|
Planning and Environment Committee Comité de l’urbanisme et
de l’environnement Minutes 29 / Procès-verbal
29
Tuesday, 26 April 2005 9:30 a.m. le mardi 26 avril 2005 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 / G. Bédard, M. Bellemare, A. Cullen, D. Holmes G. Hunter, H. Kreling
Absent
/ Absente : Councillor / Conseillère J. Harder (City
Business / Affaires
municipales)
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
DÉCLARATIONS D’INTÉRÊT
No declarations of interest were filed.
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
Ratification dES procÈs-verbaUX
Minutes 28 of the Planning and Environment Committee meeting held on Tuesday, 12 April 2005 were confirmed.
At the start of the meeting, Chair Hume read a
statement required under the Planning Act,
which advises that anyone who intends to appeal the proposed Official Plan and
Zoning By-law Amendments listed as Items 8-103,
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 Ontario Municipal Board (OMB).
PRESENTATION
PRÉSENTATION
1 national FOREST WEEK in ottawa - MAY 1 TO 7, 2005
La
Semaine nationale de l'arbre et des forÊts À OTTAWA- DU 1 AU 7 MAI 2005
Chair Hume “declared that as everyone is aware the City’s Official Plan (OP) and Environmental Strategy speak to the importance of trees, forests and woodlots to the health and well being of our communities. The Ottawa 20/20 process identified seven guiding principles including A Green and Environmentally Sensitive City. This guiding principle includes the following: “A Green City - Ottawa preserves natural habitats and has a network of green spaces. Trees are an important way of maintaining environmental integrity.” National Forest Week runs this year from May 1 to 7. Originally established in 1920 as Forest Fire Prevention Week to encourage greater public awareness towards Canada's forests, it was renamed in 1967 and has evolved to encompass the many and varied human and environmental aspects of Canada's forest resources. It my pleasure, as Chair of the Planning and Environment Committee, to present to Iola Price, Chair of the Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee (OFGAC), A Proclamation announcing May 1-7, 2005 as National Forest Week in the City of Ottawa.”
On behalf of OFGAC, Ms. Price thanked the Planning and Environment
Committee (PEC) for passing the proclamation and declared that Ottawa was
founded as a forest product city and that trees are very important. In recognition of OFGAC for the work conducted
by PEC, Ms. Price presented a Poster for National Forest, which will be
available to the public who participate in the tree planting event on the 7th
of May. Chair Hume stated 1,500 trees will
be planted and the City had achieved the 5,000 mark over the last two years and
is well on its way to 10,000 and thanked Ms. Price for the Poster.
Councillor Cullen highlighted that as 2005 was the
City’s 150th Anniversary, Anniversary Trees were allocated to
Councillors (6) and the Mayor (24) and in his Ward, as he was sure it was
elsewhere, this program is oversubscribed.
Chair Hume referred to a former program that offered
residents free trees to plant on their property that was a tremendous
educational experience and always oversubscribed. Unfortunately, due to budget constraints this program was
eliminated, but he did invite everyone to assist in planting 1,500 trees to
create an urban forest in Alta Vista at 8:30. The Mayor will be in attendance planting his ceremonial 150th
Tree.
REFERRALS/deferrals
RENVOIS/reports
2. APPLICATION
TO DEMOLISH FIVE BUILDINGS AT 52-54
bolton, 78-80 bolton, 281-283 cumberland, 287 cumberland and 207-209 murray
street, designated under part v of the ontario heritage act, located in
the lowertown west heritage conservation district
demande en vue démolir cinq édifices au 52-54, RUE bolton, 78-80, RUE
bolton, 281-283, RUE cumberland, 287, RUE cumberland et 207-209, rue murray,
désignés en vertu de la partie v de la loi sur le patrimoine de l’ontario
ET situés dans le DISTRICT DE CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE DE LA
BASSE-VILLE OUEST
ACS2005-DEV-APR-0098 rideau-vanier (12)
Deferred from 12 April 05
meeting
Ned Lathrop, Deputy City Manager, Planning and Growth Management (PGM), John Moser, Director, Planning, Environment & Infrastructure Policy, and Stuart Lazear, Coordinator Heritage Services, appeared before the Committee with respect to departmental report dated 14 March 2005. Following a comprehensive presentation by Mr. Lazear, Councillor Bédard referred to a request to Committee of Adjustment (COA) to lift the overlay at 78-80 Bolton. Mr. Lazear advised that COA reserved their decision, but once a final decision is made, there is an Appeal period from that date (of 20 days).
The Committee heard from the following
delegations:
Brook Burchfiel, Lowertown West Community Association, supported the staff recommendation. Heritage is an integral part of the
neighbourhood. Mr. Burchfiel pointed
out one of the buildings proposed for demolition is one of only six or seven carriage
houses in all of Lowertown, which are quite unique and relate the fact that
horse and carriages travelled these roads.
These carriage houses cannot be destroyed since horse-drawn carriages currently
travel the neighbourhood reliving the area’s beauty and history. The building is in bad repair at the rear,
but the woodwork can be seen, which is quite amazing since the building is 130
years old. He would prefer to preserve
the façade. Almost 1/3 of the block is
contemplated for demolition with no replacement plans submitted. That is counteractive to what is intended
for the downtown core. Our Lady’s
School is a grand old building and it was amazing that farther down the street,
the Guigues School was remodelled and is now selling one-bedroom apartments for
$274,000; that is what can happen when these old schools are renovated in a
positive manner. The community would
like to see the value saved and maintained.
The fact there are no replacement buildings does not follow adhere to the
Heritage Act. His main point was that to allow for
demolition of buildings that have been allowed to reach this stage of disrepair
seems like a reward system for owners that mistreat the City’s heritage and sets
a bad set of circumstance. It is
contrary to what the average Lowertown resident has accomplished to preserve
the City’s heritage. All new buildings
advertise potential residents to come down to “historic Lowertown”; then do not
destroy historic!
In response to Councillor Bédard on 52-54 Bolton (the Carriage
House), Mr. Burchfiel reiterated he would like to see heritage preserved first,
but was aware that was not always possible.
He did not have a problem with infill and development. Lowertown should be a vital living area, but
the area heritage should not be disregarded nor torn down, but preserved and
maintained in some manner. Similarly
with Our Lady’s School, he did not have a problem with adding three storeys and
at the back, but save the façade for future generations to appreciate. Councillor Bédard received confirmation Mr.
Burchfiel’s interest was in maintaining as much as possible without demolition.
Barbara Warren, Vice-Chair, Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee
(LACAC), stated
LACAC unequivocally did not support the demotions before PEC. She attended the lengthy presentation by the proponent’s
architect, structural engineer, lawyer and the proponent himself, at the 24
March LACAC meeting. Ms. Warren is a
conservation carpenter living in Ottawa with significant experience working on
older homes. Compelling arguments as to
the deteriorated state of the buildings was heard, but she was not present to
address the state of the buildings.
LACAC supports the staff recommendation to oppose the demolitions, based
on Ontario Heritage Act regulations
and the numerous policies and guidelines approved by City Council that relate
to heritage districts, as outlined and well laid out in the staff report before
PEC. Suffice it to say, it is clearly
not in the interest of City Council or PEC to approve the creation of vacant
lots in Heritage Conservation districts.
She did reiterate that LACAC strongly supports the tenants of the Ontario Heritage Act and specifically
Section 42, Part 10, that gives Council the authority to refuse to issue a
demolition permit until the owner has applied to Council under this Section and
been given a permit to erect a new building on this site. There are huge development pressures in the
Lowertown West Conservation District and every applicant that comes forward
with a request to demolish a building also comes forward with a plan for a
replacement building and applies for a Building Permit according to the Act.
There is good reason for the City to follow this procedure; it is the
only way to ensure an accountable process is in place for providing
appropriate, sympathetic replacement buildings in conservation districts. It also ensures there is a process to
address whether demolition is the only option.
Approval of these demolitions would effectively side step an important
safeguard for the preservation of heritage buildings and districts. She asked why this applicant should be
treated any differently than others that have come forward. As a result of this proposal she has learned
some unfortunate realities about the inability of the City to require property
owners to maintain their properties.
Minimum standards only apply to buildings that are occupied. There are no maintenance requirements for
vacant buildings, so long as they are secured and the site is kept relatively
free of debris; vacant buildings can simply be left to deteriorate. LACAC sees this fact as a huge problem for
the preservation of heritage resources in the City. A number of the buildings before PEC today have been owned by the
proponent for many years and, as a professional, she questioned how the
buildings arrived at this state if proper maintenance had been undertaken. In conclusion, approving these demolitions
would be a dangerous precedent. PEC
must not set this precedent by supporting the demolition of these buildings.
Meg Hamilton, Council of Heritage Organizations of Ottawa (CHOO/COPO), supported the comments by Ms.
Warren and the staff recommendations to refuse the application to demolish the
heritage buildings
Arnell Goldberg, Solicitor for the applicant, Claude Lauzon, pointed out there are five
separate and distinct applications before PEC.
The applicant has been placed in a very difficult position in being
asked to obtain a building permit without knowing he will be allowed to
demolish the building. Each building,
except for one, is in a state of disrepair. The applicant proposes in each case to construct a building for
rental purposes only (not a condominium) and will comply with existing zoning
by-laws, subject to appropriate application to the COA. He is not attempting to overreach in any way
and is trying to comply with OP requirements to provide rental housing in the
central area. Mr. Lauzon did not comply
with a Demolition Order on the School Board building some 10 years ago; in
fact, he sued the City to get a building permit. It was only after he initiated the work that he found it was
impossible to do so and must now construct a new building in compliance with
the directions over the heritage district.
Claude Lauzon, applicant, grew up in Lowertown, on Bolton, in the same block as two of the
buildings. In 1960 he moved to New
Edinburgh and continues to live in the same home. He enjoys living in the heritage district and understands all
that it implies and would like to maintain these districts. But, there are some properties that cannot
be renovated and that is why he was before PEC today. He purchased his first building in 1954 in Lowertown and has
purchased many since. When he purchased
52-54 Bolton in 1973, it was in disrepair, but he kept the tenants. The tenant in 52 moved out a few years
later; whereas the tenant in 54 remained until 1990. As the properties became vacant he did not re-lease them since they
were in such disrepair. He would like
to reproduce the building with new material, built to today’s specifications,
fire and building codes. He would like
to keep the Carriage House, which held sentimental value.
He purchased 78-80 Bolton in 1988, which was a vacant property, also in disrepair. He purchased it because he owned the property next door and for land purposes only. He wanted to construct a four storey rental building, with parking below ground to avoid parking on the street. He purchased the school property in 1981 as a result of a foreclosure. It was a good building and he had high hopes to build six loft apartments, three regular apartments and one bachelor. He applied for a building permit in 1996 and in the winter of 1998/99 the roof caved in under the weight of the snow. In the spring, he hired a roofer to rebuild the roof. In 2002, he was awarded a building permit, but when the building was entered it was found that two floors had collapsed under the weight of the roof and brick. The building was determined to be beyond repair. In 1981/83, he purchased the building next door on Cumberland; it was a well kept, rented building. He asked for demolition to construct a better building on the entire site since the building footprint is 33 x 50; it will allow for underground parking and be compatible with the environs. In 2003, he purchased 207-209 (for land value only) after a fire to increase the development potential and allow for parking. All the buildings are not designated heritage although they are located within a heritage area. He does own several other properties in the area that are in a good state of repair and rented.
Based upon the submissions by Mr. Goldberg and in response to Councillor Bédard, Mr. Lazear explained there was a process for review and approval of replacement or new construction under the Ontario Heritage Act in a Heritage Conservation District. The process does commence with concept plans and evolves to the point where staff is either satisfied or not to come forward to LACAC, PEC and Council with a recommendation to both demolish the building and approve the replacement building. In terms of approving an appropriate replacement or partial replacement building or the retention of a façade of one building and the incorporation of new buildings behind, that is a process for discussion within the context of concept drawings and review by the public by LACAC, PEC and Council. Responding further, Mr. Lazear explained that when a formal action report is presented for review and approval by LACAC, PEC and Council, the design has evolved to a close to final stage. But, concept drawings for applications have also come forward to LACAC for their discussion and review for projects before a formal application has been submitted with final drawings.
Bob Jardine, Cleland Jardine Engineering Ltd., Structural Engineer for the
Applicant, provided
written submissions that outlined his findings relative to the structural
condition of each of the buildings and potential for salvaging the existing
buildings. That information was circulated
to the Committee and is held on file with the City Clerk.
In response to Councillor Hunter, Mr. Jardine remarked that the building
structures will not improve over time and he could negate any further
discussion by stating that his presentation regarding the four properties will
come to the same conclusion, that from a structural perspective, they have all
deteriorated to the point where re-construction is not a cost-beneficial or
practical alternative on any of the four in question.
Councillor Bédard explained he was intimately familiar with this matter and although the applicant had expended considerable sums in the process to date, he had been advised to approach the heritage planners at the beginning of the process. Having said that, many of the proposals are in fact very much needed in the Ward; in particular, the proposal for Our Lady. That school had considerable historical significance in the area, but unfortunately has deteriorated through the years. That entire block is very interesting since it is located beside the Shepherds of Good Hope, at the corner of Cumberland and Murray, and begs to be re-developed. The proposal at the time was very interesting and it is unfortunate that it fell through. Mr. Goldberg had suggested the owner would like some assurance that if he came forward with plans, PEC and Council will permit demolition, but that is not the question today. The question is really one of process. Staff, in his experience, has been excellent in giving advice and making suggestions with considerable discussion at LACAC relative to preliminary plans. In fact, many architects and owners have come forward on many occasions before proceeding or before there is the entertainment of the demolition or revamping of a vacant lot in a heritage area. The process does not allow the City to grant a demolition permit when no plans are presented. He suggested staff work closely with the owner to arrive at some accommodation on the concept plans for each of the properties since he was aware the owner did want to redevelop the properties.
Mr. Lathrop stressed principles and policies in a Heritage Conservation District need to be carefully adhered to and concern given when buildings are proposed to be demolished as to what replaces them. Care must be given to buildings when they can be saved; and, if they cannot be saved, that they be replaced appropriately. It is a process, as the Councillor stated, that is important to be followed and staff is asking that it be followed.
Correspondence from David Flemming,
Heritage Ottawa, in strong support of the staff recommendation, was
circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. The Committee approved the recommendations.
That the Planning and Environment
Committee recommend Council:
1. refuse the applications to demolish heritage buildings located within the Lowertown West Heritage Conservation District, received on February 27, 2005 for 52-54 Bolton Street, 78-80 Bolton Street, 281-283 Cumberland Street, 287 Cumberland Street, and 207‑209 Murray Street
2. refuse
to issue a demolition permit for 52-54 Bolton Street, 78-80 Bolton Street,
281-283 Cumberland Street, 287 Cumberland Street and 207-209 Murray Street,
until the owner has applied for and been given a permit to erect a new building
on the site (Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter.18, Section
42.10).
CARRIED
3. SIGN BY-LAW MINOR VARIANCE - 780 Baseline Road
DÉROGATION MINEURE AU RÈGLEMENT SUR LES ENSEIGNES - 780, chemin baseline
ACS2005-DEV-BLD-0006 river (16)
Deferred from 12 April 05
meeting
Chair Hume noted the applicant’s request
to defer this item to the 24 May PEC meeting.
Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate:
WHEREAS, Item 37 of Agenda 28 of the Planning
and Environment Committee meeting dated April 12, 2005, that recommended to
refuse a minor variance to Signs By-law 36-2000 of the former City of Ottawa to
allow a proposed wall sign to exceed the uniform height, area and arrangement
of other signs on the same building, was deferred to consider an alternate
proposal submitted by the applicant;
AND WHEREAS, in response, the community
opposed the alternate proposal as it would result in the sign being lowered on
the building facade but not a reduction in the scale of the proposed sign;
AND WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a revised
proposal to reduce the scale of the sign and position the sign to be
substantively within the existing sign band; and
AND WHEREAS, the community has not had the
opportunity to consider the revised proposal;
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that Item 3 (REFERRALS/DEFERRALS)
of Agenda 29 of the Planning and Environment Committee meeting dated April 26,
2005, be DEFERRED until the next meeting of the Committee on 24 May 2005.
DEFERRAL
CARRIED
purlic works and
services
services et Travaux
publics
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER
Directeur municipal adjoint
4. HIRING JUSTIFICATION - 2005 Budget
JUSTIFICATION D’EMBAUCHE -
BUDGET DE 2005
ACS2005-PWS-DCM-0003
The
Committee approved the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 11 April
2005.
That the Planning and Environment
Committee recommend that Council approve the establishment of 4 FTEs in 2005 as
outlined in this report.
CARRIED
Moved by Councillor A. Cullen:
That the Planning
and Environment Committee recommend that the Rules of Procedure be waived to allow
this item to rise to City Council on 27 April 2005.
carried
UTILITY
SERVICES
SERVICES PUBLICS
5. IN-sink-erator response
RÉPONSE À IN-SINK-ERATOR
ACS2005-PWS-UTL-0007
R. Hewitt, Acting/Deputy City Manager, Public Works and Services (PWS), Ken Brothers, Director, Utility Services, Fel Petti, Manager, Environment Programs and Technical Services, Dave McCartney, Manager, Waste Water and Drainage, and Debbie MacLennan, Supervisor, Sewer Use By-Law, appeared before the Committee with respect to departmental report dated 21 March 2005. Mr. Brothers explained the matter before Committee was in response to a PEC request to review the information presented by In-Sink-Erator in 2004 and introduced Mr. Petti who presented a comprehensive PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Petti advised the information was also presented to the Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC), who approved a Motion that supported staff’s recommendation to continue the ban. A copy of that position is contained in a memorandum dated 28 March 2005 that was circulated and is also on file with the City Clerk.
In response to Chair Hume, Mr. Petti
explained the original By-Law did not include the ban, but upon receiving feedback
from the industry and waste water treatment peers, staff agreed to uphold the
original ban in the former City of Ottawa By-Law. Toronto has a partial ban in place in combined sewer areas. Chair Hume recalled the request from
In-Sink-Erator was to allow the use of food waste disposers in separated sewer
areas, not in combined sewer areas and questioned why staff has compared Ottawa
to Cobourg and not Toronto (with a Green Box Program in place), Calgary and
Edmonton that allow the use of food waste disposers in their systems. Mr. Petti could not speak to why Toronto has
taken its decision. In staff’s opinion,
this is the environmental direction that Council would like to pursue; to
maintain and ensure the ultimate support of an organics program; maintain water
efficient strategy that reduces water consumption and certainly the direction
to pursue in keeping with the City’s environmental policy established as part
of Ottawa 20/20.
The Committee heard from the following delegations:
Bob Bielawski, Bill Strutz, Mike Gitter, In-Sink-Erator, provided a comprehensive submission
that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Strutz introduced Mr. Gitter, who
operated a Treatment Plant in South Milwaukee, Wisconsin and was brought on
board because of his expertise in the waste water area and In-Sink-Erator has
also looked at the landfill situation and some of the studies. Mr. Gitter provided calculations based on
information from the City’s website for waste water and arrived at figures in the
area of $90/ton, based on his experience, which is about half the solid waste
cost and when looking at composting and collection, that is approximately the
same cost as taking the material to landfill.
Responding to Chair Hume’s question on why is Ottawa different from
Toronto and Edmonton, Mr. Strutz asked why is Ottawa so different from other
cities in the U.S. as well, especially those that have studied the issue in
detail and mandated food waste disposers as a disposal issue.
Mr. Gitter advised that prior to working for In-Sink-Erator he had worked
in the waste water treatment field for 16 years. These plants were in the Milwaukee, Wisconsin area, suburbs of
Milwaukee and the policy in each of these cities (Brookfield and South
Milwaukee) was basically no policy.
Disposers were not mandated nor were they banned in any way. The thinking was certainly that food waste
disposers because of their ease of use, convenience and hygienic method of
disposal of food waste would offer residents the opportunity to purchase and
install the unit based on a quality of life issue and to improve that quality
of life for the users of the respective city’s sewer system. Brookfield (a highly residential community,
with only a 3% flow of industrial flow) estimated 50% of the households had
food waste disposers. Furthermore,
there was no additional maintenance requirement in the sewer, with the entire
system cleaned every three years. They
did not experience any blockage in residential areas, although they did
encounter grease problems in highly restaurant areas. Basically, he closed to say that In-Sink-Erator has been up front
and technical in presenting their numbers in a logical form, using sound
science and engineering. It was
believed the Ottawa opinion was a negative opinion, based on a fear of the
unknown and the impact on the loading to the sewer system and waste water
plant. In-Sink-Erator did not see why
food waste disposers are allowed in communities all over the world and questioned
why the Ottawa situation would be so unique that it would present an
unmanageable problem.
Mr. Strutz stressed that the In-Sink-Erator presentation responded to PEC
questions raised in December and when looking at the total environmental
impact, which has been studied in a number of areas, if the food waste finds
its way to the landfill, methane is definitely generated. Food waste decomposes very rapidly and that
methane escapes into the atmosphere. A
number of studies have determined that at least 1/3 of the methane generated
escapes into the atmosphere and that methane is 21x worse than greenhouse
gas. Therefore, the effect at the
landfill is much greater than if the methane is beneficially re-used at the
waste water treatment plant through the anaerobic digesters. Even if the landfill is looking at setting
up electrical generation using the methane, the food waste has already
decomposed to the point there would be very limited additional benefit.
John Herbert, Executive Director, Ottawa Carleton Homebuilders
Association, representing Daniel Gabriele, President, Ontario Homebuilders
Association, who
was unable to be present due to another engagement, provided a written
submission. Mr. Herbert read from the
letter sent to Committee, which is in support of the In-Sink-Erator proposal on
file with the City Clerk.
As a result of the presentation, Councillors Hunter and Kreling raised
questions, with the following clarification:
·
E-coli
is present in human waste, but not in the food waste; the e-coli content is
actually reduced through the introduction of food waste. As well, a number of plants have actually
raised the temperature of the digesters to aid in killing the e-coli through thermophilic
digestion. Ottawa is currently using
mesophilic, which is a lower temperature.
A number of U.S. cities use methane to either generate electricity or to
drive the engines that provide air for the digestion process as well as the
heat for the digesters; it is beneficially re-used in almost every case in the
U.S.
·
Basically,
the cities addressed by staff are the only cities (Kingston,
Peterborough, Cobourg and St. Thomas) that do not allow disposer usage.
Technology over the last 30-40 years has changed drastically, with
municipalities addressing that issue finding there is absolutely no sewage
blockage due to that new technology.
Councillor Hunter accentuated the request is not that the City allow
food waste disposers everywhere, but that they be allowed only in areas with separated
sewers and he urged PEC to vote against the staff recommendation and to join
the majority of communities. This is
built in diversion away from the landfill, which is what the City aspires
to. It makes eminent sense to allow, as
a first step, In-Sink-Erators where the sewer system has that capacity. But, denying it quite rightly in communities
like Sandy Hill, the downtown and other areas with combined sewers and where
surcharging is a major problem.
Councillor Holmes stressed the City is about to embark on a discussion of
waste management and moving to a system where the City collects food waste and
composts same, which she certainly supported as a more progressive and
environmentally sound manner of dealing with waste. She totally agreed with the whereas
contained in the EAC recommendation, specifically not to allow food waste to
enter the water system, but in fact to collect it through the City’s proposed “organic”
pick-up system. It would be regressive to
agree to the In-Sink-Erator proposal.
Councillor Cullen referred to the next item before PEC in terms of
reaching the City’s 60% diversion rate for waste disposal at the City’s
landfill site, which will be looking at the Green
Box Program. What moved him to
accept the staff recommendation is the cost/benefit analysis of processing the waste at the Pickard Centre versus the
cost of dealing with it at landfill. The
numbers do speak for themselves and it is not the approach to take.
In response to a question from Councillor Feltmate on the issue of sewer
maintenance, Mr. McCartney
advised that the standard for sewer maintenance in Ottawa is currently once
every five years for all pipes. There
are several hundred hot spots in the
system that are cleaned out more regularly and areas with a large accumulation
of grease that are cleaned out every three months. Responding further, Mr. Hewitt explained the additional costs at
the Pickard Centre would be factored into the sewer surcharge on the user’s water
bill as opposed to the general taxpayer.
Councillor Kreling found himself agreeing with Councillor Hunter’s
comments in that this is an opportunity for diversion and did not believe the
report provides a reflection on the actual costs when talking about
diversion. He would support limited
introduction and not the complete ban proposed.
Councillor Hunter referenced the EAC resolution opposing the introduction
of food waste disposers pointed to methane production. When residents compost, every particle of
methane produced through that decomposition enters the atmosphere. There is an enhanced opportunity for methane
recovery through the use of food waste disposers and capture through the
digester process at the Pickard Centre.
He urged PEC to vote against the staff recommendation and to put forward
a recommendation to introduce the use in selected areas (of the City) where
sewers are compatible.
Councillor Holmes received information from staff that any facility
built for the disposal of organics would use the methane to heat and operate
that plant.
Councillor Cullen commented the difficulty with Councillor Hunter’s
approach is that if the City is moving forward with a comprehensive waste
diversion program, it undermines its own efforts to allow a competing
technology to be in place that places stress on the City’s system, not only at
the Pickard Centre, but also the amount of water required for this system. If the City allows the use of the
In-Sink-Erator and the Green Box, it
undermines its own efforts in terms of waste diversion. Why should the City invest technology and
equipment to process waste at the Pickard Centre that does not require
treatment, but which can proceed directly to compost. The pressures to divert 60% by 2008 and the City’s need to find
capacity at Trail Road, which under current programs fully forces the City to
look very carefully at these options.
The whole notion compels PEC to reject the proposal and proceed with the
alternatives to be discussed in the next report, ultimately deciding at the end
of June. If members are inclined to
accept this alternate, it would behoove them to move deferral to be considered
as part of the June 28th debate.
The Committee approved the recommendation.
That Planning and Environment Committee
deny the In-Sink-Erator (Canada) request to amend the Sewer Use By-law to allow
the use of food waste disposers in the City of Ottawa.
CARRIED
Yeas (5): Councillors A. Cullen,
D. Holmes, G. Bédard, M. Bellemare, P. Feltmate
NAYS (3): Councillors G. Hunter, H. Kreling, P.
Hume
6. VERBAL PRESENTATION - RECYCLING MARKETS FOR CITY OF OTTAWA SOLID WASTE - PETER MCMAHON, METRO WASTE RECYCLING
EXPOSÉ VERBAL - LES MARCHÉS DU RECYCLAGE POUR LES DÉCHETS SOLIDES DE LA
VILLE D'OTTAWA - PETER MCMAHON, METRO WASTE RECYCLING
R. Hewitt, Ken Brothers, Anne-Marie Fowler, Manager, Solid Waste Services, and Peter McMahon, Metro Waste Recycling, appeared before the Committee on this item. Following a PowerPoint presentation by Mr. McMahon (a copy is on file with the City Clerk), Committee members posed questions with the following clarification. The Committee also received a response to Councillor Cullen’s inquiry from 12 April 2005 (Inquiry 01-05).
·
HDP and PET (#1
and 2 plastics) will always have a consistent market regardless of oil prices
because it is a commodity that can be easily remanufactured into recyclable and
sustainable recyclable products. The
current oil price has helped push the price up to make it more appealing.
·
On the tubs and
lids, the prime focus is the #4 and #5 commodities; however, there are some
products within the #3 and #6 range and into the #7 range that can be described
as a tub or a lid. . There is some confusion with the other
grades if they are in the program. The
current program established in Ottawa is a bottles only #1 and #2; however,
there is #2 HDP, which is manufactured in tubs and lids. In reality, a lid marked #2 is a HDP
product. The difference is the type of
moulding and composition of the material.
Chair Hume understood from an operational perspective, it becomes a
challenge for residents to turn it over to determine if it is a #2, #5 or #7
and then it turns to the level of contamination in the end market take. Mr. McMahon explained they would need to
segregate those materials out as they come across the line and would not be
included in the #2 category. Regardless
if it is a #2 plastic, it would need to be sorted and bundled separately from
the #2 bottles being received. That is similar
to the paper industry; they cannot be sent a block of a combination of
magazines, newspapers and cardboard because each produces a different end product. Bottle #2 end market would be different than
that capable of handling the tubs and lids within that #2 structure. The issue
of contamination varies depending upon the market conditions. In a strong market, the rejection rate is
much lower.
·
Multi-tenant
buildings is an area where the City should be devoting significant effort. Staff needs to have the opportunity to become
aggressive.
·
Metro Waste only
took on the current contract for the Blue Box program in June, 2004. The City had been collecting plastics for
approximately 9 years. Metro Waste
secured a contract with a changed recycle menu and built its plant specifically
for the products based on the contract awarded in 2004. If a very strong market was found for another recyclable, there would be
a cost to modify the operation and it would depend upon the commodity.
·
There is
currently a revenue stream for plastic recycling. The price range for plastics over the years ranged from
$100/metric ton to $0. Today, the
market has grown back to $100/metric ton.
·
5-700 tons of
coloured glass was collected per month, for which there is no revenue stream
and in fact the City must pay. Coloured glass is a very controversial
issue, but if the glass was not there, the cost per ton for collection and
processing would increase substantially.
Although there is a negative cost for coloured glass, it maintains the
balance with the other products. Mr.
McMahon has been dealing with the industry to get the glass markets back on
track. When the blue box was put in place,
glass was the prime item and cannot be removed from the stream.
·
If the City is
focussing on commodities that can be dealt with (tubs and lids previously
referred to), those markets should be relatively sustainable. If a #3 - #7 program is put back in play, it
will find its way to landfill. Everything
possible has been done over the years to ensure material does not go to
landfill. There must be a return with
an identified consumer; i.e. Haycore, that guarantees it will take the material
regardless. There must be a back to
back commitment, similar to the paper industry, that once it is processed to
their standards that industry takes it.
There is no capacity for storage, which is very expensive, and presents
a deterioration issue. It would become
an issue of marketability. If markets
collapse the City should not store the material, but work with the markets to
keep the material moving, which is why there should be a back to back
commitment with the end user so that regardless of the market, there is a floor
and ceiling price. There will be a play
within the range of whatever the floor and ceiling is or there is a guaranteed
price. Haycore has provided Toronto with
a guaranteed price. Staff was of the
opinion Haycore would give Ottawa a guarantee.
Councillor
Cullen gave notice to PEC members that for the next report and because of the
importance of achieving the 60% diversion rate, he would be proposing a direction
be given to staff to include the recycling of plastic yogurt containers and
margarine tubs and lids to plastics #4 and #5 in the development of the 2006
Draft Budget. If PEC were to do
this today, there would be a very complex process designed to inhibit changes
to the budget midstream, which is quite difficult. The City should be reconsidering this item, particularly since
there is no revenue stream for glass, which the City is obliged to
collect. There is an actual cost to
collect, sort and for the disposal of glass.
Whereas for plastic recycling, there is a cost for collection and
sorting, but the City can actually receive money from someone who will reuse
the product and put it back into the economy.
Chair Hume
stated that in his opinion it is not a money issue, but a guaranteed end market
for the materials. He was interested, not
in a guaranteed price, but in a guaranteed end user for the materials. Is that something that can be ensured? Mr. McMahon responded that has happened with
the paper industry and all the commodities that Metro deals with.
Tracey Meek, Haycore Canada Inc., provided a written submission that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Meek outlined some of the main points:
· Currently operates a wash/grind plastic recycling facility in Prescott, Ontario, which receives approximately 215 metric tons per month of “tubs & lids” (injection grade #2, 4, 5 & 7) from Municipal Blue Box programs in Ontario (50%), Quebec (90%) and several major centres in the North Eastern United States (U.S.), including Chicago and Boston recently.
· Currently supplies finished product to several established markets in North America i.e., Granville Composite Products Corp (Montreal); PBI Industries Inc. (Chicoutimi); Productivity California (South Gate). Letters from these companies were circulated.
· Provided a small sample of the material after the tubs and lids are ground and washed.
· Indicated several companies that would welcome questions and comments from Councillors regarding the sustainability of their companies and their relationship with Haycore. Most have opted to go with long term contracts for 10 or 15 years.
· Signed a two year deal with Toronto and representatives will be arriving to visit the plant at which point Haycore is hoping to secure a ten year contract.
· Wish to dispel any issues with regard to end markets; they are viable, long term and stable.
In response questions
from Councillor Cullen, Michel Jacobs, President, Haycore and
Mr. Meek provided the following responses:
· The end market specifications are 5% or less contaminates; i.e. metals, non plastics. They could handle a small amount of #3 and #6 (films and polystyrenes).
· Yogurt containers and margarine tubs (plastics #4 & #5) are included in the $35/ton agreement with Toronto
·
Haycore is currently negotiating with Toronto to have a
guaranteed back-to-back.
Mr. McMahon clarified back-to-back suggests the supplier (Haycore) has an
agreement with an end user and both the supplier and end user have an agreement
with the City, thus creating a guaranteed flow through.
·
A letter submitted to
the Mayor (on file with the City Clerk) indicates PBI’s interest in that type
of arrangement. Haycore is definitely
interested in a long term arrangement.
· Haycore Canada would incur the cost of collecting and processing the plastics and provide the City with revenue.
· The $35 price negotiated with Toronto (six months ago) reflects the market from that time; currently Haycore and Toronto are renegotiating to increase the price in exchange for a longer term contract.
· Haycore is prepared to enter into a long term contract with Ottawa to provide a back to back guarantee on tubs and lids.
In response to questions posed by Committee members,
Ms. Fowler provided the following clarifications:
· It will be a challenge to have the public understand the definition of ‘tubs and lids’.
· The number indicated on the bottom of recyclables is not a recycling number, but refers to the amount/type of plastic in that product; residents will have difficulty understanding exactly what is recyclable. The City hopes the plastic industry will rethink those numbers and ensure they are identifiable by what is recyclable.
· The City does not want to place in the stream materials not recyclable since the collector will not be able to sort the box contents. Residents needs to know exactly what the City is recycling and wants in the box.
· The additional cost to accept all plastics is $1.2 million, but many would not have an end market.
· If there are any margarine tubs/yoghurt containers that are not 4’s or 5’s, the percentage that would influence the usage would be negligible and it would not interfere with their acceptance. Those materials would be acceptable if they are identified as tubs and lids (margarine tubs and lids and yoghurt containers only).
Ms. Teitlebaum, provided written comments that were
circulated and are held on file with the City Clerk. The main points are outlined below:
·
Dismayed
when the decision was taken to restrict the type of plastic acceptable for
recycling, which appeared be a big step backward. Plastic previously destined to be recycled into useful products
were now going to landfill.
·
A
segment of the population is unsure about what is/is not acceptable plastic
that can lead to residents to give up or ignore rules and put unacceptable
plastics into the Blue Box. That will result
in unacceptable recyclable plastic.
Some residents may also discard what may be recyclable.
·
The
effect of current regulations at the curb is obvious, with blue boxes that were
normally overflowing that are currently far less full. Many residents feel rather strongly and
would like to have the full plastic recycling program restored. The city sends a discouraging message to its
youth by cutting back on recycling programs.
·
She
urged PEC to work towards the restoration of the extensive plastic recycling
program formerly in place and what residents want.
On behalf of the Committee, Chair Hume thanked Mr. McMahon for his insights in this matter and that of markets, which was extremely enlightening. He also hoped he would accept an invitation to return in the future when issues dictate, because his knowledge of the industry was a good resource. Mr. McMahon extended an invitation to all members of Council to visit the Metro Waste facilities on Sheffield Road.
7. Integrated Waste management master plan -
STRATEGIC SERVICE delivery - update
PLAN DIRECTEUR DE LA GESTION
INTÉGRÉE DES DÉCHETS – LE POINT SUR L’EXÉCUTION STRATÉGIQUE
ACS2005-PWS-UTL-0008
K. Brothers, Anne-Marie Fowler and Jeff Simpson, Manager, Financial Support Services, appeared before the Committee with respect to departmental report dated 15 April 2005. Following an introduction by Mr. Brothers, a comprehensive PowerPoint presentation was provided, a copy of which is held on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Brothers added that the Integrated Waste Management Master Plan (IWMMP) report was tabled for discussion and dialogue at PEC today and in the community. Staff should be able to solicit public communication and feedback until June 15th in preparation for the June 28th PEC meeting. The Public Consultation Plan will be engaging EAC, Business Advisory Committee (BAC) (or a subset) and the IWMMP Public Liaison Committee. Staff is preparing a comprehensive Q and A (as it relates to the different customer classifications and financial impact) and that will be delivered to Council members along with a complete French translation of the report on Friday (29 April 2005). The Q and A will be posted to the City website on garbage services, so that it can be communicated to the public and if there are changes these can be advanced and Corporate Communications will provide Council members with an article for publishing in their community newspaper about rolling this out and simplifying the message to get it out to the general public.
In response to questions posed by Committee members, staff provided the following clarification:
· For the average property taxpayer, to remove the cost of garbage collection and waste diversion from the commercial and industrial sectors, placing it solely with the homeowner, it is rises from $79-$88/year, which is effectively a 0.4% increase ($9.).
· The City is exploring opportunities in the private sector to bring forward expressions of interest through different options that might be available in terms of dealing with the organics stream biosolids, plastics, incineration, etc. to make the smart right choice.
· The intent at this time is to gain approval for the concept, in principle, and then to look further into options prior to the process being implemented in 2007.
· The introduction of organics in the concept of the hybrid model would be on the tax bill and shared by all ratepayers as waste diversion.
· There are some municipalities that have a higher diversion, but Ottawa at 31% diversion is in the mid-stream range of 30-32% under current programs. Toronto is somewhat lower, at approximately 27-28% due to its highrise buildings. There are ongoing discussions with the Provincial government to obtain assistance to reach the 60% goal by 2008, with recent workshops with stakeholders. It is anticipated to have some feedback by the fall or 2006.
·
Staff will attend at any public meeting in a
Councillor’s Ward, if requested, to discuss the various issues.
· 40 years of landfill capacity was based on the expectation the Province would extend capacity at that site. There are indications from the Minister’s Office the expansion is anticipated regardless of whether the 60% diversion is achieved or not. The approval is unconditional, although conditions were originally attached.
· It will be difficult to move to 40% soon; education is imperative; promotion of recycling; apartments should be targeted in the education program to achieve 40%.
· The Yellow Bag Program to “non-residential establishments” (Recommendation number 8), if approved, will create a program for to commence January 2006.
· Staff has tried to receive clarification from the Ministry when the 60% diversion commences. The formula is an issue and the City has not received any response and all municipalities are providing the same feedback. The City does not have any details on what is considered in the 60% diversion; it is a province-wide target; it is not known whether it includes business, all waste finding its way to landfills; clarification is required from the Province.
· The volume of waste diverted through the Take it Back Program is unknown because it goes back to the businesses. Although there is a noticeable reduction of waste at the curb, there is growth in the City.
· Staff agreed to provide numbers on a per capita basis over the years.
The Committee heard from the following delegation:
Rod Muir, Waste Diversion Campaigner, Sienna Club Canada, which is a member of the Conservation Council of Ontario, member of the Association of Municipal Recycling Coordinators, Board Member of Recycling Council of Ontario, Board Member of Municipal Waste Integration Network, the Ontario Environmental Network, the Canadian Environment Network and the Toronto Environmental Network. He is one environmentalist who feels very plugged in and believes strongly that standing and complaining about a problem is meaningless unless you are able to provide concrete solutions and it is through membership to these organizations that he hoped to achieve that. Four very important points:
· When it comes to waste diversion people want and need to do more; blue and black box recycling is a clear indication of that; as is the uptake of green bin in areas like Toronto, where participation rates with somewhat mediocre promotion is in the 80 – 90% range, week in and week out.
· Much attention has recently been paid on the need to make wise transportation choices as well as practice energy efficiency at home. A full page advertisement in the Globe and Mail made his entire year where there is now recognition of the significance of responsible waste management as a mechanism for mitigating climate change.
· Second point, this is a shared problem with shared solutions. The faster municipalities stop working independently as cities and towns and realize everyone has a problem getting apartment recycling up, finding markets for tubs and lids, the better off everyone will be. A province-wide campaign in support of recycling, with common theme on radio and television is necessary.
· Third point, it will cost $1 or $2 more a week, but there is no greater environmental benefit. It is the cost of a coffee and donut!
· Fourth and final point, waste is amazingly simple. In four years of study he could attest to this. 40% of waste is perfectly good recyclable items: fibres and containers; provincially we capture 52% of this material currently. There is a tremendous amount of potential in the next 23 months while we prepare for food scrap collection to increase recycling. In doing so residents will be taught a very important practice, which is that of separation. It is a next step in recycling.
· 40% of the waste stream is organic material and 15% is e-waste, for which there is a plan in the process of being designated; furniture including mattresses, carpets, textiles (that take up a great amount of space in landfill); household hazardous waste; construction demolition debris; 5% is true residual waste (Q-tips and dental floss).
· Need to move from the three R’s to the three steps, which is to get recycling up, improve the capture rate of recycling currently at 60% to 100%; need to get organics into a stream and need to get the last six out through a system of depots or the excellent take it back programs that are evident in Ottawa.
· With respect to the report, he made five brief comments; #1 - support the confirmation of 40% goal; # 2 - increase participation - encourage to think provincially and from the point of view of communicating the ability to mitigate climate change through responsible waste management; # 3 - applaud 60% goal; #6 - need to move towards organics diversion; finally the diversion reporting, #11 – diversion reporting; do not get the information yearly or quarterly, find out every month the steps made in the diversion challenge.
Councillor Bédard pointed out that when the recycling movement started there was four R’s, now it is down to three. It was Reduce, Reject, Reuse and Recycle; the environmental movement at that time was very hot on striving to get the Governments, Federal and Provincial, to implement legislation to ensure there would be rejection of products, i.e., when beer cans were introduced, there was a huge moved to have government ban them. Is the environmental movement suggesting that recycling be upfront and that it is the more important aspect of the 4 R’s. His thinking is that recycling is the last approach; that there should be more rejection and reuse, but reuse was aimed toward the government. It now seems the 3 R’s are aimed at private individuals. Mr. Muir stated he was fairly pragmatic relative to what can be expected fron the public; while there are some reduction and reuse opportunities, pulling out a brush that says reduce or reuse will not get you anywhere. E. g., paper towels and napkins carry a huge environmental levy as do plastic bags. There should be a levy to encourage the reuse of some products or to discourage the use of products. He made reference to packaging, which could be 40% smaller and most packaging does not have any recycle content. Mr. Muir rationalized residents need to see a meaningful. Climate change is happening now. Responsible waste management along with responsible transportation options is critical. The fact of the matter is that while 15% of energy use in Canada is for personal transportation and 20% is used to heat, light and cool your home, 45% is to create goods; then it is simply thrown out. The gold standard is the aluminium can; a single aluminium can will power a television or computer for three hours. All the newspapers in the home if recycled properly will save sufficient energy to heat or cool that home for two months and provide 250 miles of gas. Councillor Bédard did agree, but there is also recognition that there is a great deal of energy used in recycling and why there should be additional promotion of the reuse/reject approach since that is energy efficient, much more than recycling.
Joe Kennedy, WCI Waste Conversion Inc., advised he would reserve his opportunity to address PEC till the 28 June meeting.
The Committee was circulated the following
correspondence, which is held on file with the City Clerk:
·
E-mail dated 25
April from Nancy Worsfold
·
E-mail dated 25
April from Gina St. Amour
·
E-mail dated 26
April from Andrew Van Iterson
Moved by Councillor A. Cullen:
That
the following Motions be TABLED to the 28 June 2005 Planning and Environment
Committee meeting:
a.
That direction be given to staff to include the recycling of plastic yoghurt
containers and margarine tubs and lids (plastics #4 and #5) in the development
of the 2006 draft budget.
b.
That staff include in the Integrated Waste Management Master Plan a
waste audit project in 2006 for the non-residential sector in order to identify
opportunities for recycling.
c.
WHEREAS in 2004 the Ministry of the
Environment (MOE) announced a provincial waste diversion target of 60% by 2008;
AND WHEREAS Ontario’s two largest
cities (Toronto and Ottawa) currently divert approximately 30% of their waste;
AND WHEREAS the imposition of the
MOE’s target will lead to additional costs by municipalities in order to achieve
this target;
THEREFORE the City of Ottawa request
the MOE to provide funding assistance to municipalities to achieve MOE’s waste
diversion target;
AND that
this Motion be circulated to AMO, opposition party critics, and area MPP’s
TABLED to 28 June 2005
Councillor Feltmate tabled the
following questions for response at a later time frame:
·
What are costs are for setting up an
entirely new system of payment for garbage collection will entail additional
administrative costs. What is the
administrative cost of setting up a “user pay” system for garbage?
·
Which municipalities have moved to
“user pay” fro garbage pick-up and disposal?
Allowing for changes to recycling or other waste diversion programs, how
does the volume of solid waste per capita prior to user pay compare with the
volume of solid waste per capita after user pay was introduced in those
municipalities?
The Committee tabled the staff
recommendations until 28 June 2005.
That Planning and Environment Committee
recommend and Council approve:
1.
Confirmation of a
40% diversion target within existing service programs by end of year 2006;
2.
That increased
participation towards 40% diversion be achieved through the communication of
information, advertising and development of an education program;
3.
Endorsement of a
target of 60% diversion for Ottawa residents to be achieved by year-end 2008;
4.
That staff be
directed to pursue the Provincial Government for increased waste diversion
funding to offset increased costs to achieve Provincial target;
5.
That staff be
directed to make application for Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ Green
Municipal Enabling Funds to support the costs of the Integrated Waste
Management Master Plan project and resulting projects;
6.
Implementation
of an Organics Collection Program within the next solid waste collection
contracts with organics collection envisioned to commence in 2007, and that
staff report back with the details of the program in the fall of 2005;
7.
That staff develop a comprehensive “utility”
funding concept based upon the recommended hybrid model contained in this
report providing service to urban, suburban, rural residential and rural
villages for implementation in 2007;
8. That the City provide solid waste collection services through a Yellow Bag Program to “non-residential establishments” that meet the eligibility criteria and service level outlined in this report with service to commence in January 2006;
9.
Staff solicit
“Expressions of Interest” from the private sector for organics processing
technology to assess the level of interest, and report back with
recommendations to Committee;
10.
That staff continue
to monitor progress on the approval of the Trail Road Expansion Environmental
Assessment; and
11.
That staff report
back annually on diversion rates and any strategies required to support
increased waste diversion.
TABLED to 28 June 2005
Planning
and
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
URBANISME
ET GESTION DE LA CROISSANCE
PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE APPROVALS
BRANCH
DIRECTION DE L’APPROBATION DES DEMANDES
D’URBANISME ET D’INFRASTRUCTURE
8. ZONING - 2136 Stagecoach
Road
ZONAGE - 2136,
chemin stagecoach
ACS2005-PGM-APR-0079 osgoode (20)
Chair Hume noted there was a request
to defer the item to the 24 May PEC meeting and noted that Peggy Gibson,
Gibson and MacLaren, was present and agreed to the deferral as was Doug
Thompson, the Ward Councillor. The
Committee was circulated correspondence from David Swift dated 25 April 2005,
outlining concerns related to the practices/operations taking place on the
subject property.
Moved by Councillor A. Cullen:
That the item be deferred to the 24 May 2005 PEC meeting.
DEFERRAL
CARRIED
9. ZONING - 12 Rocky point road
ZONAGE - 12, chemin rocky point
ACS2005-PGM-APR-0121 BAY (7)
N. Lathrop, J. Moser, Grant Lindsay, Manager, Development Approvals, and Saide
Sayah, Planner, appeared before the Committee with respect to departmental
report dated 7 April 2005. Following a presentation by Mr.
Sayah, the Committee heard from the following delegations:
Tom Curran, pointed out many residents
may not be aware of today’s hearing. He
only heard on Friday night through a neighbour this meeting was taking place today
and that there was a change in the proposal as a result of the virtual 100%
community opposition to the original plan.
Many residents were present this morning and unable to remain, but who
wished to address PEC in opposition. He
directed his comments to two issues; the first is good neighbours and the
second is good planning. He resided in
the second house in on Rocky Point from Carling and the proposed homes will be
in his backyard. Mr. Curran provided a
photo that illustrates the back of the proposed property was full of large
mature trees; maples, elms, spruce and pine.
The next picture depicts what happened after the current owner bulldozed
and clear cut the lot. There was no
consideration given as to whether the trees had to be removed to permit the
construction of the proposed building; the age of the trees or whether the
trees had to be removed to put his sewer line through to Carling. He removed City trees on the premise it was
easier to receive forgiveness than to ask permission. The original proposal was to construct four townhouses, which was
opposed by 96% of the neighbourhood.
The change to three he suspected would have been opposed just as
strongly, if residents would have been aware.
In addition, the construction of the existing home took place during the
coldest two weeks of last year with a large back hoe brought in that for 10
days straight pounded away at the frozen ground. He suffered over $5,000 damage to his property, with three trees
lost. The septic pipe shifted and had
to be dug out and repaired. He also has
three cracks in his drywall due to the incessant pounding. His sump pump has operated non-stop all
spring as a result of water that pooled into his yard from the large amount of
soil brought out from the digging.
Since he moved onto Rocky Point seven years ago, there have been nine
new homes or substantial renovations.
Eight have something in common with the builders consulting neighbours
prior to construction. Mr. Curran was
pleased that staff recommended a substantial deposit be made with respect to
trees and plantings with a performance bond and hoped that staff and Council
will keep an eye on that to ensure there is permission and not forgiveness.
As far as planning, these will be the smallest lots from the intersection of Richmond/Carling to Kanata. The neighbourhood is composed of custom-designed homes on septic; this would be a complete change from the neighbourhood characteristic. The comparables used (two infills on Carling) are very different and have a view across Andrew Haydon Park and Dick Bell Marina onto the water. The proposed units look across to Ralph’s Diner and Gas Bar and are a different market, with small units on tight lots. Carling is a 60 km thruway and police have reported 80% of the traffic travels above the speed limit. One proposal would be to have a single access onto Carling, which would mean garages in the backyard and his backyard would look over a parking lot. He asked that garages be located in front, with the smallest impact on neighbouring properties. The surface level is considerably below Carling, which would entail careful design work. He was very concerned that the request asked that the entire 12 Rocky Point be rezoned, which would have a significant impact on the remainder of the community that is entirely opposed. There is a 10.5 meter height proposal, which he assumed was a three storey building that he strongly opposed. There are 22 homes on Carling, Rocky Point and Sunny Brae, seven are two storey, 15 are one storey; there are no three storeys and the two storeys are the exception.
Councillor Cullen noted the original petition from Rocky Point Home Owners Association outlining the community’s concern with the previous proposal and he had received emails and phone calls from the community with respect to the new proposal. He received confirmation Mr. Curran would like to see the lot facing Rocky Point retain its current zoning and one lot fronting onto Carling instead of three.
Councillor Bédard noted Mr. Curran indicated the building height would be out of character with the neighbourhood, but pointed out the existing zoning currently permits 10.7m.
Gordon Fraser, Rocky Point Homeowners
Association, advised that in 1973, he was involved with
the former owner of the subject property who made an application for
severance. It went through COA and was
granted in June of 1973. The plan was
altered though certain conditions, Part one (12 Rocky Point) would be divided
into three parts. Part three was an
easement to allow the sewer to come in off Carling to service part one. Consequently, the present development at 12
Rocky Point used that easement. The
three parcels of land include that part of the easement that would be covered
by building a driveway. The entrance
onto Carling encompasses a two meter difference in elevation from the surface
of Carling to this lot and if there is a set back of 25 feet, there will be a
significant elevation onto Carling.
There is already a problem with access onto Carling with existing
traffic as it is. In 1994, he was
involved in a number of hearings with the former City of Nepean in developing
some of the by-laws associated with infill housing. His biggest problem was surface water and the main reason driving
the infill by-laws. When he built his
home in 1990, he had to submit an elevation survey of the groundwater before he
could commence construction and the finished elevation before final sodding or
seeding. In this case he was not sure
that has been complied with. There is a
water table problem and he did not believe it is legal to have surface water running
from one lot to another. If these three
buildings are constructed, it will affect the water table and could affect
their septic tanks. He could see one
additional building similar to that already developed by
Mr. Theberge. He suggested that a
single severance could allow a larger home, with a set back off Carling with a
different placement on the lot.
Consequently, the access onto Carling would be at a gentler grade and
the compliance, with the elevations, would need to be adhered to. There is no objection to the development of
the property, but it should be in conformity with the existing community.
Janet Bradley, Borden Lodner Gervais, on behalf of the property owner, Mr. Theberg, who was also present. Ms. Bradley advised the lot in question is very large (2,543 square meters) located in the former City of Nepean, necessary to support the septic tanks that had to be constructed since this area was not serviced. Mr. Theberge constructed a house (for himself) that fronts onto Rocky Point and the entire property is known as 12 Rocky Point, but the lands that are to be constructed upon, definitely front onto and relate to Carling. The development of those three lots will have virtually no impact on Rocky Point residents and will be accessed from Carling. Directly across from this property (R7), there is townhouse and apartment development. In terms of compatibility with the neighbourhood, this is almost out of character because the density is so low. Given the direction of the OP and the encouragement for intensification and infill, she wondered if the question is whether three units was enough density. The applicant applied for four units (two sets of semi-detached), which resulted in a large outcry from the community and as a result he agreed with planning staff to reduce to three units. He had understood that as a result, many residents had agreed to the reduced number. The OP does speak to compatibility and working towards some form of infill in a compatible way and she suggested in this case PEC should support planning staff in the construction of three single family units in this neighbourhood. Drainage has never been presented as an issue, but the housing will have to be built to City standards, which does not allow any increase in flow (in any new construction) off the site. The applicant would present a drainage plan to the satisfaction of City staff. Ms. Bradley had spoken with Councillor Cullen, who had proposed that any new zoning by-law would only apply to the Carling frontage and not the Rocky Point frontage allowing for some consistency. The proposed lot on Rocky Point complies with the current R1A zone and is comprised of 930 square meters, which is a large lot. It meets all the criteria except for one, which is the requirement under the old zoning for a 12m rear yard. The new zoning will allow a reduction from 12m to 7.5m with respect to the existing bungalow. If that is approved, the three lots could be created. If it is modified by PEC to require a 12m rear yard for the existing bungalow, the three lots would become substandard in terms of the ability to construct the type of house proposed. Each of the three proposed lots will be 460 square meters with a 15m frontage, 7.5m rear yards and 2m side yards. They will be larger than most single family lots in many wards. The 7.5m proposed for the existing bungalow will confront only those three lots and the only neighbour impacted would be Mr. Curran (in his side yard) and the neighbour on other side does not have a 12m yard, allowing for consistency. There is already drainage onto Carling as a result of the construction of another home a couple of years ago. There is not a concern with precedent because most of the Rocky Point area is fully constructed, with little opportunity for redevelopment. She asked PEC to support staff
Chair Hume closed the Public Meeting and the matter
returned to Committee.
In response to Councillor Holmes, Mr. Sayah advised he was unaware if any City trees were removed. Trees were removed prior to the application, but staff is not involved in the protection of trees until applications are made and why staff is asking for the development agreement to require adequate landscaping and that trees are planted on the site.
Councillor Cullen noted the proposal would have the lot severed with three houses built fronting on Carling. The community has indicated it would like to retain the community characteristics and are prepared to accept there will be development on the lot fronting onto Carling, but would like one as opposed to three. He proposed a compromise that would permit the construction of two on the Carling frontage. His motion would ensure retention of the integrity of lot size in the interior Rocky Point community. Councillor Cullen pointed out the two homes would have a lot area of 800 square metres. It is more than the community would like, but is a reasonable compromise.
Councillor
Hunter indicated the important issue for him is not what is on the ground, but
what happens underground with drainage issues.
He would like to be reassured by
staff that the strongest possible terms are placed on any agreement for the
development of these properties; that drainage be to the satisfaction of the
City and the City will hold them to the highest standards. The natural drainage for the area is towards
the river. The forced drainage is
towards Carling, which is higher and more difficult to achieve. It must take place otherwise there will be
infiltration throughout the community that will cause problems. Councillor Hunter asked that Councillor
Cullen’s Motion be divided.
Moved by Councillor Cullen:
That the lot fronting Rocky Point Road (i.e. 12
Rocky Point Road) retain it’s current R1A zoning (i.e. minimum lot size of 930
square feet)
CARRIED
Yeas (5): Councillors A. Cullen, G. Bédard, D.
Holmes, H. Kreling, P. Feltmate
Nays (2): Councillors G. Hunter, P. Hume
Moved by Councillor Cullen:
And that the balance of the lot fronting
Carling Avenue be re-zoned to permit the construction of two single family
detached houses.
CARRIED
Yeas (5): Councillors A. Cullen, H. Kreling, D.
Holmes, G. Bédard, P. Feltmate
Nays (2): Councillors G. Hunter, P. Hume
Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:
That Planning staff investigate the possible
removal of City trees on this site. If
trees have been removed without the agreement of the City, that the applicant
provide recompense to the City for the value of the trees.
CARRIED
The Committee asked that the above
information be provided prior to the report rising to City Council.
The Committee approved the staff
recommendations as amended.
That the Planning and Environment
Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Nepean
Urban Area Zoning By-Law to change the zoning of 12 Rocky Point Road from R1A
to R1A Block 3 to permit three single detached homes, as shown in Document 1
and detailed in Document 3, subject to the following amendments:
1.
That the lot fronting Rocky Point Road (i.e. 12
Rocky Point Road) retain its current R1A zoning (i.e. Minimum lot size of 930
square feet).
2.
That the balance of the lot fronting Carling
Avenue be re-zoned to permit the construction of two single family detached
houses.
3.
That Planning staff investigate the possible
removal of City trees on this site. If
trees have been removed without the agreement of the City, that the applicant
provide recompense to the City for the value of the trees.
CARRIED as
amended
ZONAGE - 800, Chemin second line
ACS2005-PGM-APR-0113 Kanata (4)
The Committee approved the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 1 April 2005. Correspondence dated 25 April 2005 from Mikelis Svilans, for the Greenspace Alliance of Canada’s Capital, was circulated to the Committee.
That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve
an amendment to the former City of Kanata South March (Morgan's Grant)
Community Zoning By-law 161-93 to change the zoning of 800 Second Line Road
from Residential Type 1 "R1A" and Open Space "OS" to Open
Space Type 1 "OS1" as shown in Document 1 and detailed in Document 3.
CARRIED
LOCAL ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
COMITÉ CONSULATIF SUR LA CONSERVATION DE
L’ARCHITECTURE LOCALE
11. DESIGNATION OF 1134
O'Grady Street UNDER PART IV OF THE ONTARIO
HERITAGE ACT
DÉSIGNATION DU 1134, RUE O’GRADY EN VERTU DE LA PARTIE IV DE LA LOI
SUR LE PATRIMOINE DE L’ONTARIO
ACS2005-PGM-APR-0108 rideau (21)
The Committee approved the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 21 March 2005.
That the Planning and Environment Committee and Council approve the designation of 1134 O'Grady Street under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act in accordance with the Statement of Reason for Designation, attached as Document 3.
CARRIED
Planning
and
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
URBANISME
ET GESTION DE LA CROISSANCE
PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE APPROVALS BRANCH
DIRECTION DE L’APPROBATION DES DEMANDES
D’URBANISME ET D’INFRASTRUCTURE
12. CASH-IN-LIEU OF PARKING -
433 Nelson Street
RÉGLEMENT FINANCIER DES EXIGENCES DE STATIONNEMENT - 433, RUE nELSON
ACS2005-PGM-APR-0073 rideau-vanier (12)
J. Moser, G. Lindsay and Doug
James, Planner, appeared before the Committee with respect to departmental
report dated 11 April 2005.
The Committee heard from the
following delegations:
Martin Laplante, Action Sandy Hill, provided a written submission that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk, in opposition. Mr. Laplante advised the handling of this development proposal has been an unfortunate source of conflict to date. This institution is a new type of facility serving the entire region. It consolidates into one building two services currently provided in separate buildings. Based on the experience of the Youth Services Bureau`s (YSB) current shelter in Sandy Hill, that only staff parking is required for the shelter portion, ASH is not so sure that all residents of transitional housing will never have visitors and never have a car. From 20 years’ personal experience, it is not possible to park on that street because of overflow from other institutions. The legal parking requirement for this building is calculated based on an interpretation of the bylaw that excludes the ground floor from the calculation of the gross floor area. The staff recommendation to link the parking to the owner recognizes that other special needs houses would have a greater requirement. If YSB moves again, the building cannot be used as an apartment building and the zoning would not allow it to be converted to a rooming house and another special needs house cannot use it. ASH proposed putting the six spaces underneath the building to satisfy the requirements of YSB, to provide residents a reasonable back yard, with the ability to expand parking to the back in the future if needed. That being said, YSB is a good agency and good neighbour and Sandy Hill will work with them to make this facility a success.
In response to Councillor Bédard, Mr. Laplante advised that during peak periods he has never been able to find parking on Nelson or within two or three blocks. The elementary school used to be local, but it now serves a larger region. The same can be said for the community centre since it is one of the few offering programs in French. Therefore their parking requirements are in excess of the parking they are able to provide. As well, there is the University nearby. Realistically anyone visiting the area will use the school or community centre parking. Responding further, Mr. Martin acknowledged sewers are a major issue within that set of blocks and one of the areas that was subject to a large amount of flooding of the sanitary sewers. It is up hill from the major flooding.
Jane Ironside, Planning Consultant, and
Denise Vallely, Director, Community Programming, Youth Services Bureau (YSB), advised the parking required for
the proposed facility is nine parking spaces and six spaces are being provided
on site. The application is to allow
for cash in lieu of parking for three spaces.
At the rear, there is space to accommodate eight spaces, but the
decision was made to provide more landscaping and less parking on the
site. Based on the utilization by staff
and number of visitors that would be attending the facility, six spaces is
determined to be adequate to meet the needs.
YSB is supportive of the staff recommendation with the Motion to reduce
the amount to $1/space. Recommendation
(b) that ties the application to YSB was prepared in response to issues raised
by the neighbours and the community association and not because staff thought
that any other special needs house might require additional parking, but as a
mechanism to tie it to this particular user.
YSB has no objection to that being included in the recommendation.
Councillor Bédard advised the issue
is obviously one of parking and it is a concern. The staff report errs significantly when it suggests there may be
some parking on the street. The
visitors to this site (30 units) will not find any place to park in the
area. It is too large for the neighbourhood
and the only solution was to reduce the requirement. Unfortunately, the zoning permits this kind of nonsense. It is nonsense to place this size of a unit
in a residential area. Most of the City
recommends 12 only residents for special needs residences. Having said that, he will be recommending
through A Notice of motion that the R5C
zone in this area which is bordered by Laurier East on the north, Chapel on the
east, Somerset East on the south and Henderson on the west be amended to reduce
the number of residences to 12 only residences per special needs residents. This is the only manner in which to deal
with type of problem. There is also a
problem with sewers in the area, with the entire neighbourhood flooded on a
constant basis. The addition of 30
units will be a tremendous increase to the neighbourhood with 100-year-old sewersHe
did not have a problem with the required landscaping. He will be support the changes proposed with respect to parking
and the fee proposed, but it is extremely important for the Committee to
realize this is a huge error and must be corrected.
Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate:
That Recommendation 1(c) be amended to read:
That a total payment of three dollars ($3), be received upon execution
of the agreement.
CARRIED
The
Committee approved the recommendation as amended.
1. That the Planning and Environment
Committee approve a Cash-in-lieu of Parking application exempting the Owner of
433 Nelson Street from providing three (3) parking spaces for the proposed
construction of a Special Needs Housing project, subject to the following
conditions:
(a)
That the Owner enter into the
standard agreement required by Section 40 of the Planning Act to the
satisfaction of the City Solicitor;
(b) That the agreement stipulate the
cash-in-lieu of parking approval only apply to a Special Needs House operated
by the Youth Services Bureau;
(c)
That a total payment of three
dollars ($3), be received upon execution of the agreement;
2. That this approval is null and void if
the required agreement has not been signed within twelve months of the date of
this approval.
CARRIED as
amended
13. CASH-IN-LIEU OF PARKING - 101 Fourth
avenue
règlement financier des exigences de stationnement - 101, avenue fourth
ACS2005-PGM-APR-0106 Capital/Capitale (17)
Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:
That
the fee be $1 per space.
CARRIED
Correspondence from Jamie Vince, applicant, asking that the fee be reduced to $1 was circulated to the Committee and is on file with the City Clerk. The Committee approved the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 29 March 2005, as amended.
That the Planning and Environment Committee approve a Cash-in-Lieu of Parking application for one parking space in the amount of $1.00 needed to legalize an existing flower shop use at 101 Fourth Avenue subject to the following conditions:
1.
That the Applicant
enter into the standard agreement required by Section 40 of the Planning
Act.
2.
That the agreement
is entered into to the satisfaction of the Director of Legal Services and that
full payment be received upon execution of the Agreement.
3.
That the approval
be considered null and void if the provisions of Condition 2 above have not
been fulfilled within six months of the date of approval.
CARRIED as
amended
PLANNING,
ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY
POLITIQUES D’URBANISME, D’ENVIRONNEMENT ET
D’INFRASTRUCTURE
14. URBAN DESIGN AWARDS PROGRAM
PROGRAMME DES PRIX DE L'ESTHÉTIQUE URBAINE
ACS2005-PGM-POL-0016 city-wide
The Committee approved the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 30 March 2005.
That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve
the establishment of an Urban Design Awards Program, to be held every two years
starting in 2005, to recognize and celebrate quality design within the built
urban environment.
CARRIED
15. HYDRO ONE CORRIDORS -
OTTAWA'S SECONDARY USES ON HYDRO LANDS
CORRIDORS D'HYDRO ONE - UTILISATIONS SECONDAIRES D'OTTAWA SUR LES
TERRAINS D'HYDRO
ACS2005-PGM-POL-0015 CITY-WIDE
The Committee approved the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 7 April 2005.
That Planning and Environment
Committee recommend that City Council:
1.
support Document 2
- Inventory of Proposed and Existing Secondary Uses in Hydro One Corridors; and
2.
direct staff to forward it to the Ministry of Municipal
Affairs and Housing as requested.
CARRIED
with Chair P. Hume dissenting.
16. NEW PROVINCIAL POLICY
STATEMENT AND STRONG COMMUNITIES ACT 2005
NOUVELLE DÉCLARATION DE PRINCIPES PROVINCIALE ET LOI DE 2004 SUR LE RENFORCEMENT DES COLLECTIVITÉS
ACS2005-PGM-POL-0023 CITY-WIDE
The Committee approved the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 24 March 2005. A memorandum dated 22 April from the Coordinator, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee, which directed staff to report back to PEC on how to streamline the process and reduce costs was received.
It
is recommended that Planning and Environment Committee and Council receive this
report on the new Provincial Policy Statement and the Strong Communities Act
for information.
RECEIVED
INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED
INFORMATION DISTRIBUÉE AUPARAVANT
A. on time review status reports
rapports d’étape sur l’examen en temps voulu
ACS2005-DEV-APR-0126 city-wide
RECEIVED
B. DRINKING
WATER VEHICLES 2005 - BUSINESS CASE AND PHASING OPTIONS
VéHICULES D’EAU POTABLE 2005 - ANALYSE DE RENTABILISATION
ET OPTIONS
ACS2005-PWS-UTL-0010
RECEIVED
C. Advisory Committee
Reserve Appointment – Environmental Advisory Committee
Nomination d’un membre suppléant au Comité consultatif sur
l’environnement
ACS2005-CRS-SEC-0017
RECEIVED
INQUIRIES
DEMANDES DE RENSIGNEMENTS
Private Roads
Councillor P Feltmate raised the following inquiry:
Private
roads are being used in new developments in an increasing number of
circumstances across the City. For
residents on private roads, there is often a sense that they are paying
property taxes, but not getting basic services. There is also concern about whether private roads could be a
first step towards gated communities.
There
is no mention in the Official Plan.
Does the City have any policy on the circumstances in which development
using private roads is appropriate and what discussion involving the general
public has taken regarding any policies that do exits?
NOTICE OF MOTION
AVIS DE MOTION
Councillor/Conseiller G. Bédard:
That the R5C [87] Zoning in the area bounded by Laurier East on the north, Chapel on the east, Somerset East on the south and Henderson on the west be amended to reduce the number of residents to 12 only residents per special needs residents.
ADJOURNMENT
LEVÉE DE LA SÉANCE
The Committee adjourned the meeting at 4:30 p.m.
Original signed by Original
signed by
Lorenzina
Ferrari Councillor
P. Hume
Committee Coordinator Chair