Report to/Rapport au :
Planning and Environment Committee
Comité de l'urbanisme et de
l'environnement
and Council / et au Conseil
15 March 2005/ le 15 mars 2004
Submitted by/Soumis par : Ned Lathrop, Deputy City Manager
/ Directeur municipal adjoint
Planning and Growth Management / Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance
Contact Person/Personne ressource : Karen Currie,
Manager / Gestionnaire
Development Approvals / Approbation des demandes
d'aménagement
(613) 580-2424 x28310, Karen.Currie@ottawa.ca
|
SUBJECT: |
|
|
|
|
|
OBJET : |
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council refuse the request to amend the former City of Nepean Zoning By-Law to permit an office use on a temporary basis for the property located at 842 Cedarview Road.
RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de
l’environnement recommande au Conseil de refuser la demande de modification du
Règlement de zonage de l’ancienne Ville
de Nepean visant à permettre une utilisation temporaire de bureau pour la
propriété située au 842, chemin Cedarview.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is
located at 842 Cedarview Road, just north of Cedarhill Drive, and is occupied by a single-detached dwelling, purchased by the current
owners in November 2003. The site
is one of five parcels of land between Fallowfield and West Hunt Club Roads
fronting onto Cedarview Drive. These lands were originally developed prior to
the first Nepean Zoning By-law and were used to accommodate a variety of uses
from industrial to residential. The subject property was used as a residence up
until March 2004. The applicants are the Sequoia Church, who have purchased the
property and are using it as offices for their church. The application is for a
Zoning By-law amendment to allow the offices for a period of up to three years
through a temporary zone.
DISCUSSION
Official Plan Conformity
The subject property lies in the General Rural
Area designation in the former City Council Approved Official Plan and the
Regional Official Plan. The designation
allows for a variety of uses, which includes residential and office uses.
Existing and Proposed Zoning
The zoning is split between the
front and back portions of the site; the rear half of the property is zoned
Rural, while the front half is zoned Residential. The
purpose of this Zoning By-law amendment request is to re-zone the front half of
the property from R1A – Residential Special Density Zone to R1A - Residential Special Density Exception Zone
to permit the temporary use of the house as a church office for a period of
three years. The R1A Zone applies to lands that are outside
of the Public Service Area and typically lots on well and septic systems fall
into this zone category. One single detached dwelling per lot is only permitted
under the R1A Zone. The rear of the property’s zoning
would remain as Rural. Should
the applicant not find suitable space elsewhere to relocate their functions,
they would have to re-apply for another temporary zone in three years.
DISCUSSION
The subject property always has been used as a residence. However, the use changed to an office when the Sequoia Church bought the house and converted it for use in association with their church operations. The applicants consulted with staff from the Planning and Infrastructure Approvals Branch prior to proceeding with the use and were told that the office use on its own could not be supported on this site. In addition, the applicants were advised to consult with the Ward Councillor and the Cedarhill Hill and Orchard Estates Association.
The Department then received an application for a temporary zone change on the site. The applicants were simultaneously undertaking renovations to the building to convert it into the offices, prior to conclusion of the Zoning By-law amendment process. A number of complaints were received by the Department arising out of traffic and parking issues that the use started to generate. Due to the lack of driveway space, a number of vehicles were observed parking on the shoulder of Cedarview Drive, an arterial roadway that is built to rural road standards with a speed limit of 80 km/h. There were also questions being raised by area residents and the Cedarhill and Orchard Estates Community Association with respect to the conformity of the use with the Zoning By-law. The By-law Services Division investigated the complaints and is awaiting the outcome of this Zoning By-law amendment in order to determine their next course of action, if any.
The applicants, at their request, were provided time to negotiate with the Community Association to prepare an amended proposal that would garner support for the proposal. Almost a year has passed and this support does not appear to be imminent.
The Department does not support the proposed use due to the potential impacts that the use will create for the abutting residents of the Cedarhill and Orchard Estates Community and especially because of the precedent this is setting in an area where the City is trying to gradually phase out the non-conforming uses.
The property is located directly adjacent to the intersection of Cedarview Road and Cedarhill Drive. Cedarview Road is an arterial roadway with increasing traffic volumes and the introduction of this use, albeit on a temporary basis, in such proximity to an unsignalized intersection creates a dangerous situation for residents of the area and traffic using Cedarview Road. The site does not have the ability to accommodate additional vehicles that may frequent the site due to the church office operations. The owners have established an agreement with a landowner to the north to accommodate overflow parking, however, the City has no way to enforce this arrangement, and having vehicles park along Cedarview Road is not a safe option.
This segment of Cedarview Drive has three other properties that have legal non-conforming rights to a variety of uses from an automotive repair garage, dance studio, and archery school to a commercial bakery and industrial warehouse. These uses are in association with residences that form part of the sites. These uses do not conform to the current zoning in place for this portion of Cedarview Drive, which only permits a single detached residence. It is the intention of the Department that these uses will over time be replaced only by residential uses, in conformity with the current zoning and Official Plan policies. There have been a number of applications over the years for changes in use on these properties. The consistent position of the Department, in compliance with the Planning Act, has been to support only those uses which are more in keeping with the current zoning, or uses that will bring the sites closer to conformity with the current zoning.
The subject site in unique when compared to the neighbouring properties. It represents one of two sites that conform to the Zoning By-law along this stretch of Cedarview Drive. The residential use already conforms to the R1A zone. A change in use from residential to office actually renders the site in non-conformity with the zoning, which is a situation the Department is trying with great effort to discourage on the other three neighbouring parcels. The proposed office use also has the propensity to create further nuisance effects through signage and create hazardous conditions on Cedarview Drive due to traffic and parking issues.
The Department, therefore is recommending refusal of the request to allow, on a temporary basis, an office use only on this site.
CONSULTATION
Notice
of this application was carried out in accordance with the City’s Public
Notification and Consultation Policy. Information signs were posted on-site
indicating the nature of the application. The Ward Councillor is aware
of this application and the staff recommendation. Correspondence in opposition to the proposal was received from
area residents, including the Cedarhill and Orchard Estates Community
Association. A summary of the issues
raised in contained in Document 2.
FINANCIAL
IMPLICATIONS
APPLICATION PROCESS TIMELINE STATUS
The application was not processed by the "On
Time Decision Date" established for the processing of Zoning By-Law
amendments due to the fact that the applicant's requested for the application
to be placed on hold pending negotiations with the Community Association.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 2 Public
Consultation
DISPOSITION
Department of Corporate Services, Secretariat
Services to notify the applicant, Stephen Stirling, Novatech Enginering,
200-240 Michael Copeland Drive, Kanata
Ontario. K2M 1P6, All Signs, 8692 Russell Road, Navan, ON K4B 1J1, and the Program Manager,
Assessment, Department of Corporate Services of City Council’s decision.
LOCATION MAP Document
1
PUBLIC CONSULTATION DOCUMENT 2
The following is a summary of comments received on this application from the neighbouring residents and the community association.
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION COMMENTS:
1. The existing zoning for residential use represents the highest and best use of this property. Residential zoning continues to be most compatible with adjacent properties in Cedarhill Estates, Cedarview Rd., Lytle Ave. and the 95 lots in the proposed new subdivision, which abuts the rear of this property.
2. With the single exception of a nonconforming use at 822 Cedarview Rd., there are no uses in this area that are not residential, conservation or agricultural in nature. Approval of this application would constitute “spot zoning”, go against the zoning bylaw and the Official Plan, and essentially change the nature of our community without consideration of the wishes of our property owners and without developing a proper plan.
3. Office and commercial uses are not desired by property owners in our area and will not benefit our residents.
4. The proposed temporary usage will create a situation that is detrimental to and adversely affect the adjacent residential uses of property owners in Cedarhill Estates. Problems that will detract from the ability of the surrounding property owners to enjoy their property, reduce rural residential property values and create safety issues include the accoutrements of office zoning, such as the attraction of additional traffic to the area, parking, signage and noise.
5. In the course of conducting various church business, it is likely from time to time that various meetings and gatherings will be held at this location, not only of the church employees who work in the office, but of various church-affiliated and sponsored groups. There are no facilities for parking at this home, other than a short laneway in front of the home reaching from the garage to Cedarview Rd. Street parking is not desirable, as the home is located very close to an intersection, and is fronting on a busy regional arterial road. Visitors to 842 Cedarview Rd. have already created parking and traffic hazards that are dangerous to users of the intersection at Cedarhill Dr. and Cedarview Rd. Cars have been parked on the road shoulder/bicycle lane on Cedarview Rd. and Cedarhill Dr., obstructing the view of the intersection and of oncoming traffic. This problem was dramatically evident on an almost daily basis during the months that the church membership was in process of renovating the house. This situation has improved after reports to Bylaw Services and a meeting with a church representative; however we have reports it is still occurring on an occasional basis. A nonconforming commercial business owned by Mr. Bhamra operates at 822 Cedarview Rd., and it is our understanding that some arrangements may be made for visitor parking at this location by the applicant. In our view, this is not a solution, as it only facilitates the attraction of traffic and parking requirements to a rural residential area that is not designed for these types of uses. The attraction of visitors from outside of our community creates traffic and parking problems, and causes a serious safety issue for residents and passers-by.
6. The City of Ottawa has limited resources and does not routinely patrol this rural location to enforce parking regulations, placing the burden of parking enforcement notification onto Cedarhill residents, who must call Bylaw Services and request that an enforcement officer be dispatched. These costs are borne by the City.
7. The City may also want to look into Fire Department regulations and safety requirements for buildings used for office and group gatherings.
8. As there is a surplus of office space available for rent in Ottawa, this applicant should have no problem finding adequate quarters in a location that is zoned for office use with appropriate parking facilities and traffic management, and provisions for adequate signage. There is no valid rationale for bringing this type of use to a rural residential area.
9. Temporary rezoning is by our view the beginning step of going down the slippery slope to ultimately having an application for permanent rezoning submitted for the use.
10. Temporary rezoning for a period of three years is not very “temporary”, which we believe would be more appropriately measured in weeks, not years.
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INPUT
11.
I
recognize that re-zoning is frequently appropriate because circumstances change
as a city grows. Re-zoning can be advantageous to the surrounding
community in some situations. But in this case, I see no change in
circumstances nor any benefits to the surrounding community that would justify
re-zoning the property in question.
12.
This
is a residential area and the property would appear to be zoned appropriately
now. The neighbouring business properties - an auto repair shop,
reno-store and archery school - are, as I understand it, operating per
grandfathering arrangements or, in the case of the archery school, contrary to
permitted uses. All of these business arrangements seem pretty dubious to
me and are a visual blight on the overwhelmingly residential character of this
area.
13.
This
a fine community in which to live and the City derives hefty property tax
revenues from each of the properties in Cedarhill Estates and Orchard Estates
due in part to the protection - through zoning and by-law enforcement - of the
residential nature of this area.
14.
Zoning
is essentially about fairness. It is a system of rules to protect
property values and quality of life for communities of people. It should
never favour special interests, contrary to the collective interest of the
community. Yet that is exactly what this application seeks to
achieve. The owners of 842 Cedarview Road bought this property,
undoubtedly aware of its residential zoning, and then set about to flout their
property's zoning. There is a simple word for this kind of
behaviour: arrogance.
15.
The
City is not taking action to cause these people to cease and desist their
business operations pending the resolution of their application for
re-zoning. This was explained as a "goodwill" position of the
City. I find this decidedly strange. Who's goodwill is the City
pre-occupied with? Evidentially, the people who are thumbing their noses
at the City, not those of us who respect the rules.
Response:
The City’s By-law Services staff has been
to the property to investigate the by-law infractions and since the applicants
had filed a Zoning By-law amendment application, By-Law Services is awaiting
the outcome of this zoning process before deciding on the next course of
action.
COUNCILLOR’S COMMENTS
Councillor
Jan Harder is aware of the application and the community reaction to the
proposal.