staff is saying one of the rationales for permitting intensification on this site is to take advantage of the transitway station, then it is imperative to ensure there are ‘belts and suspenders’ in place. The applicant had indicated there was no problem with the concept. The issue of the time has been dealt with by increasing the consideration from 2 to 3 years.

On the Motion.

YEAS (3): Councillors A. Cullen, D. Holmes, P. Feltmate

NAYS (5): Councillors J. Harder, H. Kreling, M. Bellemare, G. Hunter, P. Hume

LOST

Councillor Cullen presented a Motion that dealt with the tower and the change in FSI. The site does cry out for intensification and there was acknowledgement from the community there should be intensification. But, such development and intensification occurs within a context and there is no denying from the evidence presented that Broadview, Fraser, etc, are overloaded in terms of existing traffic. There will be impacts on streets already beyond what is contained in the TMP as maximums under the guidelines. The traffic study should be undertaken before the development, but he was aware of the practicality that if PEC refuses this application, it will be appealed to the OMB before there is a traffic study. His second best position is to mitigate the intensification requested.

Moved by Councillor A. Cullen:

WHEREAS intensification should occur in a manner compatible with the surrounding community;

WHEREAS the tallest adjacent to the east is 20 storeys high;

THEREFORE document 7, Schedule 263, Item D (area heights - 495 Richmond Road) be amended from 77m high (24 storeys) to 65m (20 storeys).

The Motion does not go as far as the community wishes in terms of reigning in the scope of intensification on this site, but he was attempting to find a middle ground that would accommodate not only the Manor House, but the tower. There is an argument to be made to balance the tower with the existing high-rises in the community. The community is quite correct to say this is occurring in the context of more development taking place on other sites. The Ward Councillor has asked for a recommendation for a study that will accommodate all those additional items. The communities want to maintain their quality of life and not expand the street width. There will be a traffic study that will look at buffering that community and PEC can mitigate to some extent; the mitigation at 20 storeys makes this tower compatible with the tower next door although it does not solve the community’s traffic issues.

In response to Councillor Harder, Mr. Morrison affirmed the reduction from 24 to 20 will have a negligible impact.

Councillor Little thanked residents who attended the meeting. There was a concern by many, that by including retail at grade in the Manor House would move the Westboro commercial strip further west on Richmond. That was addressed through the site plan by making the main floor at grade residential. It also incorporated small gardens similar to the Maplelawn garden. Traffic is obviously an issue and it was clear that residents were not against development, but are concerned with traffic and future development in the neighbourhood. He was pleased to learn that staff fully supports a traffic management plan for the area and will include that as part of the 2005 Work Plan and it was certainly his understanding it was at the top of the list. It is not only important for this development, but the significant success factor in both commercial and residential development the Westboro area has seen over the last couple of years. By requiring developers to contribute towards the study will allow it to proceed this year since funding is not available within the departmental work plan. The most significant aspect in this process is that Canderel agreed to scale back the intensity of what was originally proposed by removing the second tower, thereby not only reducing the intensity on the site, but also addressing the concerns related to shadowing, etc. Infrastructure was also addressed and he reminded PEC there was a recent major rehabilitation on Richmond, including new sanitary sewers, storm sewers, watermains and the resurfacing of the street. Those services immediately adjacent to the site are new services replacing others that in some cases were 90 years old. Overall the applicant has worked with the community to address concerns to reduce the overall plan for development significantly. Arguments such as the OP, proximity to transit are good arguments and he believed this is an appropriate site for intensification and there have been compromises on both sides. He urged PEC to support the staff recommendation.

On Councillor Cullen’s Motion.

LOST

YEAS (2): Councillors A. Cullen, D. Holmes

NAYS (6): Councillors J. Harder, H Kreling, M. Bellemare, G. Hunter, P. Feltmate,
P. Hume

The departmental recommendation as amended (technical) was approved.

1. That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-Law (1998) to change the zoning of 495 Richmond Road from "CG1[421] F(1.0) SCH.60" to "CG1[912] F(2.3) SCH.263" as detailed in Document 7.

2. That the By-law to implement Recommendation 1 not be forwarded to City Council for enactment until the applicant has obtained Site Plan Control approval for the proposed 24-storey apartment and that incorporates an on-site pedestrian system that will allow for a direct pedestrian connection to the Dominion Transitway Station through the Ottawa River Parkway lands.

3. That the requirements set out in Recommendation 2 be satisfied within two years of approval of Recommendation 1, failing which this approval will lapse.

And that no further notice be provided pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.

CARRIED as amended with Councillors A. Cullen and D. Holmes dissenting.

5. SITE PLAN - 495 RICHMOND ROAD

RÉGLEMENTATION DU PLAN D'IMPLANTATION - 495, CHEMIN RICHMOND

ACS2004-DEV-APR-0229 Kitchissippi (15)

See Item 4 with respect to presentation and detailed discussion relative to departmental report dated 8 November 2004.

Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate:

That the departmental recommendation be amended to read as follows:

That Planning and Environment Committee APPROVE the Site Plan Control application for 495 Richmond Road as shown on the following plans:

1. “Site Plan, 495 Richmond Road: The Manor House, Drawing No. A1” prepared by Barry J. Hobin & Associates Architects Incorporated, dated May 2004, revised October 18, 2004.

2. “Landscape Site Plan, 495 Richmond Road: The Manor House, Drawing No. LSP-1” prepared by Douglas Associates Landscape Architects Ltd., dated July 2004, revised October 18, 2004.

3. “Site Servicing and Grading Plan, 495 Richmond Road, Drawing No. 2483-S2" prepared by David McManus Engineering Ltd., dated November 2003, revised November 9, 2004.

subject to the Owner entering into a standard Site Plan agreement including the conditions contained in Document 6. In the event that the Owner fails to sign the required agreement and complete the conditions to be satisfied prior to the signing of the agreement within one year of the Site Plan Approval, the approval shall lapse.

CARRIED as amended

Moved by Councillor J. Harder

be it resolved THAT the applicant (Canderel) be required to pay to the City the sum of $7,500 to go towards a planning study for the Richmond Road Corridor (Churchill to Sherbourne) that will examine future land uses and potential sites for redevelopment as a condition of Site Plan Approval.

AND FURTHER THAT the scope and nature of this study will be determined by the terms of reference to be set at a later date.

AND FURTHER THAT this contribution is made on the understanding that the other two applicants that currently have applications before the City will be asked to contribute a similar amount in order that there are sufficient funds to undertake such an exercise sometime during 2005.

CARRIED

LOCAL ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION ADVISORY
COMMITTEE

COMITÉ CONSULATIF SUR LA CONSERVATION DE
L’ARCHITECTURE LOCALE

6. Heritage farmstead recognition program

PROGRAMME DE RECONNAISSANCE DES FERMES PATRIMONIALES

ACS2004-CCV-LAC-0002

The Committee noted correspondence dated 22 November 2004 from the Coordinator, Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (LACAC), which amended the Selection Criteria and subsequently agreed to amend the recommendation contained in LACAC report dated 25 October 2004.

That the Planning and Environment Committee and Council approve:

1. The proposed Heritage Farmstead Recognition Program to commemorate farmsteads and barns of exceptional architectural and historical interest; and,

2. The proposed Selection Criteria set out in Document 1, as amended with the following additions:

Historical Significance

(e): Association with Farming and related Industries Development – The farmstead or barn can be linked to innovations in farming technology reflecting developing trends or new methods in farming.

Architectural Significance

(e): Building function – The farmstead or barn is reflecting innovations, developing trends or new methods in farming technology; and,

3. The draft interpretative sign design attached as Document 2.

CARRIED as amended

7. HERITAGE - TERMS OF REFERENCE, LORNE AVENUE HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT STUDY

PATRIMOINE - CADRE DE RÉFÉRENCE, ÉTUDE DU DISTRICT DE CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE DE L’AVENUE LORNE

ACS2004-DEV-APR-0250 somerset (14)

The Committee approved the recommendations contained in departmental report dated 5 November 2004.

That Planning and Environment Committee recommend that City Council:

1. Pass a by-law to study Lorne Avenue between Primrose Avenue and Albert Street, shown in Document 1, as a potential heritage conservation district.

2. Approve the Terms of Reference for the Lorne Avenue Heritage Conservation District Study, included as Document 2.

CARRIED

8. HERITAGE PLAQUE PROGRAM 2004/2005

PROGRAMME DE PLAQUES DU PATRIMOINE 2004/2005

ACS2004-DEV-APR-0247 Bell South-Nepean (3), Kanata (4)

West Carleton (5), Rideau-Vanier (12)

Rideau-Rockcliffe (13)

The Committee approved the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 2 November 2004.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council that heritage plaques be installed on seven designated heritage buildings in 2005 as listed in Document 1.

CARRIED

Planning and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

Services d’urbanisme et d’aménagement

PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE APPROVALS BRANCH
DIRECTION DE L’APPROBATION DES DEMANDES

D’URBANISME ET D’INFRASTRUCTURE

9. APPEAL - COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 4033 (4041) gRAINGER pARK rOAD

aPPEL - COMITÉ DE DÈROGATION - 4033 (4041) CHEMIN GRAINGER pARK

ACS2004-DEV-APR-0257 West Carleton (5)

J. Moser, G. Lindsay, T. Marc and Steve Belan, Planner, appeared before the Committee with respect to departmental report dated 8 November 2004.

The Committee heard from the following delegation:

D. Scott Murray, Counsel for Alan Miller, advised that Mr. Miller has been a farmer in excess of 30 years; he and his brother operate a farming business that encompasses 2,000+ acres. The present application will enable the owner to dispose of the surplus home on this property. Mr. Miller and his brother own homes elsewhere; and, no one in the family is interested in the property. If this home is not severed and disposed of, it will fall into disrepair. The economics suggest that severance be approved. The argument as to the irregularity of the parcel can be dealt with succinctly. The diagram put forward by staff accurately represents the land. He assumed the irregularity is in reference to the remaining parcel as opposed to the parcel that is to be severed. There is a possible alternative to what is before PEC. One of the serious limitations in terms of altering the rear boundary is the insufficient space between the real lot line and the rear wall of the home. There is a total of 45 feet between the north wall and the boundary line and the well on the east side is 70 feet from the rear lot line. The applicant is prepared to locate the boundary at a location deemed appropriate by staff or the OMB. Mr. Miller has had several other parcels of land severed that were more irregular through Committee of Adjustment in regard to farm consolidation without any objection. The OP clearly creates a situation where surplus farm dwellings are recognized as being surplus to a farmers needs and should be sold or otherwise utilized. To do otherwise hampers efforts by farmers to expand their operations. The small 100 or 200 acre farm is no longer viable.

The strip across the back prevents the farm land on the east from being sold separately from the farm on the west. Mr. Miller does not have a problem with maintaining that as one piece of farmland. Originally it was proposed the lot line be coincident with the neighbour’s lot line and Mr. Belan pointed out that would result in two parcels; and, revised the application to present this configuration. Another way to accomplish the same goal is by way of a ROW, which the application also contemplates. The ROW proposed over the driveway for the first 100 feet off Grainger Park Road allows him to move his machinery in and out. Under the Planning Act, if the rear strip is eliminated creating the ROW against the Grainger Park Road, Mr. Miller will then not be able to sell one part of the farm land without selling both because he retains an interest in the adjacent land. That approach could eliminate the aspect of any irregularity from staff’s viewpoint.

Chair Hume received confirmation the OMB is now seized with this matter. The applicant wished to negotiate a settlement before the hearing. Mr. Murray affirmed a date has been set for December 15, 2004. His request to PEC is that approval not be given for staff to appear at the OMB to argue against Mr. Miller’s appeal.

Councillor Hunter stated there was some merit in Mr. Miller retaining the first 100 feet along the roadway, but it might offend the OP policy that requires properties to have frontage along an open road. Is there a way to accommodate Mr. Miller’s request without any offense to the OP. Mr. Murray clarified that the laneway would belong to the homeowner in its entirety. Mr. Miller would maintain the ROW.

Mr. Lindsay explained that staff is attempting to protect the integrity of the OP relative to development in the rural areas. That position was advocated to the COA, which concurred with staff and as such did not approve the application. To the issue of negotiation, there are different ways, one being the 100 feet along the frontage of property that would be maintained, as he understood, in the retained portion. That would mean that Councillor Hunter’s point relative to access to an open public road is an issue. The means to overcome that is to recognize this unique situation with the severed portion rezoned to allow for the lot to exist without frontage on a public road, which has taken place in other situations such as cottage lots. These can be discussed with the proponent prior to the 15^th of December to resolve the situation. There are options that can be explored.

Moved by Councillor G. Hunter

That Staff be directed to meet with the applicant and his representative with a view to negotiate a settlement which will support the requested severance so long as it respects the integrity of the Ottawa Official Plan; and, failing that, the staff recommendation be approved.

CARRIED

Mr. Lindsay confirmed that normally negotiations do take place leading up to the OMB hearing and this would form part of that negotiation.

The Committee approved the recommendation as amended.

1. That Staff be directed to meet with the applicant and his representative with a view to negotiate a settlement which will support the requested severance so long as it respects the integrity of the Ottawa Official Plan; and, failing that,

2. That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve the presence of staff from the Corporate Services and Planning and Growth Management Departments at the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing regarding the Committee of Adjustment application for 4033 (4041) Grainger Park Road.

CARRIED as amended

PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY

POLITIQUES D’URBANISME, D’ENVIRONNEMENT ET

D’INFRASTRUCTURE

10. OMB APPEAL #52 - ALBION SUN VISTA

APPEL NO 52 À LA CAMO - ALBION SUN VISTA

ACS2004-DEV-POL-0054 City-wide

The Committee approved the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 8 November 2004.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council:

1. Support the addition of a site specific policy to permit Council to consider a zoning by-law for Phase 3 of a mobile home park adjacent to the Village of Greely;

2. Direct staff to communicate this position to the Ontario Municipal Board at its pre-hearing on January 5, 2005.

CARRIED

11. OMB APPEAL #53 - BEARBROOK GOLF COURSE

APPEL NO 53 À LA CAMO - TERRAIN DE GOLF BEARBROOK

ACS2004-DEV-POL-0055 City-wide

J. Moser, D. Jacobs, T. Marc and Lesley Paterson appeared before the Committee with respect to departmental report dated 8 November 2004. The Committee received an e-mail dated 18 November 2004 from Ken McRae asking the Committee to defer making a decision to allow staff to look into the water issues raised in his correspondence.

Staff responded to questions posed by Councillor Cullen relative to a permit for the golf course to take water, with the main points summarized below.

· Detailed technical requirements will be addressed during the Zoning By-Law Amendment and Site Plan Approval review. Staff is addressing the OP designation.

· The ability to accommodate the intended use was not a consideration in the redesignation proposal and it will be an application to the Ministry of the Environment (MOE).

· In the case of an OP designation, the City approves in principle that development can proceed. Many areas are designated for particular uses, but when considering the technical issues, they may not be able to achieve all that is allowed for under that designation. This permits the applicant to proceed to the next stage in the process and make a determination as to what can take place within that designation.

The Committee heard from the following delegation:

Peter Vice, on behalf of Ron McHugh, attempted to address Councillor Cullen’s concern. A permit to take water application is a specific application pursuant to Section 34 of the Water Resources Act. It is an expensive application and there are diverse ways of accommodating it. At this time, it is not known if there will be a need for a permit or not. Likely there will be, but this is simply a land use designation. This matter is at the OMB and Municipal Affairs and Housing, which answers for all the Ministries, has no problem. His client seeks further planning permissions and in all likelihood will seek additional environmental permissions.

The Committee approved the departmental recommendations.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council

1. Support the redesignation of part of Lot 17, Concession 6, Former Township of Cumberland from Agriculture Resource Area to General Rural Area.

2. Direct staff to communicate this position to the Ontario Municipal Board at its pre-hearing on January 5, 2005.

CARRIED

12. OMB APPEAL #61- MACY SUBDIVISION

APPEL À LA CAMO NO 61 - LOTISSEMENT MACY

ACS2004-DEV-POL-0053 City-wide

David McManus and Al Cohen were present in support of the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 8 November 2004. The Committee approved the recommendation.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council:

1. Support the removal of the Limestone Resource Area designation from the Official Plan and its replacement with a General Rural Area designation, on the east half of Lot 20, Concession 10, former Township of Goulbourn;

2. Support the application of a policy framework for the evaluation of the Macy Subdivision in accordance with this report;

3. Direct staff to communicate this position to the Ontario Municipal Board during the pre-hearing to be held on January 5, 2005.

CARRIED

13. INFILL HOUSING DESIGN GUIDELINES - LoW-Medium density

LIGNES DIRECTRICES SUR L’AMÉNAGEMENT INTERCALAIRE - DENSITÉ FAIBLE ET MOYENNE

ACS2004-DEV-POL-0056 City-wide

J. Moser, D. Jacobs, T. Marc and Amy Falkner appeared before the Committee with respect to departmental report dated 2 November 2004. Ms. Falkner explained that the intent at the present time is to determine what good design is. The photos represented in the report emanate from Ottawa, the U.S. and elsewhere in Ontario. The majority are in Ottawa and provide for a frame of reference, both good and bad.

Committee members pointed out that the report refers to planning and conceptualization, but what is happening on the ground is fewer trees, asphalt, green space, etc. There appears to be a conflict between viewpoints. Reference was made to infill and design issues in communities, as well as adherence to standards and the ability to monitor and control same. There appears to be an inability to translate the guidelines into something that does not offend neighbourhoods. Communities must be able to rely upon these guidelines and define positive examples to reinforce their attainability. The guidelines should prevent illegal activity currently taking place in many communities. Mr. Moser explained that the context within which staff would look at the issue of illegal issues such as the paving of front yard, etc. is the new zoning by-law and the general provisions of that by-law.

In response to Councillor Hunter, Ms. Falkner informed the Committee she could provide an electronic copy of the Guidelines to the Coordinator for distribution to the Committee and posted to the City’s website.

The Committee approved the recommendation.

That the Planning and Environment Committee receive this report and design guidelines for information and that staff report back in the spring of 2005 on the results of the planned consultations with a recommended final document.

CARRIED

BUILDING SERVICES

DIRECTION DES SERVICES DU BÂTIMENT

14. SIGN BY-LAW Minor Variance - 4200 Labelle Street

DÉROGATION MINEURE AU RÈGLEMENT MUNICIPAL SUR LES ENSEIGNES - 4200, RUE LABELLE

ACS2004-DEV-BLD-0029 Beacon Hill-Cyrville (11)

André E. Charron, Rainbow Neon and Plastic Signs Ltd., was present in support of the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 4 November 2004. The Committee approved the recommendation.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve a minor variance to Signs By-law 79-1991, of the former City of Gloucester, to permit a total of five identification ground signs from the maximum of one, and to increase the maximum height for two of the five signs, that are located on Michael Street and Cyrville Road, to a height of 26 feet and 23 feet respectively, from a 20 feet maximum, provided the signs receive both provincial and municipal approvals.

CARRIED

COUNCILLORS’ ITEMS

ARTICLES DES CONSEILLERS

COUNCILLOR / CONSEILLER P. HUME

15. USE OF FOOD WASTE PROCESSORS (Garbage Grinders) IN THE CITY OF OTTAWA

USAGE D'ÉLIMINATEURS DE DÉCHETS ALIMENTAIRES (BROYEURS DE DÉCHETS) DANS LA VILLE D'OTTAWA

ACS2004-CCS-PEC-0012

Chair Hume acknowledged there was a request to defer the item to 14 December 2004 and approved the following Motion:

Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate:

That the Planning and Environment Committee defer this item to the December 14 meeting.

DEFERRAL CARRIED

ADDITIONAL ITEMS

POINT SupplémentaireS

16. OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING - 2367 TENTH LINE ROAD

PLAN OFFICIEL ET ZONAGE - 2367, CHEMIN TENTH LINE

ACS2004-DEV-APR-0248 Cumberland (19)

J. Moser, D. Jacobs, T. Marc, Danny Page and Julie Houle appeared before the Committee with respect to departmental report dated 9 November 2004. During her presentation Ms. Houle indicated that prior to the meeting, staff received comments from the landowner at 2385 Tenth Line Road. That landowner has comments that relate to the Draft Approval of the Subdivision, which was recently circulated and expressed a desire to address the Committee. Staff has undertaken discussions and senses there is the potential to arrive at some understanding to resolve issues related to the Subdivision Approval process.

Chair Hume received confirmation the subdivision is not before PEC, but is a delegated authority. Councillor R. Jellett, as the Ward Councillor, has the ultimate sign off unless the Councillor lifts the delegated authority. Ms. Houle advised that Councillor Jellett has already concurred with the Draft Conditions and the Draft Approval has been mailed out with the City currently in the appeal period.

The Committee heard from the following delegation:

Richard Des Rivières provided a detailed written submission, in opposition, that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. The points raised related to the Articles noted below:

· Article #14

· Article #4

· Article #15

· Article #48

· Article #56

· Article #62

· Article #82

· Article #84

Councillor Jellett was surprised to receive this information and not aware of the oil recovery taking place on the original farm. A deferral would be in order at this point since questions have come to light as a result of the presentation.

In response to concerns raised by Committee and Councillor Jellett, staff provided the following clarification:

· There appears to be a willingness on the part of the City and the applicant to resolve the issues. That can take place through the Subdivision Process and staff does keep the Ward Councillor apprised throughout the discussions.

· Mr. Des Rivières could appeal the approval of the subdivision, with a mediation process and possible resolution and the board would impose the conditions. That would provide for an opportunity to continue negotiations while protecting appeal rights.

In response to a request for clarification from Councillor Hunter relative to the rationale for deferral, Mr. Des Rivières stated his attendance was to protect his rights because Minto has acted in a way he opined was improper; there was contamination; and, due diligence did not take place. The report is flawed. He was objecting to the Subdivision Agreement. Councillor Hunter emphasized the Subdivision Agreement was not before PEC and respectfully suggested the OMB will consider these as two different processes. PEC must provide a timely decision on the OP and Zoning Amendments otherwise Minto has a right to appeal to the OMB. If no one appeals the Draft Conditions of Subdivision to the OMB, they will be approved by default and Mr. Des Rivières will have gained nothing. Mr. Des Rivières stated he would exercise his right to appeal to the OMB.

In response to Chair Hume, Ms. Falkner advised the appeal period ends on December 1^st. Mr. Page pointed out that as a result of the meeting this morning staff reviewed the issues raised by Mr. Des Rivières and will attempt to provide some clarification over the course of the next week. If Mr. Des Rivières still feels the need to appeal by next Wednesday, he still has the opportunity to do so.

Susan Johns, representing Minto, advised the application was made November 2003. There was extensive consultation with staff as Ms. Houle alluded to in her presentation, in developing the Community Concept Plan as well as working out the particulars of the site layout. Mr. Des Rivières has been part of that process. There were several meetings with Mr. Des Rivières during that time, as recently as last week. Mr. Des Rivières made presentations at the public meeting in March and there were conversations with Mr. Des Rivières and his engineer. The contamination was news to Minto. This was presented to them last week at the time Mr. Des Rivières received the notice of the decision on the Conditions of the Draft Plan Approval. Upon receiving that information, Minto contacted their soils consultants and asked them to provide a proposal on the works to be conducted using the new information. Mr. Des Rivières is correct in that it is not included in the public records they have access to. With that information Minto will be taking steps to protect its interests in terms of contamination. On each of the points, some were previously raised and others were new and as Mr. Page suggested, the City has been involved as to how, together, there can be resolution. She took exception to the comments that Minto has acted improperly since that is not the case. Minto has exercised and conducted studies as required by the City and for themselves; and, managed this properly. Discussions and negotiations with Mr. Des Rivières were made in good faith.

Chair Hume acknowledged that staff will work with Minto, Mr. Des Rivières and the Ward Councillor to arrive at a resolution.

The Chair closed the public meeting.

The approved the departmental recommendations.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council:

1. Approve and adopt an amendment to the Urban Official Plan of the former City of Cumberland to redesignate part of the lands at 2367, 2413 and 2553 Tenth Line Road, Part of 2605 Tenth Line Road, the portion of the Hydro corridor which runs north south between the future Blackburn Bypass and the southern limit of the proposed subdivision and part of the lot south of 2367 Tenth Line Road and east of 2605 Tenth Line Road and the Hydro corridor from Residential Low/Medium Density to Residential High Density, as shown in Document 1 and detailed in Document 2;

2. Approve an amendment to the Urban Zoning By-Law of the former City of Cumberland to change the zoning of part of 2367 Tenth Line Road from D-R Development Residential to R1H-X3 Residential Singles Wide Lots – Exception Three and R3D-X11 Residential Row Dwellings – Exception Eleven as shown in Document 3 and detailed in Document 4.

CARRIED

COUNCILLORS’ ITEMS

ARTICLES DES CONSEILLERS

Councillor / Conseiller R. Jellett

Chair Hume noted that Committee members had received a Motion that required Suspension of the Rules of Procedure with regard to an item deferred by PEC on 26^th October relative to 4232 Innes. Consultations have taken place between the Councillor and the community and Councillor Jellett requested the matter to rise to Committee and that staff undertake the appropriate circulation.

Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate:

That the Planning and Environment Committee waive the Rules of Procedure to consider the following Motion at today’s meeting.

CARRIED

Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate:

Whereas the Planning and Environment Committee deferred a report on the 26th of October 2004, regarding the Official Plan and Zoning application amendment for 4232 Innes Road,

And Whereas new information has been provided to the Councillor and the community with respect to the appeals and discussions which are underway with respect to retail development in the Employment Areas,

And Whereas staff has confirmed that this report will not set a precedent and supports this application,

And Whereas there were further discussions between the developer and the community and an agreement has been reached,

Be it therefore resolved that the report rise to Committee and that staff undertake the appropriate circulation

CARRIED

INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED

INFORMATION DISTRIBUÉE AUPARAVANT

A. CAPITAL STANDARDS REVIEW - VALUE ENGINEERING WORKSHOP

Examen des normes de capital - Ateliers sur l'ingénierie de la valeur

ACS2004-TUP-INF-0013

Councillor Holmes requested that the item be listed on the next Agenda.

Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:

That the IPD Capital Standards Review – Value Engineering Workshop be listed on the 14 December 2004 Committee Agenda.

CARRIED as amended

Inquiries

DEMANDES DES RENSEIGNMENTS

Councillor / Conseiller A. Cullen

Councillor Cullen raised the following inquiry

In the Woodpark Community (i.e. 220 Compton Avenue) there are front yards being paved over to accommodate parking. While according to the City By-Law front-yard parking is illegal, there is no prohibition to the paving over of front yards. What measures can be taken to protect front yards in residential areas from being paved over?

NOTICE OF MOTION

AVIS DE MOTION

Councillor / Conseiller A. Cullen

INTERIM CONTROL BY-LAW – QUEENSWAY TERRACE NORTH COMMUNITY

RÈGLEMENT DE RESTRICTION PROVISOIRE - QUEENSWAY TERRACE NORTH COMMUNITY

Councillor Cullen explained there was a Community Annual General Meeting in Queensway Terrace North dealing with the issue of illegal triplexes. The community is anxious that the City not approve any conversion of illegal triplexes to legal triplexes. He consulted with staff and it was agreed to conduct a Neighbourhood Study, but an Interim Control By-Law is required.

Moved by Councillor A. Cullen:

Whereas the new City of Ottawa Official Plan promotes intensification as an alternative to urban sprawl;

Whereas the new City of Ottawa Official Plan proposes that intensification occur as gradual change to existing communities, so as to not alter the fundamental characteristics of existing communities;

Whereas there are no policies within the new City of Ottawa Official Plan setting limits where intensification is too much;

Whereas in the community of Queensway Terrace North there exists a number of illegal triplexes; raising concerns in the community about the ability of the new Official Plan to protect this community from excessive intensification that would result from legalizing these triplexes;

Whereas at the November 23, 2004 meeting of the Queensway Terrace North Community Association, where this matter was publicized in the meeting notice, a unanimous vote was taken requesting an Interim Control By-Law to temporarily prohibit the conversion of duplexes to triplexes, pending the outcome of a Neighbourhood Study to examine setting limits to intensification in this community;

Therefore be it resolved that Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council approve an Interim Control By-Law for the Queensway Terrace North community (bounded by the Transitway on the east, Carling Avenue on the south, Pinecrest Road on the west, and the Queensway on the north) to prohibit the conversion of duplexes to triplexes, pending the outcome of a Neighbourhood Planning Study on the appropriate limits to intensification in the Queensway Terrace North Community;

And that staff consult with the Councillor for Bay Ward and the Queensway Terrace North Community Association on the terms of reference for this Neighbourhood Planning Study, which is to report its conclusions to Planning and Environment Committee before the end of 2005, following public consultations.

Councillor / Conseillère D. Holmes

FREIMAN MALL

MAIL FREIMAN

Councillor Holmes asked that her inquiry from the previous meeting, copied below, be listed on the next agenda.

In the 1980s the City of Ottawa agreed to close Musgrove Street as part of The Bay’s expansion. A public right-of-way connecting Rideau Street and the By Ward Market was the retained within the redevelopment.

1. Does the City of Ottawa retain ownership of the Musgrove Street right-of-way?

2. How have the terms and conditions of the original agreement been amended regarding:

Þ Hours of operation and public access to the Freiman Mall?

Þ Minimum ‘effective circulation area’, that is the width of the pedestrian walkway, and the amount of encroachment permitted for display or wares and marketing?

Þ Enforcement of the terms of the agreement?

3. Has City Council approved these amendments?

4. Is The Bay in compliance with all of the terms and conditions of the agreement?

CONFIDENTIAL AGENDA 7

ORDRE DU JOUR CONFIDENTIEL 7

Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate:

That the meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee move In Camera pursuant to Section 12(1) (b) personal matters about an identifiable individual, including staff, of the Procedure By-law, to consider Confidential Agenda 7.

CARRIED

ADJOURNMENT

LEVÉE DE LA SÉANCE

The Committee adjourned the meeting at 5:45 p. m.

Original signed by Original signed by

Lorenzina Ferrari Councillor P. Hume

Committee Coordinator Chair